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 0
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
0 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 0
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 0
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 equipment item was
not manufactured for use on a motor vehicle or is not
an item of motor vehicle equipment.
(b) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph
591.5(e) shall be accompanied by:
(1) (For a motor vehicle) a document meeting the
requirements of S568.4 of Part 568 of this chapter.
(2) (For an item of motor vehicle equipment) a
written statement issued by the manufacturer of the
equipment item which states the applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standard(s) with which the
equipment item is not in compliance, and which
describes the further manufacturing required for the
equipment item to perform its intended function.
(c) lA declaration made pursuant to section
591.5(f) or section 591.5(g) shall be accompanied by
a bond in the form shown in Annex A or Annex B
of this Part, respectively, in an amount equal to
150% of the dutiable value of the vehicle for the con-
formance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, or, if
conformance with the safety standards is not
achieved, for the dehvery of such vehicle to the
Secretary of the Treasury for export at no cost to
the United States, or for its abandonment. (55 F.R.
3742— February 5, 1990. Effective: February 5, 1990.)!
(d) A declaration made pursuant to S591.5(f) by an
importer who is not a Registered Importer shall be
accompanied by a copy of the contract or other agree-
ment that the importer has with a Registered
Importer to bring the vehicle into conformance with
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
(e) A declaration made pursuant to S591.5(g) shall
be accompanied by certification, including appropri-
ate documentary proof that the vehicle for which
declaration is made had been acquired by the
importer as of October 31, 1988, or, if not so ac-
quired, by a copy of a contract to acquire the vehi-
cle dated before October 31, 1988, which was binding
upon the importer.
(f) A declaration made pursuant to S591 5(h) shall
be accompanied by a copy of the importer's official
orders, or, if a qualifying member of the personnel
of a foreign government on assignment in the United
States, the name of the embassy to which the
importer is accredited.
(g) A declaration made pursuant to S591.5(j) shall
be accompanied by a full and complete statement
identifying the specific purpose(s) of importation,
describing the use to be made of the vehicle or equip-
ment item, and stating the estimated period of time
PART 591-3
necessary to use the vehicle or equipment item on
the public roads if any, and the disposition to be
made of the vehicle or equipment item after com-
pletion of the purpose for which it was imported. If
the importer does not intend to conform, export, or
destroy the vehicle or equipment item not later than
3 years after its entry, the importer shall request
permission in writing from the Administrator for the
vehicle equipment item to remain in the United
States for an additional period of time, subject to
the limitations of S591.7(c).
5591.7 Restrictions on importations.
(a) A vehicle or equipment item which has entered
the United States under a declaration made pur-
suant to § 591.5(j), and for which a Temporary
Importation Bond has been provided to the Secre-
tary of the Treasury, shall not remain in the United
States for a period that exceeds 3 years from its date
of entry.
(b) A vehicle or equipment item which has entered
the United States under a declaration made pur-
suant to § 591.5)j), and for which duty has been paid,
shall not remain in the United States for a period
that exceeds 5 years from its date of entry, imless
written permission has been obtained from the
Administrator, NHTSA.
5591.8 Conformance bond and conditions.
(a) The bond required imder section 591.6(c) for
importation of a vehicle not originally manufactured
to conform with aU apphcable standards issued un-
der Part 571 and Part 581 of this chapter shall cover
only one motor vehicle, and shaU be in an amoimt
equal to 150% of the dutiable value of the vehicle.
(b) The principal on the bond shall be the importer
of the vehicle.
(c) The surety on the bond shall possess a certifi-
cate of authority to underwrite Federal bonds. (See
list of certificated sureties at 54 FR 27800. June 30,
1989)
(d) In consideration of the release from the cus-
tody of the U.S. Customs Service or the withdravm
from a Customs bonded warehouse into the com-
merce of, or for consumption in, the United States,
of a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to
conform to all applicable standards issued under
Part 571 and Part 581 of this chapter, the obligors
(principal and surety) shall agree to the following
conditions of the bond:
(i) To have such vehicle brought into conformity
with all apphcable standards issued under Part 571
and Part 581 of this chapter within 120 days after
the date of entry.
(iiXl) In the case of a vehicle imported pursuant
to section 591.5(f), to file (or if not a Registered
Importer, to cause the Registered Importer of the
vehicle to file) with the Administrator, a certificate
that the vehicle complies with each Federal motor
vehicle safety and bumper standard in the year that
the vehicle was manufactured and which appUes in
such year to the vehicle; or
(2) In the case of a vehicle imported pursuant to
section 591.5(g), to submit a true and complete state-
ment to the Administrator, identifying the manufac-
turer, contractor, or other person who has brought
the vehicle into conformity, describing the exact na-
ture and extent of the work performed, and certify-
ing that the vehicle has been brought into conformity
with each Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper
standard in the year that such vehicle was manufac-
tured and which applies in such year to the vehicle.
(iii) In the case of a Registered Importer, not to
release custody of the vehicle to any person for
Ucense or registration for use on pubhc roads,
streets, or highways, or license or register the
vehicle from the date of entry until 30 calendar days
after it has certified compliance of the vehicle to the
Administrator, unless the Administrator has noti-
fied the principal before 30 calendar days that (s)he
has accepted such certification, and that the vehi-
cle and bond may be released, except that the vehi-
cle shall not be released if the principal has received
written notice from the Administrator that an in-
spection of the vehicle will be required, or that there
is reason to believe that such certification is false
or contains a misrepresentation; (iv) In the case of
a Registered Importer, to cause the vehicle to be
available for inspection, if the principal has received
written notice from the Administrator that an
inspection is required.
(iv) In the case of a Registered Importer, to cause
the vehicle to be available for inspection, if the prin-
cipal has received written notice from the Adminis-
trator that an inspection is required.
(v) In the case of a Registered Importer, not to
release the vehicle until the Administrator is satis-
fied with the certification and any modification
thereof, if the principal has received written notice
from the Administrator that there is reason to
believe that the certificate is false or contains a
misrepresentation.
(vi) If the principal has received written notice
from the Administrator that the vehicle has been
found not to comply with all apphcable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, and written demand
that the vehicle be abandoned to the United States,
or delivered to the Secretary of the Treasury for
export (at no cost to the United States), to abandon
the vehicle to the United States, or to dehver the
vehicle, or cause the vehicle to be delivered to, the
PART 591-4
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 201
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
(Docket No. 90-14; Notice 2)
RIN: 2127-AD84
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Vehicle manufacturers must comply with
Standard No. 201 which specifies occupant impact pro-
tection requirements for interior vehicle components
that are Ukely to be struck by a lap-belted occupant dur-
ing a crash. Those components include instrument
panels, visors and armrests. This final rule alters the
impact protection requirements concerning the instru-
ment panel for vehicles with passenger-side air bags.
Today's notice will encourage greater availability of
passenger-side air bags and thus result in a net safety
benefit.
DATE: The amendments made by this final rule to the
Code of Federal Regulations are effective June 6, 1991 .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Standard
Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact, specifies occupant impact protection require-
ments for interior vehicle components likely to be
struck by a lap-belted occupant in a crash. Such com-
ponents include instrument panels, seat backs, sun
visors, and armrests. In addition, the standard requires
that interior compartment doors (e.g., glove compart-
ment doors) remain closed during a crash.
To comply with Standard No. 201 's impact require-
ments, vehicle manufacturers install energy absorbing
materials in the portions of the instrument panel within
the "head impact area," as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.
The requirements specify that when those portions are
impacted by a head form at 15 miles per hour (mph),
the deceleration of the head form must not exceed 80g
continuously for more than 3 milliseconds. Installation
of appropriate energy absorbing materials in the upper
and middle surfaces of the instrument panel to meet
the requirement can prevent or reduce the severity of
chest and head injuries resulting from contacts with
the panel.
Petition for Rulemaking and Reqv£st for ComTnents
NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from
Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) on August 17, 1988.
The petition requested an exclusion from the impact
protection requirements of Standard No. 201 for those
portions of the instrument panel which are ahead of
front seat passengers who are protected by air bag sys-
tems which meet the requirements of Standard No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection. NHTSA granted the
petition on April 26, 1989 and requested comment on
issues related to the petition in a pubhshed in the Fed-
eral Register on August 10, 1989 (54 FR document
32830).
NHTSA received 11 responses to its request for com-
ments. Comments were received from the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the Automotive
Occupant Restraints Coimcil, and 9 motor vehicle
manufacturers or importers. No commenter opposed
a modification of Standard No. 201 to faciUtate the in-
stallation of top-mounted, passenger-side air bags.
Motor vehicle manufacturers commented that they
have had problems complying with Standard No. 201
when dealing with top-mounted, passenger-side air
bags. The primary problem apparently occurs because,
in order to optimize air bag deplojmient with such a
system, the air bag housing should not be located more
than 1 inch below the instrument panel surface. Yet
to meet the standard's head form impact test at 15
mph, the equivalent of about 2 inches of energy absorb-
ing material is needed. The "head impact areas" in the
instrument panels of some top-mounted rear-
ward-deployment air bag systems have been able to
meet the standard's requirements, although it has been
difficult to do so. However, commenters stated that,
with padding limited to 1 inch, compliance would be
very difficult, if not impossible, for upward deployment
systems.
Manufacturers identified a number of benefits from
installation of top-mounted, upward-deployment air
bags, instead of rearward-deployment ones. The major
benefit is the reduced risk of injury to out-of-position
occupants or standing children. Other advantages listed
by commenters include the following: the top portion
of the instrument panel provides more space for locat-
ing and supporting the air bag module; the air bag mod-
ule is more remote from the knee impact surface and
is thus less likely to adversely affect knee and femur
PART 571; S201-PRE 13
loads; since the mass of the air bag module is closer
to the body structure, shorter and stiffer supporting
members can be used, resulting in a more stable plat-
form for deployment; and instrument panel design is
simplified due to reduced interference between the air
bag system and the glove box.
In addition, a change in Standard No. 201 to facili-
tate installation of top-mounted, upward-deployment
air bags may increase the installation rate of passenger-
side air bags. In its comments, Ford Motor Company
(Ford) stated that improved "feasibility of a top-
mounted, upward-deployment supplemental passenger
air bag system may substantially increase availability
of passenger air bags, particularly in compact and sub-
compact cars, by helping to reduce overall risks to out-
of-position occupants. Modification of S3.1 of Standard
201 would aid in establishing feasibility of the upward-
deployment supplemental air bag."
In the request for comments, NHTSA also asked
whether lap/shoulder belts should be required to be
provided for all positions for which the requirements
of Standard No. 201 might be relaxed. No commenter
opposed requiring lap/shoulder belts to be provided for
the front outboard passenger. One commenter opposed
such a requirement for the middle passenger position,
believing that lap/shoulder belts would be unnecessary
and counterproductive for that seating position.
NHTSA did not propose to require installation of
lap/shoulder belts for the center front seating position,
nor did it mean to imply that the lap/shoulder belt re-
quirement should apply to this position.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On July 18, 1990, after considering the public com-
ments and further analyzing the issues, NHTSA pub-
lished in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Standard No. 201 to re-
lax the impact protection requirements for vehicles
equipped with passenger-side air bags (55 FR 29238).
The agency proposed to reduce the head form impact
velocity specified by Standard No. 201 from 15 mph
to 12 mph for vehicles equipped with passenger-side
air bags. The proposal applied to all vehicles with
passenger-side air bags, not just those with upward
deployment air bags. The proposal also required the
installation of lap/shoulder belts at the right front seat-
ing position if the manufacturer elects to meet the
requirements of Standard No. 201 at the 12 mph head
impact velocity. In the NPRM, NHTSA stated that it
believes that this additional requirement would provide
protection in crashes where the air bag is unlikely to
deploy. Examples of such crashes include frontal
crashes under 12 mph; crashes involving a car whose
air bag has previously been deployed, but not replaced,
rear crashes in which the unrestrained occupant re-
bounds from his or her seat back and strikes the in-
strument panel; side crashes; and rollover crashes.
NHTSA requested that commenters provide data or
estimates of the possible greater safety benefits of
upward-deploying air bags or other information on how
such air bags are preferable. Because NHTSA wanted
to ensure that the nilemaking resulted in net safety
benefits, the agency also solicited comments on a num-
ber of issues, including the number of passenger-side
air bags that manufacturers planned to install, with and
without the amendment; means of limiting the test
speed reduction to the areas of the instrument panel
necessary to accommodate the top-mounted air bag;
and data on the manufacturers' current and projected
deployment speed thresholds for air bags.
NHTSA proposed to make the amendment effective
upon publication of the final rule in the Federal Register
since the amendment would not establish additional re-
quirements, but would instead establish an alternative
for manufacturers to choose at their option. In addi-
tion, an immediate effective date would allow motor
vehicle manufacturers the greatest flexibility in design-
ing vehicles with passenger-side air bags.
NHTSA received eight comments in response to the
NPRM. All of these comments were considered in con-
nection with the final rule, and the most significant are
discussed below.
Comments on the Proposed Rule and Final Rule
All eight commenters expressed support for the
agency's proposals. No comments in opposition to the
proposed amendments were received. After reviewing
the comments, NHTSA has decided to adopt the
amendment in this final rule without substantive
change. The agency revised the regulatory text of the
proposed amendment to improve consistency with the
wording of the previous text. In accordance with the
proposal, NHTSA has decided to reduce the head form
impact velocity specified for Standard No. 201 from
15 to 12 mph for any vehicle equipped with a passenger-
side air bag, not just those with upward-deployment
air bag systems. The agency has determined that the
amendment will result in either the increased use of
passenger-side air bags, or the earlier introduction of
such systems. The agency has also determined that a
requirement for different portions of an instrument
panel to comply with different impact speed require-
ments might not be practicable and could negate or
reduce the incentive for manufacturers to install
passenger-side air bags. Finally, NHTSA determined
that the amendment will likely result in a reduction in
the number of serious injuries and fatalities and that
the amendment will have a net positive safety impact.
A discussion of the responses to the proposed rule and
their subsequent consideration in the consideration in
the formulation of the final rule follows.
Upward-Deploying versus Rearward Deploying
Air Bags
Ford, citing its earlier response, restated its belief
that improved "feasibility of a top-mounted, upward-
PART 571; S201-PRE 14
deployment supplemental passenger air bag system may
substantially increase availability of passenger air bags,
particularly in compact and subcompact cars, by help-
ing to reduce overall risks to out-of-position occupants."
GM commented that it did not have sufficient field data
to support an argument that upward-deploying air bags
are preferable to rearward deploying air bags. GM's
analysis, however, indicated that upward-deploying air
bags may pose less risk of injury to out-of-position
occupants than rearward-deploying bags.
As stated above, the agency has decided to reduce
the head form impact velocity specified for Standard
No. 201 from 15 to 12 mph for any vehicle equipped
with a passenger-side air bag, not just those with
upward-deployment systems. By not limiting the type
of air bag system that must be used, this final rule is
intended to result in the introduction of more effective
air bag designs. In addition, the final rule is intended
to provide an incentive for the increased use of
passenger-side air bag systems.
Effect of Proposed Amendment on Manufacturers'
Plans to Introduce Passenger-Side Air Bags
Chrysler stated in its comment that although the
amendment will not increase the number of its
passenger-side air bag installations, the effect of the
amendment would be to reduce its passenger-side air
bag system development time. Chrysler also stated
that, without the amendment, air bag development
might have to be delayed or cancelled. Ford commented
that lowering the impact test speed would encourage
Ford to "consider extensive usage of the top-mounted,
upward-deploying passenger supplemental air bag."
General Motors Corporation (GM) stated that it was
unable to provide information on the effect of the
amendment on the introduction of passenger-side air
bags. GM did say, however, that tests of its air bag sys-
tems that are under development indicate that those
systems will have "serious difficulty" in meeting the
current test requirements. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
(Nissan) commented that it does not intend immedi-
ately to alter its plan for installing passenger-side air
bags. Nissan did, however, believe that the amend-
ment, as proposed, would encourage manufacturers to
offer passenger-side air bags "by the earliest dates."
All of the commenters who submitted responses to
this request stated or implied that this final rule will
result in either increased use of air bags or, at the very
least, use of the same number of air bags as previously
planned but at an earlier introduction date. By either
measure, there will be a net safety benefit from this
final rule. As discussed in the NPRM, although there
are not yet enough crash data to evaluate conclusively
the extent of the real-world effectiveness of various
automatic restraint systems, the agency believes that
the installation of air bags has greater potential for
total safety benefits compared to automatic safety belts
because air bags provide supplemental protection in ad-
dition to the basic protection of a safety belt system.
Means of Limiting the Test Speed Reduction to Only
Those Areas on the Instrument Panel Necessary to
Accommodate the Top-Mounted Air Bag.
Ford stated that the reduced impact speed criteria
should be uniformly applied to all areas of the instru-
ment panel affected by Standard No. 201. Ford as-
serted that having a "two-level criteria" would "impose
considerable added design, testing, manufacturing, and
quality control complexity on vehicle manufacturers."
Finally, Ford stated that if the agency were to limit
the areas covered by the test speed reduction, the area
should be "the instrument panel between a vertical
longitudinal plane positioned 3.25 inches inboard of the
air bag module's inboard extremity and a vertical
longitudinal plane located 3.25 inches outboard of the
air bag module's outboard extremity." GM commented
that it knew of no way to create a uniform specifica-
tion to limit the 12 mph test area that would not also
restrict air bag design. The area affected by an air bag
installation, GM said, is vehicle-specific and is the result
of several factors. Those factors include occupant com-
partment geometry, module design, configuration of
the instrument panel, and the required module support-
ing structure. Chrysler commented that it could limit
the area affected by the test speed reduction to the air
bag cover or door itself and an area three inches from
any point of the cover or door. Nissan commented in
favor of application of the reduced test speed to all por-
tions of the instrument panel that are within the head
impact area. Nissan also believes that the area affected
by installation of a passenger-side air bag would depend
on numerous vehicle-specific factors. Even assuming
that the specific area to be affected could be defined,
Nissan argued that having two different requirements
would complicate instrument panel design and manu-
facturing processes.
The agency has decided not to limit the test speed
reduction to only those areas on the instrument panel
necessary to accommodate the top-mounted air bag.
With only one exception, all commenters who responded
to this request for conunents stressed the difficulties of
limiting the area for use of a reduced test speed. The
areas affected by an air bag installation will be differ-
ent for different manufacturers and for different models
produced by the same manufacturer. Those areas are
not capable of being delineated by a simple definition.
Finally, design of the instrument panels to comply with
different impact speed requirements might not be prac-
ticable and could negate or reduce the incentive for
manufacturers to install passenger-side air bags.
Current and projected deployment speed thresholds
for air bags.
Ford commented that it does not perform tests to
determine the exact air bag deployment speed. It does,
however, perform tests to ensure that no air bags
deploy at speeds below 8 mph and that all air bags
deploy by 14 mph, barrier equivalent velocity (BEV).
Ford believes that there is a trend by manufacturers
PART 571; S201-PRE 15
to use higher deployment speeds in order to reduce
repair costs in minor accidents. Repair costs are in-
creased if a vehicle's air bag system has to be replaced
or repaired after an accident. If new technologies
lowered repair costs associated with air bag systems,
Ford asserted, manufacturers would be able to lower
deployment speeds. On the other hand, if a particular
passenger-side air bag deployment design caused
damage to the instrument panel when it deployed, the
manufacturer may raise deployment speeds in order
to reduce repair costs. GM stated that the BE V for air
bag deployment is vehicle-specific and depends on a
number of factors, including crash pulse and interior
compartment design. However, GM said that a
"0-degree barrier equivalent speed of approximately
12-14 mph appears to be the predominant desired
deplojmnent threshold" for passenger-side air bags cur-
rently under development. Nissan has set the deploy-
ment speed threshold for its air bag systems at 12 mph,
for a head-on collision into a fixed barrier.
Based on the comments that were received, it ap-
pears that the amendments to the test speed contained
in this final rule should ensure that instrument panels
maintain sufficient energy-absorbing capabilities, by
meeting the 80g requirements, at all speeds below that
at which most air bags deploy. The agency has reexa-
mined its previous crash testing data to determine how
a vehicle's BEV is related to the velocity at which an
occupant impacts the interior of the vehicle. The Stand-
ard No. 201 head impact test, run at an occupant im-
pact speed of 15 mph, is designed to provide a
measurement of such interior impact forces. Occupant
impact velocity is dependent upon many factors, includ-
ing: the friction between the occupant and the seat,
crash speed, crash pulse and duration, occupant size,
distance from the occupant to the object struck, and
the effect of restraint systems. From these data, the
agency has determined that an occupant typically im-
pacts the vehicle interior at a velocity that is 90 per-
cent of the vehicle's BEV. Thus, given that a 14 mph
BEV is the highest air bag deployment speed reported
by the commenters, the speed at which the head im-
pact test would have to be run to assure that occupants
are protected by the instrument panel at all speeds
below which the air bag would deploy is 12.6 mph (90%
of 14 mph). Given this information, the agency has de-
termined that there is no justification for a reduction
in the test speed below 12 mph.
A reduction in the test speed from 15 mph to 12 mph
may produce some increase in minor-to-moderate in-
juries in low-speed vehicle crashes. On the other hand,
greater use of passenger-side air bags will likely result
in a reduction in the number of serious injuries and
fatalities. The agency believes that this reduction will
outweigh any potential increase in less serious injuries
that could result from a reduction in the test speed,
and that this final rule will have a net positive safety
impact.
Requirement for Lap/Shoulder Belts at the Right
Front Seating Position
No comments were received in opposition to this pro-
posal. The agency has determined that lap/shoulder belts
provide an important supplement to air bag systems, es-
pecially in accidents involving rear impacts or rollovers.
Therefore, the amendment is adopted as proposed.
Miscellaneous Comment
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) asked
that the language of the proposed amendment to S3.1
of Standard No. 201 be revised in order to be consis-
tent with the current wording. Volkswagen asked that
the words "that area of any frontal interior surface"
be revised to read "that area of the instrument panel."
The agency has revised the wording of the amend-
ment in response to this request. NHTSA defines the
scope of the test impact area to include that portion
of the instrument panel that Ues within the head im-
pact area as defined by 49 CFR §571.3.
Effective Date
NHTSA proposed to make the amendment effective
upon publication of the final rule in the Federal Register
since the amendment would not establish additional re-
quirements, but would instead establish an alternative
for manufacturers to choose at their option. In addition,
an immediate effective date would allow motor vehicle
manufacturers the greatest flexibihty in designing
vehicles with passenger-side air bags. No commenter
objected to the proposed effective date. NHTSA has
determined that good cause exists to make the amend-
ment effective immediately upon its pubUcation.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571
is amended as follows:
1. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S3.1 to
read as follows:
S3.1 Instrument panels. Except as provided in
S3.1.1. when that area of the instrument panel that is
within the head impact area is impacted in accordance
with S3. 1.2 by a 15-pound, 6.5-inch diameter head form
at-
(a) A relative velocity of 15 miles per hour for all
vehicles except those specified in paragraph (b) of this
section,
(b) A relative velocity of 12 miles per hour for vehi-
cles that meet the occupant crash protection require-
ments of S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.208 by means of inflatable
restraint systems and meet the requirements of
S4.1.2.1(cX2) of 49 CFR 571.208 by means of a Type
2 seat belt assembly at the right front designated seat-
ing position, the deceleration of the head form shall not
exceed 80g continuously for more than 3 milliseconds.
Issued on May 31, 1991.
56 F.R. 26036
June 6, 1991
PART 571; S201-PRE 16
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 201
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact— Passenger Cars
51. Purpose and scope. This standard
specifies requirements to afford impact protection
for occupants.
52. Application. This standard applies to
passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less.
53. Requirements for passenger cars and for
trucl(s, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured
on or after September 1, 1981.
S3.1 Instrument panels. [Except as provided
in S3. 1.1, when that area of the instrument panel
that is within the head Impact area is impacted in
accordance with S3.1.2 by a 15 pound, 6.5 inch
diameter head form at—
(a) A relative velocity of 15 mUes per hour for all
vehicles except those specified in paragraph (b) of
this section,
(b) A relative velocity of 12 miles per hour for
vehicles that meet the occupant crash protection
requirements of S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.208 by means
of inflatable restraint systems and meet the re-
quirements of S4.1.2.1(cX2) of 49 CFR 571.208 by
means of a Type 2 seat belt assembly at the right
front designated seating position, the deceleration
of the head form shall not exceed 80g continuously
for more than 3 milliseconds. (56 F.R. 26036— June
6, 1991. Effective: June 6, 19911
S3.1.1 The requirements of S3.1 do not apply
to-
(a) Console assembUes;
(b) Areas less than 5 inches inboard from the
junctiu"e of the instrument panel attachment to the
body side inner structure;
(c) Areas closer to the windshield juncture than
those statically contactable by the head form with
the windshield in place;
(d) Areas outboard of any point of tangency on
the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head
form tangent to and inboard of a vertical longi-
tudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the
steering wheel; or
(e) Areas below any point at which a vertical line
is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel.
S3.1.2 Demonstration procedures. Tests shall be
performed as described in Society of Automotive
Engineers Recommended Practice J921, "Instru-
ment Panel Laboratory Impact Test Procedure,"
June 1965, using the specified instrumentation or
instrumentation that meets the performance re-
quirements specified in Society of Automotive
Engineers Recommended Practice J977, "In-
strumentation for Laboratory Impact Tests,"
November 1966, except that—
(a) The origin of the line tangent to the instru-
ment panel surface shall be a point on a transverse
horizontal line through a point 5 inches horizontally
forward of the seating reference point of the front
outboard passenger designated seating position,
displaced vertically an amoimt equal to the rise
which results from a 5 inch forward adjustment of
the seat or 0.75 inches; and
(b) Direction of impact shall be either—
(1) In a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis; or
(2) In a plane normal to the surface at the
point of contact.
S3.2 Seat Backs. Except as provided in
S3.2.1, when that area of the seat back that is
within the head impact area is impacted in
accordance with S3.2.2 by a 15 pound, 6.5 inch
diameter head form at a relative velocity of 15
mUes per hour, the deceleration of the head form
shall not exceed 80g continuously for more than 3
milliseconds.
S3.2.1 The requirements of S3.2 do not apply to
seats installed in school buses which comply with
the requirements of Standard No. 222, "School
Bus Passenger Seating and Occupant Protection"
(49 CFR 571.222) or to rearmost, side-facing, back-
to-back, folding auxiliary jump, and temporary
seats.
(Rev. 6/6/91)
PART 571; S 201-1
S3.2.2 Demonstration procedures. Tests shall
be performed as described in Society of
Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice
J921, "Instrument Panel Laboratory Impact Test
Procedure," June 1965, using the specified
instrumentation or instrumentation that meets the
performance requirements specified in Society of
Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice
J977, "Instrumentation for Laboratory Impact
Tests," November 1966, except that—
(a) The origin of the line tangent to the upper-
most seat back frame component shall be a point
on a transverse horizontal line through the seating
reference point of the right rear designated
seating position, with adjustable forward seats in
their rearmost design driving position and
reclinable forward seat backs in their nominal
design driving position;
(b) The direction of impact shall be either—
(1) In a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal axis; or
(2) In a plane normal to the surface at the
point of contact;
(c) For seats without head restraints installed,
tests shall be performed for each individual split or
bucket seats back at points within 4.0 inches left
and right of its centerline, and for each bench seat
back between points 4.0 inches outboard of the
centerline of each outboard designated seating
position;
(d) For seats having head restraints installed,
each test shall be conducted with the head
restraint in place at its lowest adjusted position, at
a point on the head restraint centerline; and
(e) For a seat that is installed in more than one
body style, tests conducted at the fore and aft
extremes identified by application of subparagraph
(a) shall be deemed to have demonstrated all
intermediate conditions.
S3.3 Interior compartment doors. Each interior
compartment door assembly located in an instru-
ment panel, console assembly, seat back, or side
panel adjacent to a designated seating position
shall remain closed when tested in accordance with
either S3.31(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and
S3. 3. 1(c). Additionally, any interior compartment
door located in an instrument panel or seat back
shall remain closed when the instrument panel or
seat back is tested in accordance with S3.1 and
S3. 2. All interior compartment door assemblies
with a locking device must be tested with the
locking device in an unlocked position.
S3.3.1 Demonstration procedures.
(a) Subject the interior compartment door latch
system to an inertia load of lOg in a horizontal
transverse direction and an inertia load of lOg in a
vertical direction in accordance with the procedure
described in section 5 of SAE Recommended
Pactice J839b, "Passenger Car Side Door Latch
Systems," May 1965, or an approved equivalent.
(b) Impact the vehicle perpendicularly into a fixed
collision barrier at a forward longitudinal velocity of
30 miles per hour.
(c) Subject the interior compartment door latch
system to a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a
longitudinal direction in accordance with the pro-
cedure described in section 5 of SAE Recommended
Practice J839b, "Passenger Car Side Door Latch
Systems," May 1965 or an approved equivalent.
53.4 Sun visors.
53.4.1 A sun visor that is constructed of or
covered with energy-absorbing material shall be
provided for each front outboard designated
seating position.
53.4.2 Each sun visor mounting shall present
no rigid material edge radius of less than 0.125
inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5
inch diameter head form.
53.5 Armrests.
53.5.1 General. Each installed armrest shall
conform to at least one of the following:
(a) It shall be constructed with energyabsorbing
material and shall deflect or collapse laterally at
least 2 inches without permitting contact with any
underlying rigid material.
(b) It shall be constructed with energy-absorbing
material that deflects or collapses to within 1.25
inches of a rigid test panel surface without permit-
ting contact with any rigid material. Any rigid
material between 0.5 and 1.25 inches from the panel
surface shall have a minimum vertical height of not
less than 1 inch.
(c) Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its
length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically
in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of
coverage within the pelvic impact area.
53.5.2 Folding armrests. Each armrest that
folds into the seat back or between two seat backs
shall either—
(a) Meet the requirement of S3.5.1; or
(b) Be constructed of or covered with energy-
absorbing material.
33 F.R. 15794
October 25, 1968
PART 571; S 201-2
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 214
Side Impact Protection
Docket No. 88-06; Notice 8
RIN 2127-AB86
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 214,
Side Door Strength, to upgrade its test procedures
and performance requirements for passenger cars.
For many years, the standard has measured perform-
ance statically in terms of the ability of each door to
resist a piston pressing a rigid steel cylinder inward
against the door. These amendments require in
addition that each passenger car must protect its
occupants in a full-scale dynamic crash test in which
the car is struck on either side by a moving deform-
able barrier simulating another vehicle. Instru-
mented test dummies are positioned in the target
car to measure the potential for injuries to an
occupant's thorax and pelvis.
Two alternative compliance schedules are estab-
lished, the choice of which is at the option of the
manufacturer. Under one, the requirement will be
phased-in by an annually increasing percentage of
each manufacturer's production over a three-year
period beginning on September 1, 1993, with full
implementation effective September 1, 1996. Under
the other, no compliance will be required during the
production year beginning September 1, 1993, but
full implementation will be required effective Sep-
tember 1, 1994. In separate notices in today's Fed-
eral Register, the agency is establishing specifica-
tions for the new side impact test dummy and
moving deformable barrier, as well as reporting
requirements related to compliance with the phase-
in of the new side impact requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments made by this
rule to the text of the Code of Federal Regulations
are effective NOVEMBER 29, 1990.
Percent compliance required during production
Year Beginning
9/1/93 9/1/94 9/1/95 9/1/96
Schedule one 10% 25% 40% 100%
Schedule two 0% 100%
VI.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Icible of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments on the January 1988
NPRM
III. Summary of the Final Rule
IV. The Safety Problem
A. Fatalities
B. Injuries
V. Performance Requirements
A. Thorax
1. TTI(d) Performance Criterion
2. Estimated Benefits of the TTI(d) Per-
formance Criterion
3. Alternative Thoracic Injury Criteria
B. Pelvis
C. Prohibiting Door Openings
D. Comments on Benefits Analysis
Test Procedure
A. Speed, Angle and Point of Impact
B. Alternative Composite Test Procedure
C. Dummy Seating Procedure and Use of
Safety Belts
D. Variability
1. Front Seat Variability
2. Rear Seat Variability
E. Test Surface
International Harmonization
Feasibility of "Countermeasures"
Estimate of Portion of the Vehicle Fleet Need-
ing Improvement to Achieve Compliance
Costs
Consumer Reaction to Side Door Padding
Selection of TTI(d) and Pelvic Acceleration
Limits
Inclusion of Rear Seat Performance Require-
ments
Leadtime/Phase-in
Retention of Related Requirements in Stan-
dard No. 214 and Other Standards
Limitation on Intrusion
Stretch Limousines
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XL
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
PART 571; S214-PRE 9
XVIII. Regulatory Impacts
A. Executive Order 12291
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Environmental Effects
D. Impact on Federalism
I. Background
NHTSA's current standard for side impact protec-
tion is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). The
standard specifies performance requirements for
each side door in a passenger car, to mitigate occu-
pant injuries in side impacts by reducing the extent
to which the side structure of a car is pushed into the
passenger compartment during a side impact. The
standard requires each door to resist crush forces
that are applied by a piston pressing a steel cylinder
inward against the door's outside surface in a labo-
ratory test. The standard does not attempt to regu-
late directly the level of crash forces on an occupant
who strikes or is struck by the car's interior during
a side impact crash. Since the standard became
effective on January 1, 1973, vehicle manufacturers
have generally chosen to meet its performance re-
quirements by reinforcing the side doors with metal
beams.
NHTSA's analysis of real-world crash data has
shown that the strengthening of the side doors with
metal beams is indeed effective, but primarily in
single car side impacts. The agency's November
1982 study, "An Evaluation of Side Structure Im-
provements in Response to Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard 214" (DOT HS 806-314), estimated
that 480 lives have been saved and 9,500 fewer
hospitalizations have occurred per year as a result of
the standard. The study also found that while single
vehicle occupant fatalities were reduced by 14 per-
cent, the standard had little effect on reducing
fatalities in multi-car collisions.
Because of the large number of fatalities and
injuries which continue to result from side impact
crashes, the agency initiated a research program to
upgrade the current standard. This effort focused
primarily on thoracic protection, since data indicate
that contact between the thorax and the side interior
is a major source of serious injuries and fatalities.
The agency has conducted research on improved
side impact protection since the late 1970's. Much
information has been acquired not only from agency
research but also from industry and research groups
throughout the world. The agency has presented its
findings and has communicated with groups in nu-
merous meetings and conferences such as Society for
Automotive Engineers (SAE), Stapp Car Crash Con-
ferences, Experimental Safety Vehicle Conferences
(ESV), International Research Council on Biokinet-
ics of Impacts (IRCOBI), and NHTSA sponsored
public meetings (1979 and 1986). NHTSA has sought
to address pertinent aspects of the side impact
protection issue, which cover the test procedure, side
impact dummy, injury criteria, and characteristics of
those crashes as they occur in the real world.
Based on that research, on January 27, 1988,
NHTSA published in the Federal Register (53 FR
2240), a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
upgrade the standard by using a test procedure
which simulates a two-vehicle side crash represen-
tative of an injurious side crash. The proposed test
uses a moving deformable barrier (MDB), weighing
approximately 3,000 pounds, to represent a vehicle
which is traveling at 30 mph and strikes the side of
another vehicle which is traveling at 15 mph. To
measure the magnitude of the threat of injury re-
sulting from the side impact collision, the agency
proposed to use a specially developed side impact
dummy (SID). NHTSA proposed to use two of these
dummies in a test, with one being placed on the
front outboard seat and the other on the rear out-
board seat, on the struck side of the car. The agency
proposed specifications for the SID in a separate
NPRM issued at the same time as the NPRM to
upgrade Standard No. 214 (53 FR 2254).
NHTSA stated that its side impact proposal would
complement the existing standard, which is prima-
rily effective in single vehicle side impact accidents,
by providing additional protection in multi-vehicle
side impacts. As indicated above, the existing stan-
dard does not directly assess the injury probabilities
associated with different vehicle designs in a specific
impact, but instead uses the ability of the side doors
to resist intrusion as a surrogate measure of the
potential for injury.
In the NPRM, the agency proposed to establish
specific performance criteria which must be met to
reduce the possibility of thoracic side impact injuries
without increasing harm to the pelvis. The notice
proposed to require passenger cars not to exceed
specified performance limits for the thorax and the
pelvis. For the thorax, the proposed performance
limit used an injury criterion known as the Thoracic
Trauma Index (dummy) or TTI(d). This injury crite-
rion represents the average of peak acceleration
values measured on the lower spine and the greater
of the acceleration values of the upper and lower ribs
of the test dummy. NHTSA requested comments on
the appropriateness of setting a TTI(d) limit ranging
from 80 to 115 g's (where "g" is defined as the
acceleration due to gravity). In addition, the notice
requested comments on the appropriateness of set-
ting limits, ranging from 130 to 190 g's, on the peak
acceleration that the pelvis should experience dur-
ing the impact. Finally, to reduce the possibility of
occupant ejection, the agency proposed to require
PART 571; S214-PRE 10
that each door in the struck vehicle remain closed
during the crash test.
lb provide manufacturers with sufficient leadtime
to design their passenger cars to meet the proposed
performance requirements, NHTSA proposed to
phase-in the new requirements in accordance with
the following implementation schedule:
10 percent of each manufacturer's cars manufac-
tured during the first full production year (Sep-
tember 1 to August 31) beginning more than 24
months after the issuance of the final rule;
25 percent of each manufactvu-er's cars manufac-
tured during the second full year beginning after
that 24-month period;
40 percent of each manufacturer's cars manufac-
tured during the third full year after that 24-month
period; and
All cars manufactured on or after the beginning of
the fourth full year after that 24-month period.
In addition to issuing the January 1988 NPRM to
improve thoracic protection in passenger car side
impacts, NHTSA has also, during the past several
years, been involved in several other efforts to im-
prove side impact protection. These efforts cover both
passenger cars and light trucks, vans and multipur-
pose passenger vehicles (MPV's).
On August 19, 1988, the agency published in the
Federal Register (53 FR 31712) an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning require-
ments for passenger cars intended to reduce the risk
of head and neck injuries and ejections, in side
impact crashes between vehicles and in other
crashes where the side protection of the vehicle is a
relevant factor. The ANPRM also sought comments
on whether additional requirements should be con-
sidered to address side impacts with poles and trees.
NHTSA's efforts to improve side impact protection
for light trucks, vans and MPV's (collectively re-
ferred to as "LTV's") largely correspond to its efforts
for passenger cars. On August 19, 1988, the agency
published in the Federal Register (53 FR 31716) an
ANPRM regarding possible requirements for LTV's
in each of the areas where requirements have been
established, or are under consideration, for passen-
ger cars. In summary, the ANPRM addressed: (1)
extension to LTV's of Standard No. 214's existing
requirements, i.e., measuring performance in terms
of the ability of each door to resist a piston pressing
a rigid steel cylinder inward against the door, (2)
developing dynamic test procediu-es and perform-
ance requirements for LTV's, corresponding to those
proposed in the January 1988 NPRM for passenger
cars, and (3) developing requirements for LTV's
intended to reduce the risk of head and neck
injuries and ejections, corresponding to those ad-
dressed in the August 1988 ANPRM for passenger
cars.
On December 22, 1989, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register (54 FR 52826) an NPRM to extend
the existing requirements of Standard No. 214 to
LTV's. Of the various potential side impact require-
ments for LTV's that were addressed in the ANPRM,
the agency was the furthest advanced in analyzing
the extension of Standard No. 214's existing require-
ments to those vehicles. As indicated in the NPRM,
NHTSA decided to go forward with rulemaking on
that issue separately, since addressing all of the
potential requirements together could result in un-
delays.
II. Public Comments on the January 1988
NPRM
NHTSA received comments from auto manufac-
turers, manufacturer organizations, consumer
groups, insurance organizations, governmental or-
ganizations, international organizations, and pri-
vate individuals. A brief summary of the most sig-
nificant public comments is provided in this section.
Subsequent portions of the preamble discuss the
issues and present the agency's position and re-
sponse to the public comments. The comments are
discussed at greater length in those sections of the
preamble. Because of the large number of public
comments, NHTSA has provided, throughout the
preamble, a representative sample of the comments
made and the commenters who made them. Some of
the comments relate to more than one issue. The
agency analyzes and responds to the comments in
more detail in its Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(FRIA), which is being issued along with this final
rule.
Auto manufacturers unanimously opposed adop-
tion of the proposed side impact requirements, chal-
lenging numerous aspects of the proposed perform-
ance requirements and test procedure. The auto
manufacturers argued against adoption of the TTI(d)
injury criterion. A number of manufacturers argued
that TTI(d) cannot reliably predict thoracic injury
risk in a crash because it lacks a biomechanical
basis and is test-condition-dependent. Some manu-
facturers argued that TTI(d) is fundamentally flawed
because it is acceleration-based and does not take
thoracic compression into account. Several manufac-
turers argued that the use of TTI(d) could lead to
designs which provide little or no safety benefit, or
even degrade occupant safety by leading to the
installation of padding that is overly stiff.
Numerous manufacturers argued that NHTSA
should regulate side impact protection by means of
component tests instead of a full scale crash test.
Those commenters argued that component tests
would be less expensive to conduct, could be utilized
PART 571; S214-PRE 11
early in the design stage of a vehicle, and woul 1
promote international harmonization.
Mamifacturers also presented numerous objec-
tions to the proposed SID and MDB. The agency
notes that while it proposed specifications for the
MDB as part of its primary side impact NPRM, the
MDB IS covered m a separate notice for purposes of a
final rule. Therefore, comments concerning the
MDB are addressed in that notice. Similarly, com-
ments on the NPRM concerning the SID are ad-
dressed in the SID final rule.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
stated that it strongly supports the agency's pro-
posal, including specification of a full scale crash
test and use of TTI(d). That commenter argued that
the proposed amendment is an important and long
overdue first step toward the larger goal of reducing
all types of serious injuries in side impacts. The
American Insurance Association stated that it sup-
ports NHTSA's efforts to improve side impact protec-
tion and urges promulgation and implementation of
a final rule as quickly as possible.
The Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen
argued that the proposed requirements are not suf-
ficiently stringent. Those commenters argued that
NHTSA should have considered much more strin-
gent alternatives, such as 60 degree impact angles,
higher impact masses, and higher speeds. They also
opposed the phase-in of the requirements.
On October 19, 1989, 19 members of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transporta-
tion sent a letter to Secretary Skinner urging action
on the proposed side impact rulemaking. The letter
noted the history of NHTSA's rulemaking on side
impact protection, including issuance of the January
1988 NPRM. The letter stated:
The full Senate recently passed, without opposi-
tion, legislation to require DOT rulemakings to
improve side impact protection in passenger auto-
mobiles, and to extend that standard to minivans
and light trucks. Mr Secretary, this is a basic
protection that should be afforded to all Ameri-
cans, no matter what type of passenger vehicle
they drive. NHTSA has gained valuable informa-
tion over the past ten years on ways to improve
side-impact protection. Further, the Department
has the authority to require these improvements.
'We urge you to move forward now with a rulemak-
ing to improve side-impact protection in passenger
■ cars, light trucks and minivans.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
After a thorough review of the issue of side impact
protection, including the comments on the NPRM
and extensive studies, analyses, and data on the
subject, NHTSA has decided to adopt a final rule
based on its January 1988 proposal. NHTSA has
decided to adopt TTI(d) limits of 85 g for 4-door cars
and 90 g for 2-door cars. The pelvic acceleration limit
is being set at T30 g for all cars. The requirements
apply both to front and rear seats.
The performance levels established in this rule
will achieve the optimum level of safety consistent
with the statutory requirements for a safety stan-
dard. The levels will protect motor vehicle occupants
against an unreasonable risk of injury in a side
crash, while ensuring that the countermeasures
necessary to achieve these levels are practicable.
The agency expects considerable reductions in side
impact fatalities and injuries to accrue because of
this rule. As m other rulemaking evaluations,
NHTSA will carefully monitor the benefits associ-
ated with this rule. Based on the performance of
vehicles in laboratory crash tests, injury risk reduc-
tions determined from real-world crash data, im-
provements in available countermeasure technology
and other factors, NHTSA will determine whether
further rulemaking concerning side impact crash
protection is warranted.
Two alternative compliance schedules are estab-
lished, the choice of which is at the option of the
manufacturer. Under the first schedule, each manu-
facturer will have to meet the new side impact
performance requirements based on the following
phase-in schedule:
10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during
the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1993;
25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during
the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1994;
40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during
the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1995;
and
All automobiles it manufactures on or after Sep-
tember 1, 1996.
Under the other schedule, no compliance will be
required during the production year beginning Sep-
tember 1, 1993, but full implementation will be
required effective September 1, 1994.
The rear seat requirements will not apply to cars
which have rear seating areas that are so small that
the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according
to the specified positioning procedures. Only a very
small number of sport cars are believed to be in this
category. NHTSA has also decided not to apply the
rear seat requirements to passenger cars with a
wheelbase greater than 130 inches, since the rear
seats are so far back from the MDB impact point
that the side impact protection provided for those
seating positions cannot appropriately be evaluated
by the test procedure. The wheelbases of all produc-
tion passenger cars are less than 130 inches, so this
will only affect the rear seats of stretch limousines.
The bases for the agency's decision, and its re-
sponse to the comments, are set forth below.
PART 571; S214-PRE 12
IV. The Safety Problem
NHTSA has separately analyzed the fatality and
injury experience of passenger car occupants in-
volved in side impact crashes. As discussed below,
the data show that side impacts account for an
average of almost 8,000 fatalities and more than
24,000 serious injuries, annually. These figures re-
present 30 percent of all passenger car occupant
fatalities and 34 percent of the serious injuries that
occur in passenger cars.
A Fatalities.
NHTSA reviewed available crash data from 1978
to the present to determine the number of fatalities
in side impact crashes. That review showed that side
impacts resulted in an average of 7,730 fatalities per
year over that period. The review further showed
that, while side impact fatalities declined steadily
from about 8,300 in 1978 to about 7,000 in 1982,
they increased again to about 8,000 in 1986 and
7,900 in 1987. The percentage of side impact fatali-
ties as a percentage of all occupant fatalities aver-
aged 30.6 percent over this ten year period. That
percentage remained fairly constant from 1978-
1982, at about 29 percent, but has averaged 32
percent since 1983.
The agency also examined the data on fatal
crashes to identify the first harmful event in fatal
side impact accidents. Based on a review of data
from crashes in 1982-1987, the agency found that 67
percent of all side impact fatalities result from
vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts. Pole type impacts
(poles, posts, fire hydrants, and trees) result in an
additional 18 percent, and impacts with other fixed
objects (boulders, culverts, embankments, bridge
abutments, guard rails, etc.) together comprise ap-
proximately 10 percent of all side impact fatalities.
The agency also examined its data files to deter-
mine what areas of the body were being injured in
side impacts. Since the Fatal Accident Reporting
System (FARS) does not provide information on the
body region injured or the injury contact points, the
agency examined data from the 1979-1987 National
Accident Sampling System (NASS) and the 1977-
1979 National Crash Severity Study (NCSS) on
fatalities in which the most severe damage to the
fatality victim's vehicle was a left side or right side
deformation. Only model year 1973 and later vehi-
cles were included in this analysis, to ensure that
the data reflected the effect of side door beams,
which were required by NHTSA beginning January
1, 1973, and appeared in many cars prior to that
date. The data show that, for all types of side impact
accidents including occupant ejections, head injuries
are the most frequent sources of side impact fatali-
ties (45%), followed by chest (29%), neck/spine (11%),
and abdominal injuries (9%).
While head injuries are the most prevalent cause
of side impact fatalities, NHTSA is aware that those
injuries are not significantly addressed by this final
rule. This rulemaking addresses thoracic and pelvic
injuries, which are a large percentage of side impact
fatalities and injuries, because the agency is further
along in developing countermeasures to protect
these body regions than it is in developing means of
protecting the head. The agency is addressing head
protection in a separate rulemaking. On August 19,
1988, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (43
FR 31712) an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
that addressed head protection.
The performance test set forth in today's final rule
simulates a lateral impact on a flat surface without
ejection or rollover. Injuries to the chest and abdo-
men from contacting side surfaces are the major
injury categories in this type of side impact crash.
About 26 percent of side impact fatalities are rele-
vant to the new performance requirements. This
percentage includes only those cases where the chest
or abdomen contacting the side interior or side
hardware/armrest is the most severe injury. The
requirements should also help reduce head and
other injuries resulting from ejections, since the
requirement that all doors of a tested car remain
closed during the crash test will reduce the possibil-
ity of ejection in an actual crash.
B. Injuries.
In addition to examining the data on side impact
related fatalities, the agency also reviewed data on the
number of injuries in non-fatal side impact crashes.
NHTSA estimated the average number of injuries, by
deformation location and the maximum Abbreviated
Injury Scale (AIS) level per survivor occupant, that
would have occurred in 1982-87 if all cars in the fleet
were MY 1973 and later cars— that is, if they all had
side door beams. (The Abbreviated Injury Scale is used
to rank injuries by level of severity. An AIS 1 injury is
a minor one, while an AIS 6 injury is one that is
currently untreatable and fatal.) The total estimated
number of AIS 3-5 injuries (serious to critical injuries)
to passenger car occupants from all crash modes is
about 68,600 annually, based on data from the 1982-
87 NASS file. That analysis showed that side impacts
resulted in a total of about 24,400 AIS 3-5 injuries
annually, or 35.6 percent of all AIS 3-5 injuries. This
percentage is slightly higher than the percentage of
side impact fatalities (31.6 percent) in the same six
years. The analysis also showed that the side interior
and side hardwai-e/armrests accounted for 53 percent
of the maximum AIS 3-5 injuries to front seat occu-
pants sitting near the struck side of the vehicle, and
for 68 percent of the maximum AIS 3-5 injuries to rear
seat occupants sitting near the struck side of the
vehicle.
PART 571; S214-PRE 13
V. Performance Requirements
A Thorax
1. TTI(d) Performance Criterion
To assess the probability of an injury to the thorax
in a side impact, NHTSA developed a new injury
measure called the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI).
The TTI is a formula which can be used to predict
the probability of injury for persons of different ages
and weights. It uses the age and weight of each test
subject, along with the average of the lower thoracic
spine and upper or lower rib accelerations. (For rib
accelerations, the higher of the acceleration re-
sponses from the upper and lower ribs is used.)
The TTI was developed from and evaluated with
test data obtained from a sample of 84 cadaver tests
conducted over a 10-year period. The results of those
tests represent the largest biomechanical data base
that has been used to support a NHTSA rulemaking
action. In these instrumented cadaver tests, NHTSA
was able to compare the acceleration measured on
the cadaver's ribs and spine with the severity of the
thoracic injury received by the cadaver during the
impact. These tests showed that the occurrence of
injuries to the hard thorax, which includes both the
ribs and the internal organs protected by the ribs, is
strongly related to the average of the peak lateral
acceleration experienced by the struck side rib cage
and the lower thoracic spine.
TTI can be measured on a test dummy and used as
a surrogate for side impact safety performance of
passenger cars. Performance requirements for such
performance can be specified in terms of a combina-
tion of peak rib and spine accelerations measured on
the dummy and called the Thoracic Trauma Index
(dummy) or TTI(d). This injury criterion represents
the average of peak acceleration values measured on
the lower spine and the greater of the acceleration
values of the upper and lower ribs of the test dummy.
The benefits associated with a requirement specify-
ing a particular level of TTI(d) can be predicted by
using the TTI to assess changes across the entire
population of vehicle occupants.
Included in the 84 cadaver tests mentioned above
were a number of tests at the University of Heidelberg
that were sponsored by the Forschungsvereinigung
Automobiltechnik (FAT), an association of some 30
German motor vehicle and equipment manvifacturers.
These tests were designed to study lateral impacts to
human cadavers, as well as to three different designs of
dummies, seated in actual car bodies. Using the ca-
daver injury data, NHTSA evaluated the performance
of the TTI in predicting the severity level of injuries
resulting from lateral impacts.
In the FAT tests, which were conducted on a sled,
a deformable barrier developed under the auspices of
the Committee of Common Market Automobile Con-
structors (CCMC) was propelled into an Opel Kadett
"body in white" in which the test subject (a human
cadaver) was seated in the front seat on the struck
side. Each car body was struck twice at an angle of
90°, once on the left side, and once on the right side.
The speed of the barrier was either 40, 45, 50, or 60
km/hr. Each cadaver was subjected to one crash test.
NHTSA's review of the test results, which is con-
tained in the Society of Automotive Engineers paper
entitled "Side Impact-The Biofidelity of NHTSA's
Proposed ATD and Efficacy of TTI" (SAE Paper No.
861877, Oct. 1986), again showed that TTI effec-
tively distinguished different levels of injury risk.
That is, the higher the value of the TTI calculated
for the test, the greater was the probability of
serious injury to the cadaver.
Despite the extensive support provided by NHTSA
for TTI(d) in the NPRM and PRIA, numerous com-
menters expressed significant concerns about the
proposed thoracic injury criterion. Some comment-
ers argued that NHTSA has not demonstrated a good
correlation between the TTI and the risk of injury.
Peugeot expressed concern about NHTSA's use of
data from cadaver tests performed by FAT. That
commenter stated that it was evident that a given
TTI value could be associated with any "hard tho-
rax" AIS value, ranging from 0 to 5. Peugeot also
stated that there was very poor correlation with
either abdominal injuries or rib cage injuries.
CCMC submitted a comment raising a number of
the same concerns as Peugeot.
Honda commented that while NHTSA argued that
TTI is able to distinguish injury level according to
AIS, an International Organization for Standardiza-
tion (ISO) document reveals that TTI data overlap
different AIS's. Honda cited an ISO resolution con-
cluding that the TTI cannot be considered as an
acceptable thoracic protection criterion.
GM stated that when cadaver data published by
NHTSA were studied using discriminant analysis
techniques, the TTI erroneously predicted injury
risk for 20 (43 percent) of 47 possible cases. That
company also expressed concern that TTI(d) omits
age and weight factors. GM stated that cadaver data
published by NHTSA indicate that age accounted for
about 40 percent of the magnitude of TTI in the
cadaver tests. According to GM, TTI(d) cannot be
relied upon to predict injury risk since it ignores a
major percentage of the correlation function (TTI)
which itself did not correlate for 43 percent of the
cases upon which it was based.
Ford argued that although the curves of probabil-
ity of injury versus TTI presented in NHTSA's PRIA
indicate a continuous, sharp decrease in injury for
decreasing values of TTI, the actual test data show
considerable overlap in regions where the corre-
sponding injuries are of markedly different severity.
PART 571; S214-PRE 14
That company stated that TTI provides virtually no
differentiation between AIS 0 and 1, between AIS 2
and 3, and between AIS 4 and 5. Ford also asserted
that NHTSA had found it necessary to "arbitrarily"
adjust the probability of injury versus TTI curves on
the basis of slight logical inconsistencies. According to
Ford, before adjustment, the curves indicate that for
all TTI greater than 151, the probability of AIS greater
than or equal to 4 exceeds the probability of greater
than or equal to 3, a logical absurdity. Ford asserted
that these cm-ves demonstrate that the TTI is funda-
mentally deficient in predicting injury severity.
NHTSA believes that the TTI is a good predictor of
risk of thoracic injury. The development and efficacy
of TTI as an injury index is documented in detail at
pp. IIIB- 1 6 to IIIB-28 of the PRI A. The TTI relates the
probability of an individual receiving a thoracic/
abdominal injury of severity greater than AIS 3, 4,
or 5, depending on the individual's weight and
age, as well as the peak rib and spine acceleration
responses recorded during the impact event. There is
a monotonically increasing relationship between the
TTI and the severity of the maximum thoracic/
abdominal injury. (Monotonicity refers to a mathe-
matical relationship in which the dependent vari-
able (Y) increases as the independent variable (X)
increases, regardless of linearity or non-linearity.)
It should be noted that each TTI level relates to an
injury probability distribution. For example, at
TTI = 150 g, there is a 75 percent chance of an AIS-3
or greater injury, a 20 percent chance of an AIS-4 or
greater injury, and a 0 percent chance of an AIS-5 or
greater injury. This is consistent with the variability
found in cadaver testing and reflects the range of
human injury tolerance in impacts. Thus, NHTSA
does not share commenters' concern that a single
TTI level can represent several different AIS levels of
injury, as that simply reflects the real-world validity
of TTI.
GM did not provide sufficient details of its analy-
sis for NHTSA to fully evaluate that company's
argument that TTI erroneously predicted injury risk
for 20 of 47 possible cases. However, GM's assertion
suggests a misunderstanding of what is predicted by
TTI. As indicated above, each TTI level predicts an
injury probability distribution. It is incorrect to
argue that a particular TTI level predicts a particu-
lar AIS level injury. This can be illustrated by
considering the probability distribution cited above
for TTI = 150 g. At that TTI level, there is a 75
percent chance of an AIS-3 or greater injury and a 20
percent chance of an AIS-4 or greater injury. While
the probability of an AIS-3 or greater injury is
considerably higher than the probability of an AIS-4
or greater injury, it would be incorrect to state that
TTI = 150 g predicts an AIS-3 injury. Since GMs
analysis appears to incorrectly assume that TTI
predicts a single AIS level injury in each case, the
agency does not agree with the analysis.
NHTSA also does not agree with GM's argument
that the omission of age and weight from the TTI(d)
means that it cannot be relied upon to predict injury
risk. The likelihood of injury in a crash differs
depending upon a person's age and weight, but for
any particular age and weight, TTI(d) correlates
with actual injury, i.e., risk of injury increases as
TTKd) increases.
The agency disagrees with Peugeot's contention
that poor correlation of the TTI with either abdom-
inal injuries or rib cage injuries indicates that there
is a problem with the TTI. The TTI was developed to
predict injuries to the hard thorax. Efforts to find
relationships with individual portions of this body
region may well fail because the TTI accounts for the
threat to another part of the hard thorax that has
been excluded from such an analysis.
NHTSA disagrees with Ford's suggestion that it
"arbitrarily" adjusted the probability of injury ver-
sus TTI curves based on slight logical inconsisten-
cies. The implication of Ford's comment is that the
agency modified the data to prevent the curves from
indicating that the probability of AIS greater than
or equal to 4 exceeds than the probability of AIS
greater than or equal to 3. Ford's statements are
incorrect for several reasons. The data were not
modified; rather the procedure for calculating the
injury probability curve was constrained to avoid
this impossible situation. Further, that company's
comments were based on the curves generated in a
1984 NHTSA paper which used Probit analysis. TTI
as proposed in the NPRM was derived in 1986 and is
based on a WeibuU analysis. (The terms Probit and
WeibuU refer to statistical techniques.) As discussed
in section IIIB of the FRIA, NHTSA believes that the
WeibuU distribution is the most appropriate func-
tion for describing injury probability from the type
of data in question. When WeibuU analysis was used
in the 1986 analysis (which included many tests of
Opel vehicles), none of the inappropriate relation-
ships (injury probability of AIS greater than or equal
to 4 exceeding the probability of greater than or
equal to 3) were found.
Some commenters argued that the TTI lacks a
biomechanical basis and is test-condition-dependent.
GM argued that the TTI cannot be relied upon to
reliably predict human thoracic injury risk in side
impacts because it lacks a biomechanical basis. That
company stated that the agency's assertion that the
TTI correlates to injury is at best correct only for the
narrow conditions under which tests were con-
ducted, since statistical correlations cannot be relied
upon when conditions vary from those upon which
the correlation is based. According to GM, because
PART 571; S214-PRE 15
many factors influence injury risk in a side impact
(e.g., door stiffness, contour of door interior, vehicle
size, velocity, and others), it is vital that the injury
risk function be viable for the entire range of vehi-
cles and impacts for which countermeasures are
sought.
BMW stated that it is very difficult to find a
physical relationship of the TTI with the injury
mechanism. That commenter stated that momen-
tary high accelerations of the ribs can lead to frac-
tures, yet transfer little energy to the thoracic ver-
tebrae. According to BMW, since the TTI is the
average of the maximums of rib and spine accelera-
tions at different moments in time, the ribs can be
broken, while the TTI still remains within the limit
specified in the rule because the value for spine
acceleration is low.
Mercedes-Benz stated that the theory of the TTI is
based on the assumption that the injury mechanism
of the thorax and lower ribcage protected abdominal
organs (liver, spleen, kidney) is equally determined
by the behavior of the thoracic skeleton. That com-
menter stated that this theory is not confirmed by
injuries from side-impact collisions or by the results
of FAT tests. Mercedes stated that anatomically
logical separation of thorax and abdomen is valid for
injury protection and must be reached through ap-
propriate separate protection criteria.
Peugeot commented that it is difficult to conceive
how adding the peak rib acceleration as measured
very early in the impact phase to the peak acceler-
ation of the spine as measured in the late stages of
the impact can be related to the mechanism of rib
and organ injury. Peugeot also argued that although
advocates of TTI may consider it to be a good
predictor of thoracic injury because a quasi-
statistical correlation was found between the TTI
values calculated from cadaver tests and the result-
ing thoracic injury levels, regression analysis pro-
duces substantially different relationships for each
test condition, suggesting that the TTI is test-
condition-dependent. That commenter also argued
that accident analysis does not support the TTI.
According to Peugeot, the TTI mistakenly presup-
poses a strong relationship between abdominal and
thoracic injuries. Peugeot stated that such a link
exists, but only for 17 percent of cases.
NHTSA acknowledges that the TTI represents an
empirical formulation as opposed to an injury crite-
rion primarily derived from biomechanical theory.
The agency believes that use of an empirical formu-
lation in this instance is acceptable and appropriate
for a number of reasons.
The TTI formula was derived from a data base of
84 tests performed on human cadavers in over 20
different test conditions (including speed conditions
and impact environments). These tests included pen-
dulum tests, rigid and padded wall sled tests, and
full scale vehicle tests ranging in speed from 10 to 40
mph. Padded wall conditions included a variety of
materials of various thicknesses. The cadavers
ranged in age from 17 years old to 84 years old.
NHTSA believes that the test conditions underlying
the TTI span and encompass the spectrum of anti-
cipated impact conditions in the full-scale side im-
pact crash test procedure proposed by NHTSA, which
itself is representative of real world crashes.
The agency notes that, while the general relation-
ship between TTI and the probability of different
AIS level injuries can be seen when all of the cadaver
tests are used, the final TTI formulation was derived
using the 36 tests in which the cadaver was struck
on the left and where both rib accelerations were
available. For a more complete discussion of the data
underlying TTI, see the Society of Automotive En-
gineers paper cited above, "Side Impact— The Biofi-
delity of NHTSA's Proposed ATD and Efficacy of
TTI." (SAE Paper No. 861877, Oct., 1986).
Given the data base underlying TTI, the agency is
confident that the relationship between TTI(d) and
injury risk is valid for the entire range of vehicles
and impacts for which countermeasures must be
designed in order to meet the dynamic side impact
test requirements. This makes TTI(d) appropriate as
an injury criterion in a side impact crash test, even
though it is based on statistical correlation.
NHTSA notes that the TTI(d) is only valid for
lateral impact conditions, the condition specified in
the side impact test procedure. NHTSA does not
intend that the TTI(d) be used in any test condition
other than lateral impacts.
NHTSA also notes that, in addition to being pre-
dictive of actual injury, the TTI is consistent with
observations pertaining to impacted bodies. For ex-
ample, TTI is consistent with the fact that the
elderly and larger/heavier persons are more prone to
injury for a given level of rib and spine acceleration,
and with the fact that persons are more prone to
injury when exposed to higher accelerations.
Since the TTI is an empirical formulation, the
agency does not agree with the assertion of
Mercedes-Benz that the theory of the TTI is based on
the assumption that the injury mechanism of the
thorax and lower ribcage-protected abdominal or-
gans is equally determined by the behavior of the
thoracic skeleton. With respect to that commenter's
argument that separate protection criteria are
needed for the thorax and the abdomen, NHTSA
notes that the proposed requirements were not in-
tended to address all abdominal injuries. As dis-
cussed below, the agency believes that lateral ab-
dominal compression measurement has not yet been
PART 571; S214-PRE 16
perfected as an injury criterion. However, many
abdominal injviries are addressed by protection of
the hard thorax, and are predicted by TTI(d).
NHTSA disagrees with Peugeot's claim that re-
gression analysis suggests that TTI is test-condition-
dependent. According to Peugeot, such analysis
shows different relationships for each test condition.
That company's analysis consisted of producing sub-
sets of the NHTSA side impact data based on test
conditions (e.g., one subset for padded sled tests,
another for vehicle tests, yet another for pendulum
tests, etc.) and then looking for the relationship
between the reported injury level and the reported
TTI value. NHTSA analyzed the cadaver test data,
which it broke into sub-sets. NHTSA believes that it
used the same data as Peugeot, although Peugeot did
not submit their analysis with their comments.
NHTSA performed regression analysis of the data
for different test conditions. The regression analysis
shows similar trends in the overall correlation of TTI
and injuries for each test condition. The agency,
therefore, does not accept Peugeot's conclusions.
NHTSA also disagrees with Peugeot's arguments
that a standard based on TTI(d) cannot offer abdom-
inal protection. NHTSA notes that the lower rib
accelerometer and the lower spine accelerometer
(used on the dummy to measure TTI(d)) are located
close to where abdominal organs such as the liver,
spleen, and kidneys are found on a human. In
addition, NHTSA has found a relationship between
the probability of AIS injuries and TTI. This is
significant because AIS injuries 4 + and 5 + include
injuries to three abdominal organs (i.e., the liver,
spleen, and kidneys). Further, the agency believes
that company's own data contradict its claims. As-
suming that pelvis protection is offered as well as
thoracic protection, Peugeot's data show that 78
percent of the abdominal injuries were accompanied
by rib fractures (that company did not analyze other
thoracic injuries), pelvis fractures, or fractures to
both pelvis and ribs.
While rib deflection is not directly reflected in the
TTI, the agency notes that the TTI correlates with
the number of rib fractures. As discussed in the
FRIA, NHTSA examined this relationship, using
rigid and padded wall cadaver data, and found a
strong correlation. The agency therefore concludes
that the use of TTI(d) as a performance criterion can
significantly limit and control the number of frac-
tured ribs caused by lateral impacts in vehicle colli-
sions. NHTSA therefore does not share BMW's con-
cern that ribs can be broken while TTI remains
under the required limit because the value for spine
acceleration is low.
A number of commenters argued that the TTI is
fundamentally flawed because it is acceleration-
based. According to GM, the TTI relates poorly to
injury risk because peak accelerations do not relate
well to important mechanisms of human chest and
abdominal injury. That company acknowledged that
acceleration does have some relationship to the overall
severity of a crash, but argued that simply combining
peak accelerations at two skeletal points, at two in-
stants of time, is insufficient to discriminate between
thoracic injuries for a variety of exposures.
Ford asserted that there is "worldwide biomechan-
ical disagreement" with NHTSA concerning TTI,
based on the inability of TTI(d) or any other
acceleration-based injury criterion to represent
quantitatively the likelihood of injury to organs in
the human chest.
MVMA noted that accelerations used to calculate
TTI are measured by accelerometers attached to the
ribs and spine. That commenter stated that since the
human chest is not totally rigid but instead consists
of various flexible components, measuring accelera-
tion of the rigid dummy spine or ribs will not
reliably predict injury to the viscous organs within
the chest. MVMA also stated that if "whole body
loading" does not occur (i.e., if a concentrated load is
applied), acceleration of the spine or ribs may be
small and thus fail to predict injuries which occur
due to chest compression.
Peugeot commented that transversal acceleration
measured at the rib is at best only an indication of
violence but in no case an acceptable indicator of
thoracic lesion. That commenter also stated that
thoracic acceleration alone does not enable one to
account for both deformation of the car side-wall and
deformation of the thorax. Peugeot commented that
the same thoracic acceleration value can be obtained
with a not-very-rigid side-wall and a too-rigid dummy
thorax, or with a too-rigid side wall and a very de-
formed dummy thorax, and therefore predict the same
level of thoracic injury.
The requirements proposed by NHTSA were de-
signed to reduce hard thorax (includes skeleton as
well as organs like the liver, kidney, heart and
spleen) and pelvic injuries associated with accelera-
tions. Acceleration is one of a number of possible
measures of the severity of the injury that occurs to
a person in a crash. NHTSA believes that the critical
question is whether the TTI(d) injury criterion, con-
sisting of acceleration measurements, can discrimi-
nate the risk of hard thorax injury in simulations of
real-world side impact crashes. The agency believes
that available evidence indicates that TTI(d) can do
so. In other words, as TTI(d) is reduced, the risk of
injury is also reduced. A reduction in TTI(d) signifies
that the severity of injury to a person in a crash, as
measured by acceleration, is reduced. Severity of
injury as measured by other means, such as com-
pression, may also be reduced, although it is not
measured as part of TTI(d). As long as the TTI(d)
PART 571; S214-PRE 17
injury criterion can discriminate risk of thoracic
injury, the agency believes that the precise injury
mechanism (acceleration, compression, some combi-
nation of forces, etc.) is not critical.
NHTSA disagrees with MVMA's contention that
accelerometers attached to the ribs and spine cannot
reliably be related to injury to the viscous organs
within the chest. Since accelerometers on the ribs
and spine are located close to the viscous organs
within the chest, they measure parameters that may
cause viscous organ injuries. Countermeasures that
result in reduced accelerations on the ribs and spine
will also generally result in reduced severity of
injury to the nearby viscous organs, reducing the
risk of injury.
With respect to MVMA's argument that TTI(d)
might not discriminate a concentrated load, NHTSA
notes that full body loading is typical of side impact
crashes. Acceleration measurements taken from the
rib and spine indicate the severity of injury involved
in impacts such as those caused by armrests.
NHTSA does not agree with Peugeot's concern
that the same thoracic acceleration value can be
obtained with a not-very-rigid side-wall and a too-
rigid dummy thorax, or with a too-rigid side wall and
a very deformed thorax. By specifying an appropri-
ate test dummy (an issue which is addressed in the
separate notice on SID), and hence establishing the
stiffness of the dummy, the agency can ensure that
the TTI(d) measured in a crash test is comparable to
what would be experienced by persons in real world
crashes. NHTSA notes that Peugeot's comment is
related to the argument raised by a number of
commenters that the SID chest is overly stiff. A full
discussion of that issue is presented in the separate
notice on SID.
Several commenters argued that the TTI may not
suggest appropriate countermeasures since it does
not describe the time when injury to the thorax
occurs. MVMA noted that the peak spine and peak
rib accelerations do not necessarily occur at the
same time. Consequently, according to that com-
menter, TTI(d) does not necessarily represent the
actual risk of injury.
NHTSA notes that, while TTI correlates well with
the occurrence and severity of injuries, this does not
mean that the occurrence of either peak acceleration
response corresponds exactly in time to the occur-
rence of body injury. Parameters measured on the
skeleton, such as acceleration, do not necessarily
give the precise time of peak local stress or strain to
the hard thorax or whatever mechanism causes a
local injury. While the exact time of injury occur-
rence may be desirable from a researcher's perspec-
tive, it is unnecessary for purposes of regulation. In
establishing a performance requirement that meets
the need for safety, NHTSA is concerned whether an
injury criterion predicts the probability of differing
levels of overall thoracic injury that a person would
experience in a real-world crash, and not whether it
can be used to determine the mechanism or exact
timing of such injury.
Several commenters argued that the use of the TTI
could lead to designs which provide little or no safety
benefits. GM cited the results of armrest tests in
support of this argument. SID dummies and anes-
thetized swine were impacted using a six-inch-
diameter pendulum fitted with simulated armrests
of different stiffness. According to GM, the SID/TTI
results indicated that the stiffest armrest posed the
least risk, while the swine/TTI results indicated that
the softest armrest was preferable. That company
stated that autopsies of the swine showed similar
soft tissue liver lacerative injuries for each case,
indicating that all of the armrests posed similar
risks.
NHTSA notes that GM's armrest tests involved
applying a concentrated load to the SID dummies
and swine. However, as indicated above, side impact
crashes typically involve full body loading, and
TTI(d) predicts thoracic injury risk in such impacts.
The agency does not wish to imply that armrest
design is unimportant for side impacts. Accident
data indicate that armrests cause injury to both the
pelvis and the abdomen. While the EuroSID and
BioSID (other side impact dummies being developed
by the European Economic Community and the
Society of Automotive Engineers, respectively) were
designed with abdominal load sensors, the SID
dummy was not. The EuroSID and BioSID dummies
are discussed further in the separate notice covering
SID. NHTSA has conducted experiments with fron-
tal abdominal injury sensors and developed injury
criteria for the Hybrid III dummy and believes that
direct lateral abdominal measurement has not yet
been perfected as a compliance tool. Some armrest
injuries are addressed through the measurements of
TTI(d) with the SID. The TTI(d) criterion is based on
injuries to the hard thorax, which includes some but
not all abdominal organ injuries. Also, the limit on
pelvic acceleration addresses armrest injiu"ies to the
pelvis. Moreover, even though some armrest injuries
are not addressed, armrests are not likely to become
more aggressive as a result of the TTI(d) or pelvic g
requirements. The agency also notes that, as dis-
cussed further below, the fact that the proposed test
procedure does not completely address armrest inju-
ries is a reason to retain the existing armrest re-
quirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protec-
tion in Interior Impact.
BMW stated that since the TTI is comprised of
maximum acceleration values only, it necessarily
reacts very sensitively to damping. That commenter
stated that it is possible that, in some cases, through
PART 571; S214-PRE 18
the use of padding, the TTI value will be reduced
without a corresponding increase in real-world
safety. BMW cited a study showing that with a
damping material which reduced the energy input
by less than nine percent, the injury risk as meas-
ured by TTI was reduced from 83 percent to 20
percent. That commenter expressed doubt that the
actual injury risk for human occupants is reduced to
this extent. Chrysler raised similar concerns.
As indicated above, TTI correlates well with the
occurrence and severity of injuries. NHTSA believes
that the addition of interior padding can often result
in a significant reduction of injury risk. Depending
on TTI(d) level and AIS level of injury, the agency
considers it likely that a small reduction in energy
input may make the difference in whether a person
receives a serious injury or not.
GM and Ford each argued that the use of TTI(d),
coupled with what they consider to be the excessive
stiffness and excessive mass of the SID chest, could
lead to the use of interior padding that is overly stiff
and could actually degrade occupant safety, particu-
larly that of the elderly. Honda stated that since the
bone condition factor Gaone flexibility) is not taken
into consideration for TTI, the severity of injury in
the real world may possibly be increased by counter-
measures aimed at decreasing TTI.
NHTSA disagrees that the use of TTI(d) and the
SID would lead to the use of interior padding that is
so stiff that it would increase injuries to the elderly
or any other group of persons. Any padding that is
added to a car to reduce TTI(d) would be less stiff
than the interior car door and make a contribution
to improving occupant safety for persons of all ages.
As indicated above, for persons of any particular age,
TTI(d) correlates well with the occurrence and sever-
ity of injuries. Ford appears to be concerned that
very stiff padding might be necessary to meet the
proposed requirements, whereas softer padding
might provide even greater benefits to the elderly.
NHTSA notes that one potential answer for this
concern is for the manufacturers to utilize a combi-
nation of structure and padding to meet the test
requirements.
NHTSA notes that, as part of research comparing
SID with two side impact dummies still in the
research stage, EuroSID and BioSID, the agency
recently conducted a series of tests to examine the
effect of padding stiffness upon the injury hazard
measurements of these dummies when subjected to a
given test condition. Each of these dummies was
exposed to a series of 20 mph lateral impacts into a
rigid wall which was padded with three inch thick
foam padding of varying stiffnesses. The padding
stiffness varied from very soft to nearly as stiff as the
rigid wall. Using TTI(d), all three dummies indi-
cated that the very soft and very stiff padding are
the most hazardous in impact situations. There was
very little difference between the three dummies in
the choice of an optimal padding. The optimal pad-
ding stiffness determined by the three dummies
ranged approximately from 15 to 25 pounds per
square inch, measured at 35 percent compression.
For BioSID, a slightly stiffer padding was selected
for V*C than for TTI(d). (V*C is a compression-based
injury criterion advocated by GM and other com-
menters as an alternative to TTI(d) where V is
velocity of chest compression and C is lateral chest
displacement.) While, as discussed below, the data
supporting V*C are limited, NHTSA observes that
to the extent that it is a valid injury criterion, these
BioSID results contradict the argument that use of
TTI(d) would cause manufacturers to select overly
stiff padding. A further response to this issue, par-
ticularly with respect to concerns about effects relat-
ing to the stiffness and mass of the SID chest, is
provided in the separate notice on SID.
Nissan expressed concern that, in tests it con-
ducted using SID dummies, the correlation trend for
door padding material hardness and TTI(d) was
different from the correlation trend for V*C and
chest compression. That company stated that the
padding hardness required to minimize TTI(d) val-
ues on the one hand, and to minimize V*C and rib
deflection values on the other, did not match. Nissan
stated that it thinks padding is effective for mini-
mizing dummy readings in side impacts, but that
the appropriate padding hardness has not yet been
identified.
NHTSA notes that SID was not designed to mea-
sure V*C or rib deflection. In order for a test dummy
to produce human-like readings of V*C or rib deflec-
tion, the dummy must have biofidelity for chest
compression. However, SID was not designed to have
biofidelity for chest compression. It was designed for
biofidelity in measuring TTI(d), which the agency
found to be a measure strongly related to thoracic
injury. Therefore, the agency believes that SID can-
not be validly used to develop a correlation trend for
V*C or rib deflection.
Nissan also stated that it had compared the TTI to
driver fatality rates in side impacts using 1986
FARS data and did not find a close correlation. Ford
commented that while NHTSA had tested produc-
tion cars with its proposed test procedure, it had not
shown that the test results are correlated with
human injuries in traffic accidents in those same
cars.
NHTSA notes that it tried to correlate the TTI(d)
from 12 models it tested with fatality and injury
rates in side impacts, and found a poor correlation.
However, NHTSA does not believe that this calls into
question the reliability of TTI(d). Staged testing
often does not correlate well with real world crashes.
PART 571; S214-PRE 19
With a limited number of models to compare, the
number of cases found are small and of differing
speeds and circumstances. The chances of finding a
reliable correlation are thus very small.
The agency has, however, compared accident data
for 2-door and 4-door cars, which have different
average TTI(d) levels, to determine whether the
differences are reflected in the accident data. As
discussed in section IIIC of the FRIA, the average
driver TTI(d) measurements in a 2-door car are
about 14 percent higher than in a 4-door car, while
the rear passenger readings are about 14 percent
lower. The results of the 2-door/4-door accident data
comparisons are directionally consistent with what
would be expected from 2-door/4-door TTI(d) compar-
isons, and relatively close to TTI(d) differences found
in matched pair 2-door/4-door side impact testing.
After adjusting for age, 2-door cars have higher
injury rates in the front seat and lower injury rates
in the rear seat than 4-door cars. In this respect, test
results are representative of real world accident
data.
Ford stated that it urged in 1980 (in a comment on
a side impact ANPRM) that NHTSA conduct acci-
dent reconstruction-restaging studies to relate field
injuries to dummy responses in simulated accidents.
That company recommended at the same time that
NHTSA should conduct full vehicle dynamic side
impact tests with cadavers on board the target
vehicle instead of dummies. Ford noted that the
cadaver results could then be compared to accelera-
tions previously measured on the SID to confirm
dummy-cadaver injury relationships under actual
compliance conditions. Ford stated that it still be-
lieves NHTSA should perform such studies and tests
before issuing a final side impact rule.
While NHTSA does not disagree that the testing
suggested by Ford would be relevant, there are limits
to how much testing can be conducted to support a
particular rulemaking. It would be difficult and
expensive to conduct additional full scale vehicle
tests with cadavers on board. NHTSA notes that the
FAT tests, discussed above, did involve testing actual
car bodies with cadavers. NHTSA believes that the
results of those tests, along with other tests, make
additional cadaver testing unnecessary. The agency
notes that regardless of how many tests and studies
it conducts, it would always be possible to do more.
NHTSA believes that the tests and studies it has
conducted in support of this rulemaking are fully
adequate.
2. Estimated Benefits of the TTI(d) Performance
Criterion
NHTSA explained in the NPRM that, as part of its
side impact protection research program, it had
conducted 20 crash tests of 12 production passenger
cars using the proposed test conditions and SID. To
evaluate the effects of meeting a specified thorax
performance criterion, the agency analyzed the prob-
ability of thoracic injury for each of the cars in the 20
tests, using the TTI and other factors, and compared
this to the level of injury that would occur for each of
the alternative values of the proposed TTI(d) thorax
criterion. The estimated benefits for the different
levels of the proposed TTI(d) thoracic injury criterion
were calculated, based on the assumption that the
production vehicles tested by NHTSA were represen-
tative of the total fleet of new cars. That is, all cases
exceeding a particular chosen maximum TTI(d) were
reduced to the specified level, while all vehicles
having lower values retained their original values.
Injury distributions were then recalculated using
the altered TTI(d) values.
Subsequent to issuance of the NPRM, the agency
conducted eight additional production vehicle tests,
using eight different models. One model was also
tested by Transport Canada. In addition, the agency
received, as part of comments, test data on 25
additional models from four different motor vehicle
manufacturers. NHTSA notes that the data from the
manufacturers were submitted under claims of
confidentiality.
In estimating benefits, NHTSA's FRIA uses only
data from those more recently designed models
(model year 1984 and later). These data include 23
models, 10 2-door models and 13 4-door models. The
FRIA assumes, among other things, that the 23
models are representative of the current fleet of
vehicles on the road and of the fleet of vehicles that
will be produced in the near future. Results, which
take into account the increased safety belt usage
seen in recent years and expected for the future, are
shown in Tkble 1. As with any requirements for new
vehicles, the benefits accrue over the 10-15 year life
of the model year fleets affected. For additional
explanation of the data underlying Table 1, see
Chapter IV of the FRIA.
The methodology used in the FRIA for estimating
benefits is essentially the same as that utilized in
the PRIA, with some minor adjustments. The esti-
mated benefits are somewhat lower because they
rely on new data from more recently designed mod-
els. These data indicate that the average TTI(d) of
vehicles in the new car fleet is lower than previous
data supporting the calculations in the PRIA sug-
gested. NHTSA believes that the new data reflect
the improvements by a number of manufacturers to
the side impact protection of their vehicles over the
past several years, while this rulemaking has been
progressing.
3. Alternative Thoracic Injury Criteria
General Motors has developed what is known as
the viscous injury criterion (V*C) for use in analyz-
ing soft tissue injuries in frontal impacts. This
PART 571; S214-PRE 20
TABLE 1
THORAX BENEFITS FOR DIFFERENT
MAXIMUM LEVELS OF TTI(d)
PERFORMANCE IN THE BASELINE FLEET
TWO-DOORS
FOUR-DOORS
TOTAL FLEET |
TTI(d)
AIS 3-5
FATALS
AIS 3-5
FATALS
AIS 3-5
FATALS
80
1,922
504
681
218
2,603
722
85
1,714
450
399
117
2,113
567
90
1,450
381
178
49
1,628
430
95
1,130
290
63
22
1,193
312
100
765
203
0
0
765
203
105
422
123
0
0
422
123
110
100
37
0
0
100
37
115
43
20
0
0
43
20
injxory criterion is based on the product of the instan-
taneous thorax compression (C) and the rate of thorax
compression (V) that occurs during the impact.
In the NPRM, the agency stated that while it
believed that the work GM has done with the V*C
shows that such an approach may be promising,
there were insufficient data to support adopting V*C
as a criterion for assessing vehicle safety in side
impacts. The agency also stated that there were no
dummies designed with biofidelity for measurement
of lateral V*C. NHTSA noted that, in contrast to the
V*C criterion, the agency has a substantial amount
of cadaver impact tests that indicate that TTI(d) is a
reliable predictor for thoracic injuries, as well as a
fully developed and validated test dummy.
Many commenters argued that a compression-
based injury criterion, such as V*C or rib deflection,
would be superior to TTI(d) or other acceleration-
based injury criteria. GM noted that acceleration
has long been used as a criterion of some merit
because it provides some indication of the forces
which are imposed on the body. According to that
company, however, more recent studies have shown
that thoracic compression is an essential discrimina-
tor of injury potential, particularly as regards the
soft organs of the chest. GM stated that, in general,
the more the chest is compressed, the greater the
potential for injury, particularly at low rates of
compression.
Since the NPRM was published, GM has contin-
ued its work with respect to V*C, including the
development of a new dummy, called BioSID, de-
signed to measure chest compression and derive
V*C. Also, GM conducted a series of 14 cadaver
tests, the results of which, according to that com-
pany, indicate that V*C relates closely to the injury
patterns observed with the cadavers.
Ford commented that it and others believe that
injury criteria based on the compression of the chrst
diiring a crash impact have a greater potential to
predict the likelihood of chest injury in a side impact
crash than does TTI(d). According to that com-
menter, the ability of compression-based injury cri-
teria to predict injury has been well substantiated by
experiments with human cadavers and live animals,
and is supported by biomechanical theory. Ford
stated that it believes that some combination of
chest compression and velocity of chest compression
will likely emerge as the most suitable criterion.
That company argued that NHTSA should not prom-
ulgate a final rule until an injury criterion and test
device based on chest compression is developed and
evaluated.
After considering the comments, NHTSA is not
persuaded that V*C or a similar approach should be
used in this rulemaking. As discussed above, the
agency believes that TTI(d) is a reliable predictor for
thoracic injury and the agency has a fully developed
and validated dummy for measuring the TTI(d). The
data supporting V*C are much more limited than
those supporting TTI(d). Also, while GM has made
considerable progress with BioSID, SID has been the
subject of an NPRM and seen much wider use.
NHTSA does not believe that V*C is necessarily any
better an injury predictor than TTI(d) and notes that
further work in validating V*C would significantly
delay the rulemaking. Since TTI(d) and SID are
ready now, and a final rule specifying TTI(d) can
result in significant safety benefits, the agency be-
lieves it is appropriate now to go to a final rule using
TTI(d). If V*C or another injury criterion should
later be shown to offer additional benefits, and to be
measurable by appropriate test dummies, the agency
can then consider specifying such a criterion in
addition to, or in place of, TTI(d) at that time.
B. Pelvis
As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA has done
research to develop criteria to limit pelvic injury in
side impacts. The research, which has been pub-
PART 571; S214-PRE 21
lished in a paper, "Synthesis of Pelvic Fracture
Criteria for Lateral Impact Loading," presented at
the Tfenth International Ttechnical Conference on
Experimental Safety Vehicles, reviewed data from
the above-mentioned 84 cadaver impact tests which
measured the acceleration of the pelvis. As a result
of that review, the agency developed estimates of the
probability of pelvic fracture for different accelera-
tion levels measured in the pelvis of the cadavers.
NHTSA is concerned that certain vehicle design
modifications could reduce thoracic response in side
impact crashes by shifting the load path into the
pelvis. A pelvic injury criterion was proposed to pre-
vent the concomitant worsening of pelvic protection.
The NPRM explained that, in order to evaluate
the effects of requiring cars to meet various maxi-
mum pelvis acceleration levels, the agency esti-
mated the probability of pelvic injury for each of the
12 production passenger cars that were crash tested
in the agency's research programs. The agency then
calculated the expected benefits derived from having
vehicles comply with various limits on pelvic accel-
eration levels.
NHTSA's FRIA uses the same approach for calcu-
lating benefits for the pelvis. However, the FRIA
uses the above-referenced data from the 23 more
recently designed vehicle models. Results, which
take into account the increased safety belt usage
seen in recent years and expected for the future, are
shown in Tkble 2.
Tkble 2.— Estimated Pelvic Fracture
Injury Reduction
Alternative levels of peak pelvic
G's
Nonfatal
fractures
130
774
150
316
170
40
190
0
C. Prohibiting Door Openings
The potential benefits of requiring the doors to
remain closed during a side impact consist of reduc-
ing the number of persons who are ejected from a car
through a door and strike an object outside the car.
NHTSA stated in the NPRM that its review of the
results of the 12 vehicle crash tests showed that a
door on four of the vehicles opened during the crash.
The agency then estimated the number of ejections
that occur in side impacts and evaluated the poten-
tial effectiveness of keeping the door closed in reduc-
ing occupant deaths and injuries. NHTSA tested
eight additional models after issuing the NPRM.
None of the additional vehicles had a door open
during the crash test.
The FRIA estimates that the requirement prohib-
iting door openings will eliminate 14 fatalities
and 13 serious-to-critical injuries each year. These
estimates take into account the increased safety belt
usage seen in recent years and expected for the
future. The estimated benefits are lower than esti-
mated in the PRIA, based upon the use of data from
additional crash tests. In addition, as discussed
below, the agency decided not to include near-side
ejections in its benefits analysis.
NHTSA anticipates that the improvements that
might be made to keep doors from opening during
the side impact test would also be of benefit in
frontal, rear, or rollover crashes, but these potential
benefits are not included in the FRIA's estimates.
Ford requested clarification of some of the pro-
posed requirements prohibiting door opening. The
proposed language for section S5.3.2.2 (S4.3.2.2 in
the NPRM) stated that neither the latch nor the
hinge systems of the door shall separate. Ford stated
that the meaning of the word "separate" is unclear.
That commenter asked what parts are not to sepa-
rate from one another. NHTSA notes that the mean-
ing of the word "separate" is disengagement or
release from attachment and/or connection. This
provision requires that the latch must not separate
from the striker, and the hinge components must not
separate from each other or from their attachment to
the vehicle. NHTSA has modified the wording of this
provision to make this clear.
The proposed language for section S5.3.2.3
(S4.3.2.3 in the NPRM) stated that neither the latch
nor the hinge systems of the door shall pull out of the
anchorage. Ford stated that the meaning of "the
anchorage" is unclear That company stated that
inasmuch as at least two components are mentioned,
i.e., the latch and the hinge systems, it is not clear to
which component "the anchorage" pertains. NHTSA
has modified the wording of this provision to state
that neither the latch nor the hinge systems of the
door shall pull out of their anchorages. The agency
notes that the word "anchorage" refers to the provi-
sion for transferring latch and/or hinge loads to the
vehicle structure. The term "anchorage" includes,
but is not necessarily limited to, the attachment
hardware used to attach these components to the
vehicle structure.
D. Comments on Benefits Analysis
NHTSA received numerous comments arguing
that the benefits estimated by the agency were
overstated. The more significant comments are dis-
cussed below, with the exception of concerns about
the SID, the TTI versus risk of injury curve, and the
MDB. While those concerns are relevant to benefits,
they are addressed elsewhere in this preamble or in
the separate notices addressing the SID and the
MDB. A more complete discussion of comments
PART 571; S214-PRE 22
concerning benefits is provided in Appendix IV-A of
the FRIA.
Many commenters argued that the agency in-
cluded inappropriate crashes or injuries in its bene-
fits analysis. CCMC argued that although the
NPRM was supposed to address car-to-car impacts,
the injury data base used by the agency included all
types of obstacles with which a car would collide.
That commenter stated that the analysis should
have excluded truck-to-car, or car-to-pole/tree acci-
dents which generally produce severe-to-fatal head
injuries. GM also argued that the agency should not
include benefits for single vehicle impacts, since this
is not the focus of the rulemaking.
NHTSA included in its benefits analysis only
those cases in which the most serious injury oc-
cvu-red in the chest, abdomen, or pelvis. Head inju-
ries were not included. The agency does not believe
that there is any reason to limit the benefits to
car-to-car impacts. The addition of padding or struc-
tiu-e should be of benefit to occupants no matter
what type of vehicle or fixed object is impacted.
NHTSA notes that it has conducted one set of pole
tests that indicated similar benefits from counter-
measiu-es as in the barrier tests.
CCMC expressed concern, with respect to direct
impact to the pelvis, that all near-side occupants are
considered without taking into account the pattern
and risk of injury or whether the occupant is directly
hit or not by the striking car. NHTSA does not
believe there is any need to limit the benefits to
those cases where the occupant compartment is
struck or to exclude those cases where intrusion
injured the occupant. The agency believes that the
countermeasures, especially padding, will be just as
effective even if the rear side of the car is struck,
although these impacts rarely involve the more
serious injuries. In terms of intrusion, no benefits
are assumed above 35 mph delta V, which eliminates
some of the more serious intrusion cases. (The term
delta V refers to the change in velocity experienced
during an impact. The delta V experienced by the
target car during the proposed full scale dynamic
side impact crash test ranges from about 12.5 mph
for a large car to 17 mph for a small car.) The new
requirements will limit injury, but not necessarily
intrusion, in a fairly severe impact. CCMC sug-
gested a cutoff at a closing speed of 18 mph. The
agency believes that 18 mph is too low of a cutoff.
NHTSA has performed tests demonstrating the ef-
fectiveness of structure and padding countermeas-
ures as high as 21.2 mph delta V.
Ford stated that the agency should not have in-
cluded rollover and ejection crashes in the analysis
of thorax/pelvic injury benefits. That commenter
stated that NASS data indicate that 20 percent of
car occupants with moderate or worse injury in side
impacts were ejected from the car, and that an
additional seven percent of these occupants were
involved in a rollover but not ejected. Ford argued
that these 27 percent should not have been included
in the agency's benefits analysis.
NHTSA's benefits analysis examines the most
severe injury to the occupant by injury source and
includes only those chest, abdominal, upper arm and
shoulder injxiries that resulted from contact with the
interior door or door hardware/armrest. All occu-
pants that suffered their most severe injury outside
of the car are excluded from the benefits analysis
because the countermeasures that will be imple-
mented in response to this rule will only benefit
occupants who remain in the struck car. Occupants
who were involved in a rollover but not ejected are
included if they had injuries to the chest, abdomen,
upper arm or shoulder that resulted from contact
with the interior door or door hardware/armrest. Tb
the extent that padding is the countermeasvire uti-
lized, NHTSA believes that these occupants would
benefit from the padding. While it is not as clear
whether such occupants would get the same level of
benefits from structural changes, this group of occu-
pants is a very small part of the target population.
Ford also argued that near-side ejections should
not be included in the analysis of door retention
benefits. That company stated that the proposed
dynamic side impact test confirms door retention on
the far side only, since the near side door is pinned in
by the barrier and cannot open. The agency's origi-
nal analysis, however, considered benefits for all
door ejections. After considering Ford's comment,
NHTSA decided to take a conservative position on
this issue and exclude the near side ejections from
its benefits calculations for reducing side door open-
ings. Since the side impact test procedure does not
represent an oblique collision, where the corner of a
striking vehicle could impact one edge of the door,
causing the other end to open, manufacturers will
not be required to design for such a collision. That
change is reflected in the FRIA's benefits estimates
cited above. However, although the near side door is
trapped shut in the test, the agency believes that a
small amount of benefits due to reduced ejections are
likely to result from the upgrading of hinges and
latches, in near side crashes where the occupant's
door is not trapped shut.
NHTSA also received a number of comments crit-
icizing its benefits analysis for reasons other than
the merits of including particular types of crashes or
injuries. GM argued that NHTSA had incorrectly
assumed a constant countermeasure effectiveness at
all crash severities. That commenter stated that
padding does not have the same effectiveness at all
speeds. According to GM, padding that is designed
for a range of impacts will be less effective at speeds
PART 571; S214-PRE 23
below the range because all of its energy abso/ption
potential will not be used. At higher speeds it will be
less effective because the padding can "bottom-out"
before the impact is complete. GM also argued that
the severity of the proposed crash test is too severe to
address the greatest number of injury exposures.
According to that company, the proposed crash test
discourages countermeasures which could be more
effective at lower impact speeds, where a greater
number of injuries occur.
NHTSA notes that, as discussed in the FRIA,
available data indicate the same countermeasure
effectiveness at delta V's from 13.3 mph to 21.2 mph.
Most injuries occur below 21 mph delta V. The
agency assumed no effectiveness above 35 mph delta
V. While effectiveness may vary somewhat for differ-
ent speeds, the agency does not have any data to
make specific adjustments. Thus, NHTSA implicitly
assumes that the differences in effectiveness, some
higher and some lower, would balance out over the
range of injuries. NHTSA did not select a lower
speed because it wants to reduce the incidence of the
most severe injuries and fatalities, rather than
merely reducing the incidence of minor injuries such
as bruised ribs.
GM also argued that because many fatalities
involve very high speed impacts and significant
deformations of side structures, about 70 percent of
the nearside occupant fatalities that result from
chest and abdominal injuries are unpreventable by
practical design changes. NHTSA believes that this
estimate is overly high. In the agency's 1984 analy-
sis of the potential benefits of automatic restraints,
about 40 percent of all fatalities were believed to be
unsurvivable with any restraint system. These un-
survivable cases had either catastrophic intrusion
into the passenger compartment or delta V greater
than 45 mph. While the percentage could be higher
in side impact crashes, the agency does not believe
that it would approach 70 percent. The FRIA, in
Appendix FV-A, evaluates available NASS data as a
test of GM's 70 percent estimate. The agency exam-
ined cases cited by GM and other cases with similar
delta V's and compartment intrusion. In those cases,
NHTSA found that there were more survivors than
fatalities. Thus, NHTSA disagrees with GM's asser-
tion that 70 percent of the cases in this category are
unsurvivable.
GM also cited a hypothetical benefits comparison
in support of its contention that the agency overes-
timated benefits. That company argued that if side
improvements are 20 percent as effective as air bags
are in frontal impacts (assumed to be 30 percent
effective), then only 96 fatal chest and abdominal
injuries in multi-vehicle side impacts could be pre-
vented. NHTSA does not agree with GM's assump-
tion that air bags are only 30 percent effective in
frontal impacts. The agency has previously esti-
mated that air bags are 20 to 40 percent effective
overall. Since overall air bag effectiveness derives
principally from frontal impacts, which represent
about 50 percent of fatalities, NHTSA estimates air
bag effectiveness to be 40 to 80 percent in frontal
impacts. Also, GM did not offer any basis for its
assumption that side improvements will be only 20
percent as effective as air bags. Thus, NHTSA does
not agree with GM's analysis.
CCMC commented that NHTSA's estimation of
benefits does not take into account the age of occu-
pants. However, contrary to that commenter's belief,
occupant age is included in the analysis by including
the probability of occupant thoracic injury by age
and by weighting occupants in side impacts by age.
VI. Test Procedure
A. Speed, Angle and Point of Impact
In developing the NPRM, the agency examined
the data in the National Crash Severity Study
(NCSS) to establish the appropriate impact veloci-
ties and impact point to be used in the Standard No.
214 crash test. By using the NCSS data, NHTSA
determined the median speed of side impact acci-
dents (26 mph striking vehicle/ 13 mph struck vehi-
cle), and the median speed of accidents that caused
serious injuries or death (35 mph/17.5 mph). Based
on its analysis of accident data and its judgment
about the threshold speed of serious injury acci-
dents, NHTSA tentatively decided that the thresh-
old speed of serious injury (30 mph/15 mph) was the
most appropriate test speed.
The agency also reviewed the angle of orientation
between the longitudinal axis of the striking and
struck vehicles and determined that 90 degree im-
pacts were the most frequent. In view of the poten-
tial difficulty of conducting tests in which both the
target and striking vehicles are moving and in
which the first contact must be made at a specified
location on the target vehicle, NHTSA devised a test
in which only the striking "vehicle" is moving.
Using vector analysis, the agency combined the
impact speed and impact angle and determined that
the dynamics and forces of a crash in which a vehicle
traveling at 30 mph perpendicularly striking the
side of a vehicle traveling at 15 mph could be
represented by a test configuration in which:
• the test vehicle is stationary;
• the longitudinal centerline of the moving de-
formable barrier (MDB) is perpendicular to the lon-
gitudinal centerline of the test vehicle;
• the front and rear wheels of the MDB are
"crabbed" at an angle of 27 degrees to the right of its
PART 571; S214-PRE 24
longitudinal centerline in a left side impact an J to
the left of that centerline in a right side impact; and
• the MDB moves at that angle and at a speed of
33.5 mph into the side of the struck vehicle.
NHTSA examined crashes involving serious to
fatal injuries to determine the median value of the
impact points. The impact reference point describes
the relative positions of the striking vehicle and the
struck vehicle at the time of impact. In particular,
the agency defined the impact reference point, for
the purpose of a left side impact, as the position of
the left forward edge (corner) of the striking vehicle
when contact is first made with the left side of the
struck vehicle. This definition is based on crash data
which included documentation of the damage that
occurred to the side of the struck vehicle. A value of
37 inches forward of the center line of the wheelbase
of the struck vehicle was determined. This means
that for a left side impact, the left edge of the
striking vehicle would be 37 inches forward of the
mid-point of the wheelbase of the struck vehicle at
the time of initial contact.
GM argued that the proposed impact speed is too
severe. According to that commenter, designing a
door for a test at 30 mph may provide only limited
improvement at some other speeds, and will provide
diminished protection at the lower speeds at which
most preventable injuries occur. That company ar-
gued that the importance of impact speed is en-
hanced by its findings that older people are overrep-
resented in side impact injury statistics. GM noted
that impact tolerance for older occupants is lower at
all speeds than it is for younger occupants, and
stated that it follows that the use of softer energy
absorption materials should be considered.
NHTSA disagrees with GM's argument that the
proposed test impact speed is too severe. As indi-
cated above, the basis for the proposed test impact
speed is NCSS crash data, and the proposed test
condition represents one of the most predominant
real world crash conditions. The 30/15 mph velocity
combination represents a crash severity associated
with a 15 percent probability of sustaining a serious-
to-fatal thorax injury. Therefore, this test condition
is realistic.
Countermeasures designed for the 30 mphyi5 mph
condition will likely have positive effectiveness over
the range of impact speeds. For example, as noted
above, available data indicate the same countermea-
sure effectiveness at delta V's from 13.3 mph to 21.2
mph. The purpose of proposed side impact require-
ments is to prevent serious injuries and fatalities,
rather than to address minor injuries. If the agency
selected too low a test speed, the countermeasures
used by manufacturers might not be effective at the
higher speeds where more serious injuries are likely.
For example, if very soft padding were selected, the
padding would likely "bottom out" in a moderate
impact and provide little protection.
NHTSA also does not agree that the proposed test
speed would lead to countermeasures that are inap-
propriate for older occupants. As discussed above,
any padding that is added to a car to reduce TTI(d)
would clearly be less stiff than the interior of the car
door and make a contribution to improving occupant
safety for persons of all ages.
Numerous commenters objected to the crabbed
wheel test condition, arguing that a perpendicular
MDB impact would be less complex and introduce
less test variability. Commenters also indicated that
a perpendicular impact would promote harmoniza-
tion, since Europe and Japan are investigating that
test condition.
GM stated that, based upon MVMA crash tests,
the crabbed configuration does not affect dummy
responses significantly. That company expressed
concern that when the MDB strikes the test vehicle,
it slides some distance along its side before appre-
ciable deformation occurs. GM argued that in the
interest of eliminating what it considered a needless
artifact which compromised objectivity, a perpendic-
ular impact collision simulation should be used.
Ford argued that the dynamic effects influencing
the kinematics of the struck car resulting from the
crabbed motion of the barrier happen only after the
dummy's maximum accelerations have been re-
corded and have no effect on chest or pelvic acceler-
ation or on chest compression. That commenter
stated that uncrabbed perpendicular impact at 30
mph by the barrier would produce essentially the
same results without the complication of accurately
driving the barrier in crabbed motion. Ford also
argued that eliminating the crabbed motion of the
barrier would reduce test-to-test variability and pro-
mote international harmonization of side impact
regulations, as well as simplify mathematical mod-
eling of the crash test during vehicle design and
development.
As indicated above, in typical real-world side im-
pacts, both vehicles are moving. In order to make the
proposed crash test as representative as possible, the
agency wanted to simulate that condition. Recogniz-
ing the difficulties associated with having more than
one vehicle moving in a crash test, the agency
proposed a test that would represent that condition
without requiring movement of both vehicles. Given
that the test car remains stationary, the crabbed
wheel test condition is more representative of real-
world side impacts than a perpendicular test. In
particular, the crabbed configuration produces lon-
gitudinal loading on the struck vehicle, as would
happen if both vehicles were moving. Therefore,
PART 571; S214-PRE 25
NHTSA does not believe that this proposed test
condition should be changed, absent strong rr^asons.
An additional reason to maintain the crabbed
wheel condition is that it facilitates testing side
impact protection for both the front and rear seating
positions in a single test. If the MDB were used in a
perpendicular mode, a smaller area of the target car
would be struck, and separate tests might be needed
to assess front and rear performance.
NHTSA is not persuaded from the comments that
the crabbed wheel test is difficult to run or intro-
duces significant variability. The procedural steps
for running a crabbed wheel test or non-crabbed
wheel test are essentially the same, and NHTSA and
a number of manufacturers have successfully con-
ducted crabbed wheel tests. Indeed, NHTSA is aware
of over 100 side impact tests conducted around the
world. The agency has little data to compare the
variability of crabbed versus non-crabbed test condi-
tions. However, the agency is satisfied with repeat-
ability of the crabbed test condition. NHTSA notes
that in May 1990, Ford provided data from a recently
completed side impact crash test program conducted
to evaluate variability in test results. The study
consisted of crashing six similar Ford Taurus vehi-
cles using the proposed dynamic test procedure,
including crabbed wheels. The data show that the
crabbed test procedure is very repeatable.
Ford stated that many test facilities, including its
own, cannot pull a crabbed cart through its center of
gravity during guided travel. That company stated
that this creates a greater tendency for a crabbed
cart to deviate from its assigned path during the
coast phase, increasing impact point variability.
However, NHTSA has not experienced this problem
at any of its contractor facilities.
Some commenters suggested that NHTSA specify
a different impact point, the R-point (projection of
the dummy's H-point), which is used in the Euro-
pean test procedure. GM stated that the impact
point proposed by NHTSA is one of many which
could be selected that are similarly credible, and
suggested that specification of the R-point would
promote international harmonization. EEVC stated
that the R-point was selected for the European test
procedure based on an accident survey conducted in
France. That commenter believed that the R-point
would be the most effective in the United States as
well.
NHTSA compared center line of the barrier and
the proposed impact point in its procedure to the
European R-point. The agency found that the Euro-
pean R-point was generally behind the center line of
the barrier and the proposed impact point. Thus, if
NHTSA were to specify the R-point as the impact
point, with the crabbed procedure, the barrier would
not engage the A-pillars of some vehicles and would
not cause a full impact loading of the dummy.
The agency believes that its proposed impact point
is well-justified. For a further discussion of the basis
for the proposed point, see Chapter III, section A. 8 of
the FRIA. NHTSA agrees with GM that the proposed
impact point is one of several which could have been
selected. The agency does not believe that selecting
the R-point would have any impact on international
harmonization, given other more significant differ-
ences between the new Standard No. 214 test proce-
dure and the European procedure. For example,
harmonizing on the precise impact point would not
provide any meaningful benefits when very different
moving barriers are specified. In addition, different
impact points may affect test results. Therefore, one
reason not to change the impact point is that such a
change could reduce the value of the many side
impact tests which have been conducted to date, for
compliance and other purposes. Since NHTSA does
not see any reason to specify the R-point, it is not
making that change.
NHTSA has decided to make one minor change to
the proposed impact point. Since the impact point is
based on the center line of the wheel base of the
struck car, NHTSA is concerned that the impact
point for cars with very long wheel bases might be
too far toward the rear of the car. This could result in
the front dummy/door impact occurring after the
barrier has slid past the dummy, with the dummy
not experiencing the full impact. The largest car
NHTSA has tested in its side impact test program
had a wheel base of 114 inches. For that vehicle, the
impact point was 20 inches behind the front axle.
For cars with wheelbases greater than 114 inches,
the agency has decided to specify that the leading
edge of the MDB make initial contact 20 inches
behind the front axle. This will ensure that the
impact point is not too far back, relative to the front
seat.
Ford and BMW provided very different comments
concerning impact point tolerance. Ford argued that
impact point tolerance is very important since the
test results are significantly affected by whether the
MDB contacts or misses the A-pillar. That com-
menter stated that while the NPRM did not specify
an impact point tolerance, other agency documents
specify + 3 inches. Ford argued that this should be
reduced to ± 1 inch. According to that company, a
+ 3 inch tolerance is believed to contribute to what it
considers to be an unacceptable level of rear seat
dummy response variability. Ford argued that a
lower impact point tolerance could reduce test-to-
test variability.
BMW argued for a larger impact point tolerance,
on the order of magnitude of + 5 inches. That com-
menter stated that the MDB, because its wheels are
PART 571; S214-PRE 26
crabbed and it is accelerated on a long path, cannot
realistically be exactly aligned with the impact
point at the moment of impact due to yaw forces
acting on the barrier during its acceleration run.
BMW stated that this is especially true in view of
the fact that the wheels must be individually ad-
justed to achieve a barrier orientation within a
permitted tolerance of +1°, with respect to the 27°
impact angle.
As a general matter, NHTSA agrees with Ford
that tolerances should be as small as possible, in
order to keep variability as low as possible. In
establishing tolerances, however, the agency must
also take into account the fact that too small toler-
ances may have the effect of invalidating test re-
sults, if the actual impact point falls outside the
specified tolerance. NHTSA has reviewed recently-
conducted testing and believes that a tolerance of
+ 2 inches is readily obtainable with current testing
protocol. In response to Ford's comment, the agency
has therefore decided to specify a tolerance of ±2
inches, instead of +3 inches. This tolerance is set
forth in section S6.12. The agency is not adopting a
higher tolerance, as suggested by BMW, because a
higher tolerance would unnecessarily increase test
variability. The agency is not adopting a tolerance as
low as + 1 inch, as suggested by Ford, because such
a low tolerance could be difficult to meet and could
have the effect of invalidating test results.
GM expressed concern that impact point repeat-
ability may be difficult to achieve because MDB
tracking is influenced by tire pressure. According to
that company, the MDB tends to bounce to one side
of the tow system when the tire pressure exceeds 30
psi. GM stated that this could result in the center of
the MDB striking the vehicle at a point more than
foiu- inches away from the intended impact point.
That company did not provide any data in support of
its concern about this issue.
NHTSA notes that one of the MDB assembly
drawings specifies that tire pressure is to be main-
tained at 32 psi. Except for the last few feet, the
MDB's position relative to the struck vehicle is
controlled by a rail. As discussed in the FRIA, the
agency has conducted 28 full scale production vehi-
cle tests, in addition to many research tests, with
tires at 32 psi. The agency has not had difficulty
achieving repeatability of the impact point. In addi-
tion, MVMA conducted 16 Ford LTD tests and Trans-
port Canada conducted four tests using the agency's
test procedure with tires at 32 psi without impact
point variability problems. Given the agency's expe-
rience and that of MVMA and Transport Canada,
and the lack of data in support of GM's position,
NHTSA is not persuaded that there is a problem
with respect to impact point variability.
B. Alternative Composite Test Procedure
In the NPRM, the agency noted that component
test procedures may eventually be possible alterna-
tives to full scale crash tests. The agency reviewed
some of the work that has been conducted in this
area and indicated that, while it believed the concept
needs additional research, it encouraged the further
development of this approach. NHTSA specifically
solicited comments on this subject.
Numerous commenters, including U.S., European
and Japanese manufactiu^ers, argued that the
agency should not adopt a full scale crash test but
instead pursue a laboratory compliance procedure
such as the European Composite Test Procedure
(CTP). The CTP was developed by Volkswagen and
proposed by CCMC in Europe. It is based on the
concept of using a mathematical model to predict
human response to vehicle crashes. The CTP utilizes
a three-step quasi-static crush of the inner and outer
side surfaces of a vehicle, combined with a lumped,
two-mass computer model of the occupant to simu-
late the full scale crash and to predict injury risk.
Commenters argued that the CTP offers several
advantages over a full scale crash test. These include
potentially lower costs, the ability to use CTP early
in the design process of a vehicle, and greater
opportunity for harmonization.
After considering the comments, NHTSA believes
that neither the CTP, nor a similar approach is
appropriate for this rulemaking. The CTP is a rela-
tively new test procedvire that is still in its develop-
mental and validation stages. NHTSA believes that
it would take at least several years to complete the
development, validation and evaluation of this ap-
proach. The pursuit of this approach as an alterna-
tive to the full scale crash test proposed by NHTSA
would thus result in at least a several year delay in
improved side impact protection, a consequence that
the agency does not consider acceptable. Moreover,
NHTSA believes that a full scale crash test is the
best means of testing the real world performance of
a vehicle.
C. Dummy Seating Procedure and Use of Safety
Belts
NHTSA proposed detailed procedures for position-
ing the SID in crash tests. Among other things, the
agency proposed that a test dummy be restrained
diu-ing a test only if that dummy is located in a
seating position that is equipped with an automatic
safety belt. This provision was proposed because,
although belt usage is increasing as a result of the
passage of mandatory use laws and a growing aware-
ness of safety on the part of consumers, restraint
usage is unlikely to reach 100 percent. NHTSA
indicated that it desired to assure protection for
unrestrained occupants. The agency noted in the
PART 571; S214-PRE 27
NPRM that recent accident data analyses ind'cate
that belt restraints may be somewhat beneficial in
side impacts.
The agency also noted that the unrestrained
dummy is generally propelled to the far side of the
vehicle in a side impact test, thus creating the
potential of causing the far side door to open. Leav-
ing the dummy unrestrained would thus aid in
evaluating the capability of the far side door to
remain closed during a side impact crash. The
agency specifically sought comments on whether
and why compliance testing should be conducted
with restrained or unrestrained dummies.
Numerous commenters argued that test dummies
should be restrained whenever any type of safety
belt is provided. Some commenters argued that
safety belt use is a more representative test condi-
tion. Volvo argued that tests with belts would better
simulate reality, noting that the PRIA estimated
belt use to range between 40 and 70 percent in 1995.
Honda commented that safety belt use is represen-
tative of recommended use conditions, that both
government and manufacturers are strongly recom-
mending usage of safety belts, and that many states
now enforce mandatory use laws. Ford stated that
testing with all dummies restrained is consistent
with the widespread adoption of mandatory usage
laws and other activities intended to encourage belt
use in the United States. That company expressed
concern that by testing without belts, NHTSA could
send a message to consumers that belt use is unim-
portant. Ford also expressed concern that the pro-
posed test condition encourages installation of auto-
matic belts instead of air bags, since a test dummy
would be restrained only in a seating position for
which there is an automatic belt restraint.
Some commenters argued that leaving a test
dummy unrestrained would, in any event, not have a
significant effect on the injury criteria. Volvo stated
that its testing shows that the belt is loaded late in
the crash event at a time when the injury criteria
maximum has already been reached. Austin Rover
stated that the impact of the dummy on the far side
of the vehicle would not likely cause the door to
open, since the dummy does not strike the door with
sufficient force to open a door which has not un-
latched, and any other unlatching forces or acceler-
ations would have diminished before the dummy had
traveled across the vehicle.
Honda argued that use of the unrestrained
dummy is not a satisfactory way to evaluate opening
of the far side door That company stated that the
unrestrained dummy is not always propelled and
does not always impact the far side door in a side
impact test, and that it is unclear how the dummy
impact affects door opening.
Ford commented that the use of the restraint
system during testing reduces the potential for
dummy damage resulting from adverse dummy ki-
nematics after the dummy/car side interior interac-
tions are completed. IIHS, however, argued that test
dummies should not be restrained even for some
types of automatic belts, since the usage of some
such belts is relatively low.
After considering the comments, NHTSA has de-
cided to specify use of all available belt restraints in
side impact testing. The agency is persuaded that
since the side impact test dummy accelerations used
to calculate the TTI(d) and pelvic injury criteria
occur before the belt system tightens to restrain the
occupant, belt use or non-use does not make a
significant difference with respect to the test crite-
ria. The agency also believes that the use of all
available safety belts is most consistent with its belt
use policy and with state belt use laws. Finally,
given increased belt usage, the agency believes that
use of all available belts is more representative of
the real world.
NHTSA received a number of other comments
concerning the proposed dummy positioning proce-
dure. GM stated that three of the proposed require-
ments cannot be met simultaneously. These include
placing the adjustable seat back in the manufactur-
er's recommended position, keeping the dummy's
head level, and resting the dummy's upper torso
against the seat back. GM stated that, for its tests, it
considered the most important requirement to be
that the head remain level. It stated that to do this,
the upper torso was placed against the seat back,
and the seat back angle was adjusted until the
dummy head was level.
NHTSA agrees that the three conditions cited by
GM cannot be met simultaneously. The agency notes
that keeping the dummy's head level was not in-
cluded in the proposed dummy positioning proce-
dure, as corrected in a Federal Register notice pub-
lished on March 17, 1988 (53 FR 8782). Since the
purpose of the dynamic side impact crash test proce-
dure is to evaluate thoracic and pelvic protection,
NHTSA believes that the pelvic angle is more impor-
tant for assessing thoracic and pelvic protection than
is a head leveling requirement. The agency therefore is
not adopting the head leveling specification.
Ford commented that further clarification is
needed concerning positioning of dummies in the
rear seat. That company noted that, under the
proposal, if possible, the rear dummy's midsagittal
plane (i.e., a vertical plane through the center of the
dummy) was to be the same distance outboard as the
front dummy's midsagittal plane. If this condition
could not be met, however, the rear dummy was to be
positioned so that the outermost skin of its upper
torso just touched the adjoining innermost surface of
PART 571; S214-PRE 28
the vehicle. Ford stated that this alternative would
be impossible to meet in some cases, because the
location of some rear seat armrests preclude position-
ing the dummy's upper torso against the upper
quarter panel siu-face while still positioning the
dummy's midsagittal plane vertically. Ford also
stated that it is not clear whether the term "in-
nermost siu-face" means the broad trim panel sur-
face or a smaller, localized trim feature.
In response to Ford's comment, NHTSA has mod-
ified the rear dummy positioning procedure for situ-
ations where the rear dummy's midsagittal plane
cannot be positioned the same distance outboard as
the front dummy's midsagittal plane. The procedure
now specifies that, in such situations, the test
dummy is positioned so that some portion of the test
dummy just touches, at or above the seat level, the
side surface of the vehicle, such as the upper quarter
panel, an armrest, or any interior trim (i.e., either
the broad trim panel surface or a smaller, localized
trim feature).
NHTSA notes that the proposed rear dummy posi-
tioning procedure was developed for bench seats and
is not appropriate for bucket or contoured seats. The
agency has added a procedure for rear bucket and
contoured seats. The procedure is similar to that
proposed for front bucket seats. It specifies that (1)
the upper torso of the test dummy rests against the
seat back, and (2) the midsagittal plane of the test
dummy is vertical and parallel to the vehicle's lon-
gitudinal centerline, and coincides with the longitu-
dinal centerline of the bucket or contoured seat.
Several commenters raised concerns about
whether there is sxifficient room in the rear seats of
some cars to position the SID according to the
proposed requirements. Ford stated, with reference
to specifications for positioning the dummy's torso,
that it believes there may be current or future
vehicles which cannot accommodate the specified
dummy or the SAE-826 H-point device (i.e., the
device that would be used to locate the H-point for
positioning the dummy) in the rear seat. That com-
pany suggested that NHTSA develop an alternative
test procedure or exempt such vehicles from the
requirement for testing with a rear-seated dummy.
Porsche, in objecting to including rear-seat dummies
in the test procedure, commented that there is not
enough room in some cars for the dummies to be
placed or to be positioned correctly. BMW com-
mented that in certain small cars (e.g., 2 -t- 2 coupes),
a 50th percentile SID cannot be accommodated ac-
cording to the proposed requirements, due to inade-
quate space, although a smaller occupant could
utilize such a seating position.
Volkswagen stated that, in some small vehicles, it
may not be possible to position the proposed dummy
in the rear seat in a natural position even though the
rear seats contain "designated seating positions"
capable of accommodating a person at least as large
as a 5th percentile adult female. Volkswagen pro-
vided photographs which it says show that the head
of the SID placed in a current vehicle rear seat
interferes with the roof when positioned according to
the proposed procedure. It provided other photo-
graphs which it says show positions where the roof
does not interfere with the head, but the dummy is
still in an unnatural and unrealistic position and the
H-point is not within the proposed limit.
NHTSA notes that in some vehicles where the roof
has a steep slope, the dummy head may interfere
with the roof. In such instances, the dummy head
can be tilted so as to accommodate the test dummy
without changing the specified orientation of the
thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point.
NHTSA does not believe that tilting the test dum-
my's head would have any impact on the ability of
the dynamic side impact crash test procedure to
evaluate thoracic and pelvic protection.
NHTSA has concluded, however, that there are a
some sport cars with rear seating areas that are so
small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated
according to the specified positioning procedures,
even if the head is adjusted fore-aft. The agency
attempted to position the SID dummy in two cars
identified by manufacturers as having potential
problems in this area: a Volkswagen Corrado and an
Audi Coupe Quattro. While NHTSA did not have
difficulty in positioning the SID dummy in the rear
of the Audi Coupe Quattro, it could not position the
SID dummy in the Volkswagen Corrado according to
the specified procedures.
Since it is necessary that standards be appropriate
for all vehicle types to which they apply, NHTSA has
decided not to apply the rear seat requirements to
vehicles which have rear seating areas that are so
small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated
according to the specified positioning procedures.
Based on review of vehicle sales data, the agency
believes that less than one-half of one percent of
passenger cars cannot accommodate the SID dummy
in the rear seats. These excluded seating areas
account for less than one fatality per year. While a
relatively small safety problem, and while not sub-
ject to the requirements of this rule, the agency,
nevertheless, believes that these seating positions
will have improved levels of crash protection as a
result of its action. Based on analysis of laboratory
crash test data, when a vehicle is designed to provide
side crash protection to the front seat occupant, the
countermeasures also enhance rear seat crash pro-
tection. This occurs because the crash environment
is more severe for the front seat occupant compared
to the rear seat occupant. Thus, countermeasures
to provide protection for the front seat will also
PART 571; S214-PRE 29
enhance rear seat crash protection. Accordingly, the
population of rear seat occupants in excluded vehi-
cles, while small, will also benefit from the improved
side crash protection required by this rule.
Volkswagen also commented that the rear seat
dummy poses additional positioning problems which
are unique to the rear seat. It stated that, in two-
door vehicles, control of the dummy H-point is only
possible on the in-board side. According to that
commenter, the proposed positioning procedure does
not specify from which side to control the H-point (or
whether it should be controlled from both sides,
which would in some cases be impracticable). Volks-
wagen stated that placing the one accessible side
within the proposed H-point tolerance rotates the
dummy and produces a variable and unreproducible
seating position.
NHTSA assumes that the H-point would ordi-
narily be controlled from the outboard side. The
agency has been able to control the H-point within
the specified tolerance from the outboard side in its
tests. However, the agency does not believe there is
any reason that the H-point location cannot also be
controlled from the inboard side, within the specified
tolerance, if the test dummy is positioned correctly.
Since NHTSA and manufacturers other than Volks-
wagen have been able to conduct a number of side
impact tests without difficulties in controlling the
H-point, the agency does not believe that it is a
problem.
D. Variability
NHTSA has evaluated test procedure repeatabil-
ity (same test replicated at the same site) and
reproducibility (same test replicated at different
sites). A certain amount of variability will always
exist when different vehicles of the same make/
model are subjected to a crash test. A portion of the
variability is due to vehicle variability. Some vari-
ability can also result from aspects of the test
procedure, including the dummy, the impact point,
and the MDB honeycomb face. Because of test site
variations (e.g., instrumentation), it is generally
accepted that site-to-site test variability (non-
reproducibility) is usually greater than the same site
test variability (non-repeatability).
In the PRIA, the agency considered repeatability
in terms of coefficients of variation (CV, the standard
deviation divided by the mean) for available test
data. As discussed in the PRIA, one set of tests
relevant to repeatability was sponsored by MVMA.
Sixteen full scale crash tests were conducted using
1985 Ford LTD's and NHTSA's side impact test
procedure. While certain changes were made to the
vehicles, and dummies were only placed in the front
passenger seating position, the tests indicated that
the repeatability of NHTSA's side impact test proce-
dure was fully acceptable.
The PRIA also discussed the results of three
matched sets of test data from NHTSA's full scale
crash test series, two Chevrolet Citations, three
Nissan Sentras and three Honda Civics.
Subsequent to issuance of the NPRM, the agency
obtained additional test data relevant to repeatabil-
ity, most of it from commenters. Some of the test
results submitted by manufacturers are subject to
claims of confidentiality.
Ford commented that, while few of the cars it has
tested have been identical in their front seat config-
urations, it conducted tests of five compact 2-door,
five mid-size 4-door and four mid-size 2-door vehicles
(14 cars total) which had identical rear seat config-
urations and were tested in an identical manner. As
discussed below. Ford cited data for these 14 cars in
arguing that rear seat test dummy TTI(d) is ex-
tremely unpredictable. In light of its concerns about
variability. Ford subsequently crashed six similar
Ford Tkurus vehicles using the proposed test proce-
dure, as a controlled repeatability test program to
estimate front and rear variability, and provided the
results to the agency.
As part of an effort to assess the full scale test
comparability of SID and BioSID, MVMA crashed 12
model year 1990 Pontiac 6000's, alternating the
BioSID and SID in the front and rear seat positions,
as well as in baseline and padded test conditions.
The SID data from these tests are relevant to the
repeatability of the proposed test procedure.
GM and Mercedes-Benz each submitted data for
two vehicles of the same model. The agency also has
data for three other pairs of cars, where one was
tested by NHTSA and the other by the manufacturer.
Ford tested 14 cars, five 2-door compacts, five
4-door mid-size vehicles, and four 2-door mid-size
vehicles. For the three vehicles classes, the CV for
rear seat TTI(d) ranged from 17.0 to 23.1 percent
(and averaged 20.4 percent). The CV for rear seat
pelvic g's ranged from 7.0 to 14.2 percent (and
averaged 11.3 percent). Ford stated that because of
the unpredictability of the rear seat dummy re-
sponses, it has serious concerns about being able to
comply with the proposed requirements. That com-
pany argued that it would have to design its vehicles
to achieve values well below the requirements of the
standard to have reasonable confidence that produc-
tion vehicles would pass compliance tests. Ford
claimed, for example, that if NHTSA establishes an
85 TTI(d) limit. Ford would have to design the rear
seats of their vehicles to achieve a TTI(d) level of
52 to ensure that the vehicle, if tested, would comply
at the 20.4 percent variability that Ford has identi-
fied for the rear seat test dummy response. That
company expressed concern that under these
PART 571; S214-PRE 30
circumstances, it could not meet the proposed re-
quirements with reasonable and practicable design
changes to its product line. Ford also stated that in
focusing on variability at the rear seating position,
it did not mean to imply that it was satisfied that the
test procedure is capable of producing adequately
predictable test result measurements for the front
seat dummy.
NHTSA notes that the Department addressed the
issue of repeatability at length in its rulemaking
adding automatic crash protection requirements for
passenger cars to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection. See 49 FR 28962, 29004-29006 (July 17,
1984). Like the proposed side impact requirements,
the Standard No. 208 requirements involve a full
scale crash test using instrumented test dummies.
The standard requires that the head injury criterion
(HIC), calculated from measurements taken on the
dummy, not exceed 1,000.
Ford's arguments about excessive variability in
the proposed side impact test procedure are similar
to the arguments made by manufacturers in the
Standard No. 208 rulemaking. As discussed in the
July 1984 notice adopting the current version of
Standard No. 208, auto manufacturers argued that
because large test result differences are encountered
in repeated tests of the same car, they cannot be
certain that all their production vehicles would be in
compliance even when their development tests show
passing results. The manufacturers argued that the
test result variances are essentially due to deficien-
cies in the test procedures themselves as well as in
the prescribed test dummy. They also argued that
the only way they could assure compliance is to
"overdesign" their vehicles, which they argued
would result in excessive costs without safety bene-
fit. The manufacturers argued that the standard was
neither "objective" nor "practicable," citing several
court decisions.
The Department concluded that Standard No. 208
was both objective and practicable, noting that man-
ufacturers had not supplied data to support their
claims of excessive test variability, nor demonstrated
that the bulk of any variability is due to the test
procedures and instruments and not due to vehicle-
to-vehicle differences.
In their arguments on Standard No. 208, manu-
facturers cited NHTSA tests of 12 Chevrolet Cita-
tions under the agency's New Car Assessment Pro-
gram (NCAP). The manufacturers focused on the CV
of the driver HIC values— 21 percent— and claimed
that this was too large. They argued that with this
large a CV, they would have to design their vehicles
to achieve a HIC no higher than 560 to assure that
95 percent of their cars, when tested, would have
HIC values below 1000.
The Department concluded that the manufactur-
ers' argument was faulty. The Department noted
that variability by itself is not a crucial factor for a
manufacturer to be concerned about. Rather, it is the
combination of variability and the mean (or average)
value which can be cause for concern. Data showed
that HIC's for both automatic belts and air bags
would be sufficiently low as to make variability a
moot issue for Standard No. 208.
The FRIA reassesses repeatability/reproducibility
using the newly available data, as well as earlier
data, where appropriate. Two data sets available to
the agency were not used in the assessment: (1)
NHTSA's Citation, Sentra, and Civic data and (2)
Ford's data for five compact 2-door, five mid-size
4-door and four mid-size 2-door vehicles with identi-
cal rear seat configurations.
The three NHTSA data sets were not used because
there were changes in the SID and the seating
procedure between vehicle tests. These changes may
have influenced the test results.
The Ford data sets (from the 14 cars) were not used
because there were differences in front doors and
front seats between tests. In order to be a reliable
test of repeatability, the cars and test conditions
must be identical, to the extent possible, for each
test. NHTSA does not consider tests using cars with
different front doors and different front seats to be
valid repeatability tests for rear seat results, even if
rear seat configiirations are the same, since the
differences in the front doors and front seats may
affect the rear seat results. The agency therefore
rejects the 20.4 percent CV figure cited by Ford as an
estimate of rear seat TTI(d) variability.
Ford was aware that the 14 tests that it used to
estimate variability were not identical, because the
cars were different. However, Ford claimed that it
examined the tested vehicles, the high-speed crash
test films and electronically recorded data, for each
of the 14 cars and found no evidence of vehicle
performance differences, such as unusual structural
deformation, that could have affected test-to-test
variability. As indicated above, NHTSA does not
accept the tests in question as valid repeatability
tests, given the differences in the front doors and
front seats. The agency also notes that even without
unusual structural deformations, vehicle-to- vehicle
differences that are not apparent from films can also
cause differences in test results.
1. Front Seat Variability
As discussed in the FRIA, the MVMA data for
model year 1985 Ford LTD's indicate that for front
TTI(d) and front pelvic g's the maximum CV ranged
from 0.6 to 9.4 percent. The MVMA data for three
baseline model year 1990 Pontiac 6000's indicate a
CV of 9.15 percent for front TTI(d) and 8.38 for front
pelvic g's. For three Pontiac 6000's with added
PART 571; S214-PRE 31
padding, the data indicate a CV of 7.78 percent for
front TTI(d) and 5.84 percent for front pelvic g's For
the six Ford Tkuruses tested by Ford, the data
indicate a CV of 4.99 percent for front TTI(d) and
8.34 percent for front pelvic g's. All of the Pontiac
6000 tests were conducted at the same test site. The
agency notes, however, that at least two SID dum-
mies were used for the Pontiac 6000 tests, and at
least four SID dummies made by two different man-
ufacturers were used for the Tkurus tests. Since
different dummies are one of the differences that
may exist between test sites, the use of different
dummies helps demonstrate reproducibility.
The agency also has data for five pairs of other
vehicles. The data were either provided in pairs or as
a single test conducted under identical conditions to
one performed by NHTSA. Two of the pairs involved
tests conducted at the same test site. For two
Mercedes-Benz's, the data indicate a CV of 0.65 per-
cent for front TTI(d) and 6.17 percent for front pelvic
g's. For another pair of vehicles, the CV figures are
0.00 percent and 10.34 percent, respectively.
The other three pairs involved tests at different
test sites and are, therefore, useful for evaluating
reproducibility. The front TTI(d) CV figures for these
pairs are 1.14, 4.33 and 11.23 percent. The pelvic g's
CV figures for these pairs are 5.00, 7.47 and 10.33
percent.
NHTSA believes the available data demonstrate
high repeatability for front TTI(d) and front pelvic
g's. As a general matter, the agency considers CV of
less than 10 percent to demonstrate high repeatabil-
ity. For the vehicle groups where there are more than
two cars, the CV of both front TTI(d) and front pelvic
g's are below 10 percent. For the pairs of vehicles,
which represent more limited data sets, the CV of
front TTI(d) and front pelvic g's is in several cases
well below 10 percent and never significantly ex-
ceeds 10 percent.
2. Rear Seat Variability
As indicated above, the repeatability tests con-
ducted by MVMA using model year 1985 Ford LTD's
did not include any rear seat dummies. The MVMA
data for three baseline model year 1990 Pontiac
6000's indicate CV of 8.19 percent for rear TTI(d)
and 4.55 for rear pelvic g's. For three Pontiac 6000's
with added padding, the data indicate a CV of 7.76
percent for rear TTI(d) and 16.52 percent for rear
pelvic g's. For the six Ford Tkuruses tested by Ford,
the data indicate a CV of 6.32 percent for rear TTI(d)
and 15.51 percent for rear pelvic g's.
The tests of the pair of Mercedes-Benz's did not
include rear seat data. For the other pair of vehicles
where testing was conducted at a single test site, the
CV figures are 0.54 percent for rear TTI(d) and 0.27
percent for rear pelvic g's.
For the three pairs involving tests at different test
sites, the rear TTI(d) CV figures are 0.80 percent,
12.56 percent, and 16.06 percent. The rear pelvic g's
CV figures are 11.75 percent, 12.06 percent, and
13.65 percent.
NHTSA believes that available data indicate ac-
ceptable repeatability for rear TTI(d). For the three
vehicle groups where there are more than two cars,
the CV for rear TTI(d) is well under 10 percent. For
the four pairs of vehicles, the CV for rear TTI(d) is
well under 10 percent in two cases, somewhat above
10 percent in another case, and as high as 16 percent
in the fourth case. In assessing repeatability, the
agency places greater weight on the groups of vehi-
cles with more than two cars (n = 6 for Ford Tkurus
and n = 3 for the two Pontiac 6000 groups), since a
pair of vehicles (n = 2) represents an extremely lim-
ited data set. The agency notes that the 16 percent
CV was measured for a single pair of vehicles and
that there was a much lower CV for all of the other
data sets. Given that the CV for rear TTI(d) is below
10 percent for all three vehicle groups, where there
are more than two cars, and for two of the four pairs
of vehicles, and that CV for the third pair is not very
far above 10 percent, NHTSA considers rear TTI(d)
variability to be very close to that for front TTI(d)
and front pelvic g's.
NHTSA recognizes that repeatability appears to
be somewhat lower for rear pelvic g's, but still
considers it to be acceptable. While the CV was well
below 10 percent for one of the three vehicle groups
involving more than two cars, it was 15.51 percent
and 16.52 percent for the other two vehicle groups.
Also, while the CV was well below 10 percent for two
of the four pairs of vehicles, it was 11.75 and 13.65
for the other two pairs. Based on the limited avail-
able data, it appears that while CV for front TTI(d),
front pelvic g's, and rear TTI{d) are generally below
10 percent, CV for rear pelvic g's may sometimes be
as high as 15 to 16 percent.
NHTSA has never attempted to quantify what
represents acceptable variability versus unaccept-
able variability. In the Standard No. 208 rulemak-
ing, the Department requested comments on what
level of variability was deemed "reasonable," given
that some variability will always exist. Only
Renault provided a quantitative answer, saying that
"the variation coefficient must not exceed a maxi-
mum of 10 percent." Although Renault provided no
justification for its recommendation, the Depart-
ment noted that it was nearly identical to the
variation contributed by the Standard No. 208 test
procedures and dummy, according to Volvo and GM.
NHTSA considers the repeatability for both side
impact injury criteria measurements in both front
PART 571; S214-PRE 32
and rear seating positions to be acceptable. As
discussed above, the agency believes that the avail-
able data indicate acceptable repeatability for front
TTI(d), front pelvic g's, and rear TTI(d), as the
available CV measurements for those three are, for
the most part, below 10 percent. The agency believes
that the available data indicate that the repeatabil-
ity for rear pelvic g's is well within the acceptable
range.
The agency also considered the repeatability data
considered by the Department in the Standard No.
208 rulemaking. NHTSA notes that the CV for
several groups of cars considered in that rulemaking
were similar to or higher than the 15 to 16 percent
CV experienced by some cars for rear pelvic g's. See
Tkble 111-7 of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
for Standard No. 208, July 11, 1984. (While that
table does not provide calculations of CV values, it
does report the mean, standard deviation, and num-
ber of cars tested for each group, the terms from
which CV is calculated.) Based on all available data,
the agency considers the repeatability for both side
impact injury criteria measurements in both front
and rear seating positions to be similar to, or possi-
bly better than, that considered and found accept-
able by the Department for Standard No. 208. More-
over, manufacturers have now been complying with
that standard's automatic crash protection require-
ments for several years, without any difficulties.
Given the above variability, NHTSA examined the
practicability of the performance requirements
adopted by this final rule, i.e., TTI(d) limits of 85 g
for 4-door cars and 90 g for 2-door cars, with a pelvic
acceleration limit of 130 g for all cars. Application of
the effectiveness values set forth in the FRIA for
various countermeasures to the 23 make/models
used for estimating benefits indicates that the
TTI(d) and pelvic g values can be brought below the
limits being established in this final rule.
In light of Ford's particular concern about rear
dummy variability, and the fact that available data
indicate greater variability for the rear than the
front (especially for pelvic g's), NHTSA also exam-
ined the relationship between the front and rear
dummy responses. Based on NHTSA's 28 full scale
tests, rear pelvic acceleration was 25 g's lower on
average than front pelvic acceleration, and rear
TTI(d) was 14 g's lower on average than front TTI(d).
The agency believes these data indicate that it is
easier to achieve lower pelvic g's and TTI(d) in the
rear than in the front, which reduces the impact of
the somewhat higher variability.
Finally, as was the case in the Standard No. 208
rulemaking, manufacturers have not demonstrated
that the bulk of variability for any of the side impact
criteria for the front and rear seating positions is
due to the test procedures and instruments as op-
posed to vehicle-to-vehicle differences.
E. Test Surface
NHTSA also received a comment concerning spec-
ification of the test surface. GM argued that specifi-
cation of the coefficient of friction of the tire/road
interface is important for full scale vehicle crash
tests, but was not specified by NHTSA in the NPRM.
NHTSA does not agree that a coefficient of friction
must be specified in the regulation since the side
impact crash forces greatly exceed the magnitude of
tire/road sliding friction forces. Thus, variations in
the coefficient of friction would have an insignificant
or minor impact compared to other factors. For
example, one load cell barrier test using the NHTSA
MDB at 25 mph and a 26 degree crabbed impact
angle produced a barrier face resultant load of
84,679 pounds. Assuming a sliding coefficient of
0.50, the lateral friction forces on the 3,000 pound
car would be 1,500 pounds. In this example, the
crash force level is over 50 times higher than the
tire/road friction forces for the struck vehicle. Even if
the MDB-to-car resultant force were less than than
that load cell resultant force (e.g., about 60,000
pounds), this force level would still be many times
greater than the tire/road friction forces.
Further, the side impact crash sequence takes place
in a small fraction of a second, and is over before the
vehicle motion relative to the "driving" surface occurs.
As a result, the friction forces have an insignificant
effect on the test dummy measurements.
NHTSA concludes that the tire/road friction forces
are an insignificant or minor effect in side impact
crash testing. When compared to crash forces, they
are negligible across the full range of peak and
sliding coefficients of friction. For the above reasons,
NHTSA does not believe that the coefficient of fric-
tion of the test surface needs to be specified in the
rule.
VII. International Harmonization
As the automotive industry has become an increas-
ingly worldwide industry, interest in harmonized
safety standards has increased. With harmonized stan-
dards, manufacturers can more easily build the same
product to sell in different parts of the world, and cost
savings can be achieved in areas of vehicle design,
production, inventory, and certification.
Many commenters expressed concern that the pro-
posed side impact dynamic crash test requirements are
substantially different than those being developed in
Europe. Those commenters argued that NHTSA
should give greater weight to harmonization.
NHTSA is committed to international harmoniza-
tion where practical. As in other areas, NHTSA has
considered the issue of harmonization for this rule-
PART 571; S214-PRE 33
making. The agency notes that the United States
has generally been ahead of Europe in the area of
dynamic side impact test requirements, both in
terms of developing a dynamic side impact test
procedure, and now in adopting a regulation based
on that procedure.
NHTSA notes that harmonization would likely
have been easier had Europe not developed a differ-
ent test dummy, different barriers, and a different
injury criterion than those developed in the United
States. The agency has, however, carefully consid-
ered the European approach to determine whether it
would be appropriate for a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard.
One concern NHTSA has about the European
approach is that the two European barriers are not
representative of the striking vehicles in side impact
crashes in the United States. The Eiu-opean barriers
appear to be more representative of the lighter and
smaller European passenger cars. As discussed in
the separate notice on the MDB, the NHTSA MDB is
representative of passenger cars and light trucks
that are likely to be the striking vehicle in side
impact collisions in the United States. In order to
ensure that the new side impact dynamic crash test
requirements result in appropriate countermeas-
ures, and hence reduced fatalities and injuries in the
real world, NHTSA believes the MDB should be
representative of striking vehicles in the United
States rather than representative of vehicles used in
other nations.
NHTSA also notes that there are a number of
characteristics associated with the European test
procedure that make it inappropriate, at this time,
for a U.S. safety standard. The Evu-opean test
dummy (EuroSID), while capable of assessing injury
potential and providing insight into side impact
crash occupant protection, needs further refinement
before it can be used as a regulatory tool. These
ongoing efforts include the development of biofidel-
ity response corridors to assure the EuroSID re-
sponds in a human-like manner, the evaluation of
the repeatability and reproducibility of the test
dummy, and the demonstration of its durability in
full-scale crash tests. The EuroSID is progressing in
all of these areas. Additionally, the urethane foam
face of the European barrier appears to break down
and bottom out, creating unexpectedly high dummy
acceleration responses due to the unrealistic crash
conditions it imposes. Further, it is still unclear
whether Europe itself will adopt side impact require-
ments based on a full scale dynamic crash test.
NHTSA remains committed to international har-
monization where practical. However, NHTSA be-
lieves that pursuit of harmonization as an alterna-
tive to the proposed requirements would result in rt
least a several year delay in improved side impact
protection, a consequence that the agency does not
consider acceptable. For all of the above reasons,
NHTSA does not believe that harmonization consid-
erations should preclude the agency from issuing a
final rule based on its proposal. However, as Eiu-ope
continues to develops its side impact standards and
test procedures, NHTSA will consider whether fur-
ther rulemaking is appropriate.
VIII. Feasibility of "Countermeasures"
As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA has performed
a substantial number of vehicle crash tests both to
examine the existing side impact performance of
many cars, as evidenced by measurements of the
TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration on the side impact test
dummy, and to evaluate the effectiveness of various
techniques ("countermeasures") to improve side im-
pact performance. In particular, the research pro-
grams have concentrated on making production-
feasible structural changes and adding additional
padding to the interior surface of the vehicle's side
door to improve side impact protection. As discussed
in more detail below, this research has shown that
either the use of structural modifications in combi-
nation with padding or the use of padding alone can
significantly reduce the probability of thoracic and
pelvic injuries.
The following discussion highlights several of the
more important side impact research programs con-
ducted by NHTSA. The details of these and other
agency research programs are discussed more fully
in the PRIA and FRIA. In 1977, NHTSA began a
program to improve the side structure integrity for
lightweight subcompact cars, using a 2-door Volks-
wagen Rabbit. The agency decided to concentrate its
research efforts on light vehicles, because it antici-
pated having the greatest difficulty in improving the
level of side impact protection in those vehicles. The
agency also believed that any countermeasures de-
veloped for those vehicles could be adapted for use in
larger and heavier vehicles. NHTSA chose the VW
Rabbit after testing the side impact performance of
three small front wheel drive vehicles. The peak
thoracic and pelvic accelerations measvu-ed on the
side impact test dummy seated in the Rabbit indi-
cated the Rabbit to be an "average" performer in its
class.
The research program, involving the Budd Com-
pany, developed four levels of structural modifica-
tions to the 2-door VW Rabbit, to investigate the
effect of increased side strength on intrusion. Those
levels were categorized by the weight that the mod-
ifications added to the car and were designated as
lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight and "opti-
mized" (the "optimized" version used parts that had
performed well in tests of the three other designs,
but had been reduced in weight). These structural
PART 571; S214-PRE 34
additions focused on the front seat area; no structure
was added to the rear quarter panel or in the C-pillar
areas. Intrusion was reduced by a factor of nearly 50
percent (from approximately 20 inches to 10 inches)
with the heavy and optimized weight designs, but
the dummy peak accelerations were not signifi-
cantly altered.
Concurrently with its programs to improve struc-
tural integrity, NHTSA also conducted research at
its Vehicle Research and Tbst Center in East Liberty,
Ohio to select and evaluate interior padding. The
interior padding was an "add-on" feature, so that the
door structure did not require alteration to accom-
modate the padding. The agency assumed that man-
ufacturers would incorporate these features in pro-
duction vehicles by using the door structure itself
and part of the door thickness so as to minimize the
space taken from the occupant compartment.
In January 1981, NHTSA began another research
effort, which was conducted in two parts. This was
called the modified integrated vehicle (MIV) pro-
gram. One part was conducted by VW to improve the
side impact protection of a 4-door VW Rabbit and the
other part was conducted by MCR Tbchnology Inc.,
using the Chevrolet Citation. The program evalu-
ated both structural modifications and padding
changes, independently and in combination. The
first phase of the research effort concentrated on
developing "production feasible" improvements,
which would add little weight to the vehicle, lb
evaluate the performance of the modifications, the
agency conducted a series of tests on the Rabbit
simulating a vehicle moving at 22 mph striking
another vehicle moving at 1 1 mph. The impact angle
was 60 degrees. The agency's MDB was used as the
striking vehicle. These tests involved an unmodified
VW Rabbit, a structurally unmodified Rabbit with
additional interior padding, a structurally modified
Rabbit with no additional interior padding, and
finally, a structurally modified Rabbit with addi-
tional interior padding.
In the second phase of the MFV program, the
agency tested the structurally modified and padded
Rabbit in two additional impact configurations. The
configurations simulated a vehicle moving at 30
mph striking another vehicle moving at 15 mph at
impact angles of 60 degrees and 90 degrees. In these
tests, a Chevrolet Citation was used as the striking
vehicle. The results of these tests are discussed in
the FRIA.
In summary, NHTSA's testing shows that it is
possible to develop "production feasible" counter-
measures that can reduce potential thorax and pel-
vic injuries in side impacts. Based on the results
obtained in this testing, NHTSA has, as discussed
below, developed estimates of the effectiveness of
different side impact countermeasures in reducing
injuries.
IX. Estimate of Portion of the Vehicle Fleet
Needing Improvement to Achieve Compliance
NHTSA explained in the NPRM that, in addition
to the testing which was done on the modified and
unmodified Rabbits and Citations, the agency had
also conducted a series of 20 tests on 12 different
unmodified production passenger cars. The PRIA
used the results from the tests of the production
vehicles to estimate the percentage of the passenger
car fleet that currently meets the proposed alterna-
tive levels of the standard.
After issuing the NPRM, the agency conducted
eight additional production vehicle tests, using eight
different models. One model was also tested by
Transport Canada. In addition, the agency received
test data on 25 additional models from four different
motor vehicle manufacturers. The FRIA uses only
data from the more recently designed models (model
year 1984 and later) to estimate what percent of the
fleet currently meets alternative side impact perform-
ance levels. There are data available on 23 models:
10 2-door models and 13 4-door models.
In assessing the changes needed in current vehi-
cles to meet the standard, the agency has not calcu-
lated the effectiveness of modifications that only
involve structural changes. There were six cases of
comparable baseline versus "structure alone" tests.
In three of these tests for the driver, the TTI(d) went
up and in three tests, the TTI(d) went down. A
number of other tests have shown relatively little or
no benefit from structure alone countermeasures.
Because of these results, the agency does not con-
sider the structural countermeasure it developed to
be a consistent means of reducing side impact inju-
ries. This does not mean that countermeasures us-
ing only structural modifications will not work. It
simply means that the approaches evaluated by the
agency did not consistently work.
Ikble 3 shows the percentage of the current new
model passenger car fleet that meets the various
alternative levels of TTI(d) at different seating posi-
tions in a car. For additional explanation of the data
underlying Table 3 and the other tables presented in
this section, see Chapter III, Section C of the FRIA.
T^ble 4 presents estimates of the percentage of the
fleet that would need various countermeasures to
meet the alternative levels of TTI(d). The percentage
of the fleet is derived by assuming the effectiveness
of the countermeasures as follows: for drivers-
padding is approximately 21 percent effective (i.e.,
padding reduces TTI(d) by 21 percent), structure and
padding is about 30 percent effective, and heavy-
weight structure and padding is 43 percent effective.
For rear passengers, padding alone is assumed to be
PART 571; S214-PRE 35
lABLE 3
PERCENT OF THE FLEET MEETING
ALTERNATIVE TTI(d) LEVELS
TTI(d)
Driver
Rear Passenger
2-Dr.
4-Dr.
Total
2-Dr.
4-Dr.
Tbtal
80
0.0%
61.5%
34.8
30.0%
53.8%
43.5%
85
10.0
69.2
43.5
40.0
61.5
52.2
90
10.0
84.6
52.2
50.0
69.2
60.9
95
10.0
84.6
52.2
50.0
92.3
73.9
100
20.0
100.0
65.2
50.0
100.0
78.3
105
20.0
100.0
65.2
70.0
100.0
87.0
110
70.0
100.0
87.0
70.0
100.0
87.0
115
90.0
100.0
95.7
80.0
100.0
91.3
35 percent effective. The agency derived these effec-
tiveness estimates from its research on the perform-
ance improvements resulting from the use of various
side impact protection countermeasures in cars. The
agency then applied these effectiveness estimates to
the TTI(d) values obtained for each of the 23 produc-
tion cars that were tested to determine which counter-
measure would be needed for each vehicle at the
alternative TTI(d) levels proposed for the standard.
Tkble 5 indicates the estimated percentage of the
current fleet meeting various alternative standards
for pelvic g's.
Tkble 6 presents the percentage of the fleet that
would need padding to meet the alternative levels of
the pelvic g's standard being analyzed. Since for
drivers, padding alone is approximately 35 percent
effective, there is no need for any additional coun-
termeasure. Similarly, for rear passengers, padding
alone is approximately 33 percent effective, which is
sufficient to meet the standard for all cars at all of
the proposed pelvic g levels.
X. Costs
As a part of its research program on side impacts,
NHTSA has done several major studies of the poten-
tial costs associated with improving side impact
protection. The first cost study was based on work
begun in 1980 with the Budd Company to develop
several structural modifications for improving the
side impact design of subcompact two-door sedans.
As discussed earlier in this notice, the Budd Com-
pany developed four alternative side structure de-
signs based on the 1976/1977 VW Rabbit two-door
passenger sedan. The production version VW Rabbit
was used as a baseline for comparing the weight,
cost, and crash impact performance of the four
modified design versions.
The four design concepts were categorized by the
total added weight of the modifications to the car
and were designated as a lightweight design, mid-
dleweight design, heavyweight design and an "opti-
mized" design. The crash test results for the light-
weight and middleweight designs showed that none
of the structural modifications described above suf-
ficiently improved side impact protection as meas-
ured by reductions in thoracic acceleration. The
heavyweight and optimized designs showed promise
of reducing side impact injuries and, consequently,
the agency used those designs in calculating the
costs associated with this rulemaking.
Subsequent to Budd's completion of this work,
NHTSA sponsored several studies to analyze the
costs and manufacturing feasibility of structural
modifications and increased padding to improve side
impact protection. These studies have concentrated
on examining approaches that involve vehicle con-
struction techniques and sophisticated tools used in
efficient high-volume production. These studies
found that the vehicle modifications examined by
the agency could be simplified if a vehicle manufac-
turer planned to incorporate side impact protection
features into a new vehicle design. In particular, the
studies found that many of the parts used in the
agency's original research program could be modi-
fied, combined, eliminated, or incorporated into a
vehicle's basic structural members.
In addition to examining the costs of structural
improvements, the agency has also analyzed the
costs associated with the addition of padding. Both
the costs and the weight changes derived from the
modified vehicle tests conducted several years ago
represent relatively high values. The primary pur-
pose of the modifications tested was to reduce side
door intrusion. However, as discussed above, the test
results showed that structural improvements alone
did not necessarily result in significant reductions in
thoracic acceleration, as measured by TTI(d).
The agency believes that a more effective and
efficient approach for reducing occupant thorax and
pelvis injury in side impacts is to provide "equiv-
alent padding" (either actual padding or modified,
energy-absorbing sheet-metal structure) as neces-
PART 571; S214-PRE
TABLE 4
PERCENT OF THE FLEET NEEDING VARIOUS
COUNTERMEASURES TO MEET ALTERNATIVE
TTI(d) LEVELS
Two-Door Models
DRIVER
REAR PASSENGER |
HEAVYWEIGHT
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
TTI(d)
NONE
PADDING
& PADDING
& PADDING
NONE
PADDING
& PADDING
80
0.0%
20.0%
70.0%
10.0%
30.0%
60.0%
10.0%
85
10.0
20.0
70.0
0.0
40.0
50.0
10.0
90
10.0
80.0
10.0
0.0
50.0
40.0
10.0
95
10.0
90.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
100
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
105
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.0
70.0
30.0
0.0
110
70.0
30.0
0.0
0.0
70.0
30.0
0.0
115
90.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
80.0
20.0
0.0
Four-Door Models
DRIVER
REAR PASSENGER |
HEAVYWEIGHT
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
TTI(d)
NONE
PADDING
& PADDING
& PADDING
NONE
PADDING
& PADDING
80
61.5%
38.5%
0.0%
0.0%
53.8%
46.2%
0.0%
85
69.2
30.8
0.0
0.0
61.5
38.5
0.0
90
84.6
15.4
0.0
0.0
69.2
30.8
0.0
95
84.6
15.4
0.0
0.0
92.3
7.7
0.0
100
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
105
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
110
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
115
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
Combined Fleet
DRIVER
REAR PASSENGER |
HEAVYWEIGHT
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
TTI(d)
NONE
PADDING
& PADDING
& PADDING
NONE
PADDING
& PADDING
80
34.8%
26.1
34.8%
4.3%
43.5%
52.2%
4.3%
85
43.5
21.7
34.8
0.0
52.2
43.5
4.3
90
52.2
43.5
4.3
0.0
60.9
34.8
4.3
95
52.2
47.8
0.0
0.0
73.9
26.1
0.0
100
65.2
34.8
0.0
0.0
78.3
21.7
0.0
105
65.2
34.8
0.0
0.0
87.0
13.0
0.0
110
87.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
87.0
13.0
0.0
115
95.7
4.3
0.0
0.0
91.3
8.7
0.0
PART 571; S214-PRE 37
TABLE 5
PERCENT OF FLEET MEETING
ALTERNATIVE LEVELS FOR PELVIC ACCELERATION
Level
Driver
Rear Passenger |
2-Dr.
4-Dr.
Weighted Total
2-Dr.
4-Dr.
Weighted Tbtal
130
30.0
91.7
63.6
80.0
69.2
78.3
150
60.0
100.0
81.8
90.0
92.3
95.7
170
90.0
100.0
95.5
100.0
92.3
95.7
190
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
92.3
95.7
sary in the door area. This should be more cost-
effective than making structural changes for these
types of injuries. This has been demonstrated by
actual production vehicles. For example, the 1987
Nissan Sentra incorporated significant improve-
ments, at a cost of apparently less than $100 per
vehicle over the earlier version of this model, to
improve considerably both the frontal and side im-
pact safety performance of the vehicle. Also, there
are some cars tested by NHTSA that already have
relatively good side impact performance for the
driver (e.g.. Spectrum 2-door with TTI(d) of 83.5 g,
Caprice 4-door with TTI(d) of 57.5. Since a number of
cars demonstrate very good side impact performance
without adding special countermeasures, the agency
believes that other vehicles could also be redesigned to
improve performance at lower increases in consumer
costs than shown in the analysis.
TABLE 6
PERCENT OF FLEET NEEDING PADDING
TO MEET ALTERNATIVE LEVELS
OF THE STANDARD FOR PELVIC ACCELERATION
Two-Door Models
Pelvic g's
DRIVER
REAR PASSENGER |
NONE
PADDING
NONE
PADDING
130
30.0%
70.0%
80.0%
20.0%
150
60.0
40.0
90.0
10.0
170
90.0
10.0
100.0
0.0
190
100.0
0.0
Four-Door Models
100.0
0.0
Pelvic g's
DRIVER
REAR PASSENGER
NONE
PADDING
NONE
PADDING
130
91.7%
8.3%
69.2%
30.8%
150
100.0
0.0
92.3
7.7
170
100.0
0.0
92.3
7.7
190
100.0
0.0
Combined Fleet
92.3
7.7
Pelvic g's
DRIVER
REAR PASSENGER |
NONE
PADDING
NONE
PADDING
130
63.6%
36.4%
78.3%
21.7%
150
81.8
18.2
95.7
4.3
170
95.5
4.5
95.7
4.3
190
100.0
0.0
95.7
4.3
PART 571; S214-PRE 38
NHTSA has combined the estimates of the vehicle
modification costs, including the fuel economy and
secondary weight costs, associated with different
types of side impact protection modifications, and
the estimates of the percentage of the fleet that
would need modifications to meet various thorax and
pelvis acceleration levels. These total costs are sum-
marized in Tkble 7. For additional explanation of the
data underlying Tkble 7, see Chapter V of the FRIA.
The actual costs of the new requirements are
expected to be lower than the estimates shown in
Tkble 7, which are derived from the agency's some-
what outdated cost studies. The NHTSA tests
showed that some existing vehicles could meet var-
ious levels of side impact safety performance with
little modification. This suggests there are less
costly ways of upgrading side impact protection.
Considering that most of the vehicles NHTSA has
tested are not likely to be in the fleet 5 years after
implementation of the final rule when the standard
becomes fully effective, and that a phase-in schedule
is being established, the agency believes that it is
reasonable to assume that manufacturers would
incorporate side impact safety improvements in the
"clean-sheet design" of their new vehicle models to
comply with the standard before or at the time of full
implementation. This approach will likely entail re-
search and development, engineering, and testing ex-
penses in order to meet the standard, but perhaps,
with a lessened variable cost per vehicle than the
approach of making improvements to existing models.
NHTSA notes that its estimate of the average cost
to achieve improved side impact crash protection
does not apply to every vehicle. The agency-
determined countermeasures required to achieve a
specific level of improved side impact crash protec-
tion depends on the level of protection in the current
production car and its overall design. As would be
expected, the cost and complexity to achieve a spe-
cific level is typically greater for current production
vehicles with higher levels of TTI. The agency estab-
lished the TTI levels in the rule based on balancing
the safety benefits of improving side impact crash
protection with the practicability of the countermeas-
ures necessary to achieve the improvement.
The agency has not designed and tested counter-
measures to prevent door openings during the com-
pliance tests. Thus, specific cost estimates for meas-
ures to meet this provision are not available.
However, based on its November 1982 evaluation of
Standard No. 214, the agency believes that reduc-
tions in the possibility of door openings are feasible
through structural improvements made to reduce
the TTI(d) and pelvic g's. The 1982 evaluation found
that the inclusion of side door beams reduced the
incidence of door openings by 20-40 percent in
single vehicle crashes and by 10-30 percent in
multi-vehicle crashes. The agency believes that fur-
ther reductions are possible as a by-product of meas-
ures adopted to comply with the injury criteria.
Thus, the costs of reducing door openings are be-
lieved to be included in the above-mentioned costs,
or, in the alternative, are estimated to be relatively
small, on the order of $2-$4 per vehicle affected. It is
estimated that only a small portion of the fleet
would be so affected.
Ford commented that NHTSA assumed incorrectly
in the NPRM that, because some current cars
"nearly" meet the proposed requirements, it will be
relatively easy and inexpensive to adapt other cars
to meet the proposed regulation simply by copying
the thick door designs of the cars that nearly meet
the requirements. That commenter stated that,
based on an extensive test program, it believes that
compliance with the proposed requirements will be
neither easy nor inexpensive. Ford argued further
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY
FRONT AND REAR SEAT OCCUPANTS-COMBINED FLEET
Total Vehicle Cost Total Vehicle Cost
In 1989 $ Including In 1989 $ Including
Lifetime Fuel Cost Penalties Lifetime Fuel Cost Penalties
(Without Secondary Weight Effects) (With Secondary Weight Effects)
Per-Car Weighted Average
80
$83.5 $120.8
85
72.4 104.8
90
35.2 48.6
95
17.0 22.2
100
13.2 17.2
105
11.7 15.0
110
5.8 7.6
115
2.7 3.6
PART 571; S214-PRE 39
that "thicker doors" are not a practicable design
solution for side impact protection in smaller, i.e.,
subcompact and compact, passenger cars.
Ford noted that it has conducted 24 full vehicle
side impact crash tests and has participated in
numerous similar tests conducted by MVMA. That
company stated that when test-to-test variability is
considered, vehicles must be designed to meet a
TTI(d) of no more than 69 to be reasonably confident
that a production vehicle, tested at random, would
achieve a TTI(d) of 85 or less. Ford stated that only
four of 24 Ford tests resulted in a TTI(d) of 69 or less.
That commenter also stated that available test data
indicate that dummy accelerations measured in
small cars are substantially higher than those meas-
ured in large cars.
Ford stated that, based on its current knowledge,
it has very low confidence of being able to achieve
TTI(d)'s in the 80 to 100 range in its small cars in the
foreseeable future (six years or less). That company
stated that it does not know what design counter-
measures can be used in a small car to attain such
TTI(d) values without unacceptably increasing the
car's width and/or decreasing its interior space. Ford
also stated that the high variability in test data
provided by the rear seat in small cars makes it
questionable whether Ford could ever have high
confidence in rear seat compliance test results for
small cars. Ford stated that it was unable to com-
ment accurately on the agency's cost and weight
estimates until designs were identified for each of its
car lines that could meet the various levels of TTI(d)
and pelvic acceleration specified in the proposal. It
indicated, however, that it believed the agency's cost
estimates were low.
NHTSA notes that Ford's comment bears on a
number of issues that are separately discussed in
this notice. That company's concern about variabil-
ity is discussed above in the section on test procedure
repeatability. Ford's comment also bears on feasibil-
ity of the methods of compliance, on the agency's
estimate of the portion of the vehicle fleet needing
improvement to achieve compliance, and on costs.
For convenience, the agency is responding to Ford's
comment concerning these latter issues together
As discussed above, NHTSA engaged in signifi-
cant side impact research programs to make "pro-
duction feasible" structural changes and add addi-
tional padding to the interior surface of a vehicle's
side door to improve side impact protection. The
program concentrated on small cars, because the
agency anticipated that it would be particularly
difficult to improve the level of side impact protec-
tion in those vehicles.
The results of the agency's research program were
discussed in the NPRM and documented in detail in
the PRIA. Among other things, the data presented
in the PRIA indicate that TTI(d) and pelvic g levels
below the limits established in this final rule can be
achieved for small cars. See, for example, the data for
modified Volkswagen Rabbits. Ford did not discuss the
agency's extensive research program in its comments.
Since NHTSA believes that its research program
clearly demonstrated the feasibility of the "counter-
measures" to meet the new side impact requirements,
for small cars as well as large cars, it does not agree
with the concerns expressed by Ford in this area.
Ford further asserted that it must design vehicles
to meet a TTI(d) of no more than 69 to be reasonably
confident that a production vehicle, tested at ran-
dom, would achieve a TTI(d) of 85 or less. The agency
notes that it is customary for a manufacturer to
account for variation in a vehicle's design in any case
where a specific test value must be met. The specific
design values will vary among vehicles and among
manufacturers. As discussed above in the section on
repeatability, manufacturers have not demonstrated
that they cannot obtain sufficiently low front/rear
TTI(d) and pelvic g values as to eliminate concerns
about variability. Moreover, application of the effec-
tiveness values cited by the FRIA for various coun-
termeasures to the 23 make/models used for estimat-
ing benefits indicates that the front/rear TTI(d) and
pelvic g values can be reduced below the limits being
established in this final rule.
The agency notes that to the extent that manufac-
turers design to levels below the specified limits, an
additional number of vehicles could be affected by
design changes. This could result in somewhat
greater costs. However, there would also be addi-
tional benefits, since benefits continue to accrue at
TTI(d) and pelvic g levels below the specified limits.
In addition to the costs associated with designing
and producing the countermeasures needed to meet
the new performance requirements, today's rule will
also result in some test equipment costs. The SID
dummy is basically a Part 572 dummy with a
modified thorax that uses thoracic and pelvic accel-
eration to measure impact loads. A SID dummy
purchased new costs $26,250. This does not include
approximately $6,000 of instrumentation, bringing
the total cost to $32,250.
In addition to the cost of the dummy, there are
costs associated with calibrating the dummy, pur-
chasing replacement parts and performing the dy-
namic crash test. NHTSA estimates the total incre-
mental cost per dummy per test application to be
approximately $3,490. In addition, the estimated
cost of the NHTSA MDB is approximately $26,200
with instrumentation. This does not include the
expendable aluminum honeycomb face and bumper.
This item currently must be replaced after each test
and is estimated to cost approximately $1,700, if
purchased in quantities of 60 or more.
PART 571; S214-PRE 40
XI. Consumer Reaction to Side Door Padding
The PRIA reported the results of a study con-
ducted to evaluate consumer reaction to side door
padding. The study tested driver performance in
both baseline Volkswagen Rabbits and Rabbits with
increased side padding. In addition, the drivers in
the study were asked about comfort. A survey was
also taken of potential car buyers concerning the
acceptability of additional padding. The PRIA con-
cluded, in view of the existing limited data, that the
majority of the population in smaller than average
cars will be able to drive normally and ride in
comfort with up to three inches of additional pad-
ding. The PRIA further concluded that consumers
would accept the concept of such increased side door
padding.
Several commenters raised issues concerning the
representativeness of the test car and the drivers. As
discussed in the FRIA, NHTSA believes that the
Volkswagen Rabbit was reasonably representative
and that the agency did a reasonable job of testing
with individuals who are likely to have the most
difficulty with additional padding, and that the
conclusion that up to three inches of padding will not
affect driving performance for most individuals is
accurate.
XII. Selection of TTI(d) and Pelvic Acceleration
Limits
NHTSA proposed a fairly wide range of values for
side impact performance criteria. For TTI(d), the
agency proposed a range of 80 to 115. For pelvic
acceleration, the agency proposed a range of 130 to
190 g.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
urged NHTSA to adopt a TTI(d) limit of 80, stating
that the agency's analysis indicated that TTI(d) of 80
would have a much greater effect than TTI(d) of 85 in
reducing severe injuries and deaths. With respect to
pelvic acceleration, that organization stated that the
agency should not set a limit that would allow a
significant degradation in existing performance.
That commenter stated that a review of NHTSA's
crash tests shows that the measured pelvic acceler-
ations in unmodified production cars varied widely,
with many accelerations exceeding the upper range
proposed by the agency. However, IIHS also con-
tended that the test data show that existing produc-
tion cars can meet pelvic acceleration limits of less
than 90 g's. IIHS recommended that NHTSA set a
pelvic acceleration limit toward the lower end of the
90 to 130 g's range.
The Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen
(CFAS/PC) urged NHTSA to set limits for both TTI(d)
and pelvic acceleration below the levels of the ranges
proposed by the agency. Those organizations recom-
mended an initial TTI(d) limit of 70, which they
contend NHTSA's research has demonstrated to be
feasible, and also recommended that the limit be
reduced to 60 in two years. CFAS/PC recommended a
pelvic acceleration limit of 90 g's, which they also
believe NHTSA has demonstrated to be feasible.
Greater reductions in fatalities and serious inju-
ries are associated with more stringent (lower) limits
on TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration. Since the purpose
of this rulemaking is to address the serious side
impact safety problem, NHTSA generally favors
lower, as opposed to higher, TTI(d) and pelvic accel-
eration limits. However, in selecting specific values
for the final rule, the agency must consider both the
increased costs associated with more stringent re-
quirements and the technological feasibility of
achieving lower limits for all subject cars.
In determining the appropriate levels for a final
rule, the agency has specifically analyzed four com-
bined alternatives for the thorax and pelvis, all of
which represent TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration val-
ues at the lower ends of the proposed ranges.
The first alternative is TTI(d) = 80 and pelvic g's
= 130. These are the most stringent values proposed
by NHTSA. The FRIA estimates that 31.8 percent of
all cars currently meet these levels at the driver's
position. Only one out of the 23 models tested would
need heavyweight structure and padding modifica-
tion to meet these levels.
The second alternative is TTI(d) = 85 and pelvic
g's = 130. The FRIA estimates that the TTI(d) level
of 85 is currently being met by 36.4 percent of the
fleet at the driver's position. No existing cars would
need heavyweight structure and padding to achieve
85 TTI(d).
The third alternative is TTI(d) = 90 and pelvic g's
= 130. The FRIA estimates that the TTI(d) level of
90 is currently being met by 40.9 percent of all cars
at the driver's position. Most cars can achieve this
level using only padding.
The fourth alternative is TTI(d) = 95 and pelvic
g's = 150. The TTI(d) level of 95 can be achieved
with padding alone by all cars. A pelvic g limit of
150 is currently being met by 81.8 percent of the cars
at the driver's position and 95.7 percent of the cars
at the rear passenger position.
The agency's estimates of costs and benefits for
the four alternatives are presented in Tables 8
through 10. For a further explanation of the data
underlying these tables, see Chapter VII of the
FRIA.
In considering alternatives, NHTSA notes that
there are large differences in cost as the TTI(d) level
decreases. The largest difference in TTI(d) is from 90
g to 85 g. This occurs because about 70 percent of the
two-door models need structure and padding to
PART 571; S214-PRE 41
TABLE 8
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
(1989 Dollars)
TWO-DOORS AND FOUR-DOORS COMBINED
FRONT AND REAR SEATS COMBINED
Costs
per
Vehicle
TTI(d)
Pel.
g's
Fatals
Benefits
AIS 3-5*
Without
Secondary
Weight
With
Secondary
Weight
1. 80
2. 85
3. 90
4. 95
130
130
130
150
736
581
444
326
3,390
2,900
2,415
1,522
FRONT SEATS
$ 83.5
$ 72.4
$ 35.2
$ 17.0
Costs
per
$120.8
$104.8
$ 48.6
$ 22.2
Vehicle
TTI(d)
Pel.
lis
Fatals
Benefits
AIS 3-5*
Without
Secondary
Weight
With
Secondary
Weight
1. 80
2. 85
3. 90
4. 95
130
130
130
150
654
521
399
291
3,071
2,657
2,244
1,401
REAR SEATS
$ 66.6
$ 56.2
$ 20.7
$ 12.4
Costs
per
$ 97.2
$ 82.3
$ 28.2
$ 16.1
Vehicle
TTI(d)
Pel.
Fatals
Benefits
AIS 3-5*
Without
Secondary
Weight
With
Secondary
Weight
1. 80
2. 85
3. 90
4. 95
130
130
130
150
82
60
45
35
319
243
171
121
$ 16.9
$ 16.2
$ 14.5
$ 4.6
$ 23.7
$ 22.7
$ 20.4
$ 6.1
*/Note: Included
in the AIS 3-5 totals are AIS 2 pelvic fractures.
PART 571; S214-PRE 42
TABLE 9
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
(1989 Dollars)
TWO-DOORS
.
FRONT AND REAR SEATS COMBINED
Costs
per
Vehicle
TTI(d)
1. 80
2. 85
3. 90
4. 95
Pel.
lis
130
130
130
150
Fatals
510
456
387
296
Benefits
AIS 3-5*
2,658
2,450
2,186
1,445
Without
Secondary
Weight
$179.2
$155.4
$ 67.3
$ 35.6
With
Secondary
Weight
$263.7
$228.7
$ 94.3
$ 46.3
FRONT SEATS
Costs
per
Vehicle
TTI(d)
Pel.
lis
Fatals
Benefits
AIS 3-5*
Without
Secondary
Weight
With
Secondary
Weight
1. 80
2. 85
3. 90
4. 95
130
130
130
150
459
411
347
262
2,451
2,278
2,047
1,336
REAR SEATS
$151.9
$129.9
$ 43.7
$ 26.3
Costs
per
$224.5
$192.0
$ 60.1
$ 34.0
Vehicle
TTI(d)
1. 80
2. 85
3. 90
4. 95
Pel.
130
130
130
150
Fatals
51
45
40
34
Benefits
AIS 3-5*
207
172
139
109
Without
Secondary
Weight
$ 27.3
$ 25.5
$ 23.6
$ 9.3
With
Secondary
Weight
$ 39.2
$ 36.7
$ 34.2
$ 12.3
*/Note: Included in the AIS 3
-5 totals are AIS 2 pelvic fractures.
PART 571; S214-PRE
TABLE 10
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
(1989 Dollars)
FOUR-DOORS
FRONT AND REAR SEATS COMBINED
Costs
per
Vehicle
Without
With
Pel.
Benefits
Secondary
Secondary
TTI(d)
l!!
Fatals
AIS 3-5*
Weight
Weight
1. 80
130
226
732
$ 19.7
$ 25.7
2. 85
130
125
450
$ 17.1
$ 22.4
3. 90
130
57
229
$ 13.8
$ 18.1
4. 95
150
30
77
FRONT SEATS
$ 4.7
Costs
Without
per
$ 6.1
Vehicle
With
Pfel.
Benefits
Secondary
Secondary
TTI(d)
^
Fatals
AIS 3-5*
Weight
Weight
1. 80
130
195
620
$ 9.7
$ 12.4
2. 85
130
110
379
$ 7.1
$ 91
3. 90
130
52
197
$ 5.3
$ 6.9
4. 95
150
29
65
REAR SEATS
$ 3.2
Costs
Without
per
$ 4.1
Vehicle
With
Pel.
Benefits
Secondary
Secondary
TTI(d)
i!?
Fatals
AIS 3-5*
Weight
Weight
1. 80
130
31
112
$ 10.0
$ 13.3
2. 85
130
15
71
$ 10.0
$ 13.3
3. 90
130
5
32
$ 8.5
$ 11.2
4. 95
150
1
12
$ 1.5
$ 2.2
*/Note:
Included in the AIS 3-
-5 totals are AIS 2 pelvic fractures.
PART 571; S214-PRE 44
achieve 85 g, while only 10 percent need tiiese
countermeasures to achieve a TTI(d) of 90 g.
While costs increase as TTI(d) decreases, benefits
also increase. Given the greater reductions in fatal-
ities and serious injuries that occur as TTI decreases
(e.g., benefits at TTI = 80 g include 736 fewer
fatalities, as compared to 581 fewer fatalities at TTI
= 85 g, and 444 fewer fatalities at TTI = 90 g),
NHTSA favors the lower ends of the proposed ranges
even after taking into account the higher costs.
Another important issue, however, is technologi-
cal feasibility. In particular, based on its review of
the record, NHTSA is concerned about the ability of
manufacturers to achieve TTI(d) lower than 90 g for
all of their two-door cars, and lower than 85 g for all
of their four-door cars.
NHTSA believes that it is generally more difficult
for manufacturers to achieve lower TTI(d) for two-
door cars than for four-door cars. The reason for this
is that the side structure and geometry of two-door
cars is different from four-door cars. For example,
since the door on a two-door model is typically wider
than on a four-door model, it is more difficult to
design as strong a structure for the door on the
two-door model. Tkking into account the confidential
data submitted by the manufacturers and other
available data, the agency has six sets of data on
two-door and four-door versions of the same model.
These data indicate that the driver dummy injury
measurements in a two-door car are about 14 percent
higher than in a four-door car. NHTSA also observes
that of 22 two-door cars for which the agency has
data, only one had driver TTI(d) less than 80 g, only
two had less than 85 g, and only five had less than
90 g.
The agency also believes that variability should be
taken into account in. selecting performance limits.
As discussed above in the section on repeatability, a
certain amount of variability (both vehicle-to- vehicle
variability and test procedure variability) will al-
ways exist when different vehicles of the same make/
model are subjected to a crash test. Moreover, since
each vehicle is required to meet a specified perform-
ance limit, it is normal for a manufacturer to ac-
count, in a vehicle's design, for such variation. While
the specific design values will vary among vehicles
and among manufacturers, vehicles will generally
be designed to values somewhat below those speci-
fied by a particular standard.
The issue of variability is related to actual costs
and benefits. As indicated above, to the extent that
manufacturers design to levels below the specified
limits, there could be somewhat greater costs. How-
ever, there would also be additional benefits, since
benefits continue to accrue at TTI(d) and pelvic g
levels below the specified limits.
NHTSA does not agree with CFAS/PC's argument
(for TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration) and IIHS's argu-
ment (for pelvic acceleration) that the agency's re-
search demonstrates that performance limits could
be set far below the levels of the proposed ranges. In
setting performance limits that must be met by all
cars, the agency must consider all available data and
not focus exclusively on test results for a very small
number of cars. Also, since each car must meet a
specified performance limit, the agency must take
variability into account.
Based on its review of all available data, NHTSA
has decided to adopt a TTI(d) limit of 85 g for 4-door
cars and 90 g for 2-door cars. The pelvic acceleration
limit is being set at 130 g for all cars. This repre-
sents a combination of the second and third alterna-
tives discussed above. These requirements will re-
sult in significant safety benefits, and the agency is
convinced that all cars can be designed to meet the
requirements. The agency is not adopting less strin-
gent requirements in view of the smaller benefits
that would result. NHTSA believes the record does
not justify setting more stringent requirements at
this time, given uncertainties as to whether manu-
facturers could meet such requirements for all of
their cars.
Given the possible additional safety benefits that
could result from lower TTI(d) limits, however,
NHTSA plans in the future to reevaluate the feasi-
bility of lower TTI(d) limits. Both the agency and
manufacturers will then have considerably more
information about the countermeasures that can be
used to improve side impact protection and their
effectiveness. The agency therefore plans to conduct
such an evaluation at that time.
NHTSA's estimates of costs and benefits for the
performance requirements being adopted today are
presented in Tkble 11. For a further explanation of
the data underlying this table, see Chapter VII of
the FRIA.
XIII. Inclusion of Rear Seat Performance
Requirements
Numerous commenters argued that NHTSA
should not include rear seat performance require-
ments in a final rule. The main reason cited by
commenters relates to the low occupancy of rear
seats, and hence to the lower benefits of rear seat as
compared to front seat requirements. Toyota argued,
for example, that studies of accident data demon-
strate that of the total number of occupant side
impact injuries, the percentage of rear seat occu-
pants is small, and that it is therefore not cost-
effective to require side impact protection in rear
seats. Volkswagen stated that a NHTSA study of
safety belt use indicated that the left rear and right
rear seats in passenger cars are occupied in only 2.0
and 1.7 percent of trips by cars, respectively. That
PART 571; S214-PRE 45
TABLE 11
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF FINAL RULE
(1989 Dollars)
COSTS PER VEHICLE |
Without
With
BENEFITS
Secondary
Secondary
Fatals
AIS 3-5*
Weight
Weight
Total benefits (2-doors and 4-doors combined/
front and rear seats combined)
512
2,636
$37.1
$51.2
2-doors and 4-doors combined/front seats
457
2,426
$21.7
$29.5
2-doors and 4-doors combined/rear seats
55
210
$15.4
$21.7
2-doors/front and rear seats combined
387
2,186
$67.3
$94.3
2-doors/front seats
347
2,047
$43.7
$60.1
2-doors/rear seats
40
139
$23.6
$34.2
4-doors/front and rear seats combined
125
450
$17.1
$22.4
4-doors/front seats
110
379
$ 7.1
$ 9.1
4-doors/rear seats
15
71
$10.0
$13.3
*/Note: Included in the AIS 3-5 totals are
AIS 2 pelvic fractures.
commenter stated that NHTSA has not identified or
justified the rear seating position as requiring addi-
tional protection. Volkswagen expressed concern
that a second dummy doubles the complexity of data
collection and the potential for lost channels. That
company also cited dummy positioning problems, a
subject addressed above, as a reason to eliminate
rear seat performance requirements. Rolls-Royce
stated that the structural countermeasures provided
for the front seating position are likely also to be
effective for rear seats, and that the interior padding
countermeasures required for the front compart-
ment will most likely be similarly provided for the
rear compartment, both as good engineering prac-
tice and for reasons of design symmetry and style.
NHTSA recognizes that the benefits of improved
side impact performance are considerably lower for
rear seats than front seats, given the low occupancy
of rear seats. The costs are also lower, however. As
indicated in Table 11, above, the costs per vehicle
associated with the alternative requirements being
adopted today are about $22 for front seats versus
$15 for rear seats. (With secondary weight, the costs
are about $30 and $22, respectively.) Moreover,
NHTSA believes that the benefits associated with
rear seat requirements are considerable, 55 fewer
fatalities and 210 fewer serious-to-critical injuries
each year. While Rolls-Royce speculates that manu-
facturers would provide similar protection in rear
seats as for the front seats, such similar protection
would not be ensured without requiring it in the
final rule. The agency concludes that rear seat side
impact performance requirements are justified.
XIV. Leadtime/Phase-in
The leadtime needed to meet the new side impact
requirements varies depending upon what counter-
measures are necessary for particular models. As
discussed in the NPRM, for vehicles needing
"padding only" countermeasures, NHTSA estimates
that the normal leadtime to design, tool and test new
interior trim panels and armrests is approximately
14 to 18 months. For vehicles requiring either struc-
ture and padding or heavyweight structure and
padding, greater leadtime is required. In cases in-
volving only relatively minor changes in design and
tooling to the doors, "A" and "B" pillars, side rails,
etc., needed leadtime probably will not exceed two
years. However, some structure/padding upgrade de-
signs may require complete new body structural
designs. For these models, four to five years of
leadtime may be necessary in order to minimize
diversions of engineering resovu"ces from normal
planned product decisions, interruption of planned
new model changes, and retooling and production
costs.
NHTSA stated in the NPRM that it believed that
the best approach to addressing the varying lead-
time requirements was to phase-in the standard. The
agency noted that this would allow manufacturers
that can use the relatively straightforward padding
approach in some of their models to adopt that
countermeasure in the early years of the phase-in,
while providing sufficient time for manufacturers to
design, develop, and produce significant structural
modifications for those vehicles that need major
changes.
PART 571; S214-PRE 46
NHTSA proposed that the new requirements be
phased-in according to the following implementa-
tion schedule:
10 percent of all cars manufactured during the
first full production year (September 1 to August 31)
beginning more than 24 months after the issuance of
the final rule;
25 percent of all cars manufactured during the
second full year beginning after that 24-month
period;
40 percent of all cars manufactured during the
third full year after that 24-month period; and
100 percent of all cars manufactured on or after
the beginning of the fourth full year after that
24-month period.
While the proposed regulatory text did not specify
the terms of the phase-in, NHTSA indicated that it
contemplated adding regulatory text along the lines
used to adopt the phase-in of Standard No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection. The agency requested
comments on that approach.
Manufacturers supported a phase-in. Ford recom-
mended that provisions like those in Standard No.
208 relating to production volumes (see S4. 1.3.2. 2),
carry-forward credits (see S4. 1.3.4(b), (c) and (d)), and
cars produced by more than one manufacturer (see
S4.1.3.5)be adopted.
Honda argued that a longer phase-in should be
provided. That commenter stated that it is not
appropriate to apply the same phase-in as was spec-
ified for Standard No. 208, since neither NHTSA nor
manufacturers have the experience regarding the
determination of energy absorption and the relation-
ship between the internal wall of the vehicle and the
dummy that was available with respect to Standard
No. 208. Honda suggested that at least one more step
be provided in the phase-in.
Peugeot argued that the proposed phase-in sched-
ule would in reality require those manufacturers
who have only one model on the American market to
comply in 100 percent of their vehicles sold in the
first year of the phase-in, only two years after the
final rule has been promulgated. That company
stated that protection in side impacts is much more
difficult to insure than in frontal impacts, because
the available space to absorb the energy is smaller.
Peugeot stated that, depending on the levels adopted
for the proposed performance requirements, five
years leadtime might be required. Peugeot sug-
gested that an alternative phase-in schedule be
provided for manufacturers which comply with 100
percent of their vehicles at initial application. Sim-
ilar concerns were expressed by Austin Rover and
Rolls-Royce.
NHTSA disagrees that a longer phase-in is needed
than for Standard No. 208. While Honda argued that
neither the agency nor manufacturers have as much
experience in this area, NHTSA believes that its
research program has sufficiently identified the
kinds of countermeasures that are necessary to meet
the new requirements. Further, the agency believes
that the phase-in provides adequate time for manu-
facturers to add padding and make structural
changes, as necessary, and to certify compliance for
their vehicles.
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 10 percent of a manufacturer's
cars to comply with the new side impact 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 Standard No. 208 had similar provisions and
that manufacturers with a limited number of models
in the U.S. market were able to comply with that
Standard. No manufacturer provided evidence that
it could not meet the proposed requirements for at
least one model with two years leadtime.
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 same points are true, albeit to a lesser extent,
for a multi-line foreign manufacturer importing only
a single model line into the United States.
The agency has identified an alternative compli-
ance schedule which it believes would help meet the
concerns of single line manufactvu"ers, 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 cars
during the first year of the phase-in, but would then
be required to meet the requirements for all of its
cars beginning with the second year of the phase-in.
A manufacturer choosing this option would thus
have three years leadtime to meet the new require-
ments. While this option would be available to all
manufacturers, the agency believes that it would not
be feasible for the larger manufacturers to comply
with it. NHTSA believes that the option would be
consistent with the need for motor vehicle safety,
since the number of cars meeting the new require-
PART 571; S214-PRE 47
ments during the three-year phase-in period would
be considerably higher under this option than under
the other schedule.
CFAS/PC argued that the proposed phase-in
schedule is an example of NHTSA being "far too
solicitous of the wishes of auto company manage-
ments and far too indifferent to the safety needs of
the public." Those commenters questioned whether
there needs to be any phase-in at all, stating that the
agency has not made an adequate case for the
lengthy phase-in it proposed. They also argued that
if there is a phase-in, small and medium size cars
should be phased in first since the fatality rates in
side impact crashes for those cars is twice the
fatality rate in large cars.
NHTSA notes that one reason a phase-in is appro-
priate is that most manufacturers have many models
subject to the new requirements. These manufactur-
ers must design and produce the necessary modifi-
cations to meet the new requirements for each of
their models. However, the same engineering re-
sources and testing facilities may be needed for all of
the models, and cannot be used simultaneously.
Given the complexity of the new side impact require-
ments, the agency believes that the length of the
proposed phase-in is appropriate. With respect to
CFAS/PC's suggestion that the requirements be
phased in for smaller cars first, NHTSA notes that
the requirements are generally more difficult to
meet for small cars than large cars. If the require-
ments were phased in for smaller cars first, it might
therefore be necessary to begin the phase-in at a
later time. The agency believes it is appropriate to
permit manufacturers flexibility in this area.
After considering the comments, NHTSA has de-
cided to adopt the proposed phase-in schedule, while
also providing the alternative compliance schedule
discussed above. More specifically, each manufactur-
er's passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep-
tember 1, 1993, for sale in the United States, will
have to meet the new side impact performance require-
ments based on the following phase-in schedule:
10 percent of automobiles manufactured during
the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1993;
25 percent of automobiles manufactured during
the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1994;
40 percent of automobiles manufactured during
the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1995;
and
All automobiles manufactured on or after Septem-
ber 1, 1996.
Under the alternative compliance schedule, no
compliance will be required during the production
year beginning September 1, 1993, but full imple-
mentation will be required effective September 1,
1994.
NHTSA notes that while the final rule establishes
different TTI(d) limits for two-door cars and four-door
cars, manufacturers need not meet the phase-in
requirements separately for these two types of cars.
For example, during the first year of the phase-in, a
manufacturer does not need to have 10 percent of its
two-door cars and 10 percent of its four-door cars
meet the new requirements. The 10 percent require-
ment applies to the manufacturer's fleet as a whole,
and could be met entirely by two-door cars or four-
door cars, or by a combination of the two types of
cars.
As suggested by Ford, the agency has included
provisions similar to those in Standard No. 208 for
production volumes and cars produced by more than
one manufacturer. In cases where passenger cars are
manufactured by two or more companies, manufac-
turers may determine, by contract, which of them
will count such vehicles. Two rules of attribution
apply in the absence of such a contract. First, a
passenger car which is imported for purposes of
resale is attributed to the importer, which will be
responsible for meeting the percentage phase-in re-
quirements and for making the necessary reports.
This applies, of course, to both direct importers as
well as importers authorized by the vehicle's original
manufacturer. (In this context, direct importation
refers to the importation of cars which are originally
manufactured for sale outside the U.S. and which
are then imported without the manufacturer's au-
thorization into the U.S. by an importer for purposes
of resale. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that such
vehicles be brought into conformity with Federal
motor vehicle safety standards.) Under the second
attribution rule, a passenger car manufactured in
the United States by more than one manufacturer,
one of which also markets the vehicle, is attributed
to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
These two attribution rules generally attribute a
vehicle to the manufacturer which is most responsi-
ble for the existence of the vehicle in the United
States, i.e., by importing the vehicle or by manufac-
turing the vehicle for its own account as part of a
joint ventiu-e, and marketing the vehicle.
NHTSA has decided not to include provisions for
carry-forward credits. For the Standard No. 208
phase-in, the agency decided that it would be appro-
priate to permit manufacturers that exceeded the
minimum phase-in requirements in earlier years to
"count" those extra vehicles toward meeting the
minimum percentage requirements of later years.
The agency concluded that such a credit would
encourage the early introduction of larger numbers
of automatic restraints. One difference between the
Standard No. 208 phase-in and the side impact
phase-in is that almost all cars needed the addition
of automatic belts or air bags in order to meet
Standard No. 208, while many vehicles do not need
PART 571; S214-PRE 48
any changes to meet the new side impact require-
ments. If carry-forward credit provisions were estab-
lished for the side impact phase-in, manufacturers
might be able to build up credits during the early
years of the phase-in by using cars which already
meet the standard and thereby avoid making the
necessary changes to meet the full percentage re-
quirements in the later years of the phase-in. For
this particular rulemaking, the agency therefore
concludes that carry-forward credit provisions would
be inappropriate.
XV. Retention of Related Requirements in
Standard No. 214 and Other Standards
In the NPRM, the agency requested comments on
retaining the existing requirements of Standard No.
214 if the proposed new performance requirements
were adopted. For many years, the standard has
required each side door to resist crush forces that are
applied by a piston pressing a steel cylinder against
the door's outside surface in a laboratory test.
NHTSA's research has shown that the existing re-
quirements of the standard have been effective in
reducing fatalities and injuries in single vehicle
impacts. The agency believes that the primary rea-
son for the effectiveness of the current standard is
that it reduces intrusion in the vehicle. In particular,
the added side door beam helps to keep a pole, tree,
guardrail or other fixed object from intruding into
the occupant's seating position and from hitting the
occupant. Given the effectiveness of the existing
requirements, the agency indicated that it contem-
plated retaining them.
Numerous commenters argued that the existing
requirements of Standard No. 214 should be deleted
as superfluous if dynamic test requirements become
effective. Some commenters argued that the existing
requirements are not the best means for addressing
pole impacts. Commenters also suggested that the
retention of the existing requirements might make
it more difficult to meet the new requirements.
Ford argued that the existing Standard No. 214
provisions should be retained because they have
proven effective in reducing injuries and fatalities
resulting from single vehicle side impacts into poles
and trees. That company stated that the proposed
full vehicle crash testing does not address concen-
trated loading, such as by poles and trees, which
account for approximately a quarter of side impacts.
Ford also argued, however, that changes should be
made in the existing requirements to make them
more realistic.
After considering the comments, NHTSA has de-
cided to retain the existing requirements of Stan-
dard No. 214. The agency concludes that the existing
requirements have proven to be effective and to
provide benefits in single vehicle crashes that would
not necessarily be provided by the new dynamic
requirements. NHTSA is not aware of any evidence
indicating that compliance with the existing re-
quirements will make it difficult to meet the new
requirements. Moreover, those current models which
already meet the new requirements also meet the
existing requirements. NHTSA does not consider
changes to the existing requirements or alternative
ways of addressing pole impacts to be within the
scope of the NPRM.
The NPRM also requested comments on whether to
retain the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occu-
pant Protection in Interior Impact, concerning arm-
rests. That standard sets forth various requirements
for armrests, including ones which require armrests to
be constructed with energy-absorbing material.
Several commenters argued that it is unnecessary
to retain the armrest requirements of Standard No.
201 once a dynamic side impact test requirement
becomes effective. Those commenters argued that
the armrest requirements would be duplicative.
After considering the comments, however, NHTSA
has decided to retain the Standard No. 201 require-
ments. The new dynamic requirements primarily
address hard thorax injuries, which include some,
but not all abdominal injuries. NHTSA believes that
the Standard No. 201 requirements provide benefits
that might not be provided by the dynamic test re-
quirements of Standard No. 214. As indicated above,
the SID dummy was not designed with an abdominal
load sensor. Therefore, the proposed test procedure
might not pick up a concentrated load applied to the
abdomen, such as might occur from an armrest im-
pacting an occupant in a crash. NHTSA therefore
believes that it is appropriate to continue to specify
separate requirements for armrests to help ensure that
they are not overly aggressive in crashes.
XVI. Limitation on Intrusion
In the NPRM, the agency requested comments on
whether it should adopt a separate limitation on the
intrusion that occurs during the proposed dynamic
side impact test.
Manufacturers argued that the agency should not
adopt a limitation on intrusion. Ford stated that
compliance with the current Standard No. 214 test
requirement and the proposed test requirements
would inherently limit the amount of intrusion.
That commenter argued that there is no need for an
additional requirement that is design restrictive.
Nissan stated that there is no need for superimpos-
ing an intrusion restriction upon that of dummy
readings. That company stated that since NHTSA's
real intent is to lower dummy readings, the manu-
facturers should be provided with design flexibility.
Volvo stated that, according to its tests, the amount
of intrusion does not directly translate to injuries
PART 571; S214-PRE 49
measured in the occupants. That commenter stated
that it is the dynamic behavior of the deformation
and the amount of intrusion during the first 30
milliseconds of the side impact crash that is of
importance for the injury criteria levels and that it is
not evident that the amount of residual deformation
correlates to the dynamic event. Volvo expressed
concern that adding a requirement on the amount of
deformation could create a risk of sub-optimization
for TTI(d) or pelvic G's. Austin Rover stated that a
limit on intrusion would not serve a useful purpose.
That company stated that the injuries sustained by
occupants in the proposed test are due to the occu-
pant being accelerated sideways by the inside sur-
face of the vehicle. Austin Rover argued that injuries
sustained by intrusion would more likely be caused
by crushing the occupant between the side of the
vehicle and some other fixed part of the vehicle. That
commenter stated that in practice the intrusion seen
in the test is not sufficient for this to occur.
IIHS noted that the agency had proposed to retain
the existing crush resistance requirements of Stan-
dard No. 214, but urged NHTSA to supplement those
requirements with an intrusion limit in the new
barrier-into-car test. That commenter stated that
the purpose of the intrusion limit should be to reduce
the possibility of localized intrusion, which might
cause penetrating injuries that would not be meas-
ured by the proposed TTI(d) performance criterion.
The Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen
recommended that NHTSA specify a maximum in-
trusion distance such as the 18 inches in the present
static standard which would protect against injuries
not measured by the proposed TTI(d) or pelvic g's
performance criteria.
After considering the comments, NHTSA has de-
cided not to adopt a limitation on intrusion. The
agency notes that an 18-inch limitation on intrusion
would not appear to add any protection because
intrusion is generally less than 18 inches in side
impact tests using the proposed procedure. Localized
intrusion does not occur in the test because the
uniform MDB face loads the door laterally, as the
MDB slides toward the rear, and there are no pro-
truding structures on the barrier face to cause such
intrusion. Moreover, intrusion in the dynamic side
impact test has not been correlated to injury, and an
intrusion limitation might not serve any purpose.
XVII. Stretch Limousines
Superior Coaches, an alteration manufacturer of
limousines, expressed concern that the proposed
requirements would result in economic hardship for
it. That company indicated that it manufactures
limousines by altering various makes of complete,
certified passenger cars. All of the passenger cars
are purchased as four-door sedans. The original
vehicle is cut transversely behind the center pillar,
and the underbody and roof construction are ex-
tended. Additional right and left center pillars and
right and left side doors are added. Superior Coaches
indicated that it altered several different models of
cars and expressed concern that it would have to
crash test each model.
NHTSA has considered whether it should apply the
new dynamic crash requirements to stretch limou-
sines. These vehicles differ from other passenger cars
in two ways: (1) they are considerably longer, and (2)
they have a variety of rear seating configurations.
The agency has concluded that the new require-
ments are appropriate for the front seats of stretch
limousines. The front seats of these vehicles are no
different than the front seats of other passenger cars.
Moreover, the test procedure evaluates the side im-
pact protection of the front seats in the same manner
as for any other passenger car.
NHTSA has concluded that the test procedure is
not appropriate for the rear seats of stretch limou-
sines. After the stretching, the primary rear seats
are typically so far back from the MDB impact point
that the side impact protection provided for those
seating positions cannot appropriately be evaluated
by the test procedure. The variety of seating config-
urations provided in the rear of stretch limousines
also make the test procedure inappropriate. NHTSA
has therefore decided not to apply the rear seating
requirements to passenger cars with a wheelbase
greater than 130 inches. The agency notes that the
wheelbases of the longest current production (i.e.,
unaltered) passenger cars are several inches shorter
than 130 inches.
The agency estimates that there are about 40 alter-
ers that modify production vehicles into stretch limou-
sines. These alterers are generally small businesses.
Alterers are required to certify that the altered
vehicle continues to comply with all applicable Fed-
eral motor vehicle safety standards. This should not
create a significant burden on limousine manufac-
turers. First, the production cars used for limousines
will be certified to comply with the new require-
ments before the alteration. Alterers will generally
not remove padding from the front doors that might
be provided in light of the requirements. Since
stretch limousines generally have wheelbases longer
than 130 inches, the rear seat requirements would not
apply. Thus, alterers would not need to add any
countermeasures to limousines to ensure that the
vehicles would pass the new requirements. However,
they would have to make certain, through conduct-
ing or sponsoring engineering analysis and/or test-
ing as needed, that their alterations do not weaken
PART 571; S214-PRE 50
the front seat side impact protection provided ' y the
original manufacturer
Limousine manufacturers should already have
considerable experience in certifying that their al-
tered vehicles continue to comply with standards
that specify crash test requirements, since several
existing standards that include crash test require-
ments for passenger cars do not exclude limousines.
These standards include Standard No. 203, Head
Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering
Control System; Standard No. 204, Steering Control
Rearward Displacement; Standard No. 208, Occu-
pant Crash Protection; Standard No. 202, Wind-
shield Mounting; Standard No. 219, Windshield
Zone Intrusion; and Standard No. 301, Fuel System
Integrity. NHTSA does not believe that it should be
more burdensome for alterers to certify that their
altered vehicles continue to meet the new side im-
pact requirements than it is for them to certify that
the vehicles continue to meet other standards which
specify crash tests. This is particularly true with
respect to Standard No. 301, which requires that
vehicles pass a lateral moving barrier crash test.
XVIII. Regulatory Impacts
A Executive Order 12291
NHTSA has examined the impact of this rulemak-
ing action and determined that it is major within the
meaning of Executive Order 12291, and significant
within the meaning of the Department of Transpor-
tation's regulatory policies and procedures. The
agency has prepared a Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis describing the economic and other effects of
this rulemaking action. The analysis is being placed
in the docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this
rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. I hereby certify that it would not have a signif-
icant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not pre-
pared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
The primary cost effect of this rule is on passenger
car manufacturers. Few, if any, passenger car man-
ufacturers would qualify as small entities.
NHTSA estimates that there are about 40 alterers
that modify production passenger cars into stretch
limousines. These alterers are generally small busi-
nesses. Alterers are required to certify that the
altered vehicle continues to comply with all applica-
ble Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As dis-
cussed above, this rule should not create a signifi-
cant burden on limousine manufacturers. Alterers
would not need to add any countermeasures to
limousines to ensure that the vehicles would pass
the new requirements. However, they would have to
make certain, by conducting or sponsoring engineer-
ing analysis and/or testing as needed, that their
alterations do not weaken the front seat side impact
protection provided by the original manufacturer.
The agency does not believe that it should be more
burdensome for alterers to certify that their altered
vehicles meet the new side impact requirements
than it is for them to certify that the vehicles meet
other applicable standards which specify crash tests.
Other manufacturers which would qualify as
small entities, small organizations and governmen-
tal units would be affected by this rule to the extent
that they purchase passenger cars. They will not be
significantly affected, since the potential increases
associated with this action should only slightly
affect the purchase price of new motor vehicles.
PART 571-[AMENDED]
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571
is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; dele-
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.214 is amended by revising SI, S2,
and S3 and adding S5 through S8.5.2 to read as
follows:
§ 571.214 [Amended]
51 Scope and Purpose
(a) Scope. This standard specifies performance
requirements for protection of occupants in side
impact crashes.
(la) Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
reduce the risk of serious and fatal injury to occu-
pants of passenger cars in side impact crashes by
specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements in
terms of accelerations measured on anthropomor-
phic dummies in test crashes, by specifying strength
requirements for side doors, and by other means.
52 Applicatioru This standard applies to passen-
ger cars.
53 Requirements.
(a) Each vehicle shall be able to meet the require-
ments of either, at the manufacturer's option, S3.1 or
S3. 2 when any of its side doors that can be used for
occupant egress are tested according to S4.
(b) When tested under the conditions of S6, each
passenger car manufactured on or after September
1, 1996 shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2,
and S5.3 in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which
the car is struck on either side by a moving deform-
able barrier Part 572, Subpart F test dummies are
placed in the front and rear outboard seating posi-
tions on the struck side of the car However, the rear
seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars
PART 571; S214-PRE 51
with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to
passenger cars which have rear seating areas that
are so small that the Part 572, Subpart F dummies
cannot be accommodated according to the position-
ing procedure specified in S7.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this
section, from September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1996,
a specified percentage of each manufacturer's yearly
passenger car production, as set forth in S8, shall,
when tested under the conditions of S6, meet the
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 in a 33.5 miles
per hour impact in which the car is struck on either
side by a moving deformable barrier Part 572,
Subpart F test dummies are placed in the front and
rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of
the car However, the rear seat requirements do not
apply to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than
130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear
seating areas that are so small that the Part 572,
Subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated accord-
ing to the positioning procedure specified in S7.
(d) A manufacturer may, at its option, comply with
the requirements of this paragraph instead of para-
graph (c) of this section. When tested under the condi-
tions of S6, each passenger car manufactured from
September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1996 shall meet the
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 in a 33.5 miles per
hour impact in which the car is struck on either side by
a moving deformable barrier. Part 572, Subpart F test
dummies are placed in the front and rear outboard
seating positions on the struck side of the car. However,
the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger
cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to
passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are
so small that the P&rt 572, Subpart F dummies cannot
be accommodated according to the positioning proce-
dure specified in S7.
*****
S5 Dynamic performance requirements.
55.1 Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d))
shall not exceed 85 g for passenger cars with four
side doors, and shall not exceed 90 g for passenger
cars with two side doors, when calculated in accor-
dance with the following formula:
TTI(d) = 1/2 (Gr + Gls)
The term "Or" is the greater of the peak accelera-
tions of either the upper or lower rib, expressed in g's
and the term "Gls" is the lower spine (T12) peak
acceleration, expressed in g's. The peak acceleration
values are obtained in accordance with the proce-
dure specified in S6.13.5.
55.2 Pelvis. The peak lateral acceleration of the
pelvis, as measured in accordance with S6.13.5,
shall not exceed 130 g's.
55.3 Door opening.
S5.3.1 Any side door, which is struck by the
moving deformable barrier, shall not separate to-
tally from the car.
S5.3.2 Any door (including a rear hatchback or
tailgate), which is not struck by the moving deform-
able barrier, shall meet the following requirements:
55.3.2.1 The door shall not disengage from the
latched position;
55.3.2.2 The latch shall not separate from the
striker, and the hinge components shall not separate
from each other or from their attachment to the
vehicle.
55.3.2.3 Neither the latch nor the hinge systems of
the door shall pull out of their anchorages.
S6 Test conditions.
56.1 Test weight Each passenger car is loaded to
its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and
luggage capacity, secured in the luggage area, plus
the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test
dummies. Any added test equipment is located away
from impact areas in secure places in the vehicle.
The car's fuel system is filled in accordance with the
following procedure. 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 percent
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.
56.2 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 deliv-
ered" condition. The "as delivered" condition is the
vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100
percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires
inflated to the manufacturer's specifications listed
on the vehicle's tire placard. Determine the distance
between the same level surface and the same stan-
dard reference points in the vehicle's "fully loaded
condition." The "fully loaded condition" is the test
vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1. The load
placed in the cargo area is centered over the longi-
tudinal centerline of the vehicle. The pretest vehicle
attitude is equal to either the as delivered or fully
loaded attitude or between the as delivered attitude
and the fully loaded attitude.
56.3 Adjustable seats. Adjustable seats are placed
in the adjustment position midway between the
forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if sepa-
rately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the
lowest position. If an adjustment position does not
exist midway between the forwardmost and rear-
most positions, the closest adjustment position to the
rear of the midpoint is used.
PART 571; S214-PRE 52
56.4 Adjustable seat back placement Place adjast-
able seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal de-
sign riding position in the manner specified by the
manufacturer. If the position is not specified, set the
seat back at the first detent rearward of 25° from the
vertical. Place each adjustable head restraint in its
highest adjustment position. Position adjustable
lumbar supports so that they are set in their re-
leased, i.e., full back position.
56.5 Adjustable steering wheels. Adjustable steer-
ing controls are adjusted so that the steering wheel
hub is at the geometric center of the locus it de-
scribes when it is moved through its full range of
driving positions.
56.6 Windows. Movable vehicle windows and
vents are placed in the fully closed position on the
struck side of the vehicle.
56.7 Convertible tops. Convertibles and open-body
type vehicles have the top, if any, in place in the
closed passenger compartment configuration.
56.8 Doors. Doors, including any rear hatchback
or tailgate, are fully closed and latched but not
locked.
56.9 Transmission and brake engagement For a
vehicle equipped with a manual transmission, the
transmission is placed in second gear. For a vehicle
equipped with an automatic transmission, the trans-
mission is placed in neutral. For all vehicles, the
parking brake is engaged.
56.10 Moving deformable barrier The moving de-
formable barrier conforms to the dimensions shown
in Figure 1 and specified in Part 587.
56.11 Impact reference line. For vehicles with a
wheelbase of 114 inches or less, on the side of the
vehicle that will be struck by the moving deformable
barrier, place a vertical reference line which is 37
inches forward of the center of the vehicle's wheel-
base. For vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 114
inches, on the side of the vehicle that will be struck
by the moving deformable barrier, place a vertical
reference line which is 20 inches rearward of the
centerline of the vehicle's front axle.
56.12 Impact configuration. The test vehicle (ve-
hicle A in Figure 2) is stationary. The line of forward
motion of the moving deformable barrier (vehicle B
in Figure 2) forms an angle of 63 degrees with the
centerline of the test vehicle. The longitudinal cen-
terline of the moving deformable barrier is perpen-
dicular to the longitudinal centerline of the test vehi-
cle when the barrier strikes the test vehicle. In a test
in which the test vehicle is to be struck on its left
(right) side: all wheels of the moving deformable bar-
rier are positioned at an angle of 27 + 1 degrees to the
right Geft) of the centerline of the moving deformable
barrier; and the left (right) forward edge of the moving
deformable barrier is aligned so that a longitudinal
plane tangent to that side passes through the impact
reference line within a tolerance of + 2 inches when
the barrier strikes the test vehicle.
S6.13 Anthropomorphic test dummies.
56.13.1 The anthropomorphic test dummies used
for evaluation of a vehicle's side impact protection
conform to the requirements of Subpart F of Part 572
of this Chapter. In a test in which the test vehicle is
to be struck on its left side, each dummy is to be
configured and instrumented to be struck on its left
side, in accordance with Subpart F of Part 572. In a
test in which the test vehicle is to be struck on its
right side, each dummy is to be configured and
instrumented to be struck on its right side, in
accordance with Subpart F of Part 572.
56.13.2 Each Part 572, Subpart F test dummy
specified 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-
13192 (1976) and weighs 1.2 ± 0.2 pounds.
56.13.3 Limb joints are set at between 1 and 2 g's.
Leg joints are adjusted with the torso in the supine
position.
56.13.4 The stabilized temperature of the test
dummy at the time of the side impact test shall be at
any temperature between 66 degrees F. and 78
degrees F.
56.13.5 The acceleration data from the accelero-
meters mounted on the ribs, spine and pelvis of the
test dummy are processed with the FIRIOO software
specified in 49 CFR Part 572. The data are processed
in the following manner:
56. 13.5.1 Filter the data with a 300 Hz, SAE Class
180 filter;
56.13.5.2 Subsample the data to a 1600 Hz sam-
pling rate;
56.13.5.3 Remove the bias from the subsampled
data, and
56. 13.5.4 Filter the data with the FIRIOO software
specified in 49 CFR Part 572, which has the follow-
ing characteristics—
56.13.5.4.1 Passband frequency 100 Hz.
56. 13.5.4.2 Stopband frequency 189 Hz.
56.13.5.4.3 Stopband gain -50 db.
56. 13.5.4.4 Passband ripple 0.0225 db.
S7. Positioning procedure for the Part 572 Subpart
F Test Dummy. Position a correctly configured test
dummy, conforming to Subpart F of Part 572 of this
Chapter, in the front outboard seating position on
the side of the test vehicle to be struck by the moving
deformable barrier and position another conforming
test dummy in the rear outboard position on the
same side of the vehicle, as specified in S7.1 through
S7.4. Each test dummy is restrained using all avail-
able belt systems in all seating positions where such
PART 571; S214-PRE 53
0.032 ALUM BACK PLATE
26 ksi 5052H14
NHTSA VEHICLE CONRGURATION - MOVING BARRIER SIDE IMPACTOR CONCEPT
(4-WHEELED VEHICLE SIMULATOR)
ONE PIECE ALUM. HONEYCOMB BLOCK
45 p« CRUSH (. or - 2.5 ps<) ^^^ ^^j„ ^^^E
DO NOT BOND 26 ksi 5052-H34
THIS SURFACE
ONLY
NHTSA BARRIER FACE
ALUM. HONEYCOMB BUMPER
245 pa CRUSH STRENGTH
(+/- 15 psi)| \
HONEYCOMB
y/////////A^V//ZW?77.
ii
L*.
GftOUND
(FRONT VIEW)
1/8 ALUM. FACES
50 ksj 2024-T3
ALL DIMENSIONS IN INCHES
SEC. A-A
NHTSA Side Impactor— Moving Deformable Barrier
FIGURE 2
PART 571; S214-PRE 54
Impact Point
Direction of ///,
Travel @ ////^
33.5 mph
Vehicle A
Vehicle B
Test Configuration
FIGURE 3
PART 571; S214-PRE 55
belt restraints are provided. In addition, any folding
armrest is retracted.
57.1 Torsa
57.1.1 For a test dummy in the driver position.
(a) For a bench seat The upper torso of the test
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagittal
plane of the test dummy is vertical and parallel to
the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and passes
through the center of the steering wheel.
(b) For a bucket seat The upper torso of the test
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagittal
plane of the test dummy is vertical and parallel to
the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and coincides
with the longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat.
57.1.2 For a test dummy in the front outboard
passenger position.
(a) For a bench seat The upper torso of the test
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagittal
plane of the test dummy is vertical and parallel to
the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and the same
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline as
would be the midsagittal plane of a test dummy
positioned in the driver position under S7.1.1.
(b) For a bucket seat The upper torso of the test
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagittal
plane of the test dummy is vertical and parallel to
the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and coincides
with the longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat.
57.1.3 For a test dummy in either of the rear
outboard passenger positions.
(a) For a bench seat The upper torso of the test
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagittal
plane of the test dummy is vertical and parallel to
the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and, if possible,
the same distance from the vehicle's longitudinal
centerline as the midsagittal plane of a test dummy
positioned in the driver position under S6.1.1. If it is
not possible to position the test dummy so that its
midsagittal plane is parallel to the vehicle longitu-
dinal centerline and is at this distance from the
vehicle's longitudinal centerline, the test dummy is
positioned so that some portion of the test dummy
just touches, at or above the seat level, the side
surface of the vehicle, such as the upper quarter
panel, an armrest, or any interior trim (i.e., either
the broad trim panel surface or a smaller, localized
trim feature).
(b) For a bucket or contoured seat The upper torso
of the test dummy rests against the seat back. The
midsagittal plane of the test dummy is vertical and
parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and
coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the
bucket or contoured seat.
57.2 Pelvis.
S7.2.1 H-point The H-points of each test dummy
coincide within 1/2 inch in the vertical dimension
and 1/2 inch in the horizontal dimension of a point
1/4 inch below the position of the H-point deter-
mined by using the equipment for the 50th percen-
tile and procedures specified in SAE J826 (Apr 80),
except that Tkble 1 of SAE J826 is not applicable.
The length of the lower leg and thigh segments of
the H-point machine are adjusted to 16.3 and 15.8
inches, respectively.
S7.2.2 Pelvic angle. As determined using the pelvic
angle gauge (GM drawing 78051-532 incorporated
by reference in Part 572, Subpart E of this Chapter)
which is inserted into the H-point gauging hole of
the dummy, the angle of the plane of the surface on
the lumbar-pelvic adaptor on which the lumbar
spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from the horizon-
tal, sloping upward toward the front of the vehicle.
57.3 Legs.
7.3.1 For a test dummy in the driver position. The
upper legs of each test dummy rest against the seat
cushion to the extent permitted by placement of the
feet. The left knee of the dummy is positioned such
that the distance from the outer surface of the knee
pivot bolt to the dummy's midsagittal plane is six
inches. To the extent practicable, the left leg of the
test dummy is in a vertical longitudinal plane.
7.3.2 For a test dummy in the outboard passenger
positions. The upper legs of each test dummy rest
against the seat cushion to the extent permitted by
placement of the feet. The initial distance between
the outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is 11.5
inches. To the extent practicable, both legs of the test
dummies in outboard passenger positions are in
vertical longitudinal planes. Final adjustment to
accommodate placement of feet in accordance with
S7.4 for various passenger compartment configura-
tions is permitted.
57.4 Feet
57.4.1 For a test dummy in the driver position. The
right foot of the test dummy rests on the unde-
pressed accelerator with the heel resting as far
forward as possible on the floorpan. The left foot is
set perpendicular to the lower leg with the heel
resting on the floorpan in the same lateral line as
the right heel.
57.4.2 For a test dummy in the front outboard
passenger position. The feet of the test dummy are
placed on the vehicle's toeboard with the heels
resting on the floorpan as close as possible to the
intersection of the toeboard and floorpan. If the feet
cannot be placed flat on the toeboard, they are set
perpendicular to the lower legs and placed as far
forward as possible so that the heels rest on the
floorpan.
57.4.3 For a test dummy in either of the rear
outboard passenger positions. The feet of the test
dummy are placed flat on the floorpan and beneath
the front seat as far as possible without front seat
interference. If necessary, the distance between the
PART 571; S214-PRE 56
knees can be changed in order to place th^ feet
beneath the seat.
S8 Phase-in of dynamic test and performance
requirements.
58.1 Passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep-
tember 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994.
S8.1.1 The number of passenger cars complying
with the requirements of S3(c) shall be not less than
10 percent of:
(a) The average annual production of passenger
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1990,
and before September 1, 1993, by each manufac-
turer, or
(b) The manufacturer's annual production of pas-
senger cars during the period specified in S8.1.
58.2 Passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep-
tember 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995.
S8.2.1 The number of passenger cars complying
with the requirements of S3(c) shall be not less than
25 percent of:
(a) The average annual production of passenger
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1991,
and before September 1, 1994, by each manufac-
turer, or
(b) The manufacturer's annual production of pas-
senger cars during the period specified in S8.2.
58.3 Passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep-
tember 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996.
88.3.1 The number of passenger cars complying
with the requirements of S3(c) shall be not less than
40 percent of:
(a) The average annual production of passenger
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1992,
and before September 1, 1995, by each manufac-
tvirer, or
(b) The manufacturer's annual production of pas-
senger cars during the period specified in S8.3.
S8.4 Passenger cars produced by more than one
manufacturer
58.4.1 For the purposes of calculating average
annual production of passenger cars for each manu-
facturer and the number of passenger cars manufac-
tured by each manufacturer under S8.1, S8.2, and
S8.3, a passenger car produced by more than one
manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manu-
facturer as follows, subject to S8.4.2:
(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.
58.4.2 A passenger car produced by more than one
manufacturer shall be attributed to any one of the
vehicle's manufacturers specified by an express writ-
ten contract, reported to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part
586, between the manufacturer so specified and the
manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S8.4.1.
Issued on: October 24, 1990
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
55 F.R. 45722
October 30, 1990
PART 571; S214-PRE 57-58
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 214
Side Impact Protection— Light Trucks, Buses, and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
(Docket No. 88-06; Notice 11)
RIN: 2127-AD43
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice extends the quasi-static test
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand-
ard No. 214 to trucks, buses and multipurpose pas-
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.
These performance requirements, which currently ap-
ply only to passenger cars, mitigate occupant injuries
in side impacts. Under this part of the standard, each
side door is required to resist crush forces that are ap-
plied by a piston pressing a steel cylinder against the
door's outside surface in a laboratory test. This rule
is part of the NHTSA program to improve side impact
protection for vehicle occupants.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments made by this
final rule to the Code of Federal Regulations are
effective September 1, 1993.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NHTSA's standard for side impact protection is Fed-
eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. Since the
standard became effective on January 1, 1973, it has
specified performance requirements for each passenger
car side door. The standard, through its provisions con-
cerning side door strength, seeks to mitigate occupant
injuries in side impacts by reducing the extent to which
the side structure of a car is pushed into the passenger
compartment during a side impact. The side door
strength provisions of the standard require each door
to resist crush forces that are applied by a piston press-
ing a steel cylinder against the door's outside surface
in a laboratory test. The load is applied by means of
a piston pressing a vertical steel cylinder against the
middle of the door. The bottom of the cylinder is five
inches above the lowest point of the door; the top of
the cylinder extends above the bottom edge of the win-
dow opening by at least 0.5 inches. Car manufactiu-ers
have generally chosen to meet these performance re-
quirements of the standard by reinforcing the side
doors with metal beams
NHTSA's analysis of crash data has shown that the
strengthening of passenger car side doors with the
beams is effective, but primarily in single car side im-
pacts. The agency's November 1982 study. "An Evalu-
ation of Side Structure Improvements in Response to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214,"
(DOT HS 806-314) estimated that 480 lives have been
saved and 9,500 fewer hospitalizations have occurred
per year as a result of the standard. The study also
found that while single vehicle side impact occupant
fatalities were reduced by 14 percent, the standard had
little effect on reducing fatalities in multi-car side im-
pact collisions.
During the past several years. NHTSA has been in-
volved in a number of efforts to upgrade Standard No.
214, both in developing new dynamic procedures and
requirements for passenger cars and in extending ap-
plicability of the long-established quasi-static passenger
car requirements to trucks, buses and multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPV's) with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less Oight trucks,
vans and MPV's, or "LTV's").
For passenger cars, on October 30, 1990. NHTSA
published in the Federal Register (55 FR 45722) a final
rule adding dynamic test procedures and performance
requirements to Standard No. 214. The final rule re-
quires that a passenger car must provide protection in
a full-scale crash test in which the car (known as the
"target" car) is struck in the side by a moving defor-
mable barrier simulating another vehicle. Instrumented
test dummies are positioned in the target car to meas-
ure the potential for injuries to an occupant's thorax
and pelvis. Also, on August 19, 1988, the agency pub-
lished in the Federal Register 53 FR 31712) an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning
requirements for passenger cars intended to reduce the
risk of head and neck injuries and ejections, in side im-
pact crashes between vehicles and in other crashes
where the protection provided by the side of the vehi-
cle is a relevant factor. The ANPRM also sought com-
ments on whether additional requirements should be
considered to address side impacts with poles and trees.
NHTSA's efforts to extend side impact requirements
to LTV's largely parallel its efforts with respect to pas-
senger cars. On August 19, 1988, the agency published
in the Federal Register (53 FR 31716) an ANPRM
PART 571; S214-PRE 59
regarding possible requirements for LTV's in each of
the areas where requirements have been established,
or are under consideration, for passenger cars. The
ANPRM addressed: (1) extension to LTV's of Standard
No. 214's existing static procedures and performance
requirements, i.e., measuring crush strength perfor-
mance in terms of the ability of each door to resist a
piston pressing a rigid steel cylinder inward against the
door, (2) developing dynamic test procedures and per-
formance requirements for LTV's, similar to those pro-
posed in the January 198B NPRM for passenger cars,
and (3) developing requirements for LTV's intended
to reduce the risk of head and neck injuries and ejec-
tions, similar to those addressed in the August 1988
ANPRM for passenger cars.
Of the various potential side impact requirements for
LTV's that were addressed in the ANPRM, NHTSA
is the most advanced with respect to the extension of
Standard No. 214's existing side door strength require-
ments to these vehicles. The agency decided to go for-
ward with rulemaking on that issue separately, since
waiting until the agency is ready to address all of the
potential requirements together would result in un-
necessary delays and loss of safety benefits. Therefore,
after considering comments on the ANPRM, NHTSA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in
the Federal Register of December 22, 1989 (54 FR
52826) to extend the quasi-static test requirements for
side door strength applicable for passenger cars to
LTV's.
Summary of the Proposal
NHTSA proposed extending Standard No. 214's
quasi-static test requirements to trucks, buses and
MPV's with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, effec-
tive September 1, 1992. NHTSA requested comment
on whether a more limited extension would be ap-
propriate, in light of the alleged potential impacts on
final-stage manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles. In
the proposal, NHTSA stated that it believed that
manufacturers would comply with the requirements by
adding metal beams to the side doors of these vehicles,
similar to those currently added to passenger cars.
NHTSA recognized that a significant difference be-
tween passenger cars and many LTV's is that LTV's
may have side doors that are not likely to have vehicle
occupants sitting near them. Therefore, the agency pro-
posed to exclude certain doors from the standard. The
agency proposed to exclude: (1) any side door located
so that no portion of an adjacent outboard designated
seating position, with the seat adjusted to any position
to which it can be adjusted, falls within the transverse,
horizontal projection of the door's opening, and (2) any
side door located adjacent to hardware for installation
of an outboard seating position so that no portion of
a seat recommended by the manufacturer for installa-
tion with that hardware, would when so installed, and
adjusted as in (1), fall within the three dimensional area
described in (1). (The term "outboard designated seat-
ing position" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3.)
NHTSA requested comments on a few issues relat-
ing to the proposed criteria for the exclusion of these
doors. One issue was whether there should be an ex-
clusion from the standard of rear side van doors if a
small portion of the front of that side door is adjacent
to the rear of the front seat. Another issue was whether
rear van doors adjacent to aisleways should be exclud-
ed from coverage even though the seating positions on
the other side of the aisleways might not be "outboard
designated positions," because those aisle seats could
be less than 12 inches from the side of the vehicle.
NHTSA also requested comments on whether any
other doors, such as detachable doors, should be
excluded from the standard's coverage.
Brief Summary of Comments
NHTSA received comments from 21 parties. The
majority of commenters supported extension of the
side-door strength provisions of the standard to LTV's.
Among those favoring the proposed extension were all
insurance groups, consumer groups, and medical
groups which commented. In addition, some motor
vehicle manufacturers and associations of such
manufacturers supported the proposal. Several
manufacturers provided no position on the overall
proposal, while commenting on specific aspects of the
proposal. Others stated conditional support for the
proposal with comments on specific aspects of it. One
manufacturer did not support the proposal, while
another suggested that action be delayed until action
is taken on the potential dynamic side impact require-
ments for LTV's. A more detailed summary of com-
ments and the NHTSA response to those comments
is presented in later portions of this notice.
Summary of the Final Rule
After considering the comments and other available
information, NHTSA has decided to extend the side
door strength requirements of Standard No. 214 to
LTV's. The final rule extends these requirements to
LTV's with a GHVR of 10,000 pounds or less, except
for walk-in vans. The requirements become applicable
to the covered LTV's on September 1, 1993. The final
rule establishes the same test procedure for LTV's as
was proposed (i.e., the side door strength procedure
that has applied to passenger cars since the standard
became effective). As discussed more fully later in this
notice, the rule excludes certain side doors from the
side door strength requirements of the standard. Be-
low, NHTSA discusses in greater detail the contents
of the final rule and the reasons for its adoption.
Safety Need
As stated in the proposal, the number of LTV oc-
cupant fatalities increased during the 1980's, primar-
PART 571; S214-PRE 60
ily due to the greatly increasing sales of these vehicles
and the use of these vehicles for passenger transpor-
tation. From 1985 to 1989, annual LTV fatalities in-
creased from 6,738 to 8,578. LTV occupant non-fatal
injuries have also been increasing. For example,
between 1985 and 1989, the annual number of such in-
juries increased from 583,000 to 763,000. Sales of
LTV's increased from approximately 4.5 million vehi-
cles in 1985 to 4.9 million vehicles in 1988. With record-
breaking sales years in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988, and
projected sales of over 5.0 million vehicles per year into
the future. NHTSA believes that these trends of in-
creasing fatalities and injuries will continue.
Side impacts are a significant cause of LTV occupant
fatalities, accounting for about 19 percent of all LTV
occupant fatalities. Between 1985 and 1988, total LTV
fatalities in side impacts increased from 1,247 to 1,625
annually, and estimated AIS 3-5 injuries increased from
4,890 to 5,940. LTV fatalities in single-vehicle side im-
pact crashes increased from 546 to 717 annually be-
tween those years, and estimated AIS 3-5 injuries
increased from 1,960 to 2,380. (The abbreviation "AIS"
refers to Abbreviated Injury Scale, which is used to
rank injuries by level of severity. An AIS 1 injury is
a minor one, while an AIS 6 injury is one that is cur-
rently untreatable and fatal. AIS 3-5 injuries are those
which are serious-to-critical.)
NHTSA recognized that, as significant as side im-
pacts are in causing LTV occupant fatalities, side im-
pacts are an even greater source of passenger car
occupant fatalities, accounting for 32 percent of such
fatalities. NHTSA stated in the proposal that the
agency was concerned about the side impact problem
for both passenger cars and LTV's and is addressing
the problem in rulemaking for all of these vehicles.
NHTSA further stated that even though the side im-
pact problem may be greater for passenger cars than
for LTV's, this does not negate the seriousness of the
problem for LTV's or the desirability of taking action
to address the problem.
NHTSA stated in the proposal that extension of the
side door strength requirements to LTV's would likely
result in significant safety benefits by reducing the ex-
tent to which the side structure of the LTV is pushed
into the passenger compartment in a side-impact colli-
sion. NHTSA anticipated that manufacturers would
comply vidth the proposed requirements by installing
a longitudinal beam in each side door.
NHTSA received a number of comments concerning
the safety need for the proposed requirement. Chrys-
ler Corporation (Chrysler), while stating that it could
meet the proposed requirements, asserted that com-
pliance with them would do little except add weight and
cost to a vehicle. Chrysler further asserted that LTV's
perform better than passenger cars in side impact ac-
cidents, even without side door beams. Ford Motor
Company (Ford) and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association (MVMA) also asserted that LTV's without
side door beams can offer at least equivalent side crush
resistance as passenger cars with side door beams. The
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) ques-
tioned whether door beams in LTV's have any signifi-
cant effect in either vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-
fixed-object impacts. However, IIHS agreed that the
requirements would provide better door latch integrity
by strengthening the door latch supporting structure.
IIHS stated that this would reduce ejection during rol-
lover. Nissan Research & Development, Inc. (Nissan)
asserted that side door beams would be less effective
in MPV's than in passenger cars. J. E. Tomassoni
stated that a side door beam would be beneficial in side
impact crashes.
After reviewing comments, NHTSA concludes that
there is a safety need for extending the side door
strength requirements to LTV's. NHTSA acknowl-
edges that the problem of side impacts writh fixed ob-
jects may be greater for passenger cars than for LTV's.
However, this does not obviate the seriousness of the
problem for LTV's or the desirability of taking action
to address the problem. NHTSA concludes that
changes made in LTV's (i.e., the installation of side
door beams) in response to the requirements will reduce
fatalities and injuries in single-vehicle crashes involv-
ing many fixed objects. The principal benefit of side
door beams is their ability to transfer crash forces into
the strong pillar structures of the vehicle. This force
transfer results in reduced door intrusion since, with
the beam, the door structure will no longer be required
to absorb all the crash energy. This concept is applica-
ble to both passenger car and LTV doors. Thus,
NHTSA concludes that the installation of beams in
LTV's will result in a substantial reduction in door in-
trusion, thereby reducing the risk of occupant injury.
More specifically, NHTSA concludes that side door
beams will be effective in LTV's in reducing fatalities
in single vehicle side impacts with tall, unyielding, fixed
objects (e.g., a pole or tree) as they are in passenger
cars. This is because the crash behavior of passenger
cars and LTV's is very similar in this type of impact.
NHTSA concludes that side door beams will reduce fa-
talities and injuries in side impacts by minimizing side
door intrusion into the occupant compartment of the
vehicle and reducing the impact velocity of contact
between a door and a vehicle occupant. In addition,
NHTSA concludes that side door beams will signifi-
cantly improve the integrity of door latches by
strengthening the door latch supporting structure and
thus reduce side door ejections.
Practicability
NHTSA stated in the proposal that it expected
manufacturers to comply with the proposed side door
strength requirements by reinforcing the side doors
with metal beams, a practice manufacturers have
PART 571; S214-PRE 61
followed with passenger cars for a number of years.
Ford commented that it has designed most of its LTV
models without the space in the doors that would be
needed for side impact door beams. Ford asserted that
it would be costly and economically wasteful to pack-
age door beams as a running change to existing
products. NHTSA has analyzed the information sub-
mitted by Ford. NHTSA concludes that it is possible
for Ford and other manufacturers to meet the require-
ments by the September 1, 1993 effective date of the
requirements of this final rule. NHTSA discusses the
cost and leadtime issues raised by Ford in more detail
in later portions of this notice.
Test Procedure
NHTSA proposed to specify the same test procedure
for LTV's as that specified for passenger cars. Ford
suggested that the test procedure be changed to
represent better an actual side collision with a tall,
narrow, fixed object. Specifically, Ford suggested that
the bottom edge of the loading cylinder be extended
downward to within 25-50 mm above the ground. Ford
asserted that this approach would be less design
restrictive than the existing test procedure since it
would give vehicle manufacturers the choice of using
door beams, strengthening the vehicle sill, or combin-
ing both design concepts. MVMA made the same sug-
gestions as Ford. HHS found merit in Ford's suggested
test procedure. However, HHS pointed out that the
Ford procedure did not address the problem of the door
opening during impact. HHS asserted that this problem
could be overcome by specifying that the door latch re-
main engaged and that both the door latch and the
hinges remain attached to their mountings during the
side door strength test. Range Rover of North
America, Inc. (Range Rover) also asserted that the pro-
posed test procedure is not representative of actual
crash conditions. Range Rover suggested a "whole
vehicle" intrusion test procedure that would have the
test device extend above and below the highest and
lowest parts of the vehicle in the vicinity of the test
area.
NHTSA has evaluated the alternative test procedure
suggested by Ford and MVMA (referred to hereafter
as the "Ford procedure"). NHTSA believes that com-
menters have misconstrued the purpose of the side door
strength test procedure. The purpose of test is to en-
sure that the door stiffness is sufficient to preclude
excessive intrusion in the occupant compartment in
moderately severe crashes, not to replicate certain
actual side impacts. The Ford procedure would have
a loading device engage both the door and the sill. Thus,
the Ford procedure would assess the composite crush
strength of the sill and the door combined. The Ford
test method would not ensure adequate side door
strength as long as the sill structure is the primary load
path in the test. This could result in less occupant
protection since side door strength is important in side
impact collisions with fixed objects. In 1984 and 1985.
NHTSA conducted four 45-degree-rigid-pole-side-
impact tests. The test results show that the maximum
compartment intrusion usually occurs at middle-door
height, where a side door beam would provide
protection.
In addition, NHTSA is not convinced that the Ford
test procedure is representative of many side impact
collisions with fixed objects. Vehicles are often rolling
when they hit fixed objects. When vehicles are rolling,
a fixed object may not engage the sill, as in the Ford
test procedure, before excessive door intrusion occurs.
NHTSA believes that during off-road sideways sliding,
a vehicle's wheels often dig into the ground or are
"tripped" on an object and the vehicle tilts in the direc-
tion of the slide. This results in the initial impact of the
vehicle being close to the occupant's chest height,
where a side door beam should provide protection. Roll-
over crashes are a frequent crash mode for LTV's, ac-
counting for 46 percent of LTV occupant fatalities in
1988, compared to 24 percent for passenger cars. Since
rollovers are a large component of the LTV safety
problem, NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to con-
clude that many of the LTV rollovers involve the LTV
in a rolled or tilted configuration as it strikes a fixed
object in the door region.
Further, NHTSA is concerned that an LTV could
"pass" the Ford test procedure even if it had very thin
doors with practically no energy absorption capability.
NHTSA recognizes that there is an option of propos-
ing the Ford test procedure, but specifying higher force
levels if the sill is engaged. However, NHTSA does not
believe that this approach would measure a side door's
resistance to crush any better than the current proce-
dure. Further, the Ford approach would require much
additional research and would delay this rulemaking.
NHTSA does not believe that such delay is appropri-
ate in view of the safety benefits that NHTSA expects
to result from the adoption of this final rule.
Another disadvantage of the Ford test procedure is
that it does not adequately address the integrity of the
door latch system. A door latch could disengage or
separate from its mounting during the test and still
"pass" under the Ford procedure because the sill struc-
ture could provide needed strength to meet the require-
ments. NHTSA acknowledges that additional door
latch integrity requirements could be added to the Ford
procedure, as suggested by IIHS. However, this also
would require much additional research and would
delay this rulemaking. NHTSA does not believe that
such delay is appropriate in view of the safety benefits
that NHTSA expects to result from the adoption of this
final rule.
The test procedure suggested by Range Rover would
test the crush of the side door, the sill, and the roof
and is similar to the procedure suggested by Ford.
PART 571; S214-PRE 62
NHTSA believes that its evaluation above of the Ford
suggestion also applies to the Range Rover suggestion.
As with the Ford procedure, the Range Rover test
would not specifically address door intrusion, the prin-
cipal benefit of the current test procedure for side door
strength.
J. E. Tomassoni recommended that Standard No. 214
be modified to assure that the side structure will resist
a significant force level to a distance of 18 inches. The
standard currently allows the peak force to be reached
at any distance up to 18 inches during the quasi-static
test procedure. NHTSA is not amending the standard
as recommended by Mr. Tomassoni. NHTSA believes
that such an amendment would be beyond the scope
of the proposed rule. In addition, NHTSA is not con-
vinced that such a change in the standard is necessary.
If the peak force is reached before 18 inches, this value
violl be sufficient to ensure the energy absorption level
of the side door in this simulated crash environment
is sufficient for providing occupant protection.
GM stated that careful study is needed to determine
if a quasi-static crush test of side door strength and
a dynamic crash test are both warranted for LTV's.
NHTSA will undertake further research and will ana-
lyze the need for dynamic test requirements further
before proposing any dynamic crash test for LTV's.
Ford asked whether double opening side cargo doors
should be considered as two separate doors or treated
as a system. This would affect where the longitudinal
location of the loading cylinder is positioned for the side
door strength test. NHTSA concludes that such doors
should be treated as a system and tested simultane-
ously. NHTSA believes that the mid-point is the
weakest region of double-opening doors. NHTSA be-
lieves that the test should determine the crush charac-
teristics of the weakest region of the door, where the
greatest intrusion is likely to occur. As discussed above,
the purpose of the side door beam is to transmit loads
to the pillar structures of the vehicle. These structures
are at the ends of the door and generally have door
hinges on one pillar and a door lock and latch on the
other pillar. The door beam transmits crash forces
through these hinges and the lock and latch mechan-
ism into the pillars. Such a force-transmitting design
will have its greatest deflection when the loads are
applied at the mid-point. Such a test condition will
ensure that, if a door has adequate strength and as-
sociated low intrusion at the mid-point, the strength
will be at least as great at other locations. NHTSA
intends to propose an amendment to section S.4 of
Standard No. 214 in the near future to deal with the
test procedure for double-opening doors. NHTSA also
intends to propose an amendment to that section of the
standard to clarify how a vehicle door without a win-
dow should be tested.
J. E. Tomassoni stated that section S3. 2 of Standard
No. 214 contains a typographical error (i.e., it refers
to "the requirements of S3.2 1 through S3. 2. 2" rather
than to "the requirements of S3. 2.1 through S3. 2. 3).
NHTSA agrees with Mr. Tomassoni and has corrected
that error in this final rule.
Vehicle Population
NHTSA proposed to extend the side door strength
requirements of Standard No. 214 to all LTV's with
a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. In the proposal,
NHTSA stated that the agency may consider extend-
ing the requirements on a more limited basis in the final
rule.
NHTSA received a number of comments on the pro-
posed vehicle population. General Motors Corporation
(GM), Ford, and Chrysler suggested that the require-
ments be extended only to LTV's with a GVWR of
8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight
(UVW) of 5,500 pounds or less. GM stated that in many
of the vehicles with a GVWR between 8,500 and 10,000
pounds, occupants sit relatively high and would not
benefit from a side door beam. Ford and Chrysler
stated that their suggested weight limits would be con-
sistent with those in Standard No. 208 for manual seat
belts. The commenters also asserted that the lower
weight limits would reduce the burden imposed on final-
stage manufacturers and alterers. The National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA) opposed the extension
of the side door strength requirements to commercial
or vocational vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages and outfitted with cargo carrying or work-
related equipment. NTEA stated that if NHTSA de-
cides to cover such multi-stage vehicles, limiting the
extension of the requirements to vehicles with a GVWR
of 8,500 pounds or less and an UVW of 5,500 pounds
or less would be of significant assistance to the truck
body and equipment industry since it would exclude
many multi-stage vehicles. NTEA further stated that
they would prefer limiting the extension of the require-
ments to vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less
and a UVW of 5,000 pounds or less. NTEA asserted
that the vehicles in this latter weight category are the
ones most likely to be used for passenger transporta-
tion and for which passenger car safety standards
would be most appropriate. The Recreation Vehicle
Industry Association (RVIA) requested that NHTSA
exclude motor homes, van conversions, and vans from
the side door strength requirements. RVIA asserted
that such vehicles are larger and much stronger struc-
turally than passenger cars. If NHTSA decides not to
exclude such vehicles. RVIA requested that the re-
quirements only apply to vehicles with a GVWR of
more than 6,000 pounds.
Grumman Olson requested that walk-in vans be
excluded from the extension of the side door strength
requirements. Grumman Olson asserted that the basic
design of the walk-in van protects occupants during
side impacts. According to Grumman Olson, there is
PART 571; S214-PRE 63
typically only one seating position in a walk-in van. The
driver's shoulder is typically eight to 18 inches away
from the side of the vehicle, thus providing crush space
in the event of a side impact. Grumman Olson also
stated that walk-in vans have sliding doors as side
doors. Grumman Olson asserted that addition of a door
beam to such a sliding door would not be sufficient for
compliance with the side door strength test. The com-
menter further asserted that additional weight and/or
structure would have to be added for compliance. Ac-
cording to Grumman Olson, such an increase in struc-
ture would decrease driver visibility and result in
increased accidents at intersections. The commenter
also stated that the increased weight would increase
the effort required to operate the door and thus in-
crease driver fatigue. The commenter further stated
that the size of the lower guard would have to increase
to meet the side door strength requirements. Grum-
man Olson contended that this would result in a trip-
ping hazard since the door guide is at the outside edge
of the step. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
(Mercedes-Benz) suggested that NHTSA target the
side door strength requirements of Standard No. 214
to those vehicles that would "truly benefit in single-
vehicle accidents from the addition of side door beams."
After considering the comments and other informa-
tion, the agency has decided to extend the side door
strength requirements to LTV's with a GVWR of
10,000 poimds or less, except for walk-in vans. As dis-
cussed above, NHTSA has concluded that there is a
safety need to extend the side door strength require-
ments of Standard No. 214 to LTV's. NHTSA has fur-
ther concluded that the requirements would also serve
a safety need in LTV's viath a GVWR between 8,500
and 10,000 pounds. While commenters asserted that
vehicle occupants typically sit higher in such vehicles,
NHTSA has concluded that this does not lessen the
safety need for side door strength requirements. In side
impacts wdth poles and trees, the objects struck are
typically taller than the LTV and its occupants.
Research conducted by NHTSA indicates that the
weight of a vehicle does not have a strong effect on
the risk of injury to vehicle occupants in side crashes.
Thus, LTV's between 8,500 pounds and 10,000 pounds
GVWR do not offer greater crash protection in side
impacts than LTV's less than 8,500 pounds GVWR.
Further, the test procedure adopted by this final rule
would specify a peak crush resistance of 12,000 pounds
for all vehicles. Thus, there is no additional burden
established for vehicles over 8,500 pounds GVWR. As
discussed more fully in a later portion of this notice,
NHTSA has also concluded that issues concerning the
certification of comphance with the side door strength
requirements of Standard No. 214 for multi-stage
vehicles can be resolved for vehicles less than 10,000
pounds GVWR. Further, GM suggested an alternative
of excluding walk-in vans from coverage if the GVWR
cut-off was set at 10,000 pounds. NHTSA has adopted
that alternative in this final rule.
NHTSA is excluding walk-in vans because the agency
has concluded that it is impracticable for such vehicles
to meet the side door strength requirements because
of their special design features. As pointed out by
Grumman Olson, a simple addition of a side door beam
would not be sufficient to comply with the side door
strength requirements. Rather, manufacturers would
have to add additional weight and structure and com-
pletely change the side of the vehicle. NHTSA agrees
with Grumman Olson that this increased weight and
structure could have other safety implications.
NHTSA has decided to include motor homes, vans,
and van conversions in the final rule. NHTSA does not
agree wdth RVIA that there is a lesser safety need for
covering such vehicles. That commenter stated that oc-
cupants of these vehicles are seated well above the most
likely points of initial side impact in a vehicle that is
larger, much stronger structurally, and provides more
protection against side impacts than a passenger car.
As discussed above, however, in side impacts with poles
and trees, the objects struck are typically taller than
the LTV and its occupants, and research conducted by
the agency indicates that the weight of a vehicle does
not have a strong effect on the risk of injury to vehicle
occupants in side crashes. Thus, there are no indica-
tions of any lesser safety need for side impact protec-
tion in these vehicles. These vehicles are driven on the
same roads and at the same times as other LTV's, and
are thus subject to the same safety risks as other
LTV's. NHTSA is not aware of any special characteris-
tic of these vehicles that would reduce such risks.
Moreover, neither RVIA nor any other commenter
identified any characteristic in the design of these
vehicles that would make it harder to meet the side
door strength requirements than in other types of
LTV's, nor is NHTSA aware of any such characteris-
tic. Further, the cost of installing side door beams in
these vehicles will not exceed the cost of installing them
in other LTV's. After examining these factors, there
is no apparent basis for excluding these vehicles from
the side door strength requirements.
As mentioned above, NTE A suggested excluding cer-
tain vehicles produced in two or more stages from the
side door strength requirements of Standard No. 214.
NTEA asserted that NHTSA has not demonstrated
that there is a safety need to extend the requirements
to such vehicles. In the Final Regulatory Impact Anal-
ysis, 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
PART 571; S2M-PRE CI
is a safety need to protect occupants of every conceiv-
able subclass of light truck (e.g., tow trucks, am-
bulances, bread delivery vehicles, public utility vehicles,
snow plows, dump trucks, etc.). A similar argument
was also made by RVIA. Crash data broken down by
such discrete subclasses of LTV's are not available.
Even if such detaOed data were available, 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 10,000 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 mem-
bers' vehicles either offer improved side door strength
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 the side door strength requirements of
Standard No. 214 to vehicles manufactured by its mem-
bers is not necessary. Since these vehicles are driven
on the same roads and at the same times as other
LTV's, they are subject to the same safety risks as
other LTV's, absent some special vehicle characteris-
tic that would reduce such risks. Indeed, the risk to
occupants of many vehicles produced by NTEA mem-
bers may even exceed that to occupants of other LTV's.
For example, occupants of vehicles used for emergency
or rescue purposes (e.g., ambulances and tow trucks)
may be at greater risk than occupants of other LTV's.
NTEA has argued in other rulemakings involving
extensions of safety standards to LTV's that because
vehicles manufactured by its members are not intended
to transport passengers and because they are driven
by professionals, there is less safety need to apply
safety standards to such vehicles. First, many LTV's
manufactured by NTEA's members typically have pas-
sengers. Examples of such vehicles include ambulances
(where an injured or ill person and a medical techni-
cian are typical passengers), tow trucks (where the dis-
abled vehicle's driver is a typical passenger), and utility
vehicles (which often have a two-person crew). Second,
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 LTV's
manufactured by its members are somehow safer be-
cause their drivers are "professionals." NTEA submit-
ted no information about any special training or
licensing requirements for operators of such LTV's and
NHTSA is not aware of any such requirements.
Further, there is a legal issue concerning whether
NHTSA is able to exclude vehicles produced in two or
more stages from Standard No. 214 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 ve-
hicles from Standard No. 214 simply because they are
manufactured in two or more stages. NHTSA ac-
knowledges that a recent decision in National Truck
Equipment Association v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 (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 be-
lieve that the approach would be appropriate here.
NHTSA believes that the occupants of LTV's manufac-
tured in two or more stages should be provided the
same protection in side impacts as occupants of other
LTV's. As discussed above, NHTSA does not believe
that LTV's manufactured in two or more stages have
any characteristics which provide better occupant pro-
tection in side impact collisions than other LTV's and
NTEA did not offer any information to support such
a conclusion. Later in this preamble, NHTSA discusses
ways that final-stage manufacturers and alterers may
comply with Standard No. 214.
Exclusion of Certain Side Doors
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to exclude certain
side doors from coverage under the standard since the
agency tentatively concluded that adding side beams
to such doors would likely have little or no safety
benefit. Specifically, NHTSA proposed to exclude: (1)
any side door located so that no portion of an adjacent
outboard designated seating position, with the seat ad-
justed to any position to which it can be adjusted, falls
wdthin the transverse, horizontal projection of the
door's opening, and (2) any side door located adjacent
to hardware for installation of an outboard seating
position so that no portion of a seat recommended by
the manufacturer for installation with that hardware,
would when so installed, and adjusted as in (1), fall
within the three dimensional area described in (1).
In the NPRM, NHTSA also requested comment on
whether the agency should exclude rear side van doors
where a small portion of the front of that side door is
adjacent to the rear of the front seat. NHTSA further
PART 571; S214-PRE 65
requested comment on whether rear side doors
adjacent to the aisleways in some vans should be ex-
cluded from coverage even if the seating positions on
the other side of the aisleways might not be "outboard
seating positions" as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 because
those aisle seats could be less than 12 inches from the
side of the vehicle. Finally, NHTSA requested com-
ment on whether any other doors, such as detachable
doors, should be excluded from coverage.
NHTSA received a number of comments on these
issues. Motor Voters urged NHTSA to consider cover-
ing doors with no seating position nearby. According
to Motor Voters, this would reduce the likelihood of
ejection through those doors of unrestrained pas-
sengers seated in other positions or riding unseated in
the rear of vans and minivans. The American Medical
Association (AMA) opposed an exclusion for LTV doors
that are not next to an outboard seat. AMA was con-
cerned that any exclusion would encourage manufac-
turers to design LTV's to circumvent the side door
strength requirements. RVIA supported the proposed
exclusion of side doors that are not located adjacent
to an outboard designated seating position. RVIA
stated that this proposed exclusion would not adversely
affect safety and would provide relief by reducing the
number of doors that van converters (and motor home
manufacturers if motor homes were covered in the final
rule) would be required to test for compliance.
Chrysler supported the exclusions proposed by
NHTSA in the NPRM. In addition, Chrysler supported
an exclusion for doors in vans with seats on the aisle
that are less than 12 inches from the side of the vehi-
cle and, therefore, are outboard designated seating
positions. Chrysler asserted that, because of the sepa-
ration afforded by the aisleway, these doors will not
have occupants sitting immediately adjacent to them
and that adding side door beams would be of little
benefit. Chrysler further supported an exclusion for
side van doors where a small portion of the front of
the door is adjacent to the rearmost part of a front out-
board seating position. Chrysler suggested that the
door be excluded unless the seat at its rearmost ad-
justed position extended into the projected door open-
ing to the extent that the H-point was adjacent to the
door or door opening. According to Chrysler, this sug-
gested exclusion would apply even if a seat were not
installed as original equipment, but could be installed
at a later date using hardware available at that out-
board seating position. Finally, Chrysler supported an
exclusion for detachable doors. Chrysler pointed out
that its Jeep Wrangler sport utility vehicle has light-
weight, detachable doors. Chrysler asserted that the
purchaser of a vehicle with light-weight, detachable
doors would perceive that the doors do not meet side
door crush performance requirements, just as the
owner of a convertible is aware that the vehicle will
not meet roof crush requirements. Nissan Research &
Development, Inc. (Nissan) stated that an exclusion
from the side door strength requirements is justified
for doors where the only seat adjacent to the door is
located an extended distance from the door (i.e., when
a door is next to an aisle). Nissan asserted that there
is a low possibility of injury from door intrusion to the
seat's occupant in such a case. However, Nissan stated
that studies of the relationship between the degree of
door intrusion and injuries sustained were necessary
to determine the appropriate distance between the in-
ner surface of the door and the seat necessary to qualify
for an exclusion. Nissan also stated that the criteria
in NHTSA's proposed regulatory text concerning the
exclusion for certain doors was unclear. Nissan recom-
mended that the final rule exclude doors if, when ad-
jacent outboard seats are adjusted anywhere within
their forward-most or rearward-most range and with
the seatbacks and seat lifters adjusted to the manufac-
turer's nominal design riding position, no portion of the
torso of an SAE J826b test mannequin that is posi-
tioned in a seat is within the door opening projection.
NHTSA also received one comment supporting an
extension of the strength requirements to structures
that were not covered in the proposal. J. E. Tomassoni
suggested that Standard No. 214 be modified to estab-
lish strength requirements for all side structures that
are located adjacent to seats, not just doors.
After considering comments and other information,
NHTSA has decided to exclude the following types of
side doors from coverage under the final rule:
(1) any side door located so that no point on a ten-
inch horizontal longitudinal line passing through and
bisected by the H-point of a manikin placed in any seat,
with the seat adjusted to any position and the seat back
adjusted as specified in section S6.4. falls within the
transverse, horizontal projection of the door's opening,
(2) any side door located so that no point on a ten-
inch horizontal longitudinal line passing through and
bisected by the H-point of a manikin placed in any seat
recommended by the manufacturer for installation in
a location for which seat anchorage hardware is pro-
vided, with the seat adjusted to any position and the
seat back adjusted as specified in section S6.4. falls
within the transverse, horizontal projection of the
door's opening,
(3) any side door located so that a portion of a seat,
with the seat adjusted to any position and the seat back
adjusted as specified in section S6.4, falls within the
transverse, horizontal protection of the door's open-
ing, but a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the out-
board side of the seat cushion is more than 10 inches
from the innermost point on the inside surface of the
door at a height between the H-point and shoulder
reference point (as shown in figure 1 of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and longitu-
dinally between the front edge of the cushion with the
PART 571; S214-PRE
seat adjusted to its forwardmost position and the rear
edge of the cushion with the seat adjusted to its rear-
most position.
(4) any side door that is designed to be easily
attached to or removed (e.g., using simple hand tools
such as pliers and/or a screw driver) from a motor
vehicle manufactured for operation without doors.
The first two exclusions are for doors that are
unlikely to have vehicle occupants sitting near them.
As discussed in the preamble to the NPRM. NHTSA
believes that there is little safety benefit from having
a side door beam for doors that are unlikely to have
vehicle occupants sitting near them. While commenters
asserted that covering doors with no seating positions
nearby would reduce the likelihood of ejection through
those doors of unrestrained passengers seated in other
positions or riding unseated, NHTSA has concluded
that the potential safety benefit would be insignificant
and would not be justified in view of the cost of install-
ing door beams in those doors. The principal benefit
of side door beams is the reduction in passenger com-
partment intrusion. This reduces the risk of injury for
occupants seated near the door. Little safety benefit
would be gained by requiring side beams in door with
no passengers seated near them.
After considering public comments, NHTSA has
altered the scope of the first two exclusions to exclude
a door from coverage even if a small portion of the
front of that side door is adjacent to the rear of the
front seat. NHTSA has concluded that, in a side im-
pact with a fixed object, a door beam in the rear side
door would provide little protection to a vehicle
occupant sitting in the front seat. The occupant of such
a seat is unlikely to be exposed to door intrusion in a
such a side impact.
The third exclusion is for doors with an adjacent
designated seating position more than ten inches from
the inside surface of the vehicle. NHTSA has added this
exclusion after considering public comments that doors
should be excluded from coverage if the adjacent seats
are on the other side of an aisleway of at least ten
inches. NHTSA is excluding such side doors because
NHTSA has concluded that vehicle occupants seated
in such locations would benefit only minimally from the
reduction in intrusion into the passenger compartment
resulting from side door beams in a typical side impact
with a fixed object. Based on available data, NHTSA
has concluded that the intrusion into the occupant com-
partment is generally about four to six inches less than
the exterior crush. Therefore, in a crash of moderate
severity with an exterior crush of 12 to 16 inches, the
intrusion into the occupant compartment would be
about seven to 11 inches.
NHTSA is excluding side doors designed to be easily
attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufac-
tured for operation without doors because such doors
have design features which make compliance with the
side door strength requirements technologically and/or
economically impracticable. As pointed out in the
preamble to the NPRM, such doors may be made of
plastic fabrics and metal wire frames and would not
be able to meet the side door strength requirements.
NHTSA has concluded that these doors cannot be
redesigned to meet the requirements without com-
pletely changing the side of the vehicle.
Further, NHTSA does not believe that vehicle
manufacturers will produce a new type of vehicle sim-
ply to avoid the side door strength requirements as sug-
gested by one commenter. Although such doors have
been excluded from coverage under Standard No. 206,
Door Locks and Door Retention Compon£nts, NHTSA
does not believe that manufacturers have produced
vehicles with those doors simply to qualify for that
exclusion.
NHTSA did not adopt the suggestion of J. E.
Tomassoni to test all side structures adjacent to seats.
First, NHTSA believes that such an amendment to the
standard would be outside the scope of the proposed
rule. Second, NHTSA does not have data to justify such
a requirement for non-door structures. In fact, NHTSA
believes that the non-door regions generally have
higher crush strength characteristics than the door
regions because of the surrounding supporting
structure.
Safety Benefits of the Rule
As indicated above, in November 1982, NHTSA pub-
lished an evaluation of the side door strength require-
ments for passenger cars. The report concluded that
single vehicle side impact occupant fatalities were
reduced by 14 percent. For side impacts with tall fixed
objects and guard rails, the fatality reduction of side
door beams was 23 percent. The report concluded that
the standard did little to reduce fatalities in multi-car
side impact collisions.
In the NPRM, NHTSA attributed the benefits of the
side door strength requirements to the following facts:
(1) the added side door beam helps to make a pole, tree,
guardrail or other fixed object slide by the occupant's
position, thus reducing intrusion into the passenger
compartment, and (2) the strengthened striker/latch
area of the door helps reduce ejections.
In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that two injury
mechanisms are likely to occur in a typical side impact
with a fixed object. First, the occupant strikes the door.
This occurs before door intrusion reaches its maximum
and added padding is beneficial to reducing the poten-
tial for injury then. Second, the intruding object (or the
side structure of the vehicle when pushed inward by
the fixed object) may strike the occupant. A side door
beam reduces the possibility of this second injury
mechanism from occurring.
PART 571; S214-PRE 67
NHTSA, in the NPRM and the PreHminary Regula-
tory Impact Analysis (PRIA), estimated that adding
side door beams to LTV's would result in about 110
fewer fatalities and 950 fewer AIS 3-5 injuries each
year. In calculating benefits, the NHTSA assumed in
the NPRM and the PRIA that the effectiveness of side
beams for LTV's involved in side-impact crashes would
be the same as side beams for passenger cars. NHTSA
made this assumption because: (1) many LTV's are ex-
posed to the same traffic environment as cars, (2) side
door beams are most effective in reducing occupant in-
juries in single-vehicle crashes, where the mass and
height of a vehicle have little effect (unless the vehicle
is involved in a rollover), and (3) the doors currently
used on LTV's are similar to the doors used on pas-
senger cars prior to the establishment of side door
strength requirements for passenger cars. Since LTV's
were not yet equipped with side door beams, NHTSA
was unable to evaluate their effectiveness more
thoroughly. Since light truck occupants generally sit
higher than passenger car occupants, NHTSA pre-
sumed that they are less vulnerable in multi-vehicle col-
lisions involving passenger cars. In side impacts with
poles and trees, however, the objects struck are typi-
cally taller than either a passenger car or LTV. There-
fore, the height differences between cars and LTV's
would not affect the utility of side door beams in side
impacts with poles and trees.
NHTSA also stated that installing side beams in
LTV's could help reduce ejections in rollover or other
non-side-impact crash modes. However, the agency did
not attempt to quantify the potential benefits in those
areas.
NHTSA received a number of comments concerning
the projected benefits. As discussed above, a number
of commenters asserted that side door beams would
be less effective in LTV's than in passenger cars.
Therefore, some commenters (e.g.. Ford) asserted that
NHTSA had overestimated potential safety benefits in
the NPRM and PRIA. Ford asserted that the effective-
ness of side door beams in single vehicle accidents was
a function of accident type and that LTV's have a
different distribution of accident types than passenger
cars. Ford suggested a different methodology for
estimating benefits based on this different distribution
of accident types. In addition, some commenters
further asserted that side door beams may have an ad-
verse effect in vehicle-to-vehicle side impact collisions.
Ford asserted that the "benefits" of side door beams
may even be negative.
As discussed above, NHTSA has concluded that side
door beams will reduce fatalities and injuries in side
impacts by minimizing side door intrusion into the
occupant compartment of the vehicle and reducing the
impact velocity of contact between an intruding door
and a vehicle occupant.
After considering the comments, NHTSA has ana-
lyzed further the estimates of benefits from the exten-
sion of the side door strength requirements to LTV's.
NHTSA agrees with Ford that there is a difference in
accident types between passenger cars and LTV's.
NHTSA has estimated benefits for this final rule using
a methodology similar to the one suggested by Ford
for this aspect of the analysis.
NHTSA estimates that this final rule will avoid 59
to 83 fatalities and 914 to 1,223 non-fatal hospitaliza-
tions in single vehicle crashes. In multi-vehicle crashes.
NHTSA estimates that this final rule will avoid 672 to
685 non-fatal hospitalizations. These estimates do not
include potential benefits from possible reduced ejec-
tions in rollover or other non-side-impact crashes.
NHTSA cannot quantify such potential benefits at this
time. A more detailed analysis of benefits appears in
the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA).
NHTSA does not accept the assertion that side door
beams have an adverse effect in vehicle-to-vehicle side
impact collisions. Simulation studies have shown that
the contact velocity of the occupant in a vehicle-to-
vehicle side impact is reduced by a side door beam.
Since contact velocity is related to injury potential, it
is unlikely that side door beams could have an adverse
effect in vehicle-to-vehicle side impact collisions.
Costs of the Rule
In the NPRM and the Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis (PRIA), NHTSA estimated that the cost of
adding a side door beam to comply with the proposed
side door strength requirements would average be-
tween $16.15 and $28.18 per LTV. Including the life-
time fuel costs of carrying the extra weight of the side
door beams, NHTSA estimated that the cost per vehi-
cle would average between $36.93 and $51.35. In the
NPRM and the PRL^, NHTSA stated that another pos-
sible cost relates to secondary weight (i e., weight
increases in other parts of the vehicle which might be
made to compensate for the additional weight of side
door beams). In the NPRM and the PRIA, NHTSA
illustrated the potential impact of secondary weight by
assuming that 0.7 pounds of secondary weight is ad-
ded for each pound of primary weight (i.e., the weight
of the side door beams). With these assumptions,
NHTSA estimated that the total cost per vehicle would
average between $60.99 to $78.13. NHTSA also esti-
mated that the cost of conducting a compliance test for
the side door strength requirements would be about
$1,600.
NHTSA received comments on the estimated costs
of the proposed rule. RVIA asserted that each side door
strength test performed by an independent test facil-
ity would cost $6,290. According to RVIA, this figure
does not include the cost of replacing or repairing doors
destroyed or damaged by the test nor other costs for
design, engineering, manufacturing, or administrative
PART 571; S214-PRE
support. As stated in the FRIA, compliance costs for
the side door strength test for passengers cars were
about $2,000 per test in 1988. NHTSA expects that the
costs will be similar for LTV's. Thus, NHTSA believes
that the costs generally should not be as high as as-
serted by RVIA. Further, even if the RVIA figure is
correct, NHTSA believes that the testing costs will be
negligible for almost all LTV's on a per vehicle basis.
Ford asserted that it would have difficulty meeting
the requirements for one of its LTV models without
making major design changes, which would be very
costly. Ford estimated potential design and tooling
costs in a confidential submission to NHTSA. However,
since submission of its initial comment. Ford has
developed and demonstrated to NHTSA a relatively
simple way of meeting the side door requirements for
the LTV model in question, without major design
changes. Therefore, Ford's initial estimate of costs is
no longer valid.
After considering the comments on the estimated
costs of the proposed rule, NHTSA estimates that the
cost of adding side door beams to comply with the final
rule will average between $14.31 and $24.31 per co-
vered LTV. NHTSA further estimates that the lifetime
fuel costs of carrying the extra weight of the side door
beams will average between $16.66 and $17.97. Thus,
NHTSA estimates that the cost per vehicle will aver-
age between $30.97 and $42.28. NHTSA also per-
formed a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the potential
impact of secondary weight, assuming that 0.7 pounds
of secondary weight is added for each pound of primary
weight (i.e., the weight of the side door beams). With
these assumptions, NHTSA estimated that the total
cost per vehicle would average between $50.51 and
$63.34. The above estimates all exclude the cost of
adding side door beams to the rear side doors of vans
since many of these doors are not covered by the re-
quirements of this final rule. A more detailed analysis
of the costs of the final rule appears in the FRIA.
Compliance by Multi-Stage Manufacturers
In the proposal, NHTSA addressed the issue of
LTV's 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, in-
volved 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. 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 com-
ply with all applicable safety standards. Throughout the
rest of this preamble, the term "final-stage manufac-
turer" is used to refer to both final-stage manufac-
turers and alterers.
In the proposal, NHTSA stated that the compliance
test for side door strength is a destructive, whole sys-
tem test, which could be difficult and/or expensive for
many final-stage manufacturers to conduct, especially
if they conducted such testing on many different types
of vehicles. However, NHTSA stated that the vast
majority of final-stage manufacturers would have avail-
able means to certify compliance that would not require
testing. NHTSA's regulations require the manufac-
turers of truck or van chassis used by final-stage
manufacturers to provide information on what limita-
tions must be observed for the completed vehicle to
comply vnth safety standards. The final-stage manufac-
turer can base its certification on the fact that it stayed
within the limits set by the incomplete vehicle manufac-
turer. NHTSA stated in the proposal that, since the
truck or van chassis purchased by final-stage manufac-
turers generally have side doors and the final-stage
manufacturers generally do not change the side doors
or structure supporting the side doors, certification
with the proposed requirements could generally be
based on staying within the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer's limits. NHTSA also stated that if a
final-stage manufacturer added a rear side door and
did not wish to certify compliance for that door, it could
avoid such certification by not installing a seat (or hard-
ware for a seat) adjacent to the door.
NHTSA also stated in that proposal that some final-
stage manufacturers, including some manufacturers of
motor homes, build their own vehicle body structures,
which include side doors. NHTSA further stated that
these manufacturers are generally larger than most
final-stage manufacturers and have greater engineer-
ing and testing expertise. The agency stated that it did
not believe that the proposed requirements would be
unduly burdensome to these manufacturers.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the proposed re-
quirements would not result in any significant burdens
to final-stage manufacturers. However, the agency re-
quested comments on the issue. NHTSA stated that,
depending on the comments, the agency may consider
options such as limiting application of the standard to
vehicles with a GVWR or 8,500 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, and/or
excluding certain vehicles such as motor homes.
NHTSA received a number of comments on these
issues. GM was concerned about coverage of "chopped'
or "cut-away" chassis-cab incomplete vehicle models
GM stated that cut-away chassis-cab models are struc
turally very different from standard pickups or vans
According to GM, the open-rear design of these vehi
cles, which allows conversion into motor homes and
various commercial trucks, lacks rear structure which
may be needed to meet the side door strength require-
ments of the standard. RVIA was concerned about the
impact of the proposed requirements on van
converters.
PART 571; S214-PRE 69
The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
opposed the extension of the side door strength require-
ments to commercial or vocational trucks produced in
two or more stages and which are designed to carry
cargo or work-related equipment. NTEA acknowl-
edged that extension of the side door strength require-
ments to LTV's should not pose a significant problem
for many of the vehicles produced in the truck body
and equipment industry. NTEA agreed with NHTSA
that many final-stage manufacturers should be able to
pass through the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's
compliance certification for the requirements. NTEA
further agreed with NHTSA that most, if not all,
modifications performed by final-stage manufacturers
should not affect compliance with the requirements.
However, NTEA raised two possible areas of concern.
First, for incomplete chassis-cabs, there will be no in-
complete vehicle manufacturer's certification to pass-
through. Second, since the requirements do not cur-
rently apply to LTV's, companies in the truck body and
equipment industry do not know what limitations in-
complete vehicle manufacturers will place on completed
chassis-cabs to allow final-stage manufacturers to pass
through the compliance certification for the side door
strength requirements of Standard No. 214.
After considering these comments and other infor-
mation, NHTSA has concluded that these requirements
do not pose an unreasonable burden for final-stage
manufacturers. NHTSA below outlines ways that final-
stage manufacturers may certify compliance.
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 limi-
tations 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.
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 stand-
ards. NHTSA believes that final-stage manufacturers
will be able to pass through the certification for a large
percentage of multi-stage vehicles. NTEA agreed with
this point in its comments. The side doors and struc-
ture supporting the side doors on multi-stage vehicles
are generally not changed by final-stage manufac-
turers. New side doors are rarely fabricated for multi-
stage vehicles, except walk-in vans and motor homes.
As discussed above, walk-in vans are excluded from the
side door strength requirements. Final-stage manufac-
turers which build their own vehicle body structures,
including some manufacturers of motor homes, are
generally larger than most final-stage manufacturers
and have greater engineering and testing expertise.
NHTSA believes that any manufacturer which has the
resources and expertise to build its own vehicle body
structures can easily add side door beams to the doors
of its vehicles and conduct or sponsor any testing
needed for certification. If a final-stage manufacturer
added a rear side door and did not wish to certify com-
pliance for the vehicle, it could avoid this by not install-
ing a seat (or hardware for a seat) within ten inches
of the door.
NHTSA believes that van converters will also be able
to rely on prior certification of compliance with Stand-
ard No. 214. NHTSA believes that the front side doors
of vans will be produced in compliance with the side
door strength requirements because seats will be near
the front side doors. NHTSA acknowledges that the
rear side doors of some vans are not required to meet
the side door strength requirements because the van
has an aisle of ten or more inches between the seat and
the door. In such a case, the van converter could rely
on the prior certification if it limited installation of seats
to areas at least ten inches from the door. In addition,
van producers may respond to the market demand for
vans with more possible seating positions and produce
vehicles with rear side doors that meet the side door
strength requirements.
NHTSA acknowledges that final-stage manufac-
turers of some vehicles (e.g., incomplete chassis cabs
and cut-away chassis without structure for the side
doors) may not be able to certify compliance with the
standard by staying within the limits set by incomplete
vehicle manufacturers. However, NHTSA does not be-
lieve that this will create significant difficulties.
NHTSA believes that the final-stage manufacturer,
with advice and direction from the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer, can add sufficient structure to certify
such a vehicle. Further, NHTSA does not believe that
each final-stage manufacturer would have to conduct
its own testing of such vehicles. If testing is necessary,
final-stage manufacturers could sponsor testing by a
company with testing expertise. In addition, it may not
PART 571; S214-PRE 70
be necessary to test each vehicle type. In appropriate
situations, a final-stage manufacturer may be able to
conduct or sponsor engineering analysis and/or com-
puter simulations sufficient to enable it to certify, with
due care, that a completed vehicle complied with ap-
plicable safety standards, including the side door
strength requirements of Standard No. 214.
NHTSA also notes that NTEA did not assert that
certification would be difficult or impossible for any of
its members, only that there could be some difficulties.
Without any data to support the request by NTEA for
exclusions of vehicles produced by its members,
NHTSA is reluctant to exclude those vehicles from the
safety standard.
Leadtime
NHTSA stated in the proposal that manufacturers
could comply with the proposed requirements by
adding side door beams to the side doors of LTV's,
similar to those used in passenger cars. Since manu-
facturers have considerable experience in meeting
Standard No. 214's requirements for passenger cars,
NHTSA proposed allowing a leadtime of two years for
manufacturers to design, tool, and test the necessary
modifications. Specifically, NHTSA proposed an effec-
tive date of September 1, 1992 for the proposed
requirements.
The agency received a number of comments on the
leadtime issue. Chrysler, Nissan, and Volkswagen of
America, Inc. supported the proposed leadtime. GM
suggested a phase-in starting September 1, 1993.
Under the suggested phase-in, 25 percent of each
manufacturer's vehicles would be required to meet the
requirements the first year, 40 percent the year begin-
ning September 1, 1994, and all vehicles would be re-
quired to meet the requirements by September 1, 1995.
MVMA and Ford also supported a phase-in starting
September 1, 1993. These commenters stated that a
phase-in would allow manufacturers to make orderly
engineering changes as part of their new product
development program and to make the best use of
resources. Ford asserted that earlier implementation
of the rule without a phase-in provision would place
undue hardship and cost on vehicle manufacturers.
NTEA stated that, if NHTSA extended the side door
strength requirements to LTV's which are produced
in two or more stages, multi-stage manufacturers
should be granted at least six months additional lead-
time than that provided to manufacturers of incomplete
vehicles. NTEA asserted that a final-stage manufac-
turer does not know what limitations may be placed
on a chassis by an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for
pass-through certification and what modifications may
be necessary to meet the safety standard until the new
chassis is introduced and the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer's guidelines for completing the vehicle
are published. NTEA pointed out that its members
have no current experience in this area.
After considering these comments and other infor-
mation, NHTSA has decided to make the new require-
ments effective on September 1, 1993. NHTSA has
concluded that manufacturers need this time period to
equip all LTV's with side door beams as standard equip-
ment after the necessary design, tooling, and testing.
In addition, final-stage manufacturers need this much
time to decide how to certify compliance with the
requirements. Therefore, for good cause shown,
NHTSA finds that it is in the public interest to have
an effective date later than one year after promulga-
tion of this rule.
NHTSA does not believe that additional leadtime or
a phase-in is necessary. Door beam technology has been
used with passenger cars since 1973. Further, a few
LTV's are currently manufactured with side door
beams. While Ford initially asserted that the installa-
tion of side door beams in one of its models would re-
quire major design changes, Ford has since developed
a beam design which can be installed in the door of the
specific model without a major design change.
Chrysler and Mercedes suggested that NHTSA delay
extension of the quasi-static test of side door strength
until the dynamic side impact test for LTV's is deve-
loped. NHTSA has decided to adopt the quasi-static
test of side door strength now, rather than wait for the
dynamic test to be developed. NHTSA believes that the
benefits of the side door beam, which NHTSA expects
manufacturers to use to comply with the side-door
strength requirements, will avoid many fatalities and
serious injuries. Thus, NHTSA does not believe that
it is appropriate to delay the implementation of the
quasi-static performance requirement until the djmamic
requirements are developed. In addition, NHTSA an-
ticipates that the quasi-static and dynamic performance
requirements for LTV's will be complementary as they
are for passenger cars.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571
is amended as follows:
1. S2 is revised to read as follows:
52. Applicability. This standard applies to pas-
senger cars. Effective September 1, 1993, sections
S3(a), S3(e), S3.1 through S3.2.3, and S4 of the stand-
ard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks,
and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less,
except for walk-in vans.
2. A new section 2.1 is added as follows:
S2.1 Definitions.
"Walk-in van" means a van in which a person can
enter the occupant compartment in an upright position.
3. S3 is revised to read as follows:
53. Requirements, (a) Except as provided in sec-
tion S3(e), each vehicle shall be able to meet the require-
ments of either, at the manufacturer's option, S3.1 or
S3.2, when any of its side doors that can be used for
occupant egress is tested according to S4.
PART 571; S214-PRE 71
(b) When tested under the conditions of S6. each pas-
senger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1996
shall meet the requirements of S5.1. S5.2. and S5.3 in
a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the car is struck
on either side by a moving deformable barrier. Part
572, Subpart F test dummies are placed in the front
and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side
of the car. However, the rear seat requirements do not
apply to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than
130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear seat-
ing areas that are so small that the Part 572, Subpart
F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the
positioning procedure specified in S7.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this sec-
tion, from September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1996, a
specified percentage of each manufacturer's yearly pas-
senger car production, as set forth in S8, shall, when
tested under the conditions of S6, meet the require-
ments of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 in a 33.5 miles per hour
impact in which the car is struck on either side by a
moving deformable barrier. Part 572, Subpart F test
dummies are placed in the front and rear outboard seat-
ing positions on the struck side of the car. However,
the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger
cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to
passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are
so small that the Part 572, Subpart F dummies cannot
be accommodated according to the positioning proce-
dure specified in S7.
(d) A manufacturer may, at its option, comply with
the requirements of this paragraph instead of para-
graph (c) of this section. When tested under the condi-
tions of S6. each passenger car manufactured from
September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1996 shall meet the
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 in a 33.5 miles
per hour impact in which the car is struck on either
side by a moving deformable barrier. Part 571, Sub-
part F test dummies are placed in the front and rear
outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car.
However, the rear seat requirements do not apply to
passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than 130
inches, or to passenger cars which have rear seating
areas that are so small that the Part 572. Subpart F
dummies cannot be accommodated according to the
positioning procedure specified in S7.
(e) A vehicle need not meet the requirements of
sections S3.1 or S3.2 for-
(1) any side door located so that no point on a
ten-inch horizontal longitudinal line passing through and
bisected by the H-point of a manikin placed in any seat,
with the seat adjusted to any position and the seat back
adjusted as specified in section S6.4, falls within the
transverse, horizontal projection of the door's opening,
(2) any side door located so that no point on a
ten-inch horizontal longitudinal line passing through
and bisected by the H-point of a manikin placed in any
seat recommended by the manufacturer for installation
in a location for which seat anchorage hardware is pro-
vided, with the seat adjusted to any position and the
seat back adjusted as specified in section S6.4, falls
within the transverse, horizontal projection of the
door's opening,
(3) any side door located so that a portion of a seat,
with the seat adjusted to any position and the seat back
adjusted as specified in section S6.4, falls within the
transverse, horizontal protection of the door's open-
ing, but a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the out-
board side of the seat cushion is more than 10 inches
from the innermost point on the inside surface of the
door at a height between the H-point and shoulder
reference point (as shown in Figure 1 of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 210) and longitudi-
nally between the front edge of the cushion with the
seat adjusted to its forwardmost position and the rear
edge of the cushion with the seat adjusted to its rear-
most position.
(4) any side door that is designed to be easily
attached to or removed (e.g., using simple hand tools
such as pliers and/or a screw driver) from a motor
vehicle manufactured for operation without doors.
4. S3. 2 is revised to read as follows:
S3.2 With seats installed in the vehicle, and located
in any horizontal or vertical position to which they can
be adjusted and at any seat back angle to which they
can be adlusted, each vehicle must be able to meet the
requirements of S3.2.1 through S3. 2. 3.
Issued on June 10, 1991.
56 F.R. 27427
June 14, 1991
PART 571; S214-PRE 72
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 214
Side Impact Protection
(Docket No. 88-06; Notice 13)
RIN: 2127-AE05
ACTION: Final rule, corrections.
SUMMARY: On October 30, 1990, NHTSA published
in the Federal Register a final rule adding dynamic test
procedures and performance requirements to Standard
No. 214 (55 FR 45722). The dynamic test requirements
of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year
period, beginning on September 1, 1993. At the same
time, NHTSA also published final rules (1) establish-
ing the specifications for the side impact dummy to be
used in the dynamic crash test (55 FR 45757), (2)
establishing the attributes of the moving deformable
barrier (MDB) to be used in the dynamic crash test (55
FR 45770), and (3) establishing the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements necessary for NHTSA to
enforce the phase-in of the new dynamic test procedure
(55 FR 45768). This rule corrects minor errors in the
previous final rules and adds the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) approval number assigned under
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments made by this rule
to the text of the Code of Federal Regulations are
effective September 17, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NHTSA's safety standard for side impact protection
is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. On
October 30, 1990. NHTSA published in Federal
Register a final rule adding djmamic test procedures
and the performance requirements to Standard No. 214
(55 FR 45722). The dynamic test requirements of
Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year
period, beginning on September 1, 1993. At the same
time, NHTSA also published final rules (1) establish-
ing the specifications for the side impact dummy to be
used in the dynamic crash test (55 FR 45757), (2)
establishing the attributes of the moving deformable
barrier to be used in the dynamic crash test (55 FR
45770), and (3) establishing the reporting and record-
keeping requirements necessary for NHTSA to enforce
the phasing-in of the new dynamic test procedure (55
FR 45768). (In this notice, NHTSA refers to the four
final rules collectively as "the final side impact rules" or
"the final rules.") NHTSA received four petitions for
reconsideration of these final rules from (1) the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), (2) the
Ford Motor Company (Ford), (3) the Association of In-
ternational Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), and (4)
the International Standards Organization (ISO).
NHTSA will respond to those petitions through a notice
that will be published in the Federal Register later this
year.
Summary of the Corrections
NHTSA has discovered a few mistakes in the final
rules that require correction. NHTSA is making those
corrections through this notice.
The corrections are not substantive. One changes the
name of Standard No. 214 from Side Door Strength to
Side Impact Protection to reflect the recently adopted
dynamic test procedure. Another changes the number-
ing of the Figures in Standard No. 214 and makes
minor corrections in the Figure for the MDB (now
Figure 2). Another makes minor changes in the word-
ing of 49 CFR §572. 44(c) to improve clarity and make
that section consistent with the drawings of the side
impact test dummy (SID) that are incorporated by
reference in the finad rules. Another corrects a mistake
to make clear that the records required by 49 CFR
§586.6 must be maintained until December 31, 1998,
as stated in preamble of the final reporting rule. The
regulatory text included with the final reporting rule
mistakenly stated that the records must be maintained
until December 31, 1997. Another corrects the shoe size
of the side impact dummy used in the compliance test
for Standard No. 214. The final rule listed the shoe size
as llEE. The correct shoe size is 1 IEEE. Another cor-
rection provides further clarification by listing the
track width of the MDB in the crabbed configuration.
The rule that established reporting and recordkeep-
ing requirements necessary for NHTSA to enforce the
phase-in contained information collection requirements,
as that term is defined by 0MB in 5 CFR Part 1320.
NHTSA requested the approval of 0MB for those in-
formation collection requirements under the Paper-
work Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 0MB has
approved the information collection requirements and
assigned the Information Collection Requirement Num-
ber 2127-0558. NHTSA is amending the final rule
PART 571; S214-PRE 73
to show the Information Collection Requirement Num-
ber in the regulatory text.
As stated above, these amendments are effective
upon publication of this notice. These amendments are
merely technical corrections of the final rules that were
published on October 30, 1990. They impose no new
substantive requirements. Therefore, NHTSA finds for
good cause that notice and opportunity for comment
on these amendments are unnecessary. Because of the
non-substantive nature of the amendments, NHTSA
also finds for good cause that making the rule effec-
tive upon publication is in the public interest.
The following corrections are made in FR Documents
90-25391, 90-25392, 90-25393, and 90-25394, appear-
ing on pages 45722 through 45780 in the issue of
October 30, 1990:
1. On page 45752, first column, the heading is cor-
rected to read as follows:
"§571.214 Side impact protection"
2. On page 45753, first column, the first sentence
of S6.10 is corrected to read: "The moving deforma-
ble barrier conforms to the dimensions shown in Figure
2 and specified in part 587."
3. On page 45753, first and second columns, the first
two sentences of S6.12 are corrected to read: "The test
vehicle (vehicle A in Figure 3) is stationary. The line
of forward motion of the moving deformable barrier
(vehicle B in Figure 3) forms an angle of 63 degrees
with the centerline of the test vehicle."
4. On page 45753, third column, the second sentence
of S6.13.2 is corrected to read: "Each foot of the test
dummy is equipped with a size llEEE shoe, which
meets the configuration size, sole, and heel thickness
specifications of MIL-S-13192 (1976) and weighs 1.25
±0.2 pounds."
5. On page 45754, a corrected Figure 2 is substituted
for the old Figure 1.
6. On page 45755, a corrected Figure 3 is substituted
for the old Figure 2.
7. On page 45756. first column, the second sentence
of S7. 1.3(a) is corrected to read: "The midsagittal plane
of the test dummy is vertical and parallel to the vehi-
cle's longitudinal centerline, and, if possible, the same
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline as
the midsagittal plane of a test dummy positioned in the
driver position under S7.1.1."
§572.44 [AIVIENDED]
1. On page 45767, second column, the second sen-
tence of §572.44(c) is corrected to read: "The ac-
celerometer is mounted on the rear wall of the
instrument cavity (Drawing SID-087), with its seismic
mass center located from a point 0.9 inches upward and
0.5 inches to the left of the mounting bolt centerline
and 0.4 to 0.5 inches rearward of the rear wall of the
instrument cavity."
PART 586 [AIVIENDED]
The authority citation for Part 586 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
§586.6 [AMENDED]
1. On page 45770, second column, §586.6 is cor-
rected to read:
"Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the
Vehicle Identification Number for each passenger car
for which information is reported under §586.5(bX2) un-
til December 31, 1998.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget
under control number 2127-0558)."
PART 587 [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 587 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392. 1401. 1403. 1407; dele-
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
§587.6 [AMENDED]
2. On page 45779, third column, §587.6(c) is cor-
rected to read: "In configuration 2 (with two cameras
and camera mounts, a light trap vane, and ballast
reduced), the moving deformable barrier, including the
impact surface, supporting structure, and carriage,
weighs 3,015 pounds, has a track width of 74 inches
in the crabbed configuration when the wheels are
straight, and has a wheelbase of 102 inches."
Issued on September 11, 1991.
56 47007
September 17, 1991
PART 571; S214-PRE 74
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 214
Side Impact Protection
(Docket No. 2-6; Notice No. 3)
51. Purpose and scope.
(a) Scope. This standard specifies performance
requirements for protection of occupants in side
impact crashes.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
reduce the risk of serious and fatal injury to oc-
cupants of passenger cars in side impact crashes by
specifying vehicle crashworthiness requirements in
terms of accelerations measured on anthropomor-
phic dummies in test crashes, by specifying strength
requirements for side doors, and by other means.
52. lAppllcability. This standard applies to
passenger cars. Effective Septetber 1, 1993, sec-
tions S3(a), S3(e), S3.1 through S3.2.3, and S4 of
the standard apply to multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less, except for walk-in vans. (56 F.R.
27427-June 14, 1991. Effective: September 1, 1993)]
IS2.1 Definitions.
"Walk-in van" means a van in which a person
can enter the occupant compartment in an upright
position. (56 F.R. 27427— June 14, 1991. Effective:
September 1, 1993)1
53. Requirements.
(a) lExcept as provided in section S3(e), each
vehicle shall be able to meet the requirements of
either, at the manufacturer's option, S3.1 or S3. 2,
when any of its side doors that can be used for occu-
pant egress are tested according to S4. (56 F.R.
27427— June 14, 1991. Effective: September 1, 1993)1
(b) When tested under the conditions of S6, each
passenger car manufactured on or after Septem-
ber 1, 1996 shall meet the requirements of S5.1,
S5.2, and S5.3 in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in
which the car is struck on either side by a moving
deformable barrier. Part 572, Subpart F test dum-
mies are placed in the front and rear outboard
seating positions on the struck side of the car.
However, the rear seat requirements do not apply
to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than
130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear
seating areas that are so small that the Part 572,
Subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated ac-
cording to the positioning procedure specified in S7.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this
section, from September 1, 1993 to August 31,
1996, a specified percentage of each manufac-
turer's yearly passenger car production, as set
forth in S8, shall, when tested under the conditions
of S6, meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and
S5.3 in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the
car is struck on either side by a moving deformable
barrier. Part 572, Subpart F test dummies are
placed in the front and rear outboard seating posi-
tions on the struck side of the car. However, the
rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger
cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or
to passenger cars which have rear seating areas
that are so small that the Part 572, Subpart F dum-
mies cannot be accommodated according to the
positioning procedure specified in S7.
(d) A manufacturer may, at its option, comply
with the requirements of this paragraph instead of
paragraph (c) of this section. When tested under
the conditions of S6, each passenger car manufac-
tured from September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1996
shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3
in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the car is
struck on either side by a moving deformable bar-
rier. Part 572, Subpart F test dummies are placed
in the front and rear outboard seating positions on
the struck side of the car. However, the rear seat
requirements do not apply to passenger cars with a
wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to passenger
cars which have rear seating areas that are so
small that the Part 572, Subpart F dummies can-
not be accommodated according to the positioning
procedure specified in S7.
((e) A vehicle need not meet the requirements of
sections S3.1 or S3.2 for-
(1) any side door located so that no point on a
ten-inch horizontal longitudial line passing
through and bisected by the H-point of a manikin
placed in any seat, with the seat adjusted to any
position and the seat back adjusted as specified
PART 571; S 214-1
in section S6.4, falls within the transverse,
horizontal projection of the door's opening,
(2) any side door located so that no point on a
ten-inch horizontal longitudinal line passing
through and bisected by the H-point of a manikin
placed in any seat recommended by the manufac-
turer for installation in a location for which seat
anchorage hardware is provided, with the seat
adjusted to any position and the seat back ad-
justed as specified in section S6.4, falls within
the transverse, horizontal projection of the
door's opening,
(3) any side door located so that a portion of a
seat, with the seat adjusted to any position and
the seat back adjusted as specified in section
S6.4, falls within the transverse, horizontal pro-
tection of the door's opening, but a longitudinal
vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the
seat cushion is more than 10 inches from the in-
nermost point on the inside surface of the door at
a height between the H-point and shoulder refer-
ence point (as shown in Figure 1 of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and
longitudinally between the front edge of the
cushion with the seat adjusted to its forward-
most position and the rear edge of the cushion
with the seat adjusted to its rearmost position.
(4) any side door that is designed to be easily
attached to or removed (e.g., using simple hand
tools such as pliers and/or a screw driver) from a
motor vehicle manufactured for operation with-
out doors. (56 F.R. 27427— June 14, 1991. Effec-
tive: September 1, 1993)1
53.1 With any seats that may affect load upon
or deflection of the side of the vehicle removed
from the vehicle, each vehicle must be able to meet
the requirements of S3. 1.1 through S3. 1.3.
53.1 .1 Initial Crush Resistance. The initial crush
resistance shall be not less than 2,250 pounds.
53.1.2 Intermediate Crush Resistance. The
intermediate crush resistance shall not be less than
3,500 pounds.
53.1.3 Peak crush resistance. The peak crush
resistance shall not be less than two times the curb
weight of the vehicle or 7,000 pounds, whichever is
less.
53.2 With seats installed in the vehicle, and
located in any horizontal or vertical position to
which they can be adjusted and at any seat back
angle to which they can be adjusted, each vehicle
must be able to meet the requirements of S3. 2.1
through IS3.2.31. (56 F.R. 27427-June 14, 1991.
Effective: September 1, 1993)
53.2.1 Initial crush resistance. The initial crush
resistance shall not be less than 2,250 pounds.
53.2.2 Intermediate crush resistance. The
intermediate crush resistance shall not be less than
4,375 pounds.
53.2.3 Peak crush resistance. The peak crush
resistance shall not be less than three and one half
times the curb weight of the vehicle or 12,000
pounds, whichever is less.
S4. Test procedures. The following procedures
apply to determining compliance with section S3:
(a) Place side windows in their uppermost posi-
tion and all doors in locked position. Place the sill
of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being
tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface.
Fix the vehicle rigidly in position by means of
tiedown attachments located at or forward of the
front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the
rear wheel centerline.
(b) Prepare a loading device consisting of a rigid
steel cylinder or semi-cylinder 12 inches in
diameter with an edge radius of one-half inch. The
length of the loading device shall be such that the
top surface of the loading device is at least one-half
inch above the bottom edge of the door window
opening but not of a length that will cause contact
with any structure above the bottom edge of the
door window opening during the test.
(c) Locate the loading device as shown in
Figure 1 (side view) of this section so that:
(1) Its longitudinal axis is vertical;
(2) Its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite
the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn across
the outer surface of the door 5 inches above the
lowest point of the door;
HORIZONTAL LINE
5 INCHES ABOVE Th
LOWEST POINT OF
THE DOOn
LOADING STRUCTURES ABOVE THE
DEVICE—] BOTTOM EDGE OE THE DOOR
NDOW OPENING
TTOM EDGE
OOR WINDOW
OPENING
LOADING DEVICE LOCATION AND APPLICATION TO THE DOOR
FIGURE 1
(Rev. 6/14/91)
PART 571; S 214-2
(3) Its bottom surface is in the same horizontal
plane as the horizontal line described in subdivi-
sion (2) of this subparagraph; and
(4) The cylindrical face of the device is in
contact with the outer surface of the door.
(d) Using the loading device, apply a load to the
outer surface of the door in an inboard direction
normal to a vertical plane along the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline. Apply the load continuously
such that the loading device travel rate does not
exceed one-half inch per second until the loading
device travels 18 inches. Guide the loading device
to prevent it from being rotated or displaced from
its direction of travel. The test must be completed
within 120 seconds.
(e) Record applied load versus displacement of
the loading device, either continuously or in in-
crements of not more than 1 inch or 200 pounds for
the entire crush distance of 18 inches.
(f) Determine the initial crush resistance,
intermediate crush resistance, and peak crush
resistance as follows:
(1) From the results recorded in subparagraph
(e) of this paragraph, plot a curve of load versus
displacement and obtain the integral of the
applied load with respect to the crush distances
specified in subdivisions (2) and (3) of this
paragraph. These quantities, expressed in inch-
pounds and divided by the specified crush dis-
tances, represent the average forces in pounds
required to deflect the door those distances.
(2) The initial crush resistance is the average
force required to deform the door over the initial
6 inches of crush.
(3) The intermediate crush resistance is the
average force required to deform the door over
the initial 12 inches of crush.
(4) The peak crush resistance is the largest
force recorded over the entire 18-inch crush
distance.
[S5. Dynamic performance requirements.
S5.1 Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma Index
(TTI(d)) shall not exceed 85 g for passenger cars
with four side doors, and shall not exceed 90 g for
passenger cars with two side doors, when calcu-
lated in accordance with the following formula:
TTI(d) = V2 (Gr + Gls)
The term "Gr" is the greater of the peak accelera-
tions of either the upper or lower rib, expressed in
g's and the term "Gls" i^ the lower spine (T12)
peak acceleration, expressed in g's. The peak ac-
celeration values are obtained in accordance with
the procedure specified in S6.13.5.
55.2 Pelvis. The peak lateral acceleration of
the pelvis, as measured in accordance with S6.13.5,
shall not exceed 130 g's.
55.3 Door opening.
55.3.1 Any side door, which is struck by the
moving deformable barrier, shall not separate
totally from the car.
55.3.2 Any door (including a rear hatchback or
tailgate), which is not struck by the moving deform-
able barrier, shall meet the following requirements:
55.3.2.1 The door shall not disengage from the
latched position;
55.3.2.2 The latch shall not separate from the
striker, and the hinge components shall not
separate from each other or from their attachment
to the vehicle.
55.3.2.3 Neither the latch nor the hinge systems
of the door shall pull out of their anchorages. (55
F.R. 45722— October 30, 1990. Effective: November
29, 1990)1
[S6. Test conditions.
56.1 Test weight. Each passenger car is
loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated
cargo and luggage capacity, secured in the luggage
area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropo-
morphic test dummies. Any added test equipment
is located away from impact areas in secure places
in the vehicle. The car's fuel system is filled in ac-
cordance with the following procedure. 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 percent 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 en-
tire fuel system from the fuel tank through the
engine's induction system.
56.2 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 dehvered" condition. The "as delivered"
condition is the vehicle as received at the test site,
filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities and with
all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifica-
tions 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 condi-
tion" is the test vehicle loaded in accordance with
(Rev. 10/30/90)
PART 571; S 214-3
S6.1. The load placed in the cargo area is centered
over the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The
pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as
delivered or fully loaded attitude or between the as
delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude.
56.3 Adjustable seats. Adjustable seats are
placed 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.
56.4 Adjustable seat back placement. Place
adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nomi-
nal design riding position in the manner specified
by the manufacturer. If the position is not speci-
fied, set the seat back at the first detent rearward
of 25° from the vertical. Place each adjustable
head restraint in its highest adjustment position.
Position adjustable lumbar supports so that they
are set in their released, i.e., full back position.
56.5 Adjustable steering wheels. 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.
56.6 Windows. Movable vehicle windows and
vents are placed in the fully closed position on the
struckside of the vehicle.
56.7 Convertible tops. Convertibles and open-
body type vehicles have the top, if any, in place in
the closed passenger compartment configuration.
56.8 Doors. Doors, including any rear hatch-
back or tailgate, are fully closed and latched but
not locked.
56.9 Transmission and brake engagement. For
a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission, the
transmission is placed in second gear. For a vehicle
equipped with an automatic transmission, the
transmission is placed in neutral. For all vehicles,
the parking brake is >
56.10 Moving deformable barrier. The moving
deformable barrier conforms to the dimensions
shown in Figure 2 and specified in Part 587.
56.11 Impact reference line. For vehicles with
a wheelbase of 114 inches or less, on the side of the
vehicle that will be struck by the moving deform-
able barrier, place a vertical reference line which is
37 inches forward of the center of the vehicle's
wheelbase. For vehicles with a wheelbase greater
than 114 inches, on the side of the vehicle that will
be struck by the moving deformable barrier, place
a vertical reference line which is 20 inches rear-
ward of the centerline of the vehicle's front axle.
56.12 Impact configuration. The test vehicle
(vehicle A in Figure 3) is stationary. The line of for-
ward motion of the moving deformable barrier
(vehicle B in Figure 3) forms an angle of 63 degrees
with the centerline of the test vehicle. The longi-
tudinal centerline of the moving deformable bar-
rier is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline
of the test vehicle when the barrier strikes the test
vehicle. In a test in which the test vehicle is to be
struck on its left (right) side: all wheels of the mov-
ing deformable barrier are positioned at an angle
of 27 ±1 degrees to the right (left) of the centerline
of the moving deformable barrier; and the left
(right) forward edge of the moving deformable bar-
rier is aligned so that a longitudinal plane tangent
to that side passes through the impact reference
line within a tolerance of ± 2 inches when the bar-
rier strikes the test vehicle.
56.13 Anthropomorphic test dummies.
56.13.1 The anthropomorphic test dummies
used for evaluation of a vehicle's side impact pro-
tection conform to the requirements of Subpart F
of Part 572 of this Chapter. In a test in which the
test vehicle is to be struck on its left side, each dum-
my is to be configured and instrumented to be
struck on its left side, in accordance with Subpart F
of Part 572. In a test in which the test vehicle is to
be struck on its right side, each dummy is to be con-
figured and instrumented to be struck on its right
side, in accordance with Subpart F of Part 572.
56.13.2 Each Part 572, Subpart F test dummy
specified 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 llEEE shoe which meets the configura-
tion size, sole, and heel thickness specifications of
MIL-S-13192 (1976) and weighs 1.25 ±0.2 pounds.
56.13.3 Limb joints are set at between 1 and
2 g's. Leg joints are adjusted with the torso in the
supine position.
56.13.4 The stabilized temperature of the test
dummy at the time of the side impact test shall be
at any temperature between 66 degrees F. and 78
degrees F.
56.13.5 The acceleration data from the ac-
celerometers mounted on the ribs, spine and pelvis
of the test dummy are processed with the FIRIOO
software specified in 49 CFR Part 572. The data
are processed in the following manner.
(Rev. 10/30/90)
PART 571; S 214-4
u.
REMOVABLE REMOVABLE
BALLAST BALLAST
aATES PUTES
REMOVABLE STRUCTURAL /
a REINFORCING PLATES (4) pi / ^^
5BE3Cmi
s
p
-OVERALL LENGTH = 162 ■
0 032 ALUM BACK PLATI
26 ksi 5052-H34
NHTSA VEHICLE CONnGURADON - MOVING BARRIER SIDE IMPACTOR CONCEPT
{4-WHEELED VEHICLE SIMULATOR)
ONE PIECE ALUM. HONEYCOMB BLOCK
45 psi CRUSH (+ or - 2.5 psi)
032 ALUM. FACE
DO NOT BOND 26 ksi 5052-H34
THIS SURFACE
ONLY
NHTSA BARRIER FACE
ALUM. HONEYCOMB BUMPER
245 psi CRUSH STRENGTH
/ (f/- 15 psi)i I
HONEYCOMB
y/////////A'^^y///777^.
li
GROUND
I (FRONT VIEW)
1/8 ALUM FACES ALL DIMENSIONS IN INCHES
50 ks 2024-T3
SEC. A-A
NHTSA Side Impactor— Moving Deformable Barrier
FIGURE 2
PART 571; S 214-5
Impact Point
Direction of —JUj
Travel @ ^^^^'
33.5 mph
Vehicle A
Vehicle B
Test Configuration
FIGURE 3
PART 571; S 214-6
56.1 3.5.1 Filter the data with a 300 Hz, SAE
Class 180 filter;
56.1 3.5.2 Subsample the data to a 1600 Hz
sampling rate;
56.1 3.5.3 Remove the bias from subsampled
data, and
56.1 3.5.4 Filter the data with the FIRIOO soft-
ware specified in 49 CFR Part 572, which has the
following characteristics—
56.1 3.5.4.1 Passband frequency 100 Hz.
56.1 3.5.4.2 Stopband frequency 189 Hz.
56.1 3.5.4.3 Stopband gain - 50 db.
56.1 3.5.4.4 Passband ripple 0.0225 db.
(55 F.R. 45722-October 30, 1990. Effective: Novem-
ber 29, 1990)1
[S7. Positioning procedure for the Part 572 Sub-
part F Test Dummy. Position a correctly configured
test dummy, conforming to Subpart F of Part 572
of this Chapter, in the front outboard seating posi-
tion on the side of the test vehicle to be struck by
the moving deformable barrier and position an-
other conforming test dummy in the rear outboard
position on the same side of the vehicle, as specified
in S7.1 through S7.4. Each test dummy is
restrained using all available belt systems in all
seating positions where such belt restraints are pro-
vided. In addition, any folding armrest is retracted.
S7.1 Torso.
57.1.1 For a test dummy in the driver position.
(a) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagit-
tal plane of the test dummy is vertical and parallel
to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and passes
through the center of the steering wheel.
(b) For a bucket seat. The upper torso of the
test dummy rests against the seat back. The mid-
sagittal plane of the test dummy is vertical and
parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and
coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the
bucket seat.
57.1.2 For a test dummy in the front outboard
passenger position.
(a) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagittal
plane of the test dummy is vertical and parallel to
the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and the same
distance from the vehicle's longitudinal centerline
as would be the midsagittal plane of a test dummy
positioned in the driver position under 87. 1.1.
(b) For a bucket seat. The upper torso of the
test dummy rests against the seat back. The mid-
sagittal plane of the test dummy is vertical and
parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and
coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the
bucket seat.
S7.1 .3 For a test dummy in either of the rear out-
board passenger positions.
(a) For a bench seat. The upper torso of the test
dummy rests against the seat back. The midsagit-
tal plane of the test dummy is vertical and parallel
to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and, if
possible, the same distance from the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline as the midsagittal plane of a
test dummy positioned in the driver position under
S7.1.1. If it is not possible to position the test
dummy so that its midsagittal plane is parallel to
the vehicle longitudinal centerline and is at this
distance from the vehicle's longtitudinal center-
line, the test dummy is positioned so that some por-
tion of the test dummy just touches, at or above the
seat level, the side surface of the vehicle, such as
the upper quarter panel, an armrest, or any in-
terior trim (i.e., either the broad trim panel surface
or a smaller, localized trim feature).
(b) For a bucket or contoured seat. The upper
torso of the test dummy rests against the seat
back. The midsagittal plane of the test dummy is
vertical and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal
centerline, and coincides with the longitudinal
centerline of the bucket or contoured seat.
S7.2 Pelvis.
57.2.1 H-Point. The H-points of each test
dummy 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 for the 50th
percentile and procedures specified in SAE J826
(Apr. 80), except that Table 1 of the SAE J826 is
not applicable. The length of the lower leg and
thigh segments of the H-point machine are ad-
justed to 16.3 and 15.8 inches, respectively.
57.2.2 Pelvic angle. As determined using the
pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing 78051-532 incor-
porated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E of this
Chapter) which is inserted into the H-point gaug-
ing hole of the dummy, the angle of the plane of the
surface on the lumbar-pelvic adaptor on which the
lumbar spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from the
horizontal, sloping upward toward the front of the
vehicle.
PART 571; S 214-7
57.3 Legs.
57.3.1 For a test dummy in the driver position.
The upper legs of each test dummy rest against the
seat cushion to the extent permitted by placement
of the feet. The left knee of the dummy is posi-
tioned such that the distance from the outer sur-
face of the knee pivot bolt to the dummy's mid-
sagittal plane is six inches. To the extent
practicable, the left leg of the test dummy is in a
vertical longitudinal plan.
57.3.2 For a test dummy in the outboard
passenger positions. The upper legs of each test
dummy rest against the seat cushion to the extent
permitted by placement of the feet. The initial
distance between the outboard knee clevis flange
surfaces is 11.5 inches. To the extent practicable,
both legs of the test dummies in outboard
passenger positions are in vertical longitudinal
planes. Final adjustment to accommodate place-
ment of feet in accordance with S7.4 for var-
ious passenger compartment configurations is
permitted.
57.4 Feet.
57.4.1 For a test dummy in the driver position.
The right foot of the test dummy rests on the
undepressed accelerator with the heel resting as
far forward as possible on the floorpan. The left
foot is set perpendicular to the lower leg with the
heel resting on the floorpan in the same lateral line
as the right heel.
57.4.2 For a test dummy in the front outboard
passenger position. The feet of the test dummy
are placed on the vehicle's toeboard with the heels
resting on the floorpan as close as possible to the
intersection of the toeboard and floorpan; If the
feet cannot be placed flat on the toeboard, they are
set perpendicular to the lower legs and placed as
far forward as possible so that the heels rest on the
floorpan.
S7.4.3 For a test dummy in either of the rear out-
board passenger positions. The feet of the test
dummy are placed flat on the floorpan and beneath
the front seat as far as possible without front seat
interference. If necessary, the distance between
the knees can be changed in order to place the feet
beneath the seat. (55 F.R. 45722— October 30, 1990.
Effective: November 29, 1990)1
[S8. Phase-in of dynamic test and performance
requirements.
58.1 Passenger cars manufactured on or after
September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994.
S8.1.1 The number of passenger cars comply-
ing with the requirements of S3(c) shall be not less
than 10 percent of:
(a) The average annual production of passenger
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1990,
and before September 1, 1993, by each manufac-
turer, or
(b) The manufacturer's annual production of
passenger cars during the period specified in S8.1.
58.2 Passenger cars manufactured on or after
September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995.
S8.2.1 The number of passenger cars comply-
ing with the requirements of S3(c) shall be not less
than 25 percent of:
(a) The average annual production of passenger
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1991,
and before September 1, 1994, by each manufac-
turer, or
(b) The manufacturer's annual production of
passenger cars during the period specified in S8.2.
58.3 Passenger cars manufactured on or after
September 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996.
S8.3.1 The number of passenger cars comply-
ing with the requirements of S3(c) shall be not less
than 40 percent of:
(a) The average annual production of passenger
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1992,
and before September 1, 1995, by each manufac-
turer, or
(b) The manufacturer's annual production of
passenger cars during the period specified in S8.3.
58.4 Passenger cars produced by more than one
manufacturer.
S8.4.1 For the purposes of calculating average
annual production of passenger cars for each
manufacturer and the number of passenger cars
manufactured by each manufacturer under S8.1,
S8.2, and S8.3, a passenger car produced by more
than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a
single manufacturer as follows, subject to S8.4.2:
(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 vehicles, shall be attributed
to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
(Rev. 10/30/90)
PART 571; S 214-
S8.4.2 A passenger car produced by more than cle would otherwise be attributed under S8.4.1. (55
one manufacturer shall be attributed to any one of F.R. 45722— October 30, 1990. Effective: November
the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an ex- 29, 1990)1
press written contract, reported to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 49
CFR Part 586, between the manufacturer so October 30, 1970
specified and the manufacturer to which the vehi- 35 F.R. 16801
PART 571; S 214-9-10 *U.S. Government PrtmingOflica: 1992— 317-134/6OO44
6/2r990/5upp.48
Hotor Vehicle Saf...
of Transportation
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards and Regulations
?rSaS?y'"°' Supplsment 48— Amendments
^r^^is, and Interpretations Issued
During 1991
Page Control Chart
Administration
(1) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; SlOl— PRE 47 through PRE 50 behind page in book numbered
PART 571; SlOl-PRE 46.
(b) Substitute attached Standard 101 for Standard 101 in book.
(2) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106
(a) Insert attached page numbered PART 571; S106— PRE 67 behind page in book numbered
PART 571; S106-PRE 65-66.
(b) Substitute attached Standard 106 for Standard 106 in book.
(3) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S108-PRE 381 through PRE 383-384 behind page in book
numbered PART 571; S108-PRE 380
(b) Substitute attached pages numbered PART 571; S108-1; PART 571; S108-7; and PART 571; S108-28
for similarly numbered pages in book.
(4) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. Ill
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; Slll-PRE 25 through PRE 28 behind page in book
numbered PART 571; Slll-PRE 23-24.
(b) Substitute attached Standard 111 for Standard 111 in book.
(5) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Safety Standard No. 121
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S121-PRE 197 through PRE 211-212 behind page in book
numbered PART 571; S121-PRE 195-196.
(b) Substitute attached Standard 121 for Standard 121 in book.
(6) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123
(a) Insert attached page numbered PART 571; S123— PRE 15 behind page in book numbered
PART 571; S123-PRE 14.
(b) Substitute attached Standard 123 for Standard 123 in book.
(7) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205
(a) Insert attached page numbered PART 571; S205— PRE 51-52 behind page in book numbered
PART 571; S205-PRE 50.
(b) Substitute attached Standard 205 for Standard 205 in book.
(Continued on reverse side)
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and amendments published In this format are tor reference purposes
only. They should not b« 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 Chari— Continued
(8) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S209-PRE 61 through PRE 64 behind page in book
numbered PART 571; S209-PRE 59-60.
(b) Substitute attached page numbered PART 571; S209-5 for similarly numbered page in book.
(9) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 571; S210-PRE 69 through PRE 72 behind page in book
numbered PART 571; S210-PRE 68.
(b) Substitute attached Standard 210 for Standard 210 in book.
(10) Part 531— Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 531-PRE 185-186 behind page in book numbered PART 531-PRE 184.
Make pen-and-ink change to page in book numbered PART 531-PRE 185-186 to read PRE 187 and PRE 188,
respectively. This new page PRE 185-186 was inadvertently omitted from an earlier Supplement. It is issued now
for reference continuity and accuracy.
(11) Part 556— Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance
(a) Insert attached page numbered PART 556— PRE 5 behind page in book numbered PART 556— PRE 4.
(b) Subsitute attached PART 556 for PART 556 in book.
(12) Part 575— Consumer Information Regulations; Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 575-PRE 175 through PRE 183-184 behind page in book
numbered PART 575-PRE 173-174.
(b) Subsitute attached pages numbered PART 575-7 through 18 for similarly numbered pages in book.
(13) Part 580— Odometer Disclosure Requirements
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 580-PRE 63 through PRE 69-70 behind page in book
numbered PART 580-PRE 61-62.
(b) Subsitute attached PART 580 for PART 580 in book.
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101
Controls and Displays
(Docket No. 90-01; Notice 2)
RIN: 2127-AD80
ACTION: Final rule.
SUIVIMARY: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 101, Controls and Displays, has long required the
identification of certain controls and displays to be
perceptually upright to the driver. One of the controls
subject to this requirement is the cruise control. This
notice amends the standard to provide that identifica-
tion of cruise controls need be perceptually upright only
when the steering wheel is centered.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments made in this
rule become effective on November 15, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays specifies re-
quirements for the accessibility, identification and
illumination of controls and displays in passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The
purpose of the standard is to ensure the accessibility
and visibility of controls and displays to a driver and
to facilitate their quick and proper identification and
selection by a driver in order to reduce the safety
hazards caused by diversion of the driver's attention
from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting
controls.
Section S5.2 1 of the standard requires certain
vehicle controls to be identified by specified symbols
or words and for the identification to be placed on or
adjacent to the control. That section also requires the
identification to be visible to the driver and with certain
exceptions, to "appear to the driver perceptually
upright." The cruise control is one control subject to
S5.2.1. The cruise control is also known as the auto-
matic vehicle speed control.
On January 23 1991 NHTSA published in the Federal
Register (56 FR 2487) a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to amend Standard No. 101 to provide that
identification of cruise controls need be perceptually
upright only when the steering wheel is centered. As
discussed in that notice, as a result of discussions with
General Motors (GM), following the issuance of a June
6, 1990 interpretation letter addressed to Mr. J. A.
Schurger, the agency determined that there has been
confusion by a number of manufacturers concerning
how the perceptually upright requirement applies to
cruise controls. As a result, some manufacturers have
placed cruise controls on steering wheels, even though
the effect of such placement is such that these controls
are not "perceptually upright" when the steering wheel
is being turned. After considering arguments raised by
GM in favor of placing cruise controls on steering
wheels, NHTSA decided to initiate rulemaking to con-
sider lessening restrictions on cruise controls and other
controls or identifications on steering wheels.
The NPRM focused on the issue of whether there is
a safety need to prohibit cruise controls from being
placed on steering wheels. However, the agency noted
that the issues raised were applicable to any other
controls or displays that could be mounted on the steer-
ing wheel or steering column. NHTSA characterized
the primary issue in the rulemaking not as whether
steering wheel-mounted cruise controls necessarily
result in safety benefits, but instead whether there is
a safety need to prohibit them. The agency tentatively
concluded that the safety benefits attributable to the
"perceptually upright" requirement will be achieved
so long as control identification located on the steer-
ing wheel is "perceptually upright" when the steering
wheel is centered.
NHTSA also proposed, as an alternative, an amend-
ment that would exclude steering wheel mounted cruise
controls altogether from the "perceptually upright"
requirement.
The agency cited a previous example in which
NHTSA decided to exclude horn controls entirely from
the "perceptually upright" requirement.
The agency then noted that while the identification
for most cruise controls located on steering wheels is
PART 571; SlOl-PRE 47
upright when the steering wheel is centered, the iden-
tification for at least some cruise controls is at a slight
angle. The agency stated that the designs at slight
angles raise two issues. The first issue is whether iden-
tification which is at a slight angle should be considered
"perceptually upright" and, if so, at what angle such
identification would not be considered "perceptually
upright." The agency did not limit this issue to cruise
controls on steering wheels but sought comments on
its relevancy to identification of controls and displays
which are not located on the steering wheel.
The second issue relates to the fact that if identifi-
cation of cruise controls is to be "perceptually upright"
or close to "perceptually upright" to the driver at those
times when it is reasonably anticipated that the driver
will be observing that identification, it is necessary that
the identification be upright or very close to upright
when the steering wheel is centered. To the extent that
cruise control identification is at an angle when the
steering wheel is centered, that angle could be in-
creased during gradual turns depending on the direc-
tion of the angle relative to the direction of the turn.
NHTSA requested comments on whether identification
of cruise controls located on steering wheels should be
required to be upright when the steering wheel is
centered or whether it should be permitted to be at a
specified angle. The agency also asked whether, if the
meaning of "perceptually upright" is clarified to
expressly permit words as a whole to be placed at slight
(specified) angles from the horizontal, a different
requirement (e.g., one permitting lesser angles or no
angle at all) is appropriate for cruise controls located
on the steering wheel, given the fact that any angle
will be altered during gradual turns (unlike the iden-
tification of controls and displays located on the instru-
ment panel).
Finally, the agency noted that Standard No. lOl's
"perceptually upright" requirement applies to a
number of specified controls and displays in addition
to the cruise control. The agency requested comments
whether any of these other controls or displays should
also be permitted on the steering wheel.
Summary of Comments to
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
In response to its NPRM. the agency received five
comments, all from manufacturers. The commenters
were Chrysler, Ford, GM, Volkswagen, and Volvo. The
manufacturers offered the following comments:
Each of the five commenters supported the agency's
first proposal, that identification for steering wheel
mounted cruise controls be "perceptually upright" only
when the steering wheel is centered, i.e., the vehicle
has its wheels positioned to travel straight forward.
Three commenters, Chrysler, Ford, and GM, opposed
adopting the second alternative, to exclude steering
wheel mounted cruise controls altogether from the
"perceptually upright" requirement. Ford opposed this
proposal because it was not aware of any data (similar
to the case of the horn symbol) that "suggests a high
degree of recognition for cruise control identification
in all orientations." Chrysler made the same point as
Ford, and added that "speed controls are normally
multi-switch controls, whereas, the horn button is only
one control and its location is usually on the steering
wheel."
With respect to the issue of whether, when the steer-
ing wheel is centered, any identification which is at a
slight angle should be considered perceptually upright
and if so, at what angle such identification should not
be considered "perceptually upright." only one
manufacturer suggested a specific tolerance angle. In
its comments, Volkswagen stated that the definition
of "perceptually upright" should provide an angular
tolerance range of 30 degrees. Volkswagen, however,
did not explain the basis for its recommendation of 30
degrees as a tolerance angle. Volvo generally stated
its desire for a clearer definition of "perceptually
upright" but did not provide any recommendations or
guidelines.
Chrysler, Ford, and GM opposed a redefinition of
"perceptually upright" that would specify an angular
tolerance. Ford and Chrysler's opposition was based
on their lack of data or studies that would suggest
criteria that would determine the limits of what could
be construed as "perceptually upright." GM opposed /
any attempt to clarify "perceptually upright" with
reference to specified angle from horizontal, stating
that this would "result in greater confusion and create
unreasonable difficulties in design and compliance with
no offsetting benefits to motor vehicle safety."
The only commenter on the question of whether
angular tolerances should be permitted for cruise
controls located on the steering wheel, Chrysler, stated
that it did not believe regulating "perceptual upright-
ness" by specifying a maximum angular position from
the horizontal of steering wheel controls will increase
the safety of using these controls.
The last issue raised by the agency was whether,
since Standard No. lOl's "perceptually upright"
requirement applies to a number of specified controls
and displays, any other specified controls or displays
(in addition to cruise controls) in Standard No. 101
should be permitted on the steering wheel.
Volkswagen, Ford and GM stated that it would be
appropriate not to restrict controls and displays which
may be considered for placement on steering wheels.
GM also commented that it was not aware of informa-
tion establishing that motor vehicle safety is com-
promised by "steering wheel-mounted control
identifications which are not perceptually upright /
regardless of steering wheel orientation." GM noted ^
PART 571; SlOl-PRE 48
however, that all hub mounted controls should be
subject to the "perceptually upright" requirement
when the steering wheel is centered.
In its comments, Chrysler suggested that other hand
controls (e.g., lighting, windshield wiper) regulated by
Standard No. 101 be permitted on the steering wheel.
Chrysler concluded that manufacturers should be
allowed to decide the practicality of symbols to be
located on steering wheels.
Agency Analysis of Issues and
Adoption of Final Rule.
All commenters favored the agency's proposal to re-
quire cruise controls on steering wheels to appear to
the driver perceptually upright only when the steer-
ing wheel is dentered. No commenters opposed this
proposed amendment. Further, with respect to the
alternative proposed amendment to exclude steering
wheel mounted cruise controls altogether from the
perceptually upright requirement, the agency agrees
with the concern expressed by some commenters that
cruise control identification might not be easily recog-
nizable in all orientations. For the reasons discussed
in the NPRM, the agency is adopting the proposed
amendment to require cruise controls on steering
wheels to appear to the driver perceptually upright only
when the steering wheel is centered.
Another issue raised in the NPRM was whether this
special provision for cruise controls should be extended
to any other controls or displays. Currently, with
certain exceptions, any identification for a control or
display must appear to the driver "perceptually
upright" at all times. The practical effect of requiring
controls, displays, or identifications on a steering wheel
to appear to the driver to be "perceptually upright"
only when the steering wheel is centered would be that
these other controls and displays could be placed on
the steering wheel.
In addressing this issue, most of the public com-
menters stated that it would not be appropriate to
restrict controls and displays which may be considered
for placement on steering wheels. GM stated that it was
not aware of any data showing that safety would be
compromised by steering wheel mounted identifica-
tions which are not "perceptually upright" regardless
of steering wheel orientation.
After considering this issue, the agency is concerned
about the possible safety consequences of allowing all
controls and displays on the rotating steering wheel.
Some controls and displays, such as those for turn
signals, appear to raise particular concerns. If the turn
signal display were on the steering wheel, the relation-
ship of the display to the side of the vehicle would be
completely reversed when the steering wheel is turned
180 degrees. This could potentially confuse the driver
in the midst of a critical driving maneuver. If the turn
signal control were on the steering wheel, it would also
be reversed during a turn.
Another concern for the agency is that even if a par-
ticular control on a steering wheel did not pose safety
problems from the standpoint of its identification being
confusing to the driver, multiple controls on a steer-
ing wheel may pose a problem. For example, if numer-
ous controls are on the steering wheel, the headlamp
or taillamp controls may be inadvertently turned off
at night while the driver operates the radio or cruise
controls.
In light of its safety concerns, NHTSA has decided
not to extend the special provision for cruise controls
to other controls and displays at this time. The agency
believes that such action should not be taken without
further study of the possible safety consequences,
including possible hirnian factors research in this area.
Another issue addressed in the NPRM was whether
identification which is at a slight angle should be
considered perceptually upright and, if so, at what
angle such identification would not be considered
perceptually upright. The agency requested comments
on whether the meaning of perceptually upright should
be clarified.
After considering the comments, the agency has
decided that it is unnecessary to amend Standard No.
101 to clarify the meaning of "perceptually upright."
First, the agency believes that the term is broad enough
to permit identification at slight angles. NHTSA notes
that persons reading a book or newspaper often hold
it 8+ -. slight angle from the horizontal, yet perceive
the writing to be upright. Thus, even though identifi-
cation of controls or displays in a motor vehicle may
be at a slight angle, a driver can perceive it to be
upright.
While the agency considered establishing a specific
angular limit, the agency agrees with GM that such a
limit could be difficult to interpret in light of the fact
that identification of controls may be located on sur-
faces made up of compound angles, surfaces that are
curved, or surfaces that are in a horizontal plane.
Hence, it could be difficult to devise an angular limit
that is appropriate for all such surfaces. Moreover,
while as discussed in the NPRM, certain control iden-
tification in some cars is at a slight angle, the agency
is unaware of any cars where the degree of angle makes
it questionable whether the driver could perceive the
identification as upright. NHTSA notes that while it
is not establishing a specific angular limit at this time,
it could consider doing so in the future if later car
designs or research indicated a need to do so.
Volvo requested that a clearer definition of "percep-
tually upright" be provided in order to avoid uncertain-
ties in the design of identification for controls.
However, with the exception of the question of how
the term applies to controls located on the steering
wheel, which NHTSA has resolved by interpretation
and by this rulemaking, the agency is unaware of any
PART 571; SlOl-PRE 49
evidence that the term has created difficulties for
manufacturers in ensuring that their vehicles comply
Mrith Standard No. 101. The agency agrees with GM
that time has proven that this term has not been a
cause of concern.
NHTSA has also decided not to establish any special
angular limits for identification of cruise controls
located on steering wheels. As discussed in the NPRM,
any angle when the steering wheel is centered would
be increased during turns. However, NHTSA believes
that the steering wheel would be centered or almost
centered when the driver will be observing cruise
control identification.
NHTSA finds, for good cause shown, that an earlier
effective date of 30 days (rather than 180 days) after
publication of this final rule in interest NHTSA's find-
ing of good the Federal Register is in the public cause
is based on the fact that the amendments to Standard
No. 101 do not impose new requirements, but instead
relax an existing requirement to provide additional
flexibility.
In consideration of the following, Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 read as follows:
(1) The last sentence of S5.2.1(a) is revised to read
as follows:
§ 571.101 Standard No. 101; Controls and displays
S5.2 * * *
S5.2.1 * * *
(a) The identification shall, under the conditions of
S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in
S5.2.1.1. S5.2.1.2, and S5.2.1.3, appear to the driver
perceptually upright.
2. S 5. 2. 1.3 is added to read as follows:
S5.2.1.3 The identification of an automatic vehicle
speed control located on the steering wheel, including
the steering wheel hub and spokes, need not appear
to the driver perceptually upright except when the
vehicle, aligned to the manufacturer's specifications,
has its wheels positioned for the vehicle to travel in a
straight forward direction.
Issued on: October 9, 1991.
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
56 F.R. 51845
October 16, 1991
PART 571; SlOl-PRE 50
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 101
Controls and Displays
(Docket No. 1-18; Notice 13)
51. Scope. This standard specifies require-
ments for the location, identification, and illumina-
tion of motor vehicle controls and displays.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
ensure the accessibility and visibility of motor vehi-
cle controls and displays and to facilitate their
selection under daylight and nighttime conditions,
in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the
diversion of the driver's attention from the driving
task, and by mistakes in selecting controls.
53. Application. This standard apphes to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses.
54. Definitions.
"Telltale" means a display that indicates, the ac-
tuation of a device, a correct or defective function-
ing or condition, or a failure to function.
"Gauge" means a display that is listed in S5.1 or
in Table 2 and is not a telltale.
55. Requirements, (a) Except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section, each passenger car,
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus
manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in
column 1 of Table 1, and each passenger car,
multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck or bus
less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display
listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet
the requirements of this standard for the location,
identification, and illumination of such control or
display.
(b) For vehicles manufactured before September
1, 1987, a manufacturer may, at its option—
(1) Meet the requirements in this standard to use
identifying words or abbreviation or identifying
symbol for a control by using those specified in
Table 1(a) instead of Table 1. If none are
specified in Table 1(a), none need be used for the
control.
(2) Meet the requirements in this standard to
use identifying words or abbreviation or identify-
ing symbol for a display by using those specified
in Table 2(a) instead of Table 2. If none are
specified in Table 2(a), none need by used for the
display.
S5.1 ' ocatlon. [Under the conditions of S6,
each ji the following controls that is furnished
shall be operable by the driver and each of the
following displays that is furnished shall be visi-
ble to the driver. Under conditions of S6,
telltales are considered visible when activated. 52
F.R. 33416— September 3, 1987— Effective:
September 3, 1987)1
Hand-Operated Controls
(a) Steering wheel.
(b) Horn.
(c) Ignition.
(d) Headlamp.
(e) Tail lamp.
(f ) Turn signal.
(g) Illumination intensity,
(h) Windshield wiper.
(i) Windshield washer.
(j) Manual transmission shift lever, except
transfer case.
(k) Windshield defrosting, and defogging
system.
(1) Rear window defrosting and defogging
system.
(m) Manual choke,
(n) Driver's sun visor.
PART 571; S 101-1
(o) Automatic vehicle speed system.
(p) Highbeam.
(q) Hazard warning signal.
(r) Clearance lamps.
(s) Hand throttle.
(t) Identification lamps.
Foot-Operated Controls
(a) Service brake.
(b) Accelerator.
(c) Clutch.
(d) Highbeam.
(e) Windshield washer.
(f ) Windshield wiper.
Displays
(a) Speedometer.
(b) Turn signal.
(c) Gear position.
(d) Brake failure warning.
(e) Fuel.
(f) Engine coolant temperature.
(g) Oil.
(h) Highbeam.
(i) Electrical Charge.
S5.2 Identification.
S5.2.1 Vehicle controls shall be identified as
follows:
(a) Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-
operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that
has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that
table shall be identified by either the symbol
designated in column 3 (or symbol substantially
similar in form to that shown in column 3) or the
word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that
table. Any such control for which no symbol is
shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or
abbreviation shown in column 2. Words or symbols
in addition to the required symbol, word or
abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's
discretion for the purpose of clarity. Any such con-
trol for which column 2 of Table 1 and /or column 3
of Table 1 specifies "Mfr. Option" shall be iden-
tified by the manufacturer's choice of a symbol,
word or abbreviation, as indicated by that specifi-
cation in column 2 and /or column 3. The identifica-
tion shall be placed on or adjacent to the control.
The identification shall, under the con-
ditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as
provided in S5.2.1.1, S5.2.1.2, [and S5.2.1.31 ap-
pear to the driver perceptually upright. (56 F.R.
51845— October 16, 1991. Effective: November 15,
1991)1
(b) S5.2.1(a) does not apply to a turn signal con-
trol which is operated in a plane essentially parallel
to the face plane of the steering wheel in its normal
driving position and which is located on the left
side of the steering column so that it is the control
on that side of the column nearest to the steering
wheel face plane.
55.2.1 .1 The identification of the following need
not appear to the driver perceptually upright:
(a) A master lighting switch or headlamp and
tail lamp control that adjusts control and display il-
lumination by means of rotation, or of any other
rotating control that does not have an off position.
(b) A horn control.
55.2.1.2 The identification of a rotating control
other than one described by S 5. 2. 1.1 shall appear
to the driver perceptually upright when the control
is in the off position.
[S5.2.1.3 The identification of an automatic
vehicle speed control located on the steering
wheel, including the steering wheel hub and
spokes, need not appear to the driver perceptually
upright except when the vehicle, aligned to the
manufacturer's specification, has its wheels posi-
tioned for the vehicle to travel in a straight for-
ward direction. (56 F.R. 51845— October 16. 1991. Ef-
fective: November 15, 1991)]
S.5.2.2 Identification shall be provided for each
function of any automatic vehicle speed system
control and any heating and air conditioning
system control, and for the extreme positions of
any such control that regulates a function over a
quantitative range. If this identification is not
specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word or
symbol form unless color coding is used. If color
coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a
temperature control, the hot extreme shall be iden-
tified by the color red and the cold extreme by the
color blue.
Example 1 A slide lever controls the
temperature of the air in the vehicle heating
system over a continuous range, from no heat
to maximum heat. Since the control regulates a
single function over a quantitative range, only
the extreme positions require identification.
PART 571; S 101-2
Example 2 A switch has three positions, for
heat, defrost, and air conditioning. Since each
position regulates a different function, each
position must be identified.
S5.2.3 (Any display located within the
passenger compartment and listed in column 1 of
Table 2 that has a symbol designated in column 4 of
that table shall be identified by either the symbol
designated in column 4 (or symbol substantially
similar in form to that shown in column 4) or the
word or abbreviation shown in column 3. Addi-
tional words or symbols may be used at the
manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clar-
ity. Any telltales used in conjunction with a gauge
need not be identified. The identification required
or permitted by this section shall be placed on or
adjacent to the display that it identifies. The iden-
tification of any display shall, under the conditions
of S6, be visible to the driver and appear to the
driver perceptually upright.
S5.3 Illumination.
55.3.1 Except for foot-operated controls or
hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor,
floor console, or steering column, or in the wind-
shield header area, the identification required by
§ 5.2.1 or § 5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1
of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in
the corresponding space in column 4 shall be
capable of being illuminated whenever the
headlights are activated. However, control iden-
tification for a heating and air-conditioning system
need not be illuminated if the system does not
direct air directly upon windshield. If a gauge is
hsted in column 1 of Table 2 and accompanied by
the word "yes" in column 5, then the gauge and its
identification required by § 5.2.3 shall be
illuminated whenever the ignition switch and /or
the headlamps are activated. Controls, gauges, and
their identifications need not be illuminated when
the headlamps are being flashed. A telltale shall
not emit light except when identifying the mal-
function or vehicle condition for whose indication it
is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle
starting.
55.3.2 Each telltale shall be of the color shown
in column 2 of Table 2. The identification of each
telltale shall be in a color that contrasts with the
background.
55.3.3 (a) Means shall be provided for making
controls, gauges, and the identification of those
items visible to the driver under all driving condi-
tions.
(b) The means for providing the required
visibility—
(1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in
S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of
brightness, one of which is barely discernable to
a driver who has adapted to dark ambient road-
way conditions.
(2) May be operable manually or automatically,
and
(3) May have levels of brightness at which
those items and their identification are not
visible.
(c) Effective September 1, 1989, if the level of
brightness is adjusted by automatic means to a
point where items or their identification are not
visible to the driver, a means shall be provided to
enable the driver to restore visibility.
(d) For a vehicle manufactured before
September 1, 1989, the requirements of
S5. 3. 3(b)(1) shall not apply to any gauge during the
actuation of a telltale which shares a common light
source with the gauge.
5.3.4 (a) Means shall be provided that are
capable of making telltales and their identification
visible to the driver under all driving conditions.
(b) The means for providing the required visi-
bility may be adjustable manually or automatically,
except that the telltales and identification for
brakes, highbeams, turn signals, and safety belts
may not be adjustable. under any driving condition
to a level that is invisible.
S5.3.5 (Any source of illumination within the
passenger compartment which is forward of a
transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (110.6 mm)
rearward of the mainkin "H" point with the
driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which
is not used for the controls and displays regulated
by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which
is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is
in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which
is manually or automatically adjustable to provide
at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single inten-
sity that is barely discernible to a driver who has
adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3)
a means of being turned off. This requirement does
not apply to buses that are normally operated with
the passenger compartment illuminated.
PART 571; S 101-
Table 1 is amended by adding the word "Ligiits"
to column 2 as identifying words or abbreviation
for Master Lighting Switch control, by adding the
word "Horn" to column 2 as identifying words or
abbreviation for Horn control, by adding the word
"Hazard" to column 2 as identifying words or ab-
breviation for Hazard Warning Signal control, by
adding the words "Wiper or Wipe" to column 2 as
identifying words or abbreviation for Windshield
Wiping System control, by adding the words
"Washer or Wash" to column 2 as identifying
words or abbreviation for Windshield Washing
System control, by adding the words "Wash-Wipe
or Washer- Wiper" to column 2 as identifying
words or abbreviation for Windshield Washing and
Wiping Combined control, by adding the word
"Fan" to column 2 as identifying words or ab-
breviation for Heating and/or Air Conditioning
Fan control, by adding the words "Defrost, Defog
or Def" to column 2 as identifying words or
abbreviation for Windshield Defrosting and
Defogging System control, by adding the words
"Rear Defrost, Rear Defog, Rear Def, or R-Def '
to column 2 as identifying words or abbreviation
for Rear Window Defrosting and Defogging
System control, and by adding the words "Marker
Lamps or MK Lps" to column 2 as identifying
words or abbreviation for identification, Side
Marker and or Clearance Lamps control. (52 F.R.
33416 September 3. 1987— Effective: September 3,
1987)1
(b) Except as provided in S5.4(e), the telltales
listed in Table 2 shall be displayed at the initiation
of any underlying condition.
(c) When the underlying condition exists for ac-
tuation of two or more messages, the messages
shall be either—
(1) repeated automatically in sequence, or
(2) indicated by visible means and capable of
being selected by the driver for viewing.
(d) Messages may be cancellable automatically
or by the driver.
(e) The safety belt telltale must be displayed and
visible during the time specified in S7.3 of
Standard No. 208.
S6. Conditions. The driver is restrained by the
crash protection equipment installed in accord-
ance with the requirements of § 571.208 of this
part (Standard No. 208), adjusted in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions.
43 F.R. 27541
June 26, 1978
PART 571; S 101-4
PREAMBLE TO A AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106
Brake Hoses
(Docket No. 91-09; Notice 02)
RIN 2127-AD04
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard 106, Brake
Hoses, by removing paragraphs S12 and 13 which
exclude certain brake hose, fittings and assemblies from
the standard's labeling requirements in S5.2, 7.2 and
9.1. NHTSA is deleting S12 and 13 because they are
generally redundant. Most of their provisions exist in
the labeling requirements located elsewhere in the
standard. Also. NHTSA is removing S12 and 13 because
they are inconsistent in some respects with the stan-
dard's labeling requirements, which could engender con-
fusion about the requirements. This notice also makes
other amendments to the labeling requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendment is effective on
November 6, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice re-
moves paragraphs S12 and 13 from Standard 106 to
improve the clarity of the labeling requirements of the
standard, and makes other labeling amendments. S5.2,
7.2 and 9.1 of the standard specify that certain infor-
mation (e.g., size, manufacturer identification) must be
labeled on new brake hose, end fittings and assemblies.
Exclusions of certain hose, fittings and assemblies from
the labeling requirements are found in S5.2, 7.2 and
9.1. Exclusions are also found in S12 and 13.
The exclusions of S12 and 13 generally reflect the
exclusions of S5.2. 7.2 and 9.1, and are therefore
redundant to a degree. Further, as discussed fully in
the NPRM, S12 and 13 are also in some respects in-
consistent with the standard's labeling requirements,
which could engender confusion about the require-
ments. NHTSA proposed to remove S12 and 13 (56 FR
7640; February 25, 1991) to eliminate the redundan-
cies and inconsistencies posed by those paragraphs.
In addition to removing S12 and 13, the agency also
proposed several labeling changes to the standard.
First, NHTSA proposed that S5.2.1 be amended to
apply the striping requirement only to bulk hose and
hose installed in an assembly. Thus, the requirement
would not apply to hose that is sold as part of a motor
vehicle. NHTSA believed that once the hose is installed
in the vehicle, the purpose for the stripes is fulfilled.
Second, the agency proposed to amend S5.2.4, 7.2.3
and 9.1.3 to remove the requirement that an assembly
must be assembled by the vehicle manufacturer to be
excluded from the assembly labeling requirements.
Assemblies installed in new vehicles need not bear a
label because the vehicle certification and identifica-
tion information serves to certify and identify the hose
assembly. NHTSA believed it would make no differ-
ence whether the vehicle manufacturer itself produced
the assembly.
Third, the agency proposed to slightly modify the last
sentence of the introductory paragraph of S5.2 2, 7.2.1,
and 9.1.1 to make clear that the information need not
be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose
assembly or a motor vehicle.
Comments on NPRM
The agency received comments on the NPRM from
Chrysler Corporation, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems
Group of Allied-Signal Inc., and Volvo GM Heavy
Truck Corporation. All commenters supported the
proposed amendments to the standard. Chrysler said
the proposed changes "will not affect automotive safety
and will also enable manufacturers to provide safe
brake hoses without additional regulatory cost."
After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has con-
cluded the proposed changes to Standard 106 are
warranted and has adopted the changes in this final
rule
Volvo GM suggested the effective date of the amend-
ment be the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, instead of the proposed date (180
days after publication), because the amendment would
impose no additional requirements. NHTSA has deter-
mined there is good cause shown for an earlier effec-
tive date because the rule clarifies the standard's
labeling requirements, and relieves some restrictions
on labeling components. NHTSA has further deter-
mined the effective date of the amendment will be 30
days after publication. The agency has specified that
date to provide time for any person to submit a peti-
tion for reconsideration of the rule before the date on
which the rule is effective.
PART 571: S106-PRE 67
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends
49 CFR Part 571 as follows:
(1) S5.2.1 is revised to read as follows:
5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose, except hose sold as
part of a motor vehicle, shall have at least two clearly
identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch
in width, placed on opposite sides of the brake hose
parallel to its longitudinal axis. One stripe may be in-
terrupted by the information required by S5.2.2. and
the other stripe may be interrupted by additional in-
formation at the manufacturer's option. However,
hydraulic brake hose manufactured for use only in an
assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in
a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle, need
not meet the requirements of S5.2.1
(2) The introductory text of S5.2.2 is revised to read
as follows: S5.2.2 Each hydraulic brake hose shall be
labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, at inter-
vals of not more than 6 inches, measured from the end
of one legend to the beginning of the next, in block cap-
ital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of an inch
high, with the information listed in paragraphs (a)
through (e) of this section. The information need not
be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose
assembly or a motor vehicle.
(3) The introductory text of S5.2.4 is revised to read
as follows:
S5.2.4 Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, except
those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled
by means of a band around the brake hose assembly
as specified in this paragraph or, at the option of the
manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in
S5.2.4.1. The band may at the manufacturer's option
be attached 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 symbols at least
one-eighth of an inch high, with the following infor-
mation:
(4) The introductory text of S7.2.1 is revised to read
as follows:
S7.2.1 Hose. Each air brake hose shall be
labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, at inter-
vals of not more than 6 inches, measured from the end
of one legend to the beginning of the next, in block cap-
ital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of an inch
high, with the information listed in paragraphs (a)
through (e) of this section. The information need not
be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose
assembly or a motor vehicle.
(5) The introductory text of S7.2.3 is revised to read
as follows:
S7.2.3 Assemblies. Each air brake hose assembly
made with end fittings that are attached by crimpinr
or swaging, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle
shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake
hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or, at the
option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as
specified in S7.2.3.1. The band may at the manufac-
turer's option be attached so as to move freely along
the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by
the end fittings. The band shall be etched, embossed,
or stamped in block capital letters, numerals or sym-
bols at least one-eighth of an inch high, following
information:
(6) The introductory text of S9.1.1 is revised to read
as follows:
S9.1.1 Hose. Each vacuum brake hose shall be
labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, at inter-
vals 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) of this section. The information need not
be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose
assembly or a motor vehicle.
(7) The introductory text of S9.1.3 is revised to reac'
as follows: ^
S9.1.3 Assemblies. Each vacuum brake hose assem-
bly made with end fittings that are attached by crimp-
ing or swaging and each plastic tube assembly made
with end fittings that are attached by heat shrinking
or dimensional interference fit, except those sold as
part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of
a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in
this paragraph or, at the option of the manufacturer,
by means of labeling as specified in S9. 1.3.1. The band
may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to
move freely along the length of the assembly, as long
as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be
etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters,
numerals or symbols at least one-eighth of an inch high,
with the following information:
(8) S12 and S13 are removed.
Issued on September 30, 1991.
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
56 F.R. 50520
October 7, 1991
PART 571; S106-PRE
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106
Brake Hoses
51. Scope. This standard specifies labeling
and performance requirements for motor vehicle
brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake
hose end fittings.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a
result of brake system failure from pressure or
vacuum loss due to hose or hose assembly rupture.
53. Application. This standard applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles, and to
hydraulic, air, and vacuum brake hose, brake
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings for
use in those vehicles.
54. Definitions.
Armor means protective material installed on a
brake hose to increase the resistance of the hose or
hose adssembly ot abrasion or mimpact damage.
Brake hose means a flexible conduit, other than a
vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in
a brake system to transit or contain the fluid
pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a
vehicle's brakes.
Brake hose assembly means a brake hose, with
or without armor, equipped with end fittings for
use in a brake system, but does not include and air
or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or
operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a
repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle.
Brake hose and fittings means a coupler other than
a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a
brake hose.
Free length means the linear measurement of
hose exposed between the end fittings of a hose
assembly in a straight position.
Permanently attached end fitting means an end
fitting that is attached by deformation of the
fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging,
or an end fitting that is attached by use of a
sacrificial sleeve or ferrule that requires replace-
ment each time a hose assembly is rebuilt.
Rupture means any failure that results in separa-
tion of a brake hose from its end fitting or in
leakage.
For hose, a dimensional description such as
"V4-inch hose" refers to the nominal inside diam-
eter. For tubing, a dimensional description such
as "V4-inch tubing" refers to the nominal outside
diameter.
Vacuum tubing connector means a flexible
conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tub-
ing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is
attached without end fittings, and (iii) when in-
stalled, has an unsupported length less than the
total length of those portions that cover the metal
tubing.
S5. Requirements— Hydraulic brake hose, brake
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.
55.1 Construction. Each hydraulic brake hose
assembly shall have permanently attached brake
hose end fittings which are attached by deforma-
tion of the fitting about the hose by crimping or
swaging.
55.2 Labeling.
S5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose, [except hose
sold as part of a motor vehicle,! shall have at least
two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-
sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opposite
sides of the brake hose parallel toits longitudinal
axis. One stripe may be interrupted by the informa-
tion required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be
(Rev. 10/7/91)
PART 571; S 106-1
interrupted by additional information at the
manufacturer's option. However, hydraulic brake
hose manufactured for use only in an assembly
whose end fittings prevent its installation in a
twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle,
need not meet the requirements of S5.2.1. (56 F.R.
50520— October 7, 1991. Effective November 6, 1991)1
S5.2.2 Each hydraulic brake hose shall be la-
beled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, at in-
tervals 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) of this section. [The
information need not be present on hose that is
sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor
vehicle. (56 F.R. 50520— October 7, 1991. Effective
November 6, 1991)1
(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 Crash Avoidance, Handling and
Stability Division, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590. The marking may consist
of a designation other than block capital letters
required by S5.2.2.
(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 ex-
pressed in inches or fractions of inches, or in
millimeters followed by the abbreviation "mm."
(e) Either "HR" to indicate that the hose is
regular expansion hydraulic hose or "HL" to in-
dicate that the hose is low expansion hydraulic
55.2.3 Reserved
55.2.4 [Each hydraulic brake hose assembly,
except those sold as part of a motor vehicle,l shall
be labeled by means of a band around the brake
hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or, at
the option of the manufacturer, by means of label-
ing as specified in S 5. 2. 4.1. The band may at the
manufacturer's option be attached so as to move
freely along the length of the assembly, as long as
it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall
be etched, embossed, or stamped in block capitals
letters, numerals, or symbols at least one-eighth of
an inch hight with the following information: (56
F.R. 50520— October 7, 1991. Effective November 6,
1991)
(a) The symbol DOT constituting certification
by the hose assembler that the hose assembly
conforms to all appUcable 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 Stand-
ards, Crash Avoidance Division, National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The
designation may consist of block capital letters,
numerals, or a symbol.
S5.2.4.1 At least one end fitting of a hydraulic
brake hose assembly shall be etched, stamped, or
embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth
of an inch high that identifies the manufacturing
of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance
with S5.2.4(b).
S5.3 Test requirements. A hydraulic brake
hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be
capable of meeting any of the requirements set
forth under this heading, when tested under the
conditions of Sll and the appHcable procedures of
S6. However, a particular hose assembly or
appropriate part thereof need not meet further
requirements after having been subjected to and
having met the constriction requirement (S5.3.1)
and any one of the requirements specified in S5.3.2
through S5.3.11.
55.3.1 Constriction. Except for that part of
an end fitting which does not contain hose, every
inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic
brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64
percent of the nominal inside diameter of the
brake hose.
55.3.2 Expansion and burst strength. The
maximum expansion of a hydraulic brake hose
assembly at 1,000 psi and 1,500 psi shall not
exceed the values specified in Table I (S6.1).
(Rev. 10/7/91)
PART 571; S 106-2
Table 1-
-Maximum Expansion
of Free L
engtt
1 Brake Hose, edit.
Test Pressure
Hydraulic Brake Hose,
inside diameter
Regular
Expansion
Hose
,000
psi
Low
Expansion
Hose
Regular
Expansion
Hose
1,500
psi
Low
Expansion
Hose
0.66
0.86
L04
0.33
0.55
0.82
0.79
1.02
1.30
0.42
^16 inch for 4 to 5 mm]
0.72
Vi inch or for 16 mmlmore
1.17
The hydraulic brake hose assembly shall then
withstand water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 min-
utes without rupture, and shall not rupture at
less than 5,000 psi (S6.2).
55.3.3 Whip resistance. A hydraulic brake
hose assembly shall not rupture when run con-
tinuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours
(S6.3).
55.3.4 Tensiie strength. A hydraulic brake
hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325
pounds without separation of the hose from its
end fittings (S6.4).
55.3.5 Water absorption and burst strength.
A hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immer-
sion in water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall with-
stand water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2 minutes,
and then shall not rupture at less than 5,000 psi
(S6.2).
55.3.6 Water absorption and tensile strength. A
hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immersion in
water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall withstand a pull of
325 pounds without separation of the hose from its
end fittings (S6.4).
55.3.7 Water absorption and whip resistance. A
hydraulic brake hose assembly, after immersion in
water for 70 hours (S6.5), shall not rupture when
run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours
(S6.3).
55.3.8 Low-temperature resistance. A
hydraulic brake hose conditioned at minus 40°F for
70 hours shall not show cracks visible without
magnification when bent around a cylinder as
specified in S6.6 (S6.6)
S5.3.9 Bralte fluid compatibility, constriction, and
burst strength. [Except for brake hose assemblies
designed for use with mineral or petroleum-based
brake fluids, a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall
meet the constriction requirement of S5.3.1 after
having been subjected to a temperature of 200 °F
for 70 hours while filled with SAE RM-66-03 com-
patibility brake fluid, as described in Appendix A
of SAE Standard J1703 NOV 83, "Motor Vehicle
Brake Fluid," November 1983 (S6.7). It shall then
withstand water pressure of 4,000 psi for 2
minutes and thereafter shall not rupture at less
than 5,000 psi (S6.2). (SAE RM-1 compatibility
fluid, as decribed in Appendix A of SAE Standard
J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," July 1970,
may be used in place of SAE RM-66-03 until
November 3, 1986.
5.3.10 Ozone resistance. A hydraulic brake
hose shall not show cracks visible under 7-power
magnification after exposure to ozone for 70
hours at 140°F (S6.8).
S5.3.11 End fitting corrosion resistance. After
24 hours of exposure to salt spray, a hydraulic
brake hose end fitting shall show no base metal
corrosion on the end fitting surface except where
crimping or the application of labeling information
has caused displacement of the protective coating
(S6.9).
PART 571; S 106-3
S6. Test procedures— Hydraulic brake hose,
brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.
S6.1 Expansion test.
S6.1.1 Apparatus. Utilize a test apparatus
(as shown in Figure 1) wliich consists of:
I " I I LENGTH
m
"<
Fig, 1 -Expansion Test Apparatus
(a) Source for required fluid pressure;
(b) Test fluid of water without any additives
and free of gases.
(c) Reservoir for test fluid;
(d) Pressure gauges;
(e) Brake hose end fittings in which to mount
the hose vertically; and
(f) Graduated burette with 0.05 cc increments.
S6.1.2 Preparation.
(a) Measure the free length of the hose as-
sembly.
(b) Mount the hose so that it is in a vertical
straight position without tension when pressure
is applied.
(c) Fill the hose with test fluid and bleed all
gases from the system.
(d) Close the valve to the burette and apply
1,500 psi for 10 seconds; then release pressure.
PART 571:
S6.1.3 Calculation of expansion at 1,000 and
1,500 psi.
(a) Adjust the fluid level in the burette to
zero.
(b) Close the valve to the burette, apply pres-
sure at the rate of 15,000 psi per minute, and
seal 1,000 psi in the hose (1,500 psi in second
series).
(c) After 3 seconds open the valve to the
burette for 10 seconds and allow the fluid in the
expanded hose to rise into the burette.
(d) Repeat the procedure in steps (b) and
(c) twice. Measure the amount of test fluid
which has accumulated in the burette as a result
of the three applications of pressure.
(e) Calculate the volumetric expansion per
foot by dividing the total accumulated test fluid
by 3 and further dividing by the free length of
the hose in feet.
56.2 Burst strength test.
(a) Connect the brake hose to a pressure sys-
tem and fill it completely with water, allowing
all gases to escape.
(b) Apply water pressure of 4,000 psi at a
rate of 15,000 psi per minute.
(c) After 2 minutes at 4,000 psi, increase the
pressure at the rate of 15,000 psi per minute
until the pressure exceeds 5,000 psi.
56.3 Whip resistance test.
S6.3.1 Apparatus. Utilize test apparatus that
is dynamically balanced and includes:
(a) A movable header consisting of a hori-
zontal bar equipped with capped end fittings
and mounted through bearings at each end to
points 4 inches from the center of two vertically
rotating disks whose edges are in the same
vertical plane;
(b) An adjustable stationary header parallel
to the movable header in the same horizontal
plane as the centers of the disks, and fitted with
open end fittings;
(c) An elapsed time indicator; and
(d) A source of water pressure connected to
the open end fittings.
S 106-4
S6.3.2 Preparation.
(a) Remove all external appendages including,
but not limited to, hose armor, chafing collars,
mounting brackets, date bands and spring guards.
(b) Measure the hose free length.
(c) Mount the hose in the whip test machine in-
troducing slack as specified in Table II for the size
hose tested, measuring the projected length parallel
to the axis of the rotating disks. The manufacturer
may, at his option, adapt the fitting attachment
points to permit mounting hose assemblies equipped
with angled or other special fittings in the same
orientation as hose assemblies equipped with
straight fittings.
Table II— Hose Lengths
Slack, inches
Free length between end
fittings, inches
%-inch lor 3
mm| hose or
less
more than ^-inch
|or 3 mm| hose
8 to 15V2, inclusive
10 to 15V2, inclusive
Over 15'/2 to 19 inclusive
Over 19 to 24, inclusive
1.750
1.250
0.750
1.000
S6.3.3 Operation.
(a) Apply 235 psi water pressure and bleed all
gases from the system.
(b) Drive the movable head at 800 rpm.
56.4 Tensile strength test. Utilize a tension
testing machine conforming to the requirements of
the methods of Verification of Testing Machines
(1964 American Society for Testing and Materials,
Designation E4), and provided with a recording
device to give the total pull in pounds.
56.4.1 Preparation. Mount the hose assembly
to ensure straight, evenly distributed machine pull.
56.4.2 Operation. Apply tension at a rate of 1
inch per minute travel of the moving head until
separation occurs.
56.5 Water absorption sequence tests.
(Rev. 2/1/85) PART 571;
56.5.1 Preparation. Prepare three hose assem-
blies as follows:
(a) Remove 1% inches of hose cover, if any,
from the center of the hose assemblies without
injury to any reinforcing material or elongation of
the hose assemblies.
(b) Measure the free length of the hose
assemblies.
56.5.2 Immersion and sequence testing.
(a) Immerse the hose assemblies in distilled
water for 70 hours.
(b) Thirty minutes after removal from water,
conduct tests S6.2, S6.3, and S6.4, using a dif-
ferent hose for each sequence.
S6.6 Low temperature resistance test.
56.6.1 Preparation.
(a) Remove hose armor, if any, and condition a
hose in a straight position in air at minus 40 °F for
70 hours.
(b) [Condition a cylinder in air at minus 40 °F for
70 hours, using a cylinder of 2V2 inches in diameter
for test of hose less than J^^-inch or 3 mm 3 inches
for tests of %-inch or 3 mm hose, 3V2 inches for
tests of %6-inch and V4-inch hose or of 4 to 6 mm
hose, and 4 inches for tests of hose greater than V4
inch or 6 mm in diameter. (50 F.R. 4691— February
1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)1
56.6.2 Flexibility testing. Bend the conditioned
hose 180 degrees around the conditioned cylinder
at a steady rate in a period of 3 to 5 seconds.
Examine without magnification for cracks.
S6.7 Braise fluid compatibility test.
S6.7.1 Preparation.
(a) Attach a hose assembly below a 1-pint
reservoir filled with 100 ml of SAE RM-1 com-
patibility fluid as shown in Figure 2.
(b) Fill the hose assembly with brake fluid, seal
the lower end, and place the test assembly in an
oven in a vertical position.
S 106-5
1 PINT RESERVOIR
F[g 2 Brake Fluid Compatabtlity Apparatus
6.7.2 Oven treatment.
(a) Condition the hose assembly at 200° F
for 70 hours.
(b) Cool the hose assembly at room tempera-
ture for 30 minutes.
(c) Drain the brake hose assembly, immedi-
ately determine that every inside diameter of
any section of the hose assembly, except for that
part of an end fitting which does not contain
hose, is not less than 64 percent of the nominal
inside diameter of the hose, and conduct the
test specified in S6.2.
S6.8 Ozone resistance test. Utilize a cylinder
with a diameter eight timis the nominal outside
diameter of the brake hose excluding armor.
56.8.1 Preparation. After removing any ar-
mor, bind a hydraulic brake hose 360° around
the cylinder. In the case of hose shorter than
the circumference of the cylinder, bend the hose
so that as much of its length as possible is in con-
tact.
56.8.2 Exposure to ozone.
(a) Condition the hose on the cylinder in air
at room temperature for 24 hours.
PART 571
(b) Immediately thereafter, condition the
hose on the cylinder for 70 hours in an exposure
chamber having an ambient air temperature of
104° F during the test and containing air mixed
with ozone in the proportion of 50 parts of
ozone per 100 million parts of air by volume.
(c) Examine the hose for cracks under 7-power
magnification, ignoring areas immediately adja-
cent to or within the area covered by binding.
S6.9 End fitting corrosion resistance test. Uti-
lize the apparatus described in ASTM B117-64,
"Salt Spray (Fog) Testing."
56.9.1 Construction. Construct the salt spray
chamber so that:
(a) The construction material does not affect
the corrosiveness of the fog;
(b) The hose assembly is supported or sus-
pended 30° from the vertical and parallel to the
principal direction of the horizontal flow of fog
through the chamber;
(c) The hose assembly does not contact any
metallic material or any material capable of
acting as a wick;
(d) Condensation which falls from the as-
sembly does not return to the solution reservoir
for respraying;
(e) Condensation from any source does not
fall on the brake hose assemblies or the solution
collectors; and
(f) Spray from the nozzles is not directed
onto the hose assembly.
56.9.2 Preparation.
(a) Plug each end of the hose assembly.
(b) Mix a salt solution five parts by weight
of sodium chloride to 95 parts of distilled water,
using sodium chloride substantially free of nickel
and copper, and containing on a dry basis not
more than 0.1 percent of sodium iodide and not
more than 0.3 percent total impurities. Ensure
that the solution is free of suspended solids be-
fore the solution is atomized.
(c) After atomization at 95° F ensure that
the collected solution is in the pH range of 6.5
to 7.2. Make the pH measurements at 77° F.
S 106-6
(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 braise hose, bral<e 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.
57.2 Labeling.
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) of this section.
[The information need not be present on hose that
is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor
vehicle. (56 F.R. 50520— October 7, 1991. Effective
November 6, 1991)1
(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: %, y^ (Yz 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 Ill-Air Brake
Hose Dimensions for Reusable Assemblies
Size,
inches
Inside Diameter
Tolerance, inches
TYPE I
O.D., inches
Min Max
TYPE II
O.D., inches
Min Max
yis
+ 0.026
-0.000
0.472
0.510
0.500
0.539
1/4
+ 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
'%2
+ 0.031
-0.000
0.714
0.760
0.742
0.789
V2
+ 0.039
-0.000
0.808
0.854
0.898
0.945
%
+ 0.042
-0.000
0.933
0.979
1.054
1.101
Vz 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.
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 III, "AI" or "AH" shall in-
dicate use with Type I or Type II hose, respec-
tively.
(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, f except those sold as part
of a motor vehicle,! 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: (56 F.R. 50520— October 6,
1991. Effective November 6, 1991)1
(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 manufacturer
of the hose assembly, 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 con-
sist 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 l-ligh 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. 10/7/91)
PART 571; S 106-^
57.3.3 Low temperature resistance. The outer
cover of an air brake hose shall not show cracks
visible without magnification as a result of condi-
tioning at minus 40° F for 70 hours when bent
around a cylinder having the radius specified in
Table IV for the size of hose tested (S8.2).
57.3.4 Oil resistance. After immersion in
ASTM No. 3 oil for 70 hours at 212° F the volume
of a specimen prepared from the inner tube and
cover of an air brake hose shall not increase more
than 100 percent (S8.3).
57.3.5 Ozone resistance. The outer cover of an
air brake hose shall not show cracks visible under
7-power magnification after exposure to ozone for
70 hours at 104° F (S8.4).
57.3.6 Length change. An airbrake hose shall
not contract in length more than 7 percent nor
elongate more than 5 percent when subjected to air
pressure of 200 psi (S8.5). "(other than a coiled
nylon tube for use in an assembly that meets the
requirements of § 393.45 of this title)" followed the
phrase "An air brake hose."
§ 7.3.7 Adhesion. "Except for hose reinforced
by wire," an airbrake hose shall withstand a tensile
force of 8 pounds per inch of length before separa-
tion of adjacent layers (S8.6).
57.3.8 Air pressure. An air brake hose
assembly shall contain air pressure of 200 psi for 5
minutes without loss of more than 5 psi (S8.7).
57.3.9 Burst strength. An air brake hose
assembly shall not rupture when exposed to
hydrostatic pressure of 800 psi (S8.8).
57.3.10 Tensile strength. [An air brake hose
assembly (other than a coiled nylon tube assem-
bly which meets the requirements of § 393.45 of
this title) designed for use between frame and axle
or between a towed and a towing vehicle shall
withstand, without separation of the hose from its
end fittings, a pull of 250 pounds if it is V4 inch or
less or 6 mm or less in nominal internal diameter,
or a pull of 325 pounds if it is larger than V4 inch or
6 mm in nominal internal diameter. An air brake
hose assembly designed for use in any other ap-
plication shall withstand, without separation of the
hose from its end fitting, a pull of 50 pounds if it is
V4 inch or 6 mm or less in nominal internal
diameter, 150 pounds if it is % or V2 inch or 10 mm
to 12 mm in nominal internal diameter, or 325
pounds if it is larger than Vz inch or 12 mm in
nominal internal diameter (S8.9). (50 F.R.
4691— February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)]
57.3.11 Water absorption and tensile strength.
(After immersion in distilled water for 70 hours
(S8.10), an air brake hose assembly (other than a
coiled tube assembly which meets the require-
ments of § 393.45 of this title) designed for use be-
tween frame and axle or between a towed and a
towing vehicle shall withstand without separation
of the hose from its end fittings a pull of 250
pounds if it is V4 inch or 6 mm or less in nominal in-
ternal diameter, or a pull of 325 pounds if it is
larger than V4 inch or 6 mm in nominal internal
diameter. After immersion in distilled water for 70
hours (S8.10), an air brake hose assembly designed
for use in any other application shall withstand
without separation of the hose from its end fitting
a pull of 50 pounds if it is V4 inch or 6 mm or less in
nominal internal diameter, 150 pounds if it is % or
V2 inch or 10 to 12 mm in nominal internal
diameter, or 325 pounds if it is larger than V2 inch
or 12 mm in nominal internal diameter (S8.9). (50
F.R. 4691— February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)1
57.3.12 Zinc chloride resistance. The outer
cover of an air brake hose shall not show cracks
visible under 7-power magnification after immer-
sion in a 50-percent zinc chloride aqueous solution
for 200 hours (S8.ll).
Table IV— Air Brake Hose Diameters and Test Cylinder Radii
INominal hose diameter in. *
%
%e
1/4
%6
%, '%2
'/16, V2
%
mm. *
3
4, 5
6
8
10
12
16
Radius of test cylinder
in inches
IV2
2
2'/2
3
3V2
4
4V2
* These sizes are listed to provide test values for brake hoses manufactured in these sizes. They do not represent conversions. (50
F.R. 4691-February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)1.
(Rev. 2/1/85) PART 571; S 106-9
S7.3.13 End fitting corrosion resistance. After
24 hours of exposure to spray, air brake hose
end fittings shall show no base metal corrosion
on the end fitting surface except where crimping
or the application of label information causes
a displacement of the protective coating.
S8. Test procedures— Air brake hose, bral<e
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.
58.1 High temperature resistance test.
(a) Utilize a cylinder having the radius indi-
cated in Table IV for the size of hose tested.
(b) Bind the hose around the cylinder and
condition it in an air oven for 70 hours at 212°F.
(c) Cool the hose to room temperature, re-
move it from the cylinder and straighten it.
(d) Without magnification, examine the hose
externally and cut the hose lengthwise and
examine the inner tube.
58.2 Low temperature resistance test.
(a) Utilize a cylinder having the radius indi-
cated in Table IV for the size of hose tested.
(b) Condition the cylinder and the brake hose,
in a straight position, in a cold box at minus
40° F for 70 hours.
(c) With the hose and cylinder at minus 40°
F, bend the hose 180 degrees around the cylinder
at a steady rate in a period of 3 to 5 seconds.
58.3 Oil resistance test. Utilize three test
specimens and average the results.
58.3.1 Preparation. Fashion a test specimen
by cutting a rectangular block 2 inches long and
not less than one-third of an inch in width, hav-
ing a thickness of not more than one-sixteenth
inch, from the brake hose and buff the specimen
on both faces to ensure smooth surfaces.
58.3.2 Measurement.
(a) Weigh each specimen to the nearest milli-
gram in air (Wl) and in distilled water (W2)
at room temperature. If wetting is necessary
to remove air bubbles, dip the specimen in ace-
tone and thoroughly rinse it with distilled water.
(b) Immerse each specimen in ASTM No. 3
oil for 70 hours at 212° F and then cool in
ASTM No. 3 oil at room temperature for 30 to
60 minutes.
(c) Dip the specimen quickly in acetone and
blot it lightly with filter paper.
(d) Weigh each specimen in a tared weighing
bottle (W3) and in distilled water (W4) within
five minutes of removal from the cooling liquid.
(e) Calculate the percentage increase in vol-
ume as follows:
D , f (W3-W4)-(Wi-W2)
Percent of mcrease-^^ — ^^—^ — ^^
(W1-W2)
^x 100
58.4 Ozone resistance test. Conduct the test
specified in S6.8 using air brake hose.
58.5 Length change test.
(a) Position a test hose in a straight, hori-
zontal position, and apply air pressure of 10 psi
thereto.
(b) Measure the hose to determine original
free length.
(c) Without releasing the 10 psi, raise the air
pressure to the test hose to 200 psi.
(d) Measure the hose under 200 psi to deter-
mine final free length. An elongation or con-
traction is an increase or decrease respectively,
in the final free length from the original free
length of the hose.
58.6 Adhesion test.
S8.6.1 Apparatus. (A tension testing machine
that is power-driven and that applies a constant
rate of extension is used for measuring the force
required to separate the layers of the test specimen.
The apparatus is constructed so that:
(a) The recording head includes a freely ro-
tating form with an outside diameter substan-
tially the same as the inside diameter of the hose
specimen to be placed on it.
(b) The freely rotating form is mounted so
that its axis of rotation is in the plane of the
ply being separated from the specimen and so
that the applied force is perpendicular to the
tangent of the specimen circumference at the
line of separation.
(c) The rate of travel of the power-actuated
grip is a uniform one inch per minute and the
capacity of the machine is such that maximum
applied tension during the test is not more than
85 percent nor less than 15 percent of the ma-
chine's rated capacity.
(Rev. 1/7/86)
PART 571; S 106-10
(d) The machine produces a chart with separa-
tion as one coordinate and appHed tension as the
other. (51 F.R. 603— January 7, 1986, Effective: July
6, 1986)]
58.6.2 Preparation.
(a) Cut a test specimen of 1 inch or more in
length from the hose to be tested and cut the layer
to be tested of that test specimen longitudinally
along its entire length to the level of contact with
the adjacent layer.
(b) Peel the layer to be tested from the adjacent
layer to create a flap large enough to permit
attachment of the power-actuated clamp of the
apparatus.
(c) Mount the test specimen on the freely
rotating form with the separated layer attached to
the power-actuated clamp.
58.6.3 Operation. Reserved
58.6.4 Calculations.
(a) (The adhesion value shall be the minimum
force recorded on the chart excluding that portion
of the chart which corresponds to the initial and
final 20 percent portion along the displacement
axis. (51 F.R. 603— January 7, 1986. Effective: July 6,
1986)].
(b) Express the force in pounds per inch of
length.
S8.7 Air pressure test.
(a) Connect the air brake hose assembly to a
source of air pressure.
(b) Apply 200 psi air pressure to the hose and
seal the hose from the source of air pressure.
(c) After 5 minutes, determine the air pressure
remaining in the test specimen.
S8.8 Burst strength test.
(a) Utilize an air brake hose assembly.
(b) Fill the hose assembly with water, allowing
all gases to escape. Apply water pressure at a
uniform rate of increase of approximately 1,000 psi
per minute until the hose ruptures.
S8.9 Tensile strength test. Utilize a tension
testing machine conforming to the requirements of
the Methods of Verification of Testing Machines
(1964 American Society for Testing and Materials,
Designation E4), and provided with a recording
device to register total pull in pounds.
(a) Attach an air brake hose assembly to the
testing machine to permit straight, even, machine-
pull on the hose.
(b) Apply tension at a rate of 1 inch per minute
travel of the moving head until separation occurs.
Table V— Vacuum Brake Hose Test Requirements
Hose inside diameter*
High temperature
Low temperature
Bend
Deforma-
resistance
resistance
tion-
Inches
Millimeters
Hose
Radius of
Hose
Radius of
Hose
Maximum
collapsed
length,
cylinder,
length,
cylinder
length.
collapse of
inside
inches
inches
inches
inches
inches
outside
diameter,
inches
(dimension
D), inches
%2
5
8
IV2
171/2
3
7
"/64
%4
V4
6
9
IV2
17V2
3
8
%2
Vie
%2
9
PA
19
3V2
9
■%4
%4
'%2
8
9
1%
19
3V2
11
■y64
%4
%
10
10
1%
19
31/2
12
%2
%2
yi6
11
2
2OV2
4
14
■%4
%4
•%2
11
2
2OV2
4
14
"/64
%4
Vz
12
11
2
2OV2
4
16
%2
Vs
%
16
12
2V4
22
4V2
22
%2
%2
%
14
2V2
24
5
28
%2
yi6
1.0
16
3V4
28V2
6V2
36
%2
1/4
* These sizes are listed to provide test values for brake hoses in these sizes. They do not represent conversions.
(Rev. 1/7/86) PART 571; S 106-11
58.10 Water absorption and tensile strength
test. Immerse an air brake hose assembly in
distilled water at room temperature for 70 hours.
Thirty minutes after removal from the water, con-
duct the test specified in S8.9.
58.11 Zinc chloride resistance test. Immerse
an air brake hose in a 50-percent zinc chloride
aqueous solution at room temperature for 200
hours. Remove it from the solution and examine it
under 7-power magnification for cracks.
58.12 End fitting corrosion resistance test. Con-
duct the test specified in S6.9 using an air brake
hose assembly.
S9. Requirements— vacuum brake hose, brake
hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.
9.1 Labeling.
S9.1 .1 Hose. Each vacuum brake hose shall be
labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, at in-
tervals 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) of this section. [The
information need not be present on hose that is
sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor
vehicle. (56 F.R. 50520— October 7, 1991. Effective
November 6, 1991)]
(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 sym-
bol.
(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 ex-
pressed 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.
(Rev. 10/7/91) PART 571;
The abbreviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that
are expressed in millimeters. (Example of inside
diameter: %2, V4, 4 mm. Example of outside
diameter: V4 OD, 12 mm OD.)
(e) The letters "VL" or "VH" shall indicate that
the component is a light-duty vacuum brake hose
or heavy-duty vacuum brake hose, respectively.
59.1.2 End Fittings. Except for an end fitting
that is attached by heat shrinking or by in-
terference fit with plastic vacuum hose or that is
attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose
by crimping or swaging, at least one component of
each vacuum brake hose fitting shall be etched, em-
bossed, 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
letters, numerals, or a symbol.
(c) The letters "VL" or "VH" shall indicate that
the end fitting is intended for use in a light-duty or
heavy-duty vacuum brake system, respectively.
(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 fraction of inches or in millimeters followed by
the letters OD (See examples in S9.1.1 (d)). The ab-
breviation "mm" shall follow hose sizes that are
expressed in millimeters.
59.1.3 Assemblies. Each vacuum brake hose
assembly made with end fittings that are attached
by crimping or swaging and each plastic tube
assembly made with end fittings that are attached
by heat shrinking or dimensional interference fit,
[except those sold as part of a motor vehicle,! shall
be labeled by means of a band around the brake
hose assembly as specified in this para-
S 106-12
graph or, at the option of the manufacturer, by
means of labeHng as specified in S9. 1.3.1 The band
may at the manufacturer's option attached so as to
move freely along the length of the assembly, as
long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band
shall be etched, embossed, or stamped, in block
capital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of
an inch high, with the following information: (56
F.R. 50520— October 7, 1991. Effective November 6,
1991)1
(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
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation
may consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a
symbol.
S9.1.3.1 At least one end fitting of a vacuum
brake hose assembly made with end fittings that
are attached by crimping or swaging, or of a plastic
tubing assembly made with end fittings that are
attached by heat shrinking or dimensional
interference fit 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
S9.1.3(b).
S9.2 Test requirements. Each vacuum brake
hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be
capable of meeting any of the requirements set
forth under this heading, when tested under the
conditions of Sll and the applicable procedures of
SIC. However, a particular hose assembly or
appropriate part thereof need not meet further
requirements after having met the constriction
requirement (S9.2.1) and then having been sub-
jected to any one of the requirements specified in
S9.2.2 through S9.2.11.
S9.2.1 Constriction. Except for that part of
an end fitting which does not contain hose, every
inside diameter of any section of a vacuum brake
hose assembly shall be not less than 75 percent
of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for
heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal inside
diameter of the hose if for light duty.
59.2.2 High temperature resistance. A vacuum
brake hose shall not show external or internal
cracks, charring, or disintegration visible with-
out magnification when straightened after being
bent for 70 hours at 212° F over a cylinder
having the radius specified in Table V for the
size of hose tested (SlO.l).
59.2.3 Low temperature resistance. A vacuum
brake hose shall not show cracks visible without
magnification after conditioning at minus 40° F
for 70 hours when bent around a cylinder having
the radius specified in Table V for the size hose
Tested (S10.2).
59.2.4 Ozone resistance. A vacuum brake
hose shall not show cracks visible under 7-power
magnification after exposure to ozone for 70
hours (S10.3).
59.2.5 Burst strength. A vacuum brake hose
shall not rupture under hydrostatic pressure of
350 psi (S10.4).
59.2.6 Vacuum. The collapse of the outside
diameter of a vacuum brake hose under internal
vacuum of 26 inches of Hg for five minutes
shall not exceed one-sixteenth of an inch (S10.5).
59.2.7 Bend. The collapse of the outside
diameter of a vacuum brake hose at the middle
point of the test length when bent until the ends
touch shall not exceed the values given in Table
V for the size of hose tested (S10.6).
59.2.8 Sweii. Following exposure to Refer-
ence Fuel A, every inside diameter of any sec-
tion of a vacuum brake hose shall be not less than
75 percent of the nominal inside of the hose if
for heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal
inside diameter of the hose if for Hght duty.
The vacuum brake hose shall show no leakage
and there shall be no separation of the inner tube
from the fabric reinforcement of the hose in a
vacuum test of 26 inches of Hg for 10 minutes
(S10.7).
PART 571; S 106-13
59.2.9 Adhesion. "Except for hose reinforced
by wire," a vacuum brake hose shall withstand a
force of 8 pounds per inch of length before separa-
tion of adjacent layers (S10.8).
59.2.10 Deformation. A vacuum brake hose
shall return to 90 percent of its original outside
diameter within 60 seconds after five applications
of force as specified in S10.9, except that a wire-
reinforced hose need only return to 85 percent of
its original outside diameter. In the case of heavy-
duty hose the first application of force shall not
exceed a peak value of 70 pounds, and the fifth
appeak value of at least 40 pounds. In the case of
light-duty hose the first application of force shall
not exceed a peak value of 50 pounds, and the fifth
application of force shall reach a peak value of at
least 20 pounds (S10.9).
59.2.11 End fitting corrosion resistance. After
24 hours of exposure to salt spray, vacuum brake
hose end fittings shall show no base metal corro-
sion of the end fitting surface except where crimp-
ing or the application of labeling information has
caused displacement of the protective coating.
S10. Test procedures— Vacuum bralce hose,
bralce hose assemblies, and bralce hose and fittings.
S10.1 High temperature resistance test. Con-
duct the test specified in S8.1 using vacuum brake
hose with the cylinder radius specified in Table V
for the size of hose tested.
(c) Measure the hose to determine the mini-
mum outside diameter while the hose is still sub-
ject to vacuum.
§ 10.6 Bend test.
(a) Bend a vacuum brake hose, of the length
prescribed in Table V, in the direction of its
normal curvature until then ends just touch, as
shown in Figure 3.
(b) Measure the outside diameter of the speci-
men at point A before and after bending.
(c) The difference between the two measure-
ments is the collapse of the hose outside diameter
on bending.
Fig. 3 -Bend Test of Vacuum Brake Hose.
510.2 Low temperature resistance test. Con-
duct the test specified in S8.2 using vacuum brake
hose with the cylinder radium specified in Table V
for the size of hose tested.
510.3 Ozone resistance test. Conduct the test
specified in S6.8 using vacuum brake hose.
510.4 Burst strength test. Conduct the test
specified in S8.8 using vacuum brake hose.
510.5 Vacuum test. Utilize a 12-inch vacuum
brake hose assembly sealed at one end.
(a) Measure the hose outside diameter.
(b) Attach the hose to a source of vacuum
and subject it to a vacuum of 26 inches of Hg
for 5 minutes.
S10.7 Swell test.
(a) Fill a specimen of vacuum brake hose 12
inches long with Reference Fuel A as described
in the Method of Test for Change in Properties
of Elastomeric Vulcanizers Resulting From Im-
mersion in Liquids (1964 American Society for
Testing and Materials Designation D471).
(b) Maintain reference fuel in the hose under
atmospheric pressure at room temperature for
48 hours.
(c) Remove fuel and determine that every
inside diameter of any section of the brake hose
is not less than 75 percent of the nominal inside
diameter of the hose for heavy-duty hose and 70
percent of the nominal inside diameter of the
hose for light-duty hose.
PART 571; S 106-14
Table VI
Dimensions of Test Specimen and Feeler Gage for Deformation Test
Hose Inside Diameter*
Specimen Dimensions
Feeler Gage Dimensions
(inch)
Mm.
(St
e Fig. U)
Width
(inch)
Thickness
D (inch)
L (inch)
(inch)
1%.
5
Y64
%
%4
1/4
6
%6
%
y>6
%2
Vm
%
y,6
')i.
8
%,
yi6
%4
%
10
%2
yie
%2
y,6
%4
1/4
%4
'%2
%4
V4
%4
1/2
12
%
1/4
^
%
16
%2
1/4
%2
%
'/le
V4
%6
1.0
'A
V4
V4I
* These sizes are listed to provide
test values for brake hoses manufactured i
n these sizes. They do not represent conversions. (50
F.R. 4691-February 1, 1985. Effective: June 3, 1985)
(d) Subject the hose specimen to a vacuum
of 26 inches of Hg for 10 minutes.
510.8 Adhesion test. Conduct the test
specified in S8.6 using vacuum brake hose.
510.9 Deformation test. Table VI specifies the
test specimen dimensions.
S10.9.1 Apparatus. Utilize a compression
device, equipped to measure force of at least 100
pounds, and feeler gages of sufficient length to be
completely through the test specimen.
S1 0.9.2 Operation.
(a) Position the test specimen longitudinally in
the compression device with the fabric laps not in
the line of the applied pressure.
(b) Apply gradually increasing force to the test
specimen to compress its inside diameter to that
specified in Table VI (dimension D of figure 4) for
the size of hose tested.
(^i
r-^-1
(c) After 5 seconds release the force and record
the peak load applied.
(d) Repeat the procedure for times permitting a
10-second recovery period between load applica-
tions.
S10.10 End fitting corrosion resistance test.
Conduct the test specified in S6.9 using a vacuum
brake hose assembly.
511. Test conditions. Each hose assembly or
appropriate part thereof shall be able to meet the
requirements of S5, S7, and S9 under the following
conditions.
511.1 The temperature of the testing room is
75° F.
511.2 Except for S6.6, S8.2, and S10.2, the test
samples are stabilized at test room temperature
prior to testing.
511.3 The brake hoses and brake hose
assemblies are at least 24 hours old, and unused.
512. I Removed. 55 F.R. 50520-October 7, 19911
513. IRemoved. 55 F.R. 50520-October 7, 19911
Fig 4 Deformed Specimen of Vacuum
Brake Hose
38 F.R. 31302
November 13, 1973
PART 571; S 106-15-16
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108
School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices
(Docket No. 81-02; Notice 12)
RIN: 2127-AE16
ACTION: Mooting of petition for reconsideration;
final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice moots a petition by Ford
Motor Company for reconsideration of the effective
dates of the final rule first permitting, then requiring
center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs) on vehicles
other than passenger cars (light trucks). Ford had re-
quested that the effective dates for both permissive and
mandatory installation of CHMSLs be delayed until the
effective date for the amendment permitting the com-
bination of light truck CHMSLs with cargo lamps, if
that date were later. The petition is mooted because
the agency, in this notice, is amending Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as proposed, to allow
the physical combination (but not the optical combina-
tion) of cargo lamps with light truck CHMSLs with an
effective date that coincides with the effective date for
permissive installation of light truck CHMSLs.
DATE: The effective date of the final rule is
December 9, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 19,
1991, NHTSA published a final rule requiring the
installation of center high-mounted stop lamps
(CHMSL's) on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks,
and buses with an overall width of less than 80 inches,
and whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less (referred
to, for convenience, as "light truck CHMSLs") (56 FR
16015). The final rule requires mandatory installation
of light truck CHMSLs for vehicles manufactured on
and after September 1, 1993, with optional installation
of conforming lamps permitted as of September 1,
1992. Simultaneously, NHTSA published a supple-
mental notice of proposed rulemaking to allow cargo-
bed lamps to be physically combined, but not optically
combined, with light truck CHMSLs (56 FR 16052).
The proposed effective date of this amendment was
September 1, 1992.
Petition for Reconsideration.
Ford Motor Company filed the only petition for
reconsideration of the light truck CHMSL final rule.
It requested that the optional and mandatory effective
dates (September 1, 1992, and September 1, 1993,
respectively) be stated in alternative terms, namely
September 1, 1992 or 1993, or the actual effective date
of the rule permitting the combination of light truck
CHMSLs and cargo-bed lamps.
The reason for Ford's request is its intention to offer
the combination lamps in several of its product lines, be-
ginning with the 1992 model year. It was concerned that
the proposed effective date of September 1, 1992 might
be delayed. However, this notice responds to Ford's con-
cern by adopting an effective date that is 30 days after
publication of the notice in the Federal Regester, there-
by mooting the petition for reconsideration.
Combining the Light Truck CHMSL
With a Cargo Lamp.
The supplemental NPRM was issued in response to
requests by Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors that
the CHMSL be permitted to be combined with the
cargo-bed lamp typically found on the rear of the cab
of pickup trucks. They reasoned that despite the specif-
ic prohibition in S5.4 against the combining of a
CHMSL with any other lamp, the combination of a
CHMSL with a cargo-bed lamp would have absolutely
no negative safety effect because of the nature and use
of the two lamps. The cargo-bed lamp is a white colored
lamp actuated by the user for illuminating the cargo
area of the truck body bed. It is typically electrically
connected to the interior dome lamp. Thus, the like-
lihood of driving with the cargo-bed lamp illuminated
is low. Commenters also said that the two lamps would
not likely be optically combined, since they are two
different colors, but they could be in a common housing,
possibly with a cargo lamp flanking each side of the
CHMSL for symmetrical appearance. General Motors
specifically suggested a prohibition of optical combina-
tion, however.
PART 571; S108-PRE 381
The agency saw no reason to prohibit the physical
combination of a CHMSL and a cargo lamp. However,
it was concerned about the possible effect on safety of
an optical combination, and did not propose to allow it.
Although the rule permits the use of a physically
combined CHMSL and cargo lamp, manufacturers
must ensure that the combined lamp does not operate
in such a way as to impair the effectiveness of the
CHMSL, a lamp required by Standard No. 108.
Comments on the Supplemental Proposal.
Ford, General Motors (GM), Chrysler Corporation,
and Truck-Lite filed comments on the supplemental
proposal, and were unanimous in their support of it.
The questions and concerns raised were minor, and are
discussed below.
A. Definition of cargo-bed lamp. NHTSA proposed
that a cargo-bed lamp be defined as "a lamp that is
mounted on the rear of the cab of a truck or multipur-
pose passenger vehicle with an open cargo bed and that
is used to illuminate the cargo bed."
Ford commented that the proposed definition limited
the application of the lamp to vehicles that have open
cargo beds. It noted that the lamps can also serve as
a utility lamp on closed vehicles such as vans and utility
trucks to illuminate the area to the rear of the vehicle
where cargo would be loaded and unloaded. Ford
suggested that the lamp be called simply a "cargo
lamp," and defined as a supplemental lamp that pro-
vides "illumination to the rear of the vehicle or the
vehicle cab to unload cargo or equipment in an environ-
ment of insufficient light."
NHTSA concurs in principle with this comment. It
has no wish to restrict the definition so as to exclude
lamps that aid in unloading cargo from vehicles other
than those with open beds. Accordingly, NHTSA has
decided to rename the lamp a "cargo lamp", and to
define it as a "lamp that is mounted on the exterior
of a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus for
the purpose of providing illumination to load and unload
cargo."
B. Permitting Optically Combined Cargo Lamps
and Light Truck CHMSLs. In its comments. Ford re-
quested that NHTSA consider allowing optically com-
bined cargo lamps and light truck CHMSLs in future
rulemaking stating that this would offer efficiencies in
cost, manufacturing, and design. The agency is agree-
able to considering this issue in a future rulemaking,
and invites interested persons to provide information
and views on the performance of such lamp combin-
ations.
C. Whether a separate lens must be used for each
lamp function. GM commented that the definition
NHTSA proposed for "optically combined" could be
interpreted as requiring separate lenses for cargo lamp
and CHMSL functions. It anticipates that a combina-
tion lamp would have a dual molded, two-color, one-
piece lens. Because NHTSA's proposed definition
included the words "where the optically functional lens
area of the lamp is wholly or partially common to two
or more lamp functions" (emphasis supplied), GM fears
that, in the case of a one-piece two-color lens, the
"optically functional lens area" of such a lens could be
interpreted as all inclusive of the optics on both the red
and crystal part of the one piece lens, and hence
forbidden as an "optical combination."
NHTSA notes that the definition of "optically com-
bined" that was adopted on June 7, 1991 (the defini-
tion in SAE J387), pursuant to another rulemaking,
contains much the same language as was quoted above
The newly adopted definition includes the phrase
"where its optically functional lens area is wholly or par
tially common to two or more lamp functions." Thus
the recent amendment has not addressed GM's concern
NHTSA does not consider a combination
CHMSL/cargo lamp which uses a dual-molded, two-
color, one-piece lens to be "optically combined", pro-
vided that the light source(s) for each independent light-
ing function (CHMSL or cargo) contribute light solely
for that function. Such an arrangement results in
separate optically functional lens areas for each
independent lighting function, and therefore is ex-
cluded from the definition of "optically combined" in
SAE J387. Therefore, GM's concern that a two-color
lens would not be permitted is unfounded.
D. Allowance of CHMSLs prior to optional com-
pliance date. The remark appeared under "Proposed
effective date" in the supplemental proposal that
"CHMSLs may not be installed on light trucks before"
the optional effective date of September 1, 1992. Truck-
Lite commented that it was its understanding that such
lamps could be installed before the optional effective
date as long as they did not impair the effectiveness
of the lighting equipment required by Standard No.
108. Ford filed a similar comment. Both cited relevant
agency interpretations.
Both Truck-Lite and Ford are correct. A CHMSL
may be installed on a vehicle manufactured before Sep-
tember 1, 1992, even if it does not meet light truck
CHMSL requirements, as long as it does not impair the
effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (S5.1.3
of Standard No. 108, allowing supplemental lamps, sub-
ject to the prohibition against impairment). If a
manufacturer of trucks or multipurpose passenger
vehicles chooses to install a light truck CHMSL on a
vehicle manufactured between September 1, 1992, and
September 1, 1993, (or, as required, installs it on a
vehicle manufactured on and after September 1, 1993)
he must comply with all the requirements for light
truck CHMSLs.
PART 571; S108-PRE 382
Effective Date.
The effective date of the amendment allowing the
combining of a CHMSL with a cargo bed lamp is 30
days after publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. The agency wishes to encourage introduction
of light truck CHMSLs at the earliest practicable time.
There are indications that manufacturers want to com-
bine cargo lamps with CHMSLs, and an early effec-
tive date for the amendment adopted by this notice will
allow them to do so. Accordingly, it is hereby found
for good cause shown that an effective date earlier than
one year after issuance of the final rule is in the public
interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571
is amended as follows:
In S4 Definitions, of Standard No. 108, a definition
of "cargo lamp" is added in alphabetical order, and S5.4
is revised, to read:
§ 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment.
S5.4 Equipment Combinations. Two or more
lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated equip-
ment may be combined if the requirements for each
lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equip-
ment are met, with the following exceptions:
(a) No high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined
with any other lamp or reflective device, other than
with a cargo lamp.
(b) No high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined
optically, as defined by SAE Information Report J387
Terminology— Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV 87, with
any cargo lamp.
(c) No clearance lamp shall be combined optically, as
defined by SAE Information Report 337
Terminology— Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV 87, with
and taillamp.
Issued on: November 1, 1991.
S4. Definitions.
Cargo lamp is a lamp that is mounted on a multipur-
pose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus for the purpose
of providing illumination to load or unload cargo.
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
56 F.R. 56940
November 7, 1991
PART 571; S108-PRE 383-384
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment— Passenger Cars, IVIultipurpose
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motorcycles
(Docket No. 69-18)
51. Scope. This standard specifies require-
ments for original and replacement lamps, reflec-
tive devices, and associated equipment.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries
resulting from traffic accidents, by providing ade-
quate illumination of the roadway, and by enhanc-
ing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public
roads so that their presence is perceived and their
signals understood, both in daylight and in
darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.
53. Application. This standard applies to pas-
senger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and
trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles, and to
lamps, reflective devices, and associated equip-
ment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles
to which this standard applies.
54. Definitions. "Aiming Reference Plane"
means a plane which is perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle and tangent to the
forwardmost aiming pad on the headlamp.
Beam contributor means an indivisible optical
assembly including and lens, reflector, and light
source, that is part of an integral beam
headlighting system and contributes only a portion
of a headlamp beam.
[Cargo lamp is a lamp that is mounted on a
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus for
the purpose of providing illumination to load or
unload cargo. (56 F.R. 56940— November 7, 1991. Ef-
fective: December 9. 1991)1
Direct reading indicator means a device that is
mounted in its entirety on a headlamp or headlamp
aiming or headlamp mounting equipment, is part
of a VHAD, and provides information about
headlamp aim in an analog or digital format.
Effective projected luminoics lens area means
that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular
to the lamp axis of the portion of the light-emitting
surface that directs light to the photometric test
pattern, and does not include mounting hole
bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that
may glow or produce small areas of increased in-
tensity as a result of uncontrolled light from
smallareas (V2 deg. radius around the test point).
Flash means a cycle of activation and deactiva-
tion of a lamp by automatic means, continuing un-
til stopped either automatically or manually.
Headlamp test fixture means a device designed
to support a headlamp or headlamp assembly in the
test position specified in the laboratory tests and
whose mounting hardware and components are
those necessary to operate the headlamp as install-
ed in a motor vehicle.
Integrr' Beam Headlamp means a headlamp
compr.^^mg an integral and indivisible optical
assembly including lens, reflector, and light
source, that is neither a standardized sealed beam
headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3
nor a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to con-
form to paragraph S7.5.
Multiple compartment lamp means a device
which gives its indication by two or more separ-
ately lighted areas which are joined by one or more
common parts, such as a housing or lens.
Multiple lamp arrangement means an array of
two or more separate lamps on each side of the
vehicle which operate together to give a signal.
Remote reading indicator means a device that is
not mounted in its entirety on a headlamp or
headlamp aiming or headlamp mounting equip-
ment, but otherwise meets the definition of a direct
reading indicator.
Replaceable bulb headlamp means a headlamp
comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly
and one or two standardized replaceable light
sources.
Seasoning means a process of energizing the fila-
ment of a headlamp, at design voltage, for a period
of time equal to 1 percent of average rated
laboratory life.
(Rev. 11/7/91)
PART 571; S
Standardized replaceable light source means an
assembly of a capsule, base, and terminals, that
meets the requirements of S7.6.
Vehicle headlamp aiming device or VHAD means
motor vehicle equipment permanently installed on
a motor vehicle by the manufacturer of the vehicle,
which is used for determining the horizontal and
vertical aim of headlamps.
S5. Requirements.
S5.1 Required motor vehicle lighting equipment.
S5.1.1 Except as provided in succeeding
paragraphs of S 5. 1.1, each vehicle shall be equip-
ped with at least the number of lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment specified in
Tables I and III and S7, as applicable. Required
equipment shall be designed to conform to the
SAE Standards or Recommended Practices
referenced in those tables. Table I applies to
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers,
and buses, 80 or more inches in overall width.
Table III applies to passenger cars and motor-
cycles and to multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, trailers, and buses, less than 80 inches in
overall width.
55.1.1.1 A truck tractor need not be equipped
with turn-signal lamps mounted on the rear if the
turn signal lamps at or near the front are so con-
structed (double-faced) and so located that they
meet the requirements for double-faced turn
signals specified in SAE Standard J588e, Turn
Signal Lamps, September 1970.
55.1.1.2 A truck tractor need not be equipped
with any rear side marker devices, rear clearance
lamps, and rear identification lamps.
55.1.1.3 Intermediate side marker devices are
not required on vehicle less than 30 feet in overall
length.
55.1.1.4 Relective material conforming to
Federal Specification L-S-300, Sheeting and Tape,
Refective; Non-exposed Lens, Adhesive Backing,
September 7, 1965, may be used for side reflex
reflectors if this material, as used on the vehicle,
meets the performance standards in either Table I
or Table lA of SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflec-
tors, January 1977.
55.1.1.5 The turn signal operating unit on each
passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle,
truck, and bus less than 80 inches in overall width
shall be self-canceling by steering wheel rotation
and capable of cancellation by a manually operated
control.
55.1.1.6 [(a)l Each stop lamp manufactured to
replace a stop lamp that was designed to conform
to SAE Standard J586b Stop Lamps, June 1966,
may also be designed to conform to J586b. It shall
meet the photometric minimum candlepower re-
quirements for Class A red turn signal lamps
specified in SAE Standard J575d, Tests firr Motor
Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August
1967. Each such lamp manufactured for use on a
passenger car and on a multipurpose passenger
vehicle, truck, trailer, or bus less than 80 inches in
overall width shall have an effective projected
luminous area not less than 3V2 square inches. If
multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps are
used, the effective projected luminous area of each
compartment or lamp shall be not less than 3V2
square inches; however, the photometric
requirements may be met by a combination of
compartments or lamps.
[(b) Each stop lamp manufactured to replace a
stop lamp that was designed to conform to SAE
Standard J586c, Stop Lamps, August 1970, may
also be designed to conform to J586c. (55 F.R.
20158— May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)]
[(c) A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck,
bus, or trailer whose overall width is 80 inches or
more, manufactured on or before November 30,
1991, and whose stop lamps are located more than
22 inches apart, may be equipped with stop lamps
designed to conform to SAE Standard J586c, Stop
Lamps, August 1970." (55 F.R. 20158— May 15,
1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)1
55.1.1.7 (a) Each turn signal lamp manufactured
to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588d Turn Signal
Lamps, June 1966, may also be designed to con-
form to J588d, and shall meet the photometric
minimum candlepower requirements for Class A
turn signal lamps specified in SAE Standard
J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices
and Components, August 1967. Each such lamp
manufactured for use on a passenger car and on a
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer or
bus less than 80 inches in overall width shall have
an effective projected luminous area not less than
PART 571; S 108-2
55.3.1.1 Except as provided In S5. 3. 1.1.1, each
lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it
meets the visibility requirements specified in any
applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Prac-
tice. In addition, no part of the vehicle shall pre-
vent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn-
signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its
photometric output at any applicable group of test
points specified in Figures Ic and 2, or prevent any
other lamp from meeting the photometric output
at any test point specified in any applicable SAE
Standard or Recommended Practice. However, if
motor vehicle equipment (e.g., mirrors, snow
plows, wrecker booms, backhoes, and winches)
prevents compliance with this paragraph by any
required lamp or reflective devices, an auxiliary
lamp or device meeting the requirements of this
paragraph shall be provided.
S5.3.1 .1 .1 Clearance lamps may be mounted at a
location other than on the front and rear if
necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle,
or for protection from damage during normal
operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they
need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard.
55.3.1.2 On a truck tractor, the red rear reflex
reflectors may be mounted on the back of the cab,
at a minimum height not less than 4 inches above
the height of the rear tires.
55.3.1.3 On a trailer, the amber front side reflex
reflectors and amber front side-marker lamps may
be located as far forward as practicable exclusive
of the trailer tongue.
55.3.1.4 When the rear identification lamps are
mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear
clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of
Table II that they be located as close as practicable
to the top of the vehicle.
55.3.1.5 The center of the lens referred to in
SAE Standard J593c, Backup Lamps, February
1968, is the optical center.
S5U3.1.6 On a truck tractor, clearance lamps
mounted on the cab may be located to indicate the
width of the cab, rather than the overall width of
the vehicle.
S5.3.1.7 On a motor vehicle on which the front
turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the
lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as
measured from the optical center of the turn signal
lamp, the multiplier applied to obtain the required
minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5.
S5.3.1.8 ((a) Each high-mounted stop lamp in-
stalled in or on a vehicle subject to S5. 1.1.27(a)
shall be located as follows:
(1) With its center at any place on the vertical
centerline of the vehicle, including the glazing,
as the vehicle is viewed from the rear.
(2) If the lamp is mounted below the rear win-
dow, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6
inches below the rear window on convertibles, or
3 inches on other passenger cars.
(3) If the lamp is mounted inside the vehicle,
means shall be provided to minimize reflections
from the light of the lamp upon the rear window
glazing that might be visible to the driver when
viewed directly, or indirectly in the rearview
mirror.
(b) The high-mounted stop lamps installed in or
on a vehicle subject to S5. 1.1. 27(b) shall be located
at the same height, with one vertical edge of each
lamp on the vertical edge of the body section
nearest the vertical centerline.
(6) In the second column Table III for the item
"High-mounted stop lamp", the text "1 red, for
passenger cars only" is revised to read "1 red".
(7) In the second column of Table IV for the
item "High-mounted stop lamp", the text "On
the rear, on the vertical centerline (See S4.3.1.8),
effective September 1, 1985, for passenger cars
only" is revised to read "On the rear, on the ver-
tical centerline (See S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8, and
Table III)."
(8) In the fourth column of Table IV for the
item "High-mounted stop lamp", the text "(See
S4.3.1.8)" is revised to read "See S5.3.1.8 for
passenger cars. Not less than 34 inches for
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and
buses." (56 F.R. 16015— April 19, 1991. Effective:
Optional compliance September 1, 1992. Mandatory
compliance September 1, 1993))
S5.4 Equipment combinations. [Two or more
lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated
equipment may be combined if the requirements
for each lamp, reflective device, and item of
associated equipment are met, with the following
exceptions:
(a) No high-mounted stop lamp shall be com-
bined with any other lamp or reflective device,
other than with a cargo lamp.
(b) No high-mounted stop lamp shall be com-
bined optically, as defined by SAE Information
Report J387 Terminology-Motor Vehicle Lighting
NOV 87, with any cargo lamp.
(Rev. 11/7/91)
PART 571; S 108-7
(c) No clearance lamp shall be combined opti-
cally, as defined by SAE Information Report J387
Terminology -Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV 87, with
any taillamp. (56 F.R. 56940— November 7, 1991.
Effective: December 9. 1991)1
S5.4.1. Removed
(55 F.R. 46669 November 6, 1990)
S5.5. Special wiring requirements.
S5.5.1. Each vehicle shall have a means of
switching between lower and upper beams that
conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a,
Headlamp Beam Switching, April 1964, or to SAE
Recommended Practice J565b, Semi-Automatic
Headlamp Beam Switching Devices, February
1969. Except as provided in 85. 5. 8, the lower and
upper beams shall not be energized simultaneously
except momentarily for temporary signalling pur-
poses or during switching between beams.
55.5.2 Each vehicle shall have a means for in-
dicating to the driver when the upper beams of the
headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recom-
mended Practice J564a, April 1964, except that
the signal color need not be red.
55.5.3 The taillamps on each vehicle shall be ac-
tivated when the headlamps are activated in a
steady -burning state.
55.5.4 The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be
activated upon application of the service brakes.
The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car
shall be activated only upon application of the
service brakes.
55.5.5 The vehicular-hazard warning-signal
operating unit on each vehicle shall operate in-
dependently of the ignition or equivalent switch,
and when activated, shall cause to flash simul-
taneously sufficient turn signal lamps to meet, as a
minimum, the turn signal lamp photometric
requirements of this standard.
55.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal
operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot
indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps
to operate shall be indicated in accordance with
SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps,
September 1970, except when a variable-load turn
signal flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipur-
pose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall
width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating
a slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to
tow trailers.
S5.5.7. On each passenger car, and motorcycle,
and multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus
of less than 80 inches overall width:
(a) When the parking lamps are activated, the
taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker
lamps shall also be activated; and
(b) When the headlamps are activated in a
steady-burning state, the taillamps, parking lamps,
license plate lamps and side marker lamps shall
also be activated.
55.5.8. On a motor vehicle equipped with a
headlighting system designed to conform to the
photometric requirements of Figure 15, the lamps
marked "L" or "LF" may be wired to remain per-
manently activated when the lamps marked "U"
or "LF" are activated. On a motor equipped with
an Integral Beam headlighting system meeting the
photometric requirements of section S7.4(a)(l)(ii),
the lower beam headlamps shall be wired to remain
permanently activated when the upper beam
headlamps are activated.
55.5.9. Except as provided in Section S5.5.8,
the wiring harness or connector assembly of each
headlamp system shall be designed so that only
those light sources intended for meeting lower
beam photometries are energized when the beam
selector switch is in the lower beam position, and
that only those light sources intended for meeting
upper beam photometries are energized when the
beam selector switch is in the upper beam position.
55.5.10. The wiring requirements for lighting
equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal
lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired
to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side-marker lamps may be
wired to flash for signalling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to
allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but
not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a
lower intensity in accordance with Section S4.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-
burning.
S5.6. Motorcycle headlamp modulation system.
S5.6.1. A headlamp on a motorcycle may be
wired to modulate either the upper beam or the
lower beam from its maximum intensity to a lesser
intensity provided that:
(a) The rate of modulation shall be 240 + 40
cycles per minute.
(b) The headlamp shal be operated at maximum
power for 50 to 70 percent of each cycle.
(Rev. 11/7/91)
PART 571; S 108-
TABLE III.— Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment
All Passenger Cars and Motorcycles, and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks,
Trailers, and Buses, of Less Than 80 Inches Overall Width
Item
Column 1
Passenger cars, multi-
purpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses
Column 2
Trailers
Column 3
Motorcycles
Column 4
Applicable SAE standards
or recommended practices
Column 5
Headlamps
SeeS7
[For motorcycles only, J584,
April 1964, J566, January 1960.1
Taillamps ^
2 red
2 red
Ired
J585e, September 1977.
Stoplamps
2 red
2 red
Ired
SAE J586, February 1984.
High mounted
stoplamp
1 red, for passenger cars
only
Not required
Not required
J186a, September 1977.
License plate lamp '
1 white
1 white
1 white
J587, October 1981.
Parking lamps ^
2 amber or white
None
None
J222, December 1970.
Reflex reflectors
4 red, 2 amber
4 red; 2 amber
3 red; 2 amber
J594f, January 1977.
Intermediate side
reflex reflectors ^
2 amber
2 amber
None
J594f, January 1977.
Intermediate side
marker lamps ^
2 amber
2 amber
None
J592e, July 1972.
Side marker lamps
2 red, 2 amber
2 red; 2 amber
None
J592e, July 1972.
Backup lamp
1 white
None
None
J593C, February 1968.
Turn signal lamps '
2 red or amber;
2 amber.
2 red or amber.
2 amber; 2 red or
amber.
SAE J588, November 1984.
Turn signal
operating unit ^ *
1
None
1
J589, April 1964.
Turn signal flasher
1
None
.-- 1
J590b, October 1965.
Vehicular hazard
warning signal
operating unit
1
None
None
J910, January 1966.
Vehicular hazard
warning signal
flasher
'
None
None
J945, February 1966.
1(56 F.R. 12123-March 22, 1991. Effective: March 22, 1991)1
iSeeSS.l.l.lO. ^ gee S5.1.1.11-12. ^ gee S5.5.6. " See S5.1.1.5. * gee g5. 1.1.3.
PART 571; S 108-27
Headlamps
TABLE IV.— Location of Required Equipment-
All Passenger Cars and Motorcycles, and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks,
Trailers, and Buses, of Less Than 80 Inches Overall Width
Location on Height above road
— surface measured
from center of item
on vehicle at curb
weight
cars, multipurpose pas-
senger vehicles, trucks, trailers,
and buses
Motorcycles
High-mounted
stoplamp.
On the front, each headlamp providing On the front, on the vertical center- Not less than 22
the upper beam, at the same height, 1
on each side of the vertical centerline,
each headlamp providing the lower
beam, at the same height, 1 on each
side of the vertical centerline, as far
apart as practicable. [See also S71 *
line, except that if two are used they inches (55.9 cm) nor
shall be symmetrically disposed about more than 54 inches
the vertical centerline (137.2 cm)
Taillamps On the rear— 1 on each side of the On the rear— on the vertical center- Not less than 15
vertical centerline, at the same line except that if two are used, inches, nor more
height, and as far apart as prac- they shall be symmetrically dis- than 72 inches
ticable ^ posed about the vertical center-
line
Stoplamps On the rear— 1 on each side of the On the rear— on the vertical center- Not less than 15
vertical centerline, at the same line except that if two are used, inches, nor more
height, and as far apart as prac- they shall be symmetrically dis- than 72 inches
ticable ^ posed about the vertical center-
line
On the rear, on the vertical centerline Not required
(See S5.1.1.15), effective September 1,
1985, for passenger cars only.
License-plate
lamp
At rear license plate, to illuminate At rear license plate
the plate from the top or sides
No requirement
Parking lamps On the front— 1 on each side of the Not required
vertical centerline, at the same
height, and as far apart as prac-
ticable
Not less than 15
inches, nor more
than 72 inches
Reflex
reflectors
On the
-1 red on each side of On the rear— 1 red on the vertical
the vertical centerline, at the same
height, and as far apart as prac-
ticable ^
On each side— 1 red as far to the
centerline except that if two are
used on the rear, they shall be
symmetrically disposed about the
vertical centerline
Not less than 15 inches
nor more than 60
inches
rear as practicable and 1 amber as On each side— 1 red as far to the
far to the front as practicable ^ rear as practicable, and 1 amber
as far to the front as practicable 2
Backup lamp
On the r
Not required
No requirement
Turn-signal At or near the front— 1 amber on each
lamps' side of the vertical centerline, at the
same height, and as far apart as prac-
ticable
On the rear— 1 red or amber on each
side of the vertical centerline, at
the same height, and as far apart
as practicable
At or near the front— 1 amber on
each side of the vertical centerline, at
the same height, and having a mini-
mum horizontal separation distance
centerline of lamps) of 16 inches; mini-
mum edge-to-edge separation distance
between lamp and headlamp is 4 inches
At or near the rear- 1 red or amber
on each side of the vertical center-
line, at the same height and having
a minimum horizontal separation dis-
tance (centerline to centerline of lamps)
of 9 inches; minimum edge-to-edge
separation distance between lamp and
tail or stoplamp is 4 inches
Not less than 15 inches,
nor more than 83
inches
Side-marker
lamps
On each side— 1 red as far to the Not required
rear as practicable, and 1 amber
as far to the front as practicable
Not less than 15 inches
Intermediate
side-marker
lamps
In each side— 1 amber located at or Not required
near the midpoint between the
front and rear side-marker lamps
Not less than 15 inches
Intermediate
side-marker
reflectors
On each side— 1 amber located at or near Not required
the midpoint between the front and
rear side marker reflectors
Not less than 15 inches,
nor more than 60
inches
Front turn-si
'SeeS5.1.1.1
al lamps not required for trailers.
• 1(54 F.R. 30223-July 19, 1989. Effective; July 19,
(Rev. 7/19/89)
PART 571; S 108-28
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 111
Rearview Mirrors— Reflectance
(Docket No. 91-11; Notice 02)
RIN 2127-AD81
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: In response to a petition from Donnelly
Corporation, this notice amends the requirements in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. Ill, Rear-
view Mirrors, with respect to average reflectance
levels. The rule clarifies the intent and applicability of
the requirements. It also updates the standard to bet-
ter address current mirror designs and to remove a
perceived restriction affecting the introduction of new
mirror designs which may provide better glare pro-
tection.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1992. Vehicles manu-
factured before September 1, 1992 may comply with
this rule's amendment, effective December 20, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Baxkground
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. Ill,
Rearview Mirrors, is intended to reduce the number
of crashes that occur because the driver of a motor
vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unob-
structed view to the rear.
As initially promulgated. Standard No. Ill's mirror
construction requirements specified that the reflec-
tance levels for mirrors be at least 35 percent (32 FR
2413, February 3, 1967). The standard further stated
that for selective position prismatic mirrors, the reflec-
tance level in the night driving position had to be at
least 4 percent. A selective position prismatic mirror
can be mechanically tilted to various setting positions.
For each setting, there is a different surface with a
different reflectance level. The first setting provides
relatively high levels of reflectance, typically 85 to 90
percent, for daytime driving; and the second setting
provides much lower reflectance levels to reduce glare
from the headlamps of following vehicles during night-
time driving. Installation of two-position selective
position prismatic mirrors has been the principal
method of enabling drivers to reduce glare during
nighttime driving. Approximately 90 percent of
vehicles are currently equipped with center-mounted
interior mirrors of the selective position prismatic type.
The agency subsequently amended Standard No.
Ill's mirror construction requirement to specify that
the "average" reflectance level of the reflective film
used on any mirror must be at least 35 percent (41 FR
36023, August 26, 1976).
Since that last amendment, the requirement for
mirror construction in Sll has read as follows:
The average reflectance value of the reflective film
employed by any mirror required by this standard,
determined in accordance with SAE Recommend-
ed Practice J964a, August 1974, shall be at least
35 percent. If a mirror is of the selective position
prismatic type, the reflectance value in the night
driving position shall be at least 4 percent.
Several manufacturers, including General Motors,
Chrysler, Ford, BMW, and Range Rover, have
equipped vehicles with electrochromic mirrors. These
mirrors electrically adjust their reflectance levels based
on the amount of light striking the mirror and auto-
ma*-'.ally vary the reflectivity. These manufacturers
have apparently concluded that the standard is not
design restrictive and does not preclude the use of
electrochromic mirror technology.
However, other manufacturers have interpreted Sll
as prohibiting low reflectance mirrors other than selec-
tive position prismatic ones. For instance, on June 12,
1990, Donnelly Corporation petitioned the agency to
amend Sll to permit the installation of its electro-
chromic mirror. Along with electrically adjusting its
reflectance levels based on the amount of light strik-
ing the mirror, this mirror maintains the reflectivity
above the minimum of 35 percent during daytime con-
ditions and the minimum of 4 percent during nighttime
conditions. According to the petitioner, its automati-
cally adjustable non-prismatic electrochromic mirror is
not permitted to have a minimum night position less
than 35 percent because Sll states the reflectance of
4 percent in the night driving position is only for selec-
tive position prismatic mirrors.
Donnelly therefore concluded that Sll should be
modified to remove what it views as a design-specific
requirement. It claimed that these mirrors improve
vision and reduce glare during night driving. It also
claimed that its mirror is the first commercially viable
means for reducing glare for exterior mirrors. The peti-
tioner further believed that when the requirement per-
mitting selective position prismatic mirrors was issued,
these were the only known glare reducing mirrors.
PART 571; Slll-PRE 25
Notice of proposed rulemaking
On March 8, 1991, the agency issued a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend Sll of
Standard No. 1 1 1 to avoid express reference to selec-
tive position prismatic mirrors (56 FR 9928). The
proposal explained the agency's tentative conclusion
that an amendment was necessary to clarify the intent
and applicability of the provision given its apparent
ambiguity. The notice further explained that the
amendment would remove a perceived design restric-
tion affecting certain mirror designs.
The NPRM explained that such an amendment is
consistent with the agency's philosophy of promul-
gating standards that are as performance-oriented as
possible, consistent with the goal of obtaining specific
types of safety performance. While the selective posi-
tion prismatic mirror was the principal, perhaps only,
known glare-reducing mirror technique when the
standard was initially promulgated, new technologies
are now available which offer other and perhaps im-
proved means for glare reduction. Accordingly, the
agency tentatively concluded that adopting the
proposal would facilitate the production of new mirror
designs that may improve motor vehicle safety. These
new technologies may provide better glare protection
because they automatically adjust reflectance levels
based on the amount of light striking them. In addi-
tion, they may be practical for use as exterior mirrors.
The NPRM requested comments on several subissues
related to section Sll and multiple reflectance mirrors.
These included determining the appropriate wording
of the regulatory text to obtain a performance oriented
standard that is not design restrictive, eliminating the
phrase "reflective film," and updating the section so
that it refers to the Society of Automotive Engineers'
(SAE) more recent Recommended Practice.
Comments to the
NPRM and the Agency's Response
NHTSA received six comments in response to the
NPRM. These were from mirror manufacturers (Don-
nelly and Gentex) and vehicle manufacturers (General
Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and Toyota). The majority of
commenters agreed with the general proposal to amend
section Sll. Ford and Toyota commented about
specific provisions in the proposal. The agency has
considered the points raised by the commenters in
developing the final rule. The agency's discussion of
the more significant comments and other relevant
information is set forth below.
General Comments
As explained above, Sll's express reference to
mirrors of the "selective position prismatic type" led
to the proposal to amend the provision to clarify its
intent and applicability. Accordingly, the proposal
omitted reference to "selective position prismatic type"
mirrors.
Donnelly, Gentex, General Motors, Ford, and /
Chrysler all agreed with the proposal's intent to make V
the standard more performance oriented by deleting
language that is specific to certain designs or tech-
nologies. The only other commenter, Toyota, was silent
about its overall view about the rulemaking.
Regulatory Text
The NPRM also proposed that a mirror provide a
reflectance level of at least 35 percent when in its
normal operating state and at least 4 percent when in
its glare reducing state. In describing these require-
ments, the proposed regulatory text referred to the
"day and night position or mode." The proposal also
stated that when a multiple reflectance mirror is "not
powered," that state would be considered as equiva-
lent to the day position or mode.
Ford and Toyota were concerned that the proposal
would restrict the installation of certain mirror designs
that they believed provide adequate levels of safety.
In describing its "electro/mechanical mirror," Ford
explained that this powered selective prismatic type
mirror uses power only to shift the mirror from one
reflectance position to another but does not use any
power while in either position to provide a reflectance i
level. Ford further explained that if the power failed, "
the mirror could be manually repositioned to the high
reflectance level. Ford was concerned that the pro-
posed amendment would prohibit its mirror without
providing any significant safety benefit because the
failure mode of its mirror is the same as the normal
operation of a conventional selective prismatic mirror.
Toyota described its liquid crystal interior mirror,
which when not powered (i.e., when the ignition key
is withdrawn) defaults to the heavily tinted night
setting.
"Day/Night Setting"
Ford requested that section Sll be modified to omit
reference to the "day" and "night" positions or modes.
It believed that the terms "day" and "night" are easily
understood for mirrors with only two reflectance levels,
but are ambiguous for mirrors that have more than two
reflectance levels. Accordingly, Ford suggested that
section Sll refer to "maximum" and "minimum"
reflectance levels rather than day and night positions
or modes.
After reviewing Ford's comment, the agency believes
that the terms "day" and "night" help to clarify the i
reflectance modes described in the standard. \
PART 571; Slll-PRE 26
"Not powered"
Ford and Toyota expressed concern about problems
involved in complying with the proposed requirement
that the mirrors provide reflectance levels of at least
35 percent when they are "not powered." Ford stated
that while this requirement is appropriate for mirrors
which require electrical power to maintain the maxi-
mum reflectance mode, the provision is inappropriate
for its powered selective prismatic mirror, which has
a fail-safe capacity to shift the mirror to the maximum
reflectance mode in case of power failure. Toyota
stated that its liquid crystal interior mirror defaults to
the low reflectance mode in case of power failure. It
did not mention any fail-safe provisions for this mirror
in case of power failure. Toyota commented that the
requirement for high transmittance in the absence of
power is not necessary because the only situation in
which the mirror would not be powered is when the
key is out of the ignition switch, a time when the mirror
is not needed. Toyota further contended that the
NPRM failed to justify this provision.
NHTSA agrees with Ford's comments and has
modified the final rule so that mirror designs that ensure
the viewing of images during all light conditions are not
prohibited. Specifically, the final rule omits the phrase
"not powered." The final rule also expressly specifies
requirements for a fail-safe device permitting the driver
to adjust the mirror to the high reflectance mode.
As for the phrase "not powered," NHTSA has
determined that the proposal's intent to provide an
electrical fail-safe condition can be met by specifying
that a multiple reflectance mirror shall either be
equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the
mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in
the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflec-
tance level automatically in the event of electrical
failure. This language will permit mirror designs like
Ford's electro/mechanical mirror, which can be manu-
ally adjusted to provide adequate images in case of
power failure.
However, the amendment will not permit Toyota's
current liquid crystal mirror, since the mirror cannot
provide adequate images in the case of power failure.
After reviewing the comments, the agency believes that
multiple reflectance mirrors should be capable of provid-
ing adequate images in the event of electrical failure.
Toyota commented that the proposal should be modi-
fied so that its liquid crystal mirror is not prohibited.
First, Toyota stated that the requirement for high
transmittance in the absence of power is unnecessary,
claiming that the only situation in which the mirror
would not be powered is when the key is out of the
ignition switch, a time when the mirror is not needed.
Second, it stated that the preamble to the NPRM did
not justify this provision.
In response to Toyota's argument that a high trans-
mittance level is not needed in the absence of power,
NHTSA notes that Toyota's liquid crystal mirror
defaults to a heavily tinted reflective surface that is in-
capable of providing a proper image in normal daylight
conditions. Accordingly, any time the mirror is not pow-
ered, the driver experiences significant reductions in
rearward vision because the interior mirror cannot pro-
vide an adequate image. Contrary to Toyota's claim that
the only time that a mirror would be unpowered is when
the key is out of the ignition switch, the agency knows
of other situations in which this mirror would be un-
powered and thus would not be able to provide high
reflectance levels necessary for daytime driving. For in-
stance, when there are connector faults or circuit board
faults, the mirror would be unpowered, even though the
vehicle could be operational. Given the expense of
repairing or replacing a liquid crystal mirror, some car
owners, particularly those of older cars, would likely be
slow to have a failed mirror fixed.
The agency notes that Nippondenso, a supplier of
electrical equipment for Toyota, described an opposite
polarity fail-safe liquid crystal mirror in a Society of
Automotive Engineer's paper Fail-Safe Type Liquid
Crystal Mirror for Automobiles (870637). This paper
described the safety problem as "the breaking of the
circuit ware." It also indicated that a fail-safe liquid
crystal design "suitable for safe driving" has been
achieved by using a liquid crystal layer which is aligned
perpendicular rather than parallel to the substrate in
the initial unpowered state.
In response to Toyota's second argument about the
proposal's preamble not addressing the fail-safe issue,
NHTSA notes that the regulatory text provided ade-
quate notice about this issue, and that both Toyota and
Ford expressed their views on it.
Given that safety standards are required to meet the
need for motor vehicle safety, the rulemaking's over-
riding focus must be to ensure that mirrors are capa-
ble of providing adequate rearview vision at all times
during the vehicle's operation. The agency does not
believe it would be appropriate to permit new mirror
designs with the potential for providing poorer safety
performance than selective prismatic mirrors. Selec-
tive prismatic mirrors are always capable of providing
adequate images because they are adjustable to the
high reflectance position, while Toyota's liquid crystal
mirror is not.
Reflective Film
The NPRM proposed to amend Sll by deleting refer-
ence to the "reflectance value of the reflective film"
because this phrase had the potential of being unneces-
sarily design restrictive. The proposal explained that
certain mirrors rely on a substance other than "film"
for their reflectance.
PART 571; Slll-PRE 27
Chrysler, which was the only commenter to address
this matter, supported the proposal to eliminate the
phrase about reflective film. Chrysler agreed with the
proposal that there are other substances available that
have the ability to reflect light which should be allowed
for mirror applications.
Based on the proposal, the agency has decided to
adopt the proposal to delete reference to the use of
reflective film. Such a requirement had the potential
to be design restrictive.
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Recommended Practice
The NPRM proposed to amend Sll by updating it
to refer to the SAE's more recent recommended prac-
tice. While Sll currently refers to SAE Recommend-
ed Practice J964a, August 1974, the SAE reaffirmed
the Recommended Practice without substantive change
in October of 1984.
Chrysler, which was the only commenter to address
this matter, supported the proposal to update the refer-
ence to the more recent SAE practice.
Based on the proposal, the agency has decided to
adopt the proposal to update Sll to recent SAE
practice.
Leadtime
The NPRM explained the agency's tentative conclu-
sion that there was "good cause" to propose an effec-
tive date 30 days after publication of the final rule. The
agency reasoned that a longer leadtime was not neces-
sary because this amendment would remove a restric-
tion and facilitate the introduction of certain mirrors
without imposing any mandatory requirement on
manufacturers. The proposal also stated that the public
interest would be served by not delaying the introduc-
tion of mirrors that may provide better performance
without having any negative impact on safety.
Toyota stated that because the proposal would im-
pose a new mandatory requirement on its vehicles
equipped with the liquid crystal mirror, additional lead-
time was necessary.
NHTSA believes that the amendment allows the
present minimum safety performance to be met or
exceeded by new technology and does not place new
requirements on mirrors. Nevertheless, the agency
believes that the 30 day effective date is too short to
allow Toyota to comply with the clarification. Toyota
apparently introduced a mirror design it believed was
in compliance with the standard. Toyota should be
given sufficient time to improve or replace a mirror
that the agency assumes was designed in good faith
during a time in which this rule needed to be clarified.
Accordingly, the amendments become effective on Sep-
tember 1, 1992; however, vehicles manufactured be-
fore September 1, 1992 may comply voluntarily with
this rule's amendments, effective 30 days after publi-
cation of this final rule.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amend-
ing § 571.111 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regu-
lations as follows:
In § 571.111, Sll is revised effective on and after
September 1, 1992, and may be used at the manufac-
turer's option before this date, effective December 20,
1991.
Sll. Mirror Construction. The average reflectance
of any mirror required by this standard shall be deter-
mined in accordance with SAE Recommended Prac-
tice J964, OCT84. All single reflectance mirrors shall
have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If
a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the
minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at
least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in
the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple
reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a me-
ans for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance
level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical
failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically
in the event of electrical failure.
Issued on: November 14, 1991
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
56 F.R. 58513
November 20, 1991
PART 571: Slll-PRE 28
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 11 1
Rearview Mirrors
51. Scope. This standard specifies require-
ments for the performance and location of rear-
view mirrors.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that
occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not
have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to
the rear.
53. Application. This standard applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, buses, school buses and motorcycles.
54. Definition. "Unit magnification mirror"
means a plane or flat mirror with a reflective sur-
face through which the angular height and width of
the image of an object is equal to the angular
height and width of the object when viewed di-
rectly at the same distance except for flaws that do
not exceed normal manufacturing tolerances. For
the purposes of this regulation a prismatic day-
night adjustment rearview mirror one of whose
positions provides unit magnification is considered
a unit magnification mirror.
["Convex mirror" means a mirror having a
curved reflective surface whose shape is the same
as that of the exterior surface of a section of a
sphere. (47 F.R. 38698— September 2, 1982. Effective:
September 2, 1982)1
85. Requirements for passenger cars.
S5.1. Inside rearview mirror. Each passenger car
shall have an inside rearview mirror of unit
magnification.
S5.1 .1 . Field of view. Except as provided in S5.3,
the mirror shall provide a field of view with an in-
cluded horizontal angle measured from the pro-
jected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and suffi-
cient vertical angle to provide a view of a level road
surface extending to the horizon beginning at a
point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the
vehicle when the vehicle is occupied by the driver
and four passengers or the designed occupant
capacity, if less, based on an average occupant
weight of 150 pounds. The Hne of sight may be par-
tially obscured by seated occupants or by head
restraints. The location of the driver's eye
reference points shall be those established in Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 (§ 571.104) or a
nominal location appropriate for any 95th percen-
tile male driver.
S5.1.2. Mounting. The mirror mounting shall
provide a stable support for the mirror, and shall
provide for mirror adjustment by tilting in both the
horizontal and vertical directions. If the mirror is
in the head impact area, the mounting shall deflect,
collapse or break away without leaving sharp
edges when the reflective surface of the mirror is
subjected to a force of 90 pounds in any forward
direction that is not more than 45° from the for-
ward longitudinal direction.
S5.2. Outside rearview mirror— driver's side.
55.2.1. Field of view. Each passenger car shall
have an outside mirror of unit magnification. The
mirror shall provide the driver a view of a level
road surface extending to the horizon from a line,
perpendicular to a longitudinal plane tangent to
the driver's side of the vehicle at the widest point,
extending 8 feet out from the tangent plane 35 feet
behind the driver's eyes, with the seat in the rear-
most position. The line of sight may be partially
obscured by the rear body or fender contours. The
location of the driver's eye reference points shall
be those established in Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 104 (§ 571.104) or a nominal location
appropriate for any 95th percentile male driver.
55.2.2. IVIounting. The mirror mounting shall
provide a stable support for the mirror, and
neither the mirror nor the mounting shall pro-
trude farther than the widest part of the vehicle
(Rev. 9/2/82)
PART 571; S 111-1
body except to the extent necessary to produce a
field of view meeting or exceeding the require-
ments of S5.2.1. The mirror shall not be obscured
by the unwiped portion of the windshield, and shall
be adjustable by tilting in both horizontal and ver-
tical directions from the driver's seated position.
The mirror and mounting shall be free of sharp
points or edges that could contribute to pedestrian
injury.
55.3. Outside rearview mirror passenger's side.
Each passenger car whose inside rearview mirror
does not meet the field of view requirements of
S5.1.1 shall have an outside mirror of unit
magnification or a convex mirror installed on the
passenger's side. The mirror mounting shall pro-
vide a stable support and be free of sharp points or
edges that could contribute to pedestrian injury.
The mirror need not be capable of adjustment by
tilting in both horizontal and vertical directions.
55.4. Convex mirror requirements. Each motor
vehicle using a convex mirror to meet the require-
ments of S5.3 shall comply with the following re-
quirements:
55.4.1 . When each convex mirror is tested in ac-
cordance with the procedures specified in S12 of
this standard, none of the radii of curvature
readings shall deviate from the average radius of
curvature by more than plus or minus 12.5 percent.
55.4.2. Each convex mirror shall have per-
manently and indelibly marked at the lower edge
of the mirror's reflective surface, in letters not less
than %6 inch or more than 'A inch high, the words
"Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They
Appear." (48 F.R. 38842— August 26, 1983. Effective:
August 26, 1983)
55.4.3. The average radius of curvature of each
such mirror, as determined by using the procedure
in S12, shall be not less than 35 inches and not
more than 65 inches.
S6. Requirements for multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses, other than school buses,
with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.
S6.1. Each multipurpose passenger vehicle,
truck and bus, other than a school bus, with a
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall have either—
(a) Mirrors that conform to the requirements of
S5; or
(b) Outside mirrors of unit magnification, each
with not less than 19.5 in^ of reflective surface, in-
stalled with stable supports on both sides of the
vehicle, located so as to provide the driver a view
to the rear along both sides of the vehicle, and ad-
justable in both the horizontal and vertical direc-
tions to view the rearward scene.
57. Requirements for multipurpose passenger
vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000
and less than 25,000 pounds and buses, other than
school buses, with a GVWR of more than 10,000
pounds.
S7.1. Each multipurpose passenger vehicle and
trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds
and less than 25,000 pounds and each bus, other
than a school bus, with a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds shall have outside mirors of unit
magnification, each with not less than 50 in^ of
reflective surface, installed with stable supports on
both sides of the vehicle. The mirrors shall be
located so as to provide the driver a view to the
rear along both sides of the vehicle and shall be ad-
justable both in the horizontal and vertical direc-
tions to view the rearward scene.
58. Requirements for multipurpose passenger
vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 25,000 pounds or
more.
S8.1. Each multipurpose passenger vehicle and
truck with a GVWR of 25,000 pounds or more shall
have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each
with not less than 50 in^ of reflective surface,
installed with stable supports on both sides of the
vehicle. The mirrors shall be located so as to pro-
vide the driver a view to the rear along both sides
of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the
horizontal and vertical directions to view the rear-
ward scene.
59. Requirements for school buses.
S9.1. Outside rearview mirrors. Each school bus
shall have outside mirrors of unit magnification,
each with not less than 50 in^ of reflective surface,
installed with stable supports on both sides of the
vehicle. The mirrors shall be located so as to pro-
vide the driver a view to the rear along both sides
of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the
horizontal and vertical directions to view the rear-
ward scene.
(Rev. 8/26/83)
PART 571; S 111-2
S9.2. Outside cross view mirror. Each school
bus, except one which is a forward control vehicle,
shall have a convex mirror which complies with the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
(a) The convex mirror shall have a radius of cur-
vature not less than 3.5 inches and not more than
25 inches. A convex mirror whose radius of cur-
vature at its persphery is not less than 12 inches
and not more than 25 inches shall have a surface
area which is not less than 40 square inches. A con-
vex mirror whose radius of curvature at any point
on the mirror is less than 12 inches shall have a
projected area of not less than 40 square inches,
measured on a plane at a right angle to the
mirror's axis. A convex mirror with a non-uniform
radius shall comply with the following criteria:
(1) The radius at the periphery of the mirror
shall be not less than 75 percent of the radius at
the center of the mirror.
(2) Along the intersection of any plane con-
taining the axis of symmetry of the mirror and
the surface of the mirror, the length of the
radius, as measured by a spherometer, shall be
monotonically non-increasing when moving from
the axis of symmetry to the periphery along the
intersection.
(3) Along the intersection described in para-
graph (a)(2) of this section there shall be no dis-
continuities in the slope of the surface of the
mirror.
(b) The mirror shall be installed with a stable
support, and mounted so as to provide the driver a
view of the front bumper and the area in front of
the bus.
S10. Requirements for motorcycles.
S10.1. Each motorcycle shall have either a
mirror of unit magnification with not less than 12.5
in^ of reflective surface, or a convex mirror with
not less than 10 in^ of reflective surface and an
average radius of curvature not less than 20 inches
and not greater than 60 inches, installed with a
stable support, and mounted so that the horizontal
center of the reflective surface is at least 11 inches
outward of the longitudinal centerline of the
motorcycle. The mirror shall be adjustable by
tilting in both the horizontal and vertical direc-
tions.
S11. Mirror construction. [The average reflec-
tance of any mirror required by this standard shall
be determined in accordance with SAE Recom-
mended Practice J964, October 1984. All single
reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflec-
tance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable
of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflec-
tance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 per-
cent and the minimum reflectance level in the
night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple
reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a
means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a
reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event
of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance
level automatically in the event of electrical
failure. (56 F.R. 58513— November 20, 1991. Effective
September 1, 1992. Vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 1992 may comply, effective December
20. 1991)1
S12. Determination of Radius of Curvature.
S12.1. To determine the average radius of cur-
vature of a convex mirror, use a 3-point linear
spherometer, which meets the requirements of
S12.2., at the 10 test positions shown in Figure 1
and record the readings for each position.
(Rev. 11/20/91)
512.2. The 3-point linear spherometer has two
outer fixed legs 1.5 inches apart and one inner
movable leg at the midpoint. The spherometer has
a dial indicator with a scale that can be read
accurately to 0.0001 inches, with the zero reading
being a flat surface.
512.3. The 10 test positions on the image display
consist of two positions at right angles to each
other at each of five locations as shown in Figure 1.
The locations are at the center of the mirror, at the
left and right ends of a horizontal line that bisects
PART 571; S 111-3
the mirror and at the top and bottom ends of a ver-
tical line that bisects the mirror. None of the
readings are within 0.25-inch border on the edge of
the image display.
512.4. At each test position, the spherometer is
held perpendicular to the convex mirror-surface
and a record is made of the reading on the dial in-
dicator to the nearest 0.0001 inch.
512.5. Convert the dial reading data for each of
the 10 test positions to radius of curvature calcula-
tions using Table I. Consider the change as linear
for dial readings that fall between two numbers in
Table I.
SI 2.6. Calculate the average radius of cur-
vature by adding all 10 radius of curvature calcula-
tions and dividing by ten.
S12.7. Determine the numerical difference be-
tween the average radius of curvature and each of
the 10 individual radius of curvature calculations
determined in SI 2. 5.
S12.8. Calculate the greatest percentage devia-
tion by dividing the greatest numerical difference
determined in S12.7 by the average radius of cur-
vature and multiply by 100.
INTERPRETATION
(1) When a supplemental mirror is furnished in
addition to the inside rearview mirror and the
driver's side outside rearview mirror, the sup-
plemental mirror need not be adjustable from the
driver's seat.
(2) The location of the driver's eye reference
point may be that established in Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 104, or it may be a nominal
location appropriate for any 95th percentile male
driver.
(3) The horizontal angle is measured from the
projected eye point, rather than the plane of the
32 F.R. 2413
February 3, 1967
PART 571; S 111-4
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 121
Air Brake Systems
(Docket No. 87-04; Notice 7)
RIN: 2127-AC73
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends Standard No. 121, Air
Brake Systems, to revise the timing requirements for
parking brake systems, add new requirements concern-
ing release performance and accumulation of actuation
energy for parking brakes, and incorporate an earlier
agency interpretation of the standard into the stand-
ard. These changes are intended to ensure the prac-
ticability and objectivity of the parking brake timing
test, and clarify that a diaphragm is not considered a
component of a brake chamber housing, as that term
is used in Standard No. 121. The rule will make the
testing procedure easier to perform and more objec-
tive, eliminate confusion about the application of the
standard to single diaphragm brake systems, and im-
prove the consistency of the regulatory language.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective
December 9, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
/. Background
A. March 1988 Final Rule
In a final rule published in the Federal Register(5S
FR 7931) on March 11, 1988, NHTSA amended Stand-
ard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to clarify the stand-
ard's parking brake requirements, particularly as they
relate to air-applied, mechanically held parking brake
systems. The amendments required actuation of a
mechanical means for parking brake application at the
requisite level of retardation within three seconds af-
ter operation of the parking brake control, (For trail-
ers, such actuation was required within three seconds
after venting to the atmosphere of the front supply line
connection is initiated.) In addition, vehicles were re-
quired to be capable of meeting requirements related
to parking brake retardation force within the three
second period. The amendments also required that the
grade holding test (or alternative drawbar test) be met
with only the mechanical means for parking brake ap-
plication in operation.
The primary rationale for the parking brake timing
requirements is NHTSA's belief that a vehicle's park-
ing brake system should generate retardation force in
as short a time as is practicable, since the parking brake
system is sometimes used as an emergency braking sys-
tem. The approach of the March 1988 final rule was
to require that vehicles be capable of meeting parking
brake retardation force requirements, specified in
terms of a grade holding or draw bar test' within a
specified time. For trucks and buses, the amendments
required minimum parking retardation force require-
ments to be met at all times after three seconds from
the time of actuation of the parking brake control. For
trailers, the amendments required minimum parking
retardation force requirements to be met at all times
after three seconds from the time that venting to the
atmosphere of the front supply line connection is
initiated.
In responding to commenter concerns that it is not
possible to safely conduct the grade holding or draw
bar tests within three seconds, NHTSA stated in the
March 1988 final rule that it did not believe that
manufacturers must, as a practical matter, determine
their compliance with the timing requirement during
their grade holding or draw bar testing. The agency
stated that, instead, certification could be accomplished
by using an engineering analysis of the vehicle's park-
ing brake system or, if necessary, a test measuring the
air pressure in the parking brake system to determine
when the pressure reaches zero. The assumption un-
derlying this statement is that if a vehicle could com-
ply with the grade holding or draw bar test with zero
air pressure in the brake chambers, and if the air pres-
sure in the brake chambers reached zero pressure
within three seconds, then the vehicle would be able
to comply with the grade holding or draw bar test
within three seconds. It should be noted that a test to
determine when the air pressure in the parking brake
system reaches zero is only appropriate for vehicles
equipped with spring brake parking brake systems. For
an air-applied, mechanically held parking brake system,
a comparable test would determine when the pressure
in the parking brake chamber reaches full application
pressure.
NHTSA stated in the March 1988 final rule that it
believed all parking brakes currently being sold
complied with the amendments being adopted. The
PART 571; S121-PRE 197
agency also stated its belief that since any necessary
certification could be accomplished by engineering
analysis and simple tests, 180 days would provide suffi-
cient leadtime for that purpose. The amendments
therefore required compliance effective 180 days af-
ter publication of the final rule, while permitting
manufacturers to comply prior to that time with either
the new requirements or the requirements being
superseded.
B. Petitions for Reconsideration
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration from
Navistar International Transportation Corporation
(Navistar) and Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
(Volvo GM). Both of the petitions concerned the park-
ing brake timing requirements. Navistar was con-
cerned that their brake systems did not generate
maximum torque since they required partial wheel
rotation after the three seconds to reach full torque.
(Most modern-day drum brakes are self-energizing and
require a partial rotation to help the primary brake
shoe wedge the secondary shoe against the brake drum
with greater force.) Volvo GM asked that the agency
rescind the application of the requirement to tandem
trucks with spring brakes. The company stated that its
test results indicated that some of its vehicles would
not meet grade holding tests because the pressure drop
in the brake system after three seconds still left a
residual air pressure of less than five poimds per square
inch (psi)- enough to lower the brake torque by a sig-
nificant amount. Volvo CM also suggested that the 100
psi initial reservoir system pressure test condition be
deleted because they claimed that use of a specific value
was design restrictive. In partial response to the two
petitions, NHTSA delayed the time that the amend-
ments would become effective on a mandatory basis,
See 43 FR 35075, September 9, 1988; 54 FR 25460,
June 15, 1989. The purpose of the delay was to permit
the agency to complete its analysis of the arguments
made by the petitioners, and to provide a further
response to the petitions.
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration
In response to the above petitions for reconsidera-
tion, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rule-
making (NPRM) and response to petitions for
reconsideration on February 8, 1990 (55 FR 4447). The
NPRM proposed to amend Standard 121's parking
brake timing requirements, add new requirements con-
cerning release performance and accumulation of
actuation energy for parking brakes, and incorporate
an earlier agency interpretation of the standard in the
language of the standard.
In the NPRM, NHTSA granted the Navistar petition
and denied the Volvo GM petition. The agency pro-
posed to revise the test requirements to require the
vehicle to be capable of meeting the parking brake
retardation force test with the amount of pressure
available in the vehicle's parking brake chambers after
a three second period. Any brake "wrap-up" (partial
revolution of the braked wheels to enable the brake
shoes to reach peak torque) time would not be required
to occur during the three second test period. The
agency believed that the proposed parking brake tim-
ing test would resolve Navistar's concern about "wrap-
up." Volvo GM's petition to rescind the application of
the requirement to tandem trucks was denied because
the agency found nothing in the use or design of heavy
tandem trucks that supported a need for such a rescis-
sion and determined that compliance with the require-
ments could be easily ensured by the addition of a quick
release valve. The second Volvo GM request concern-
ing test conditions was also denied. This request was
denied because specification of an initial reservoir sys-
tem pressure is necessary to insure objectivity of test
results. In addition, a 100 psi pressure was selected
because it is representative of the brake reservoir sys-
tem pressure of actual vehicles. The request was also
denied because Volvo GM did not suggest any other
methods to ensure objective test results nor did it claim
that the test condition is inappropriate or unrepresen-
tative. Although the agency denied both requests,
NHTSA believed that as a consequence of clarifying
the agency's initial intent with respect to whether park-
ing brake chamber air pressure must reach zero within
three seconds, the proposed test would likely resolve
some of Volvo GM's concerns.
The NPRM also proposed new requirements concern-
ing release performance and accumulation of actuation
energy for parking brakes. The first proposed change
would add a requirement that a vehicle's parking
brakes not be releasable unless adequate energy is
available to make a subsequent application. The pur-
pose of the proposed requirement was to prevent situ-
ations where parking brakes are released when the
vehicle has no braking capability. The second proposed
change would add a requirement that an accumulation
of energy sufficient to apply the parking brakes at least
once be avaOable to the parking brake system. The two
proposed requirements would together ensure that a
parking brake system remains "fail-safe" in the event
of a failure of another brake system on the vehicle.
Thus, the parking brakes could not be released unless
they were capable of being reapplied, and also under
the same conditions, would be capable of at least one
application.
The NPRM stated that the proposed amendments
would become effective 30 days after the publication
of the final rule, except for those amendments concern-
ing release performance and accumulation of actuation
energy. The NPRM proposed that mandatory compli-
ance with the proposed new requirements would be
required 180 days after publication. The proposed
PART 571; S121-PRE 198
requirements concerning release performance and
accumulation of actuation energy were also proposed
to become effective 180 days after publication.
Finally, the NPRM proposed an amendment to
Standard No. 121 that would incorporate a conclusion
of a NHTSA letter interpreting the standard. Specifi-
cally, the amendment would make clear that a
diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber hous-
ing, as that term is used in Standard No. 121.
In response to the NPRM, 16 comments were sub-
mitted. All of these comments were considered in con-
nection with this final rule, and the most significant
are discussed below.
//.
to Comments and Final Rule
A. Parking Brake Timing Requirements
The NPRM proposed that, instead of expressly re-
quiring vehicles to be capable of meeting the grade
holding or draw bar test within three seconds, vehicles
would be required to be capable of meeting the park-
ing brake retardation force test with the amount of
pressure in the vehicle's parking brake chambers after
the three second period.
General Motors Corporation (GM) supported the pro-
posed amendment and commented that, by separating
the timing aspect from the performance requirement,
NHTSA removed ambiguity from the testing require-
ments of Standard No. 121. MGM Brakes, a division
of Indian Head Industries, Inc. (MGM), believed that
compliance with the three second requirement might
sacrifice brake torque application. As an example, the
company noted that a pressure of five psi in the park-
ing brake chamber reduces the brake chamber output
force by approximately 150 pounds, or 900 inch-pounds
with a six-inch slack adjuster.
NHTSA has decided to retain the three second re-
quirement. The agency believes that the concerns of
MGM do not provide a sufficient justification to in-
crease beyond three seconds the time within which to
exhaust air from the typical brake system. Any in-
crease in the three second time would substantially
increase the risk of a vehicle running free (i.e., without
any brakes) before the emergency braking system
became effective. Furthermore, MGM did not submit
any information on system configuration that might ex-
plain why it needed more than three seconds to fully
exhaust air from the braking chambers. Finally, MGM
is a component supplier, and as such, does not have to
certify any vehicles. The agency received no complaints
from truck or trailer manufacturers, who do have to
certify vehicles, that the three second requirement is
unreasonable. The agency has determined, as noted
above, that compliance can be easily ensured by use
of a quick release valve.
Bendix Heavy Vehicle Group, of Allied-Signal, Inc.
(Bendix), suggested that Section S5.6.3.4 be modified
to state that the parking brake effort shall not decrease
below the effort obtained within three seconds from
actuation of the parking brake control. NHTSA is not
persuaded that such an amendment is necessary. Sec-
tion S5.6.3.3 clearly states that there should be no air
pressure holding the parking brake system after three
seconds. The agency has determined that if there is
complete compliance with Section S5.6.3.3 (which re-
quires full mechanical actuation of the parking brakes),
parking brake effort will not decrease from the effort
obtained within three seconds of actuation. Thus,
NHTSA has concluded that Bendix's suggested change
is unnecessary.
B. Denial of Volvo GM's Petition for
Reconsideration
No comments were received concerning NHTSA's
denial of Volvo GM's petition to rescind application of
the requirement to tandem trucks equipped with spring
brakes or its suggestion that the 100 psi initial reser-
voir system pressure test condition be deleted.
C. Release Performance; Accumulation of
Actuation Energy
The NPRM proposed a new requirement concerning
release performance and accumulation of actuation
energy for parking brakes. The first part of the pro-
posed requirement was that a vehicle's parking brakes
not be releasable unless adequate energy is available
to make a subsequent application. The purpose of this
part of the requirement was to prevent situations
where parking brakes are released when the vehicle
has no braking capability. The second part of the
proposed requirement was that an accumulation of
energy sufficient to apply the parking brakes at least
once be available to the parking brake system. The pro-
posed requirement was intended to ensure that a park-
ing brake system remains "fail-safe" in the event of
a failure of another brake system on the vehicle. Thus,
as proposed, the parking brakes could not be released
unless they were capable of being reapplied, and, un-
der the same conditions, were capable of at least one
reapplication.
GM commented that it did not oppose the new re-
quirements and stated that its testing of its air-braked
vehicles indicated that they meet the requirements.
International Transquip Industries (ITI) opposed the
proposed requirement. ITI believed that, due to a de-
sign feature, its single diaphragm braking system could
not comply with the proposed test sequence require-
ment of Section S5.6.6, which requires actuation of the
parking brake control, release actuation after thirty se-
conds, and then a final actuation. ITI stated that the
safety-related design feature prevents release of the
parking brake if even a small hole exists in the service
diaphragm.
PART 571; S121-PRE 199
As originally proposed, the ITI system would not
have been able to comply with the test sequence re-
quirement of Section S5.6.6. However, in this final rule,
the wording of Section S5.6.6 has been revised from
that proposed in the NPRM to be consistent with the
test sequence requirement of Section S5.6.3. Section
S5.6.6 now requires that the supply line be vented,
pressurized, and then again vented. Thus, as long as
the manufacturer goes through the entire test proce-
dure of S5.6.6 and the brake system complies with
S5.6.5, full performance (final actuation with sufficient
force) at the end of the testing will constitute compli-
ance with the requirements. NHTSA believes that all
current parking brake systems, including that of ITI,
meet the requirements.
Bendix suggested that Section S5.2.1.1. which re-
quires a protected reservoir at 90 psi, be eliminated
since the proposed sequence for trailers (S5.6.6.6)
allows release of a trailer parking brake by 100 psi
trailer supply line pressure. This comment concerns a
section which is not within the scope of this final rule.
NHTSA will consider the change suggested by this
Bendix in another rulemaking which is now pending.
D. Effective Date
The NPRM stated that the proposed amendments
would become effective 30 days after the publication of
the final rule, except for those amendments concern-
ing release performance and accumulation of actuation
energy. From that time until 179 days after publication
of the final rule, manufacturers would have been aOowed
to comply with either the new requirements or the
pre-1988 requirements. Mandatory compliance with the
proposed new requirements would have been required
180 days after publication. The NPRM also stated that
the proposed requirements concerning release perfor-
mance and accumulation of actuation energy would also
become effective 180 days after publication.
GM stated that it was not opposed to the proposed
effective date for mandatory compliance.
Volvo GM objected to the 180 day lead time, assert-
ing that the proposal would require "significant rede-
sign or elimination of parking brake systems that do
not utilize 'conventional' spring brakes." The company
said it needed 18 months to comply, including six
months to "balance stocks on hand and process cus-
tomer requests."
NHTSA has determined that a 180 day lead time for
mandatory compliance is reasonable. As noted above,
the agency believes that all only a relatively simple and
inexpensive design change (such as the inclusion of an
additional quick release valve that costs $10-15) will
be required for compliance if a few vehicles do not com-
ply with the requirements.
E. Clarification That a Diaphragm is Not a Brake
Chamber Housing Component
The NPRM proposed an amendment to the regula-
tion that would incorporate the conclusion of an inter-
pretative letter to International Transquip Industries,
Inc., dated April 9, 1986, that a diaphragm within a
brake chamber is not a component of a brake chamber
housing for the purposes of Standard No. 121. Under
S5.6.3.1 and S5.6.3.5 of Standard No. 121. parking
brake systems must be capable of meeting minimum
parking brake retardation requirements "with any sin-
gle leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of
a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid
(except failure of a component of a brake chamber hous-
ing)." NHTSA notes that air-applied mechanically held
parking brake systems may incorporate a single brake
chamber that is common to both the service and park-
ing brake systems. Since a failure in such a brake cham-
ber is a failure of the service brake system (as well as
the parking brake system), it is a failure "in any other
brake system," in the context of S5. 6.3.1 and S5.6.3.5.
Of the 12 responses by manufacturers, users, and
brake system consultants, 10 were opposed to the agen-
cy's proposed amendment. Nine of the commenters ex-
pressly or implicitly stated that the amendment would
eliminate from the market the ITI "Mini-Max" brake
system (a single-diaphragm braking system) which is
considered by those commenters to be reliable and ef-
fective. Those commenters included ITI, a vehicle user,
a parts suppher, and several consultants. Bendix com-
mented that the proposed amendment "will tend to
deter the use and development of pressure applied
parking systems such as the Bendix Dual Circuit Air
Brake System." Midland Brake, Inc. supported the pro-
posed amendment and GM stated that it did not oppose
the new requirements.
ITI proposed that an exemption to the amendment's
requirements be made for systems where the "common
diaphragm is tested for proper operation on each
system air charging or park brake application." Alter-
natively, ITI proposed that the reapplication require-
ments be limited to the "need not to be released unless
a reapplication can be made."
NHTSA recognizes that the wording of the proposed
regulatory text may have caused concern that the ITI
"Mini-Max" braking system would not be allowed. This
is not the case. NHTSA believes that the "Mini-Max"
single diaphragm braking system made by ITI would
have been allowed under the proposed amendment. ITI
has submitted test results that demonstrate that, as
currently designed, the system will sense a rapid pres-
sure drop in the single chamber units and apply the
mechanically held portion of the system at a fast
enough rate to meet the brake force requirements. ITI
has also said that, on a tandem axle vehicle with "Mini-
Max" units at all four wheels, the retardation require-
ments can still be met with a diaphragm failure in one
of the units. And as stated above, as long as the
manufacturer goes through the entire test procedure
of S5.6.6 and the brake system compHes with S5.6.5,
full performance (final actuation with sufficient force)
PART 571; S121-PRE 200
at the end of the testing will constitute compliance with
the requirements. Thus, ITFs proposal that the reap-
plication requirements be limited to the "need not to
be released unless a reapplication can be made" have
been addressed by the current language of Section
S5.6.6. NHTSA believes that all current parking brake
systems meet the requirements.
To avoid any confusion about whether brake systems
that use only one diaphragm for both operational and
parking brake systems are covered by the standard and
have to comply. NHTSA has revised paragraphs
5.6.3.1, 5.6.3.3, 5.6.3.4, 5.6.3.5, 5.6.5.1, 5.6.5.3, 5.6.6.1,
5.6.6.3, 5.6.6.4, and 5.6.6.6 to avoid possible confusion.
In each paragraph where the words "diaphragm of a
brake chamber" appeared in the proposed rule.
NHTSA has replaced them with the words "brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake sys-
tem including a diaphragm."
The agency has made another change in the word-
ing of the regulatory text of the final rule as compared
to the proposal. The wording of S5.6.6.6 (which ad-
dresses the test sequence for trailers) has been revised
to be consistent with that of S5.6.6.3 (which addresses
the test sequence for trucks and buses). This change
is designed to improve test consistency.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571
is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; dele-
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
§571.121 [Amended]
2. 85. 6 is revised to read as follows:
S5.6 Parking brake system. Each vehicle other
than a trailer converter dolly shall have a parking brake
system that under the conditions of S6.1 meets the re-
quirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, at the manufacturer's
option, and the requirements of S5.6.3, S5.6.4, S5.6.5,
and S5.6.6. However, the trailer portion of any agricul-
tural commodity trailer, heavy hauler trailer, or pulp-
wood trailer, shall meet the requirements of this section
or, at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements
of §393.43 of this title.
3. S5.6.3 through S5.6.3.5 of §571.121 are revised
to read as follows:
S5.6.3 Application and holding. Each parking
brake system shall meet the requirements of S 5. 6. 3.1
through S5.6.3.4, except that, at the option of the
manufacturer, the parking brake system in each vehi-
cle manufactured before December 9, 1991, may meet
either those requirements or the requirements speci-
fied in S5.6.3.5.
S5.6.3.1 The parking brake system shall be capable
of achieving the minimum performance specified either
in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure,
in any other brake system, of a part designed to con-
tain compressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of
a component of a brake chamber housing but includ-
ing faOure of any brake chamber diaphragm that is part
of any other brake system including a diaphragm which
is common to the parking brake system and any other
brake system), when the pressures in the vehicle's park-
ing brake chambers are at the levels determined in
S5.6.3.4.
55.6.3.2 A mechanical means shall be provided that,
after a parking brake application is made with the pres-
sures in the vehicle's parking brake chambers at the
levels determined in S5.6.3.4, and all air and fluid pres-
sures in the vehicle's braking systems are then bled
down to zero, and without using electrical power, holds
the parking brake application with sufficient parking
retardation force to meet the minimum performance
specified in S5.6.3.1 and in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2.
55.6.3.3 For trucks and buses, with an initial reser-
voir system pressure of 100 psi and, if designed to tow
a vehicle equipped with air brakes, with a 50 cubic inch
test reservoir connected to the supply line coupling, no
later than three seconds from the time of actuation of
the parking brake control, the mechanical means
referred to in S5.6.3.2 shall be actuated. For trailers,
with the supply line initially pressurized to 100 psi using
the supply line portion of the trailer test rig (Figure 1)
and, if designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air
brakes, with a 50 cubic inch test reservoir connected
to the rear supply line coupling, no later than three
seconds from the time venting to the atmosphere of
the front supply line coupling is initiated, the mechan-
ical means referred to in S5.6.3.2 shall be actuated.
This requirement shall be met for trucks, buses and
trailers both with and without any single leakage-type
failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed
to contain compressed air or brake fluid (excluding
failure of a component of a brake chamber housing but
including failure of any brake chamber diaphragm that
is part of any other brake system including a diaphragm
which is common to the parking brake system and any
other brake system).
55.6.3.4 The parking brake chamber pressures for
S5.6.3.1 and S5.6.3.2 are determined as follows. For
trucks and buses, with an initial reservoir system pres-
sure of 100 psi and, if designed to tow a vehicle
equipped with air brakes, with a 50 cubic inch test
reservoir connected to the supply line coupling, any sin-
gle leakage type failure, in any other brake system, of
a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid
(excluding failure of a component of a brake chamber
housing but including failure of any brake chamber
diaphragm that is part of any other brake system
including a diaphragm which is common to the park-
ing brake system and any other brake system), is
PART 571; S121-PRE 201
introduced in the brake system. The parking brake con-
trol is actuated and the pressures in the vehicle's park-
ing brake chambers are measured three seconds after
that actuation is initiated. For trailers, with the sup-
ply line initially pressurized to 100 psi using the sup-
ply line portion of the trailer test rig (Figure 1) and,
if designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes,
with a 50 cubic inch test reservoir connected to the rear
supply line coupling, any single leakage type failure,
in any other brake system, of a part designed to con-
tain compressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of
a component of a brake chamber housing but includ-
ing failure of any brake chamber diaphragm that is part
of any other brake system including a diaphragm which
is common to the parking brake system and any other
brake system), is introduced in the brake system. The
front supply line coupling is vented to the atmosphere
and the pressures in the vehicle's parking brake cham-
bers are measured three seconds after that venting is
initiated.
S5.6.3.5 (Optional requirement for vehicles manufac-
tured before December 9, 1991. The parking brake sys-
tem shall be capable of achieving the minimum
performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with
any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake sys-
tem, of a part designed to contain compressed air or
brake fluid (excluding failure of a component of a brake
chamber housing but including failure of any brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake sys-
tem including a diaphragm which is common to the
parking brake system and any other brake system).
Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the
applied position solely by mechanical means.
4. S5.6.5 through S5.6.5.4 are added to §571.121 to
read as follows:
S5.6.5 Release Performance. Effective December
9, 1991, each parking brake system shall meet the re-
quirements specified in S5.6.5.1 through S5.6.5.4.
S5.6.5.1 For trucks and buses, with initial conditions
as specified in S5.6.5.2, at all times after an applica-
tion actuation of the parking brake control, and with
any subsequent level of pressure, or combination of
levels of pressure, in the reservoirs of any of the vehi-
cle's brake systems, no reduction in parking brake
retardation force shall result from a release actuation
of the parking brake control unless the parking brakes
are capable, after such release, of being reapplied at
a level meeting the minimum performance specified
either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. This requirement shall be
met both with and without the engine on, and with and
without any single leakage-type failure, in any other
brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed
air or brake fluid (excluding failure of a component of
a brake chamber housing but including failure of any
brake chamber diaphragm that is part of any other
brake system including a diaphragm which is common
to the parking brake system and any other brake
system).
55.6.5.2 The initial conditions for S5.6.5.1 are as fol-
lows. The reservoir system pressure is 100 psi. If the
vehicle is designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air
brakes, a 50 Cubic inch test reservoir is connected to
the supply line coupling.
55.6.5.3 For trailers, with initial conditions as speci-
fied in S5. 6.5.4, at all times after actuation of the park-
ing brakes by venting the front supply line coupling to
the atmosphere, and with any subsequent level of pres-
sure, or combination of levels of pressure, in the reser-
voirs of any of the vehicle's brake systems, the parking
brakes shall not be releasable by repressurizing the sup-
ply line using the supply line portion of the trailer test
rig (Figure 1) to any pressure above 70 psi, unless the
parking brakes are capable, after such release, of reap-
plication by subsequent venting of the front supply line
coupling to the atmosphere, at a level meeting the mini-
mum performance specified either inS5.6.1orS5.6.2.
This requirement shall be met both with and without
any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake sys-
tem, of a part designed to contain compressed air or
brake fluid (excluding failure of a component of a brake
chamber housing but including failure of any brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake sys-
tem including a diaphragm which is common to the
parking brake system and any other brake system).
55.6.5.4 The initial conditions for S5.6.5.3 are as fol-
lows. The reservoir system and supply line are pressu-
rized to 100 psi, using the supply line portion of the
trailer test rig (Figure 1). If the vehicle is designed to
tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, a 50 cubic inch
test reservoir is connected to the rear supply line
coupling.
5. S5.6.6 through S5.6.6.6 are added to §571.121 to
read as follows:
S5.6.6 Accumulation of Actuation Energy. Effec-
tive December 9, 1991, each parking brake system shall
meet the requirements specified in S5.6.6.1 through
S5.6.6.6.
S5.6.6.1 For trucks and buses, with initial conditions
as specified in S 5. 6. 6. 2, the parking brake system shall
be capable of meeting the minimum performance speci-
fied either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, with any single leakage-
type failure, in any other brake system, of a part
designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (ex-
cluding failure of a component of a brake chamber hous-
ing but including failure of any brake chamber
diaphragm that is part of any other brake system in-
cluding a diaphragm which is common to the parking
brake system and any other brake system), at the con-
clusion of the test sequence specified in S5.6.6.3.
PART 571; S121-PRE 202
55.6.6.2 The initial conditions for S5.6.6.1 are as fol-
lows. The engine is on. The reservoir system pressure
is 100 psi. If the vehicle is designed to tow a vehicle
equipped with air brakes, a 50 cubic inch test reser-
voir is connected to the supply line coupling.
55.6.6.3 The test sequence for S5.6.6.1 is as follows.
The engine is turned off. Any single leakage type
failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed
to contain compressed air or brake fluid (excluding
failure of a component of a brake chamber housing but
including failure of any brake chamber diaphragm that
is part of any other brake system including a diaphragm
which is common to the parking brake system and any
other brake system), is then introduced in the brake
system. An application actuation of the parking brake
control is then made. Thirty seconds after such actua-
tion, a release actuation of the parking brake control
is made. Thirty seconds after the release actuation, a
final application actuation of the parking brake control
is made.
55.6.6.4 For trailers, with initial conditions as speci-
fied in S5.6.6.5, the parking brake system shall be capa-
ble of meeting the minimum performance specified
either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, with any single leakage-type
failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed
to contain compressed air or brake fluid (excluding
failure of a component of a brake chamber housing but
including faBure of any brake chamber diaphragm that
is part of any other brake system including a diaphragm
which is common to the parking brake system and any
other brake system), at the conclusion of the test
sequence specified in S5.6.6.6.
55.6.6.5 The initial conditions for S5. 6.6.4 are as fol-
lows. The reservoir system and supply line are pressur-
ized to 100 psi, using the supply line portion of the trail-
er test rig (Figure 1). If the vehicle is designed to tow
a vehicle equipped with air brakes, a 50 cubic inch test
reservoir is connected to the rear supply line coupling.
S5.6.6.6 The test sequence for S5.6.6.4 is as follows.
Any single leakage type failure, in any other brake sys-
tem, of a part designed to contain compressed air or
brake fluid (excluding failure of a component of a brake
chamber housing but including failure of any brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake sys-
tem including a diaphragm which is common to the
parking brake system and any other brake system), is
introduced in the brake system. The front supply line
coupling is vented to the atmosphere. Thirty seconds
after the initiation of such venting, the supply line is
repressurized with the traUer test rig (Figure 1). Thirty
seconds after the initiation of such repressurizing of
the supply line, the front supply line is vented to the
atmosphere. This procedure is conducted either by con-
nection and disconnection of the supply line coupling
or by use of a valve installed in the supply line portion
of the trailer test rig near the supply line coupling.
6. The second line of text at the bottom of Figure 1
is revised to read as follows:
R— Regulator (set at 100 psi for service brake actu-
ation tests., 95 psi for service brake release tests; 100
psi for parking brake tests in S5.6.3.3, S5.6.3.4,
S5.6.5.4, and S5.6.6.5, and any pressure above 70 psi
for parking brake test in S5.6.5.3)
Issued on June 4, 1991.
56 F.R. 26927
June 12, 1991
PART 571; S121-PRE 203-204
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 121
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
(Docket No. 90-03; Notice 3)
RIN: 2127-AA27
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems,
specifies requirements for the performance of trailer
pneumatic brake systems in the event of pneumatic sys-
tem failure. This final rule deletes the requirement for
a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking
brakes. Under this rule, air from the tractor supply
lines may be used instead of air from such a reservoir.
This rule also adds requirements for a minimum com-
pressor cut-in pressure for trucks and buses, for the
retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's
supply line in the event of pneumatic failure, and for
the prevention of automatic application of trailer park-
ing brakes while the minimum trailer supply line pres-
sure is maintained. Today's notice will encourage the
use of more effective trailer braking systems and sim-
plify the maintenance of those systems. Finally, the
agency has decided not to adopt certain other proposed
requirements because there was insufficient justifica-
tion for their adoption and because they might have
interfered with the implementation of other safety
features.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The amendments made by the
final rule to the Code of Federal Regulations are
effective October 8, 1992. Optional compliance is per-
mitted effective November 7, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Air-braked trailers have two types of brakes: serv-
ice brakes use for normal stopping in traffic and park-
ing brakes used both for parking and stopping the
trailer in the event of a breakaway. The parking brakes
may also be used to help stop the vehicle in the event
of a loss of trailer service braking capability. The serv-
ice brakes are applied by the driver's actuating a foot-
controlled treadle valve. This transmits a pressure
signal, proportional to the foot pressure on the trea-
dle valve, via the control line to open the service relay
valve(s). The opening of the relay valve(s) allows air
from the brake reservoirs to pressurize the brake cham-
bers (to a level that is proportional to the pressure in
the control line), applying the brakes in proportion to
the foot pressure on the treadle valve. The pressure
in the brake reservoirs is supplied via the brake sup-
ply line.
Manual application of the parking brakes occurs
when the driver actuates a hand-operated parking con-
trol valve, venting the supply line. The venting of the
supply line results in application of the parking brakes
by means of spring pressure or air pressure. Automatic
application of the parking brakes can occur in two sit-
uations. First, if the pressure in the trailer supply line
falls below a certain level, tractor valving closes and
vents the supply line to the trailer. The venting of the
trailer supply line results in application of the parking
brakes. Second, if the trailer should break away from
the tractor, the venting due to breaking of the trailer
supply line hose results in application of the parking
brakes.
First Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(July 1981)
On July 23, 1981, NHTSA published in the Federal
Register (46 FR/37952) a notice of proposed rulemak-
ing (NPRM) to amend Standard No. 121. Air Brake
Systems, by deleting the requirement that trailers have
a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes (sec-
tion S5.2.1.1). The rulemaking was initiated in response
to a petition for rulemaking submitted by Berg
Manufacturing Company.
The purpose of the separate reservoir requirement
was to provide a means for releasing the parking
brakes once they had been applied. However, the
agency believed that this purpose could be satisfactorily
met by other means.
Several commenters opposed the proposal. They
expressed concern that it would permit trailer park-
ing brake systems that would place increased demands
on the tractor air system for releasing the parking
brakes; not warn the driver in the event of trailer brake
drag and brake fade; not be compatible with earlier sys-
tems if they were intermixed in doubles and triples
combinations; and utilize a single reservoir on tandem
axle trailers, thereby resulting in degraded
performance.
PART 571; S121-PRE 205
NHTSA conducted research to evaluate those issues.
The research looked at designs currently in use on
trailers and ones which manufacturers indicated would
likely be sold if the July 1981 proposal were adopted
as a final rule. The results of that research are con-
tained in a report entitled "NHTSA Heavy Duty
Vehicle Research Program— Report Number 3: Evalu-
ation of Parking and Emergency Pneumatic Systems
on Air Braked Trailers," May 1985 (DOT HS 806 757).
The agency's research program identified several
safety features that would be desirable for pneumatic
brake systems on trailers. Those features are discussed
on pages 64-68 of the above-referenced report. While
none of the system tested exhibited all of the desira-
ble features, it appeared that only minor changes would
be required in those systems to provide the features.
Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (February 1990)
On February 8, 1990, the agency published in the
Federal Register a NPRM that superseded the July
1981 NPRM (55 FR 4453). In the 1990 NPRM, NHTSA
proposed to amend Standard No. 121 to require some
of the safety features identified by its research. As part
of that action, the agency again proposed to delete the
requirement for a separate reservoir. The agency also
proposed to require a low pressure warning system that
would indicate whether the pressure in any of a trail-
er's service brake reservoirs was below 60 pounds per
square inch (psi). The proposed warning system would
utilize a warning light mounted on the trailer. To avoid
possible inadvertent activation of the trailer low pres-
sure warning system, the agency proposed to require
the air compressor to begin functioning whenever the
air pressure fell below 85 pounds per square inch (psi).
Finally, the agency proposed to require that no single
leakage type failure result in a loss of service braking
capability at wheels which contribute more than 50 per-
cent of the load-carrying capacity of the axles of the
trailer. To meet the proposed requirement, manufac-
turers would need to provide a split service braking
system.
NHTSA proposed to make the amendment effective
one year after publication of the final rule in the Fed-
eral Register The agency believed that a one-year
period would enable manufacturers to redesign their
vehicles to meet the proposed requirements. NHTSA
proposed to permit optional compliance effective 30
days after publication to facilitate the earlier redesign
of some vehicles.
NHTSA received 21 comments in response to the
NPRM. All of these comments were considered in con-
nection with the final rule, and the most significant are
discussed below.
Summary of Comments on the Proposed Rule
and of Final Rule
Eight commenters expressed support for the
agency's proposal to delete the requirement for a pro-
tected reservoir. No comments in opposition to this
proposal were received. After reviewing the comments,
NHTSA has decided to delete the requirement for a
protected reservoir from Standard No. 121.
One commenter supported the proposal to require a
trailer low pressure warning system. Twelve com-
menters opposed the proposed requirement. NHTSA
has decided not to adopt this proposed requirement.
The agency has determined that the proposed warn-
ing system, because of its potential cost, commercial
unavailability (i.e., there are no flashers available with
the necessary flash rate or reliability), and design re-
strictiveness (i.e., other methods to improve the trailer
low pressure warning system could be precluded),
would not be practicable. In addition, the comments
confirmed the agency's belief that the proposed sys-
tem might be a potential distraction for the vehicle's
driver and would place an additional load on the stop
lamp circuit of the tractor trailer. This could tax the
existing circuit and could limit its use for other safety
features, such as an antilock braking system.
NHTSA has decided to adopt the proposed amend-
ment to require the air compressor governor cut-in
pressure to be greater than 85 psi. Under the amend-
ment, the air compressor on a tractor or truck capable
of towing a trailer would begin functioning whenever
the air pressure falls below 85 psi. Although three com-
menters opposed the requirement, the agency believes
that it has significant safety advantages. Under this
amendment, the air compressor on a tractor would be
activated to restore or maintain pressure in the brake
supply system until the air leak is detected and cor-
rected. The agency believes that most, if not all, vehi-
cles already comply with this requirement. Thus, the
agency has concluded that this requirement will not be
an undue burden.
The proposed amendment that would, in effect, have
required a split service brake system was opposed by
nine commenters. Three commenters supported the
concept of the proposed amendment, with two of the
commenters suggesting changes.
NHTSA has decided not to adopt this proposed
amendment, NHTSA still believes that split systems
offer safety benefits, and encourages manufacturers
to use such systems whenever possible. However, the
agency has determined that the proposed amendment
might have inhibited the development of antilock brak-
ing systems. The proposed amendment would have
precluded the use of certain types of antilock systems,
such as tandem control systems. In addition, the com-
ments received indicated that a split service brake sys-
tem, which has more valves, could be more complicated
and expensive to implement, and more difficult to main-
tain. A more detailed discussion of the comments on
the proposed rule and the agency response to those
comments follows.
PART 571; S121-PRE 206
Deletion of Separate Reservoir Requirement
Most commenters stated that the current require-
ment of a separate reservoir for the parking brake was
design restrictive, added unnecessary complexity, and
had no significant safety benefits. In support of their
comments, both the Truck Trailer Manufacturers As-
sociation (TTMA) and Fruehauf Trailer Operations of
Terex Trailer Corporation (Fruehauf) cited the safety
record of trailers, without a separate reservoir, oper-
ated in Canada since 1980. Those trailers use tractor
air supply pressure instead of a separate reservoir to
release a trailer's parking brakes. Both TTMA and
Fruehauf claimed that no problems with this system
had been reported. Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems of
Allied Signal, Inc. (Bendix), echoed these remarks when
it asserted that the agency's concerns about spring
brake drag and lack of driver warning in systems
without a separate reservoir "have not materialized in
actual service." (NHTSA contacted Transport Canada
and confirmed that there was nothing indicating that
the lack of separate reservoirs on many vehicles in
Canada was causing a safety problem.) Bendix also
commented that systems that created excessive brake
drag would not be "accepted by the industry." thus
implying that NHTSA's concern was misdirected.
The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA)
commented that elimination of the separate reservoir
requirement would facilitate the adoption of a
"generic," or standardized, type of trailer brake sys-
tem. This standardized system would, ATA stated, be
more cost effective because it would "eliminate the
need for costly proprietary parking brake valves" and
"provide for more effective brake maintenance."
The only commenter in favor of retaining the
separate reservoir requirement was Eaton Corporation
(Eaton). Eaton was concerned that elimination of this
requirement would permit "unlimited operation of
trailers with failed service brake systems." As stated
in the NPRM, this is also possible under the current
requirements. In addition, the field experience of Cana-
dian trailers, as cited by TTMA and Fruehauf, does not
support this concern.
As stated above, the agency has decided to adopt this
am.endment as proposed in the NPRM. NHTSA has
concluded that there is insufficient justification for re-
quiring a separate reservoir to release parking brakes.
There are, at most, minor safety benefits from such
a system. In addition, as reported by commenters,
there has been no apparent safety problem in Canada,
which does not require a separate reservoir to release
parking brakes. Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to
amend Standard No. 121 to delete that requirement.
By deleting a potentially expensive, design restrictive
requirement, this final rule facilitates the introduction
of more effective trailer braking systems. This final
rule may also simplify the maintenance of trailer brak-
ing systems.
NHTSA acknowledges that the old requirement may
have encouraged some manufacturers to install axle-
by-axle braking systems in vehicles. This is because a
large portion of the cost associated with axle-by-axle
braking is for a reservoir for each axle or half of the
trailer braking system. Some current air brake systems
for tandem-axle trailers satisfy the current separate
reservoir requirement with use of two reservoirs in
such a way as to provide axle-by-axle braking. Thus,
the old reservoir requirement significantly reduced the
cost disadvantage associated with axle-by-axle braking
systems. Axle-by-axle braking systems can provide a
margin of safety by retaining some level of braking
capability during failures in the service brake system.
However, NHTSA believes that many manufacturers
will continue to install axle-by-axle braking systems.
Therefore, NHTSA does not believe that the adoption
of this amendment will have any negative safety im-
plications. However, NHTSA will monitor the effect
of the deletion of the separate reservoir requirement
for any detrimental safety impact.
Low Pressure Warning System
In the NPRM, the agency discussed alternative
means of warning the driver of low brake pressure. The
warning could be through the air pressure warning sig-
nal already located on tractor instrument panels or
through a warning lamp located on the left side of the
trailer visible in the driver's rearview mirror. The first
approach would require the installation of a new elec-
trical connection between the tractor and trailer.
NHTSA stated that it tentatively favored the second
approach. This was primarily because it would be less
expensive to implement and would not be dependent
on the installation of the electrical connection on both
parts of the tractor-trailer combination.
Commenters were nearly unanimous in opposing the
proposed amendment that would require a low pres-
sure warning system for trailers. Commenters listed
a number of potential problems with the proposed
amendment. Bendix commented that the proposed
amendment was "design restrictive" and that it was
neither "justified nor necessary." Fruehauf asserted
that "[vehicle and driver performance without low
pressure warning systems and without isolated reser-
voirs has been demonstrated on Canadian trailers built
since 1980."
In the preamble of the NPRM, the agency discussed
the possibility of driver distraction from the proposed
warning system. Commenters noted that this possibil-
ity would occur. Several commenters questioned
whether a warning lamp that is not distracting at night
would be bright enough to be seen during daylight con-
ditions. Great Dane Trailers, Inc. (Great Dane) re-
flected the views of several commenters when it
commented that the warning lamp would tend to
"divert the driver's attention away from the road to
PART 571; S121-PRE 207
the device at just the instant that he should be totally
focused on what's happening in the road ahead of him."
In the NPRM, the agency stated that manufacturers
would, for practical purposes, need to power the warn-
ing system by the stop lamp circuit. Several com-
menters expressed concern about using the stop lamp
circuit for this purpose, especially when the stop lamp
circuit is used to power the proposed antilock system.
ATA commented that "(tlhe capacity of (the stop lampl
circuit on multiple trailer combinations is satisfactory
for powering both stop lamps and antilock systems but
more lights could make it marginal." (Currently, Stand-
ard No. 121 requires that the stop lamp circuit be used
for antilock braking systems. However, as discussed
in the preamble of the proposed rule published on
May 3, 1991 (56 FR 20401), NHTSA is considering
whether an additional circuit might be necessary.)
The agency proposed in the NPRM that the warn-
ing lamp be located on the left side of the trailer, as
close to the front and as near to the top as possible,
but not more than 96 inches above the road surface.
The agency also proposed that the lamp flash at a rate
of between 150 to 200 flashes per minute. Fruehauf
commented that the proposed location, at the front
corner of the trailer, is a "hostile damage environ-
ment." In addition, Fruehauf stated that the cost of
installing the warning lamp system would be $125.00
per unit, much more than the $6-9 per unit estimated
by NHTSA. Several commenters asserted that flash-
ers that provide the desired flash rate or are reliable
enough to be used on a trailer are not commercially
available. ATA also commented that lighting systems
are one of the most costly maintenance items on trail-
ers and that this proposed warning lamp would add to
those costs.
As stated above, the agency has decided not to adopt
this proposed amendment. Although NHTSA believes
that the cost per unit would be less than that claimed
by Fruehauf, the cost per unit would be more than the
originally estimated by the agency. NHTSA currently
estimates that the unit cost of adding a low-pressure
warning system would be about $20 for single axle
trailers and $30 for tandem axle trailers. In addition,
NHTSA agi-ees with commenters that the proposed
warning light requirement could make it more difficult
to adopt other safety features. In particular, while the
brake lamp circuit may have enough power for an an-
tilock braking system, it may not have enough power
for both an antilock braking system and a warning lamp
system. The agency has determined that the expense
of the proposed warning system and its potential im-
pact on the adoption of other safety features outweigh
any potential increase in safety that this proposed
amendment might have provided.
Air Compressor Cut-in Pressure
The proposed amendment would have required that
the air compressor governor cut-in pressure be
greater than 85 psi. Under this amendment, the air
compressor on a tractor would be activated to restore
or maintain pressure in the brake supply system until
the air leak is detected and corrected. NHTSA stated
in the preamble of the proposed rule that the proposed
amendment was consistent with current industry
practice.
TTMA agreed with the agency's position that the cur-
rent practice is for "cut-ins" at or above the proposed
85 psi. TTMA' however, questioned the need for an ad-
ditional requirement. ATA commented that it had no
objection to the requirement as applied to towing
trucks. ATA believed that the requirement would more
effective and less costly than the proposed warning
lamp system. Bendix commented that the current
"trailer supply low air pressure warning technique" at
75 psi eliminates the need for the requirement. Volvo
GM commented that the compliance documentation ex-
penses would not be reasonable.
As stated above, NHTSA has decided to adopt this
proposed amendment. The agency believes that most,
if not all, vehicles already comply with this require-
ment. Thus, the agency has concluded that this require-
ment will not be an undue burden. In addition, the
agency believes that this requirement has significant
safety advantages. As stated above, under this amend-
ment, the air compressor on a tractor would be acti-
vated to restore or maintain pressure in the brake
supply system until the air leak is detected and
corrected.
Pneumatic System Failure/Split Service Brake System
As stated above, this proposed amendment would
have required, in effect, a split service brake system.
Nearly all commenters opposed this proposed amend-
ment. Commenters asserted that the proposed amend-
ment would be complicated and expensive to comply
with and would inhibit the development of antilock
brake systems.
Eaton asserted that "split braking systems have
lower reliability and durability, they are harder to main-
tain, and they have greater imbalance of air pressure
between brakes." Eaton's comments were supported
by the comments of several other commenters. Eaton
also stated that it is rot opposed to split service brake
systems, but is opposed to a regulation that would re-
quire them. Eaton believes that design flexibility is an
important goal.
In addition to reliability concerns, several com-
menters stated that a requirement for split service
braking systems would inhibit the development of an-
tilock braking systems. ATA asserted that a split sys-
tem would preclude use of a tandem control antilock
system. Tandem control systems, ATA stated, "have
the potential of minimizing the cost and complexity of
introducing antilock systems on trailers."
PART 571; S121-PRE 208
Finally, several commenters asserted that the cost
of a split service braking system might not be justified
by its safety benefits. Great Dane reported that most
of the trailers that it produces have a split service brak-
ing system and that it believes that such a system pro-
vides an extra margin of safety. However, Great Dane
is not aware of any "incidents" caused by a lack of a
split service braking system. TTMA and Bendix com-
mented that they were not aware of any test data or
field requirement that would justify a split service brak-
ing system. In addition, Bendix submitted test results
which it claimed showed that a split service braking
system:
1 . Improves stopping capability when the rear reser-
voir is depleted.
2. Degrades stopping capability when the front
reservoir is depleted.
3. Has the same stopping capability as a tandem con-
trol system for the most common failure of a trailer
air brake system, i.e., a failed hose or chamber
diaphragm.
Bendix concluded from its test results that there are
no "comprehensive benefits" from using a spht serv-
ice braking system.
NHTSA believes that the Bendix tests shows that
split braking systems offer marginal braking perfor-
mance benefits. In the Bendix tests, the improved per-
formance for the "axle control" (split service) brake
system in the rear reservoir failure case, compared to
the tandem control braking system, was significantly
greater than the degradation in performance of the
axle control system in the front reservoir failure case.
As stated above, the agency has decided not to adopt
this proposed amendment. Based on the comments
received, the agency has determined that the proposed
amendment might inhibit the development of antilock
braking systems. Therefore, the agency has decided not
to require split braking systems at this time. NHTSA
will continue to analyze the possible safety benefits of
split braking systems and will monitor developments
in this area.
A Supply Line Pressure Retention
In the proposed rule, NHTSA proposed requirements
to address drag-induced brake fade caused by partial
application of parking brakes. Eaton Corporation com-
mented that the proposed requirements would prohibit
existing brake systems, which the commenters thought
worked well.
NHTSA has decided not to adopt the proposed
requirements. NHTSA has concluded that the proposed
requirements are not necessary. There is over ten years
experience in Canada vdth brake systems that use
higher minimum supply line pressure, without a pro-
tected reservoir. Those systems apparently work well.
NHTSA expects that drivers and maintenance person-
nel will continue the current practice of cycling the
brake system and listening for air leaks each time a
vehicle is placed in service.
Automatic Application of Parking Brakes
NHTSA proposed to adopt requirements concerning
automatic application of parking brakes. The proposed
amendment would generally not permit automatic ap-
plication of the parking brakes when the air pressure
in the supply line is 70 psi or higher. Automatic appli-
cation of the parking brakes would be permitted only
when air pressure in the supply line is less than 70 psi
or in the case of a failure of a component of the park-
ing brake system or brake chamber housing.
The proposed amendment addressed the safety
problems caused by partial application of the parking
brakes when a trailer pneumatic system failure occurs.
As discussed more fully in the SNPRM, such a partial
application of the parking brakes can cause brake fade
and result in a 26 to 29 percent loss in brake effective-
ness. This could result in runaway accidents and jack-
knife accidents. Excessive brake drag could also result
in excessive brake lining wear and possible damage to
brake drums.
MGM opposed the proposed 70 psi requirement.
NHTSA recognizes that in some existing designs it may
be possible to experience initial brake drag at 70 psi
with a brake at maximum adjustment. The spring
chamber pressure at which drag begins to occur is a
function of the strength of the spring in the brake
chambers and the level of brake adjustment. More air
pressure is required to hold off the parking brake when
the spring in the parking brake chamber is larger. It
is possible to rate the holding power of a spring brake
chamber over a wide range. A brake chamber with a
"high force" spring for better holding power in park
may exhibit brake drag at a higher air pressure.
Conversely, a chamber with a low force spring may not
exhibit initial drag until chamber pressure drops to 50
psi or less.
However, in spite of these variations, testing con-
ducted by NHTSA indicated that 70 psi is a reasona-
ble level. Therefore, NHTSA has adopted the proposed
requirement.
Effective Date
NHTSA proposed to make the amendment effective
one year after publication of a final rule in the Federal
Register. The agency also proposed to permit optional
compliance effective 30 days after publication. NHTSA
received no comments opposed to the proposed dates
for mandatory and optional compliance.
The agency believes that one year is sufficient time
for manufacturers to redesign their vehicles to meet
the requirements. Because it would facilitate the earlier
redesign of some vehicles, the agency finds that good
PART 571; S121-PRE 209
cause exists for permitting optional compliance thirty
days after publication of the final rule. Thus, NHTSA
has decided to adopt the effective dates as proposed.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571
is amended as follows:
1. Section 571.121 is amended by adding S5. 1.1.1 to
read as follows:
S5.1.1.1 Air compressor cut-in pressure. Effective
October 8, 1992, or at the manufacturer's option ef-
fective November 7, 1991, pressure shall be greater
than 85 p.s.i.
2. S5.2.1.1 is removed and S5.2.1.2 through S5.2.1.5
are redesignated as S5.2.1.1 through S5.2.1.4 respec-
tively.
3. Newly redesignated S5.2.1.1 is revised to read as
follows:
S5.2.1 .1 For vehicles manufactured before October
8, 1992, total service reservoir volume shall be at least
eight times the combined volume of all service brake
chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or
diaphragms. For vehicles manufactured on or after
October 8, 1992, or at the manufacturer's option for
vehicles manufactured on or after November 7, 1991,
the total volume of each service reservoir shall be at
least eight times the combined volume of all service
brake chambers serviced by that reservoir at the max-
imum travel of the pistons or diaphragms of those serv-
ice brake chambers. However, the reservoirs on a
heavy hauler trailer and on the trailer portion of an
auto transporter need not meet the requirements speci-
fied in S5.2.1.1.
4. S5.2.1.5 is added to read as follows:
S5.2.1.5 For vehicles manufactured before October
8, 1992, a reservoir shall be provided that is capable,
when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's
parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by
a loss of air pressure in the service brake system. This
requirement need not be met if the vehicle meets the
applicable requirements specified in S5. 1.1.1. the
second sentence of S5.2.1.1, and S5.8.1 through S5.8.4,
notwithstanding the effective date of those
requirements.
5. Figure 1 is revised to read as follows:
PART 571; S121-PRE 210
6. S5.8 is redesignated S5.8.1 and is revised to read
as follows:
55.8.1 Emergency braking capability. Each trail-
er other than a trailer converter dolly shall have a
parking brake system that conforms to S5.6 and that
applies with the force specified in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 when
the air pressure in the supply line is at atmospheric
pressure. A trailer converter dolly shall have, at the
manufacturer's option—
(a) A parking brake system that conforms to S5.6
and that applies with the force specified in S5.6.1 or
S5.6.2 when the air pressure in the supply line is at
atmospheric pressure, or
(b) An emergency system that automatically applies
the service brakes when the service reservoir is at any
pressure above 20 lb/in2 and the supply line is at
atmospheric pressure.
However, any agricultural commodity trailer, heavy
hauler trailer, or pulpwood trailer shall meet the re-
quirements of S5.8.1 or, at the option of the manufac-
turer, the requirements of -a4-393.43 of this title.
7. S5.8 is added to read as follows:
S5.8 Trailer Pneumatic System Failure Perfor-
mance. Each trailer shall meet the requirements of
S5.8.1 through S5.8.3.
8. S5.8.2 through S5.8.3 are added to read as
follows:
55.8.2 Supply Line Pressure Retention. Effective
October 8, 1992, or at the manufacturer's option
effective November 7, 1991, any single leakage type
failure in the service brake system (except for a failiu-e
of the supply line, a valve directly connected to the sup-
ply line or a component of a brake chamber housing)
shall not result in the pressure in the supply line fall-
ing below 70 p.s.i., measured at the forward trailer sup-
ply coupling. A trailer shall meet the above supply line
pressure retention requirement with its brake system
connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with
the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pres-
surized to 100 p.s.i., and the regulator of the trailer
test rig set at 100 p.s.i.
S5.8.3 Automatic Application of Parking Brakes.
Effective October 8, 1992, or at the manufacturer's op-
tion effective November 7, 1991, with an initial reser-
voir system pressure of 100 p.s.i. and initial supply line
pressure of 100 p.s.i., and if designed to tow a vehicle
equipped with air brakes, with a 50 cubic inch test
reservoir connected to the rear supply line coupling,
and with any subsequent single leakage type failure in
any other brake system, of a part designed to contain
compressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of a
component of a brake chamber housing but including
failure of any diaphragm of a brake chamber which is
common to the parking brake system and any other
brake system), whenever the air pressure in the sup-
ply line is 70 p.s.i. or higher, the parking brakes shall
not provide any brake retardation as a result of com-
plete or partial automatic apphcation of the parking
brakes.
T-.aed on October 2, 1991.
56 F.R. 50666
October 8, 1991
PART 571; S121-PRE 211-212
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 121
Air Brake Systems— Trucks, Buses and Trailers
(Docket Nos. 70-16, 70-17; Notice No. 2)
51 . Scope. This standard establishes perform-
ance and equipment requirements for braking
systems on vehicles equipped with air brake
systems.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to insure safe braking performance under normal
and emergency conditions.
53. Application. This standard applies to
trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake
systems. However, it does not apply to:
[(a) Any trailer that has a width of more than
102.36 inches with extendable equipment in the fully
retracted position and is equipped with two short
track axles in a line across the width of the trailer.
(b) Any vehicle equipped with an axle that has a
GAWR of 29,000 pounds or more;
(c) Any truck or bus that has a speed attainable
in 2 miles of not more than 33 mph;
(d) Any truck that has a speed attainable in 2
miles of not more than 45 mph, an unloaded vehicle
weight that is not less than 95 percent of its
GVWR, and no capacity to carry occupants other
than the driver and operating crew;
(e) Any trailer that has a GVWR of more than
120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that
described in the definition of Heavy hauler trailer
set forth in S4;
(f) Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle
weight which is not less than 95 percent of its
GVWR; and
(g) Any load divider dolly.
Notwithstanding any language to the contrary,
sections S5.3.1, S5.3.1.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.2.1, S5.3.2.2,
S5.7.1, S5.7.3(a) and S5.7.3(b) of this standard are
not applicable to trucks and trailers, and section
S5.3.1 of this standard is not applicable to buses.
(53 F.R. 30680— August 15, 1988. Effective:
September 14, 1988)1
S4. Definitions.
Agricultural commodity trailer means a trailer
that is designed to transport bulk agricultural com-
modities in off-road harvesting sites and to a pro-
cessing plant or storage location, as evidenced by
skeletal construction that accommodates harvest
containers, a maximum length of 28 feet, and an
arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs
that minimizes damage in field operations.
Air brake system means a system that uses air as
a medium for transmitting pressure or force from
the driver control to the service brake, but does not
include a system that uses compressed air or
vacuum only to assist the driver in applying
muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical com-
ponents.
Antilock system means a portion of a service
brake system that automatically controls the
degree of rotational wheel slip at one or more road
wheels of the vehicle during braking.
Auto transporter means a truck and a trailer
designed for use in combination to transport motor
vehicles, in that the towing vehicle is designed to
carry cargo at a location other than the fifth wheel
and to load this cargo only by means of the towed
vehicle.
Heavy hauler trailer means a trailer with one or
more of the following characteristics:
(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to
separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or
(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose
primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than
40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condi-
tion, except that it may include sides that are
designed to be easily removable and a permanent
"front-end structure" as that term is used in
§ 393.106 of this title.
(Rev. 8/15/88)
PART 571; S 121-1
Initial brake temperature means the average
temperature of the service brakes on the hottest
axle of the vehicle 0.2 miles before any brake
application.
Load divider dolly means a trailer composed of a
trailer chassis and one or more axles, with no solid
bed, body, or container attached, and which is
designed exclusively to support a portion of the
load on a trailer or truck excluded from all the
requirements of this standard.
Pulpwood trailer means a trailer that is designed
exclusively for harvesting logs or pulpwood and
constructed with a skeletal frame with no means
for attachment of a solid bed, body, or container,
and with an arrangement of air control lines and
reservoirs designed to minimize damage in off-
roads operations.
Skid number means the frictional resistance of a
pavement measured in accordance with American
Society for Testing and Materials Method
"E-274-70 (as revised July 1974)" at 40 mph,
omitting water delivery as specified in paragraphs
S7.1 and 7.2 of that method.
Straddle trailer means a trailer that is designed
to transport bulk agricultural commodities from the
harvesting location as evidenced by a framework
that is driven over the csrgo and lifting arms that
suspend the cargo for transit.
Speed attainable in two miles means the speed at-
tainable by accelerating at maximum rate from a
standing start for two miles on a level surface.
S5. Requirements. Each vehicle shall meet the
following requirements under the conditions
specified in S6.
S5.1 Required equipment— trucks and buses.
Each truck and bus shall have the following equip-
ment:
S5.1.1 Air Compressor. An air compressor of
sufficient capacity to increase air pressure in the
supply and service reservoirs from 85 pounds per
square inch (psi) to 100 (psi) when the engine is
operating at the vehicle manufacturer's maximum
recommended rpm within a time, in seconds, deter-
mined by the quotient
actual reservoir capacity x 25
required reservoir capacity
[5.1.1.1 Air compressor cut-in pressure. Effec-
tive October 8, 1992, or at the manufacturer's op-
tion effective November 7, 1991, the air com-
pressor governor cut-in pressure shall be greater
than 85 p.s.i. (56 F.R. 50666— October 8, 1991. Effec-
tive: October 8, 1992. Optional compliance Novem-
ber 7, 1991)1
55.1.2 Reservoirs. One or more service reser-
voir systems, from which air is delivered to the
brake chambers, and either an automatic conden-
sate drain valve for each service reservoir or a sup-
ply reservoir between the service reservoir system
and the source of air pressure.
55.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service
reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least
twelve times the combined volume of all service
brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons
or diaphragms. However, the reservoirs on the
truck portion of an auto transporter need not meet
this requirement
55.1.2.2 Each reservoir shall be capable of
withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of
five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500
p.s.i., whichever is greater for 10 minutes.
55.1.2.3 Each service reservoir system shall be
protected against loss of air pressure due to failure
or leakage in the system between the service reser-
voir and the source of air pressure, by check valves
or equivalent devices whose proper functioning can
be checked without disconnecting any air line or
fitting.
55.1.2.4 Each reservoir shall have condensate
drain valve that can be manually operated.
55.1.3 Towing vehicle protection system. If the
vehicle is intended to tow another vehicle equipped
with air brakes, a system to protect the air
pressure in the towing vehicle from the effects of a
loss of air pressure in the towed vehicle.
55.1.4 Pressure gauge. A pressure gauge in
each service brake system, readily visible to a per-
son seated in the normal driving position, that in-
dicates the service reservoir system air pressure.
The accuracy of the gauge shall be within plus or
minus 7 percent of the compressor cut-out
pressure.
55.1.5 Warning signal. A signal, other than a
pressure gauge, that gives a continuous warning to
a person in the normal driving position when the
ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the air
pressure in the service reservoir system is below
60 psi. The signal shall be either visible within the
driver's forward field of view, or both audible and
visible.
55.1.6 Antilock warning signal. A signal on
each vehicle equipped with an antilock system that
gives a continuous warning to a person in the nor-
mal driving position when the ignition is in the
"on" or "run" position in the event of a total elec-
trical failure of the antilock system. The signal
shall be either visible within the driver's forward
(Rev. 10/8/91)
PART 571; S 121-2
^ field of view or both audible, for a duration of at
' least 10 seconds, and continuously visible. The
signal shall operate in the specified manner each
time the ignition is returned to the "on" or "run"
position.
55.1.7 Service brake stop lamp switch. A
switch that lights the stop lamps when the service
brake control is statically depressed to a point that
produces a pressure of 6 psi or less in the service
brake chambers.
55.1.8 Brake distribution. Each vehicle shall be
equipped with a service brake system acting on all
wheels.
S5.2 Required equipment— trailers. Each trailer
shall have the following equipment:
S5.2.1 Reservoirs. One or more reservoirs to
which the air is delivered from the towing vehicle.
[S5.2.1.1 For vehicles manufactured before Oc-
tober 8, 1992, total service reservoir volume shall be
at least eight times the combined volume of all serv-
ice brake chambers at maximum travel of the pis-
tons or diaphragms. For vehicles manufactured on
or after October 8, 1992, or at the manufacturer's
option for vehicles manufactured on or after
November 7, 1991, the total volume of each service
i reservoir shall be at least eight times the combined
" volume of all service brake chambers serviced by
that reservoir at the maximum travel of the pistons
or diaphragms of those service brake chambers.
However, the reservoirs on a heavy hauler trailer
and on the trailer portion of an auto transporter
need not meet the requirements specified in
S5.2.1.1. (56 F.R. 50666— October 8. 1991. Effective:
October 8, 1992. Optional compliance November 7,
1991)1
S5.2.1.C21 Each reservoir shall be capable of
withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of
500 p.s.i. for 10 minutes.
S5.2.1.I3] Each reservoir shall have a condensate
drain valve that can be manually operated.
S5.2.1.I4] Each service reservoir shall be pro-
tected against loss of air pressure due to failure or
leakage in the system between the service reser-
voir and its source of air pressure by check valves
or equivalent devices.
[S5.2.1.5 For vehicles manufactured before Oc-
tober 8, 1992, a reservoir shall be provided that is
capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing
the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that
is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service
,, brake system. This requirement need not be met if
') the vehicle meets the applicable requirements spec-
ified in S5. 1.1.1, the second sentence of S5.2.1.1,
and S5.8.1 through S5.8.4, notwithstanding the ef-
fective date of those requirements. (56 F.R.
50666— October 8, 1991. Effective: October 8, 1992.
Optional compliance November 7, 1991)1
S5.2.2 Brake distribution. Each trailer shall be
equipped with a service brake system acting on all
wheels.
S5.3 Service brakes— road tests. The service
brake system on each truck and bus shall, under the
conditions of S6.1, meet the requirements of S5.3.1,
S5.3.3, and S5.3.4 when tested without adjustments
other than those specified in this standard. The
service brake system on each trailer shall, under
the conditions of S6.1, meet the requirements of
S5.3.2, S5.3.3, and S5.3.4 when tested without
adjustments other than those specified in this
standard. However, a heavy hauler trailer and the
truck and trailer portions of an auto transporter
need not meet the requirements of S5.3.
S5.3.1 Stopping distance— trucks and buses.
When stopped six times for each combination of
weight, speed, and road condition specified in
S5.3.1.1, in the sequence specified in Table I, the
vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the
distance specified in Table II, measured from the
point at '■ '.lich movement of the service brake con-
trol b> „ms, without any part of the vehicle leaving
the roadway and without lockup of any wheel at
speeds above 10 mph except for:
(a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an
antilock system, or
(b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other
than the two rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable
axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable
axis.
Table I.— Stopping Sequence
1. Burnish
2. Control trailer service brake stops at 60 mph
(for truck-tractors tested with a control trailer
in accordance with S6. 1.10.6).
3. Control trailer emergency brake stops at 60
mph (for truck-tractors tested with a control
trailer in accordance with S6.1.10.7).
4. Stops with vehicle at gross vehicle weight
rating:
(a) 20 mph service brake stops on skid number
of 81.
(b) 60 mph service brake stops on skid number
of 81.
(c) 20 mph service brake stops on skid number
of 30.
(d) 20 mph emergency brake stops on skid
number of 81.
(Rev. 10/8/91)
PART 571; S 121-3
(e) 60 mph emergency brake stops on skid
number of 81.
5. Parking brake test with vehicle loaded to
gross vehicle weight rating.
6. Stops with vehicle at unloaded weight plus
500 lb.:
(a) 20 mph service brake stops on skid number
of 81.
(b) 60 mph service brake stops on skid number
range 81.
(c) 20 mph service brake stops on skid number
range 30.
(d) 20 mph emergency brake stops on skid
number range 81.
(e) 60 mph emergency brake stops on skid
number range 81.
7. Parking brake test with vehicle at unloaded
weight plus 500 lb.
S5.3.1.1 Stop the vehicle from 60 mph and 20
mph on a surface with a skid number of 81, and
from 20 mph on a wet surface with a skid number
of 30, with the vehicle (a) loaded to its gross vehicle
weight rating, and (b) at its unloaded vehicle
weight plus 500 pounds (including driver and in-
strumentation). If the speed attainable in 2 miles is
less than 60 mph, the vehicle shall stop from a
speed in Table II that is 4 to 8 mph less than the
speed attainable in 2 miles.
Table II.— Stopping Distance in Feet
Service Brake
Emergency
Brake
stopping
distance
stopping distance
Vehicle
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3 Column 4
speed
Skid
Skid No. 30
Skid No.
81
in
Skid No. 81
miles
per hour
20
35
60
83
85
25
53
123
131
30
75
170
186
35
101
225
250
40
131
288
325
45
165
358
409
50
203
435
504
55
246
520
608
60
293
613
720
S5.3.2. Stopping capability— trailers. When
tested at each combination of weight, speed, and
road condition specified in S5. 3.2.1, in the se-
quence specified in Table I, with air pressure of 90
psi in the control line and service reservoir system
and with no application of the towing vehicle's
brakes, a trailer shall stop without any part of the
trailer leaving the roadway and without lockup of
any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for
(a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an
antilock system; or
(b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles
other than the two rearmost nonliftable;
nonsteerable axles on a trailer with more
than two nonsteerable axles; or
(c) In the case of an axle system having more
than four wheels, lockup of any wheel other
than the outermost wheel at each end of the
axle system.
55.3.2.1 Stop the vehicle from 60 mph and 20
mph on a surface with skid number of 81, and from
20 mph on a wet surface with a skid number 30,
with the vehicle (a) loaded to its gross vehicle
weight rating, and (b) at its unloaded vehicle
weight plus 500 pounds (including instrumenta-
tion).
55.3.2.2 When stopped in accordance with
S5.3.2, a pulpwood trailer need not meet the re-
quirements relating to wheel lockup, but must
nevertheless meet the requirements of staying
within the 12-foot lane.
S5.3.3 Brake actuation time. Each service
brake system shall meet the requirements of
S5.3.3.1, except that, at the option of the manufac-
turer, vehicles manufactured before May 3, 1991
may meet the requirements specified in either
S5.3.3.2 or S5.3.3.3
S5.3.3.1 (a) With an initial service reservoir
system air pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in
each brake chamber shall, when measured from
the first movement of the service brake control,
reach 60 p.s.i. in not more than 0.45 seconds in the
case of trucks and buses, 0.50 seconds in the case
of trailers, other than trailer converter dollies,
designed to tow another vehicle equipped with air
brakes, 0.55 seconds in the case of trailer con-
verter dollies, and 0.60 seconds in the case of
trailers other than trailers designed to tow another
vehicle equipped with air brakes shall meet the
above actuation time requirement with a 50-cubic-
inch test reservoir connected to the control line
output coupling. A trailer, including a trailer con-
verter dolly, shall meet the above actuation time
PART 571; S 121-4
^ requirement with its control line input coupling
W connected to the test rig shown in Figure 1.
(b) For a vehicle that is manufactured after May
3, 1991 and is designed to tow another vehicle
equipped with air brakes, the pressure in the
50-cubic-inch test reservoir referred to in
S5. 3. 3. 1(a) shall, when measured from the first
movement of the service brake control, reach 60
p.s.i. not later than the time the fastest brake
chamber on the vehicle reaches 60 p.s.i. or, at the
option of the manufacturer, in not more than 0.35
seconds in the case of trucks and buses, 0.55
seconds in the case of trailer converter dollies, and
0.50 seconds in the case of trailers other than
trailer converter dollies.
55.3.3.2 Optional requirement for vehicles manu-
factured before May 3, 1991 . With an initial service
reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the air
pressure in each brake chamber shall, when meas-
ured from the first movement of the service brake
control, reach 60 p.s.i. in not more than 0.45
seconds in the case of trucks and buses, and 0.60
seconds in the case of trailers. A vehicle designed to
tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes shall
^ meet the above actuation time requirement with a
i) 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the control
line output coupling. A trailer, including a traOer
converter dolly, shall meet the above actuation time
requirement with its control line input coupling con-
nected to the test rig shown in Figure 1.
55.3.3.3 Optional requirement for vehicles
manufactured before May 3, 1991. With an initial
service reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the
air pressure in each brake chamber shall, when
measured from the first movement of the service
brake control, reach 60 p.s.i. in not more than 0.45
seconds in the case of trucks and buses, 0.35
seconds in the case of trailer converter dollies, and
0.30 seconds in the case of trailers other than trailer
converter dollies. A vehicle designed to tow another
vehicle equipped with air brakes shall meet the
above actuation time requirement with a 50-cubic-
inch test reservoir connected to the control line out-
put coupling. A trailer, including a trailer converter
dolly, shall meet the above actuation time require-
ment with its control line input coupling connected
to the test rig shown in Figure 1(a).
S5.3.4 Brake release time. Each service brake
system shall meet the requirements of S5.3.4.1,
except that, at the option of the manufacturer,
vehicles manufactured before May 3, 1991 may
meet the requirements specified in either S5.3.4.2
or S5.3.4.3.
S5.3.4.1 (a) With an initial service brake
chamber air pressure of 95 p.s.i., the air pressure
in each brake chamber shall, when measured from
the first movement of the service brake control,
fall to 5 p.s.i. in not more than 0.55 seconds in the
case of trucks and buses, and fall to 5 p.s.i. in not
more than 0.55 seconds in the case of trucks and
buses, 1.00 seconds in the case of trailers, other
than trailer converter dollies, designed to tow
another vehicle equipped with air brakes, 1.10
seconds in the case of the trailer converter dollies,
and 1.20 seconds in the case of trailers other the
trailers designed to tow another vehicle equipped
with air brakes. A vehicle designed to tow another
vehicle equipped with air brakes shall be capable of
meeting the above release time requirement with a
50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the con-
trol line coupling. A trailer, including a trailer con
verter dolly, shall meet the above release time
requirements with its brake system connected to
the test rig shown in Figure 1.
(b) For vehicles designed to tow another vehicle
equipped with air brakes, effective May 3, 1991,
the pressure in the 50-cubic-inch test reservoir
referred to in S5. 3. 4. 1(a) shall, when measured
from the first movement of the service brake con-
trol, fall to 5 p.s.i. in not more than 0.75 seconds in
the case of trucks and buses, 1.10 seconds in the
case of trailer converter dollies, and 1.00 seconds
in the case of trailers other than trailer converter
dollies.
[S5.3.4.2 Optional requirement for vehicles
manufactured before May 3, 1991. With an initial
service brake chamber air pressure of 95 p.s.i., the
air pressure in each brake chamber shall, when
measured from the first movement of the service
brake control, fall to 5 p.s.i. in not more than 0.55
seconds in the case of trucks and buses, and 1.20
seconds in the case of trailers. A vehicle designed
to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes
shall meet the above release time requirement with
a 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the con-
trol line output coupling. A trailer, including a
traOer converter dolly, shall meet the above release
time requirement with its control line input coupling
connected to the test rig shown in Figure 1.
[S5.3.4.3 Optional requirement for vehicles
manufactured before May 3, 1991. With an initial
service brake chamber air pressure of 95 p.s.i., the
(Rev. 5/3/89)
PART 571; S 121-5
air pressure in eacii brake chamber shall, when
measured from the first movement of the service
brake control, fall to 5 p.s.i. in not more than 0.55
seconds in the case of trucks and buses, and 0.65
seconds in the case of trailers. A vehicle designed
to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes
shall meet the above release time requirement with
a 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the con-
trol line output coupling. A trailer, including a
trailer converter dolly, shall meet the above
release time requirement with its control line input
coupling connected to the test rig show in Figure
1(a). 54 F.R. 18890— May 3, 1989. Effective: June 2,
1989.)]
S5.4 Service brake system— dynamometer tests.
When tested without prior road testing, under the
conditions of S6.2, each brake assembly shall meet
the requirements of S5.4.1, S5.4.2, and S5.4.3
when tested in sequence and without adjustments
other than those specified in the standard. For pur-
poses of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an
average deceleration rate is the change in velocity
divided by the deceleration time measured from
the onset of deceleration. However, a brake
assembly on a heavy hauler trailer manufactured
before July 1, 1979, need not meet the require-
ments of this section.
S5.4.1 Bralce retardation force. Thi sum of the
retardation forces exerted by the brakes on each
vehicle designed to be towed by another vehicle
equipped with air brakes shall be such that the
quotient
sum of the brake retardation forces
sum of GAWRs
relative to brake chamber air pressure shall have
values not less than those shown in Column 1 of
Table III. Retardation force shall be determined as
follows:
Table III.— Brake Retardation Force
BRAKE RETARDATION
BRAKE CHAMBER
FORCE
GAWR
PRESSURE, p.s.i.
Column 1
Column 2
0.05
20
0.12
30
0.18
40
0.25
50
0.31
60
0.37
70
0.41
80
S5.4.1 .1 After burnishing the brake pursuant to
S6.2.6, retain the brake assembly on the inertia
dynamometer. With an initial brake temperature
between 125°F and 200°F, conduct a stop from 50
mph, maintaining brake chamber air pressure at a
constant 20 psi. Measure the average torque ex-
erted by the brake from the time the specified air
pressure is reached until the brake stops and divide
by the static loaded tire radius specified by the tire
manufacturer to determine the retardation force.
Repeat the procedure six times, increasing the
brake chamber air pressure by 10. After each stop,
rotate the brake drum or disc until the tempera-
ture of the brake falls to between 125°F. and
200°F.
55.4.2 Brake power. When mounted on an in-
ertia dynamometer, each brake shall be capable of
making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average
rate of 9 fpsps from 50 mph to 15 mph, at equal in-
tervals of 72 seconds, and shall be capable of
declerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average
deceleration rate of 14 fpsps one minute after the
10th acceleration. The series of decelerations shall
be conducted as follows:
55.4.2.1 With an initial brake temperature be-
tween 150°F and 200°F for the first brake applica-
tion, and the drum or disc rotating at a speed
equivalent to 50 mph, apply the brake and deceler-
ate at an average deceleration rate of 9 fpsps to 15
mph. Upon reaching 15 mph, accelerate to 50 mph
and apply the brake for a second time 72 seconds
after the start of the first application. Repeat the
cycle until 10 decelerations have been made. The
service line air pressure shall not exceed 100 psi
during any deceleration.
55.4.2.2 One minute after the end of the last
deceleration required by S5.4.2.1 and with the
drum or disc rotating at a speed of 20 mph,
decelerate to a stop at an average deceleration rate
of 14 fpsps.
55.4.3 Brake recovery. Starting 2 minutes
after completing the tests required by S5.4.2, the
brake of a vehicle other than either front axle
brake of a truck-tractor shall be capable of making
20 consecutive stops from 30 mph at an average
deceleration rate of 12 ft/s/s, at equal intervals of 1
minute measured from the start of each brake ap-
plication. The service line air pressure needed to
attain a rate of 12 ft/s/s shall be not more than 85
lb./in.2, and not less than 20 Ib./in.^ for a brake not
subject to the control of an antilock system, or
12 lb./in.2 for a brake subject to the control of an
antilock system.
PART 571; S121-
55.5 Antilock system.
f S5.5.1 Antilock system failure. On a vehicle
equipped with an antilock system, electrical failure
of any part of the antilock system shall not in-
crease the actuation and release times of the serv-
ice brakes.
S5.5.2 Antilock system power— trailers. On a
trailer equipped v\^ith an antilock system that re-
quires electrical power for operation, the power
shall be obtained from the stop lamp circuit. Addi-
tional circuits may also be used to obtain redun-
dant sources of electrical power.
55.6 Parking brake system. Each vehicle
other than a trailer converter dolly shall have a
parking brake system that under the conditions of
S6.1 meets the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, at
the manufacturer's option, and the requirements
of S5.6.3 and S5.6.4. IS5.6.5, and S5.6.6.
However, the trailer portion of any agricultural
commodity trailer, heavy-hauler trailer, or
pulpwood trailer shall meet the requirements of
this section or, at the option of the manufacturer,
the requirements of § 393.43 of this title. (56 F.R.
26927— June 12. 1991. Effective: December 9, 1991)1
I S5.6.1 Static retardation force. With all other
' brakes rendered inoperative, during a static
drawbar pull in a forward or rearward direction,
the static retardation force produced by the ap-
plication of the parking brakes shall be:
(a) In the case of a vehicle other than a truck-
tractor that is equipped with more than two axles,
such that the quotient
static retardation force
GAWR
is not less than 0.28 for any axle other than a
steerable front axle; and
(b) In the case of a truck-tractor that is equipped
with more than two axles, such that the quotient
static retardation force
GVWR
is not less than 0.14.
S5.6.2 Grade holding. With all parking brakes
applied, the vehicle shall remain stationary facing
uphill and facing downhill on a smooth, dry
Portland cement concrete roadway with a 20%
grade, both (a) when loaded to its gross vehicle
weight rating, and (b) at its unloaded vehicle
weight plus 500 pounds (including driver and
instrumentation).
S5.6.3 Application and holding. Each parking
brake system shall meet the requirements of
S5.6.3.1 through S5.6.3.4, except that, at the op-
tion of the manufacturer, [the parking brake
system in each vehicle manufactured before
December 9, 1991, may meet either those re-
quirements specified in S5.6.3.5. (56 F.R. 26927—
June 12, 1991. Effective December 9, 1991)1
55.6.3.1 The parking brake system shall be
capable of achieving the minimum performance
specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single
leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of
a part designed to contain compressed air or brake
fluid (except failure of a component of a brake
chamber housing, [but including failure of any
brake chamber diaphragm that is part of any other
brake system including a diaphragm which is com-
mon to the parking brake system and any other
brake system), when the pressures in the vehicle's
parking brake chambers are at the levels deter-
mined in S5.6.3.4. (56 F.R. 26927-June 12, 1991.
Effective: December 9, 1991).l
55.6.3.2 [A mechanical means shall be provided
that, after a parking brake application is made
with the pressures in the vehicle's parking brake
chambers at the levels determined in S5.6.3.4, and
all air and fluid pressures in the vehicle's braking
systems are then bled down to zero, and without
using electrical power, holds the parking brake ap-
plication with sufficient parking retardation force
to meet the minimum performance specified in
S5.6.3.1 and in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. (56 F.R.
26927— June 12, 1991. Effective: December 9, 1991).l
55.6.3.3 [For trucks and buses, with an initial
reservoir system pressure of 100 psi and, if designed
to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, with a 50
cubic inch test reservoir connected to the supply
line coupling, no later than three seconds from the
time of actuation of the parking brake control, the
mechanical means referred to in S5.6.3.2 shall be
actuated. For trailers, with the supply line initially
pressurized to 100 psi using the supply line portion
of the trailer test rig (Figure 1) and, if designed to
tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, with a 50
cubic inch test reservoir connected to the rear sup-
ply line coupling, no later than three seconds from
the time venting to the atmosphere of the front
supply line coupling is initiated, the mechanical
(Rev. 6/12/91)
PART 571; S121-7
means referred to in S5.6.3.2 shall be actuated.
This requirement shall be met for trucks, buses and
trailers both with and without any single leakage-
type failure, in any other brake system, of a part
designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid
(excluding failure of a component of a brake
chamber housing but including failure of any brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake
system including a diaphragm which is common to
the parking brake system and any other brake
system). (56 F.R. 26927— June 12, 1991. Effective:
December 9, 1991).!
S5.6.3.4 [The parking brake chamber pressures
for S5.6.3.1 and S5.6.3.2 are determined as
follows. For trucks and buses, with an initial reser-
voir system pressure of 100 psi and, if designed to
tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes, with a 50
cubic inch test reservoir connected to the supply
line coupling, any single leakage type failure, in
any other brake system, of a part designed to con-
tain compressed air of brake fluid (excluding
failure of a component of a brake chamber housing
but including failure of any brake chamber dia-
phragm that is part of any other brake system in-
cluding a diaphragm which is common to the park-
ing brake system and any other brake system), is
introduced in the brake system. The parking brake
control is actuated and the pressures in the
vehicle's parking brake chambers are measured
three seconds after that actuation is initiated. For
trailers, with the supply line initially pressurized to
100 psi using the supply line portion of the trailer
test rig (Figure 1) and, if designed to tow a vehicle
equipped with air brakes, with a 50 cubic inch test
reservoir connected to the rear supply line coupl-
ing, any single leakage type failure, in any other
brake system, of a part designed to contain com-
pressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of a
component of a brake chamber housing but in-
cluding failure of any brake chamber diaphragm
that is part of any other brake system including a
diaphragm which is common to the parking brake
system and any other brake system), is introduced
in the brake system. The front supply line coupling
is vented to the atmosphere and the pressures in
the vehicle's parking brake chambers are
measured three seconds after that venting is in-
itiated. (56 F.R. 26927— June 12, 1991. Effective:
December 9, 1991).)
S5.6.3.5. Optional requirement for vehicles
manufactured before [December 9, 1991]. The
parking brake system shall be capable of achieving
the minimum performance specified either in
S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. with any single leakage-type
failure, in any other brake system, of a part de- ^
signed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (ex-
cept failure of a component of a brake chamber
housing (but including failure of any brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake
system including a diaphragm which is common to
the parking brake system and any other brake
system).] Once applied, the parking brakes shall be
held in the applied position solely by mechanical
means. (56 F.R. 26927— June 12, 1991. Effective:
December 9, 1991).
S5.6.4 Parking brake control— trucks and buses.
The parking brake control shall be separate from
the service brake control. It shall be operable by a
person seated in the normal driving position. The
control shall be identified in a manner that
specifies the method of control operation. The
parking brake control shall control the parking
brakes of the vehicle and of any air braked vehicle
that it is designed to tow.
[S5.6.5 Release performance. Effective
December 9, 1991, each parking brake system shall
meet the requirements specified in S5. 6.5.1
through S5.6.5.4.
[S5.6.5.1 For trucks and buses, with initial con- T
ditions as specified in S5.6.5.1, at all times after an
application actuation of the parking brake control,
and with any subsequent level of pressure, or com-
bination of levels of pressure, in the reservoirs of
any of the vehicle's brake systems, no reduction in
parking brake retardation force shall result from a
release actuation of the parking brake control
unless the parking brakes are capable, after such
release, of being reapplied at a level meeting the
minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or
S5.6.2. This requirement shall be met both with
and without the engine on, and with and without
any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake
system, of a part designed to contain compressed
air or brake fluid (excluding failure of a component
of a brake chamber housing but including failure of
any brake chamber diaphragm that is part of any
other brake system including a diaphragm which is
common to the parking brake system and any
other brake system).
[S5.6.5.2 The initial conditions for S5.6.5.1 are
as follows. The reservoir system pressure is 100
psi. If the vehicle is designed to tow a vehicle equip-
ped with air brakes, a 50 cubic inch test reservoir is i«|
connected to the supply line coupling. v
(Rev. 6/12/91)
PART 571; S 121-8
[S5.6.5.3 For trailers, with initial conditions as
I specified in S5.6.5.4, at all times after actuation of
the parking brakes by venting the front supply line
coupling to the atmosphere, and with any subse-
quent level of pressure, or combination of levels of
pressure, in the reservors of any of the vehicle's
brake systems, the parking brakes shall not be
releasable by repressurizing the supply line using
the supply line portion of the trailer test rig
(Figure 1) to any pressure above 70 psi, unless the
parking brakes are capable, after such release, of
reapplication by subsequent venting of the front
supply line coupling to the atmosphere, at a level
meeting the minimum performance specified
either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. This requirement shall
be met both with and without any single leakage-
type failure, in any other brake system, of a part
designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid
(excluding failure of a component of a brake
chamber housing but including failure of any brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake
system including a diaphragm which is common to
the parking brake system and any other brake
systemi).
[S5.6.5.4 The initial conditions for S5.6.5.3 are
as follows. The reservoir system and supply line
I are pressurized to 100 psi, using the supply line
portion of the trailer test rig (Figure 1). If the vehi-
cle is designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air
brakes, a 50 cubic inch test reservoir is connected
to the rear supply line coupling. (56 F.R.
26927— June 12, 1991. Effective: December 9, 1991).!
[S5.6.6 Accumulation of actuation energy. Ef-
fective December 9, 1991, each parking brake
system shall meet the requirements specified in
S5.6.6.1 through S5.6.6.6.
[S5.6.6.1 For trucks and buses, with initial con-
ditions as specified in S5.6.6.2, the parking brake
system shall be capable of meeting the minimum
performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2,
with any single leakage-type failure, in any other
brake system, of a part designed to contain com-
pressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of a
component of a brake chamber housing but in-
cluding failure of any brake chamber diaphragm
that is part of any other brake system including a
diaphragm which is common to the parking brake
system and any other brake system), at the conclu-
sion of the test sequence specified in S5.6.6.3.
j\ [S5.6.6.2 The initial conditions for S5.6.6.1 are
' as follows. The engine is on. The reservoir system
pressure is 100 psi. If the vehicle is designed to tow
a vehicle equipped with air brakes, a 50 cubic inch
test reservoir is connected to the supply line
coupling.
[S5.6.6.3 The test sequence for S5.6.6.1 is as
follows. The engine is turned off. Any single
leakage type failure, in any other brake system, of
a part designed to contain compressed air or brake
fluid (excluding failure of a component of a brake
chamber housing but including failure of any brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake
system including a diaphragm which is common to
the parking brake system and any other brake
system), is then introduced in the brake system.
An application actuation of the parking brake
control is then made. Thirty seconds after such ac-
tuation, a release actuation of the parking brake
control is made. Thirty seconds after the release
actuation, a final application actuation of the park-
ing brake control is made.
[S5.6.6.4 For trailers, with initial conditions as
specified in S5.6.6.5, the parking brake system
shall be capable of meeting the minimum perfor-
mance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, with any
single leakage-type failure, in any other brake
system, of a part designed to contain compressed
air or brake fluid (excluding failure of any brake
chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake
system including a diaphragm which is common to
the parking brake system and any other brake
system), at the conclusion of the test sequence
specified in S5.6.6.6.
[S5.6.6.5 The initial conditions for S5.6.6.4 are
as follows. The reservoir system and supply line
are pressurized to 100 psi, using the supply line
portion of the trailer test rig (Figure 1). If the vehi-
cle is designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air
brakes, a 50 cubic inch test reservoir is connected
to the rear supply line coupling.
[S5.6.6.6 The test sequence for S5.6.6.4 is as
follows. Any single leakage type failure, in any
other brake system, of a part designed to contain
compressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of
a component of a brake chamber housing but in-
cluding failure of any brake chamber diaphragm
that is part of any other brake system including a
diaphragm which is common to the parking system
and any other brake system), is introduced in the
brake system. The front supply line coupling is
vented to the atmosphere. Thirty seconds after the
initiation of such venting, the supply line is
repressurized with the trailer test rig (Figure 1).
PART 571; S121-
Thirty seconds after the initiation of such
repressurizing of the supply line, the front supply
line is vented to the atmosphere. This procedure is
conducted either by connection and disconnection
of the supply line coupling or by use of a valve in-
stalled in the supply line portion of the trailer test
rig near the supply line coupling. (56 F.R.
26927— June 12, 1991. Effective: December 9, 1991).!
S5.7 Emergency brake system— trucks and
buses. Each vehicle shall be equipped with an
emergency brake system which, under the condi-
tions of S6.1, conforms to the requirements of
S5.7.1 through S5.7.3. However, the truck portion
of an auto transporter need not meet the road test
requirements of S5.7.1 and S5.7.3.
55.7.1 Emergency brake system performance.
When stopped six times for each combination of
weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1 on a road
surface with a skid number of 81, with a single
failure in the service brake system of a part
designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid
(except failure of a common valve, manifold brake
fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehi-
cle shall stop at least once in not more than the
distance specified in Column 3 of Table II,
measured from the point at which movement of the
service brake control begins, without any part of
the vehicle leaving the roadway, except that a
truck-tractor tested at its unloaded vehicle weight
plus 500 pounds shall stop at least once in not more
than the distance specified in Column 4 of Table II.
55.7.2 Emergency brake system operation. The
emergency brake system shall be applied and
released, and be capable of modulation, by means
of the service brake control.
55.7.3 Towing vehicle emergency brake require-
ments. In addition to meeting the other re-
quirements of S5.7, a vehicle designed to tow
another vehicle equipped with air brakes shall—
(a) In the case of a truck-tractor in the unloaded
condition and a single unit truck which is capable
of towing an air-brake equipped vehicle and is
loaded to gross vehicle weight rating, be capable of
meeting the requirements of S5.7.1 by operation of
the service brake control only, with the trailer air
supply line and air control line from the towing
vehicle vented to the atmosphere in accordance
with S6.1.14;
(b) In the case of a truck-tractor loaded to gross
vehicle weight rating, be capable of meeting S5.7.1
by operation of the service brake control only, with ^
the air control line from the towing vehicle vented R
to the atmosphere in accordance with S6.1.14; and
(c) Be capable of modulating the air in the supply
or control line to the trailer by means of the service
brake control with a single failure in the towing
vehicle service brake system as specified in S 5. 7.1.
[S5.8 Trailer pneumatic system failure perfor-
mance. Each trailer shall meet the requirements
of S5.8.1 through S5.8.3. (56 F.R. 50666— October 8,
1991. Effective: October 8, 1992. Optional compliance
November 7, 1991)1
[S5.8.1 Emergency braking capability. Each
trailer other than a trailer converter dolly shall
have a parking brake system that conforms to S5.6
and that applies with the force specified in S5.6.1
or S5.6.2 when the air pressure in the supply line is
at atmospheric pressure. A trailer converter dolly
shall have, at the manufacturer's option—
(a) A parking brake system that conforms to
S5.6 and that applies with the force specified in
S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 when the air pressure in the sup-
ply line is at atmospheric pressure, or
(b) An emergency system that automatically ap-
plies the service brakes when the service reservoir ^
is at any pressure above 20 Ib/in^ and the supply \
line is at atmospheric pressure. However, any
agricultural commodity trailer, heavy hauler
trailer, or pulpwood trailer shall meet the re-
quirements of S5.8.1 or, at the option of the
manufacturer, the requirements of §393.43 of this
title. (56 F.R. 50666— October 8, 1991. Effective: Oc-
tober 8, 1992. Optional compliance November 7, 1991)1
[S5.8.2 Supply line pressure retention. Effec-
tive October 8, 1992, or at the manufacturer's op-
tion effective November 7, 1991, any single
leakage type failure in the service brake system
(except for a failure of the supply line, a valve
directly connected to the supply line or a compo-
nent of a brake chamber housing) shall not result in
the pressure in the supply line falling below 70
p.s.i., measured at the forward trailer supply
coupling. A trailer shall meet the above supply line
pressure retention requirement with its brake
system connected to the trailer test rig shown in
Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test
rig initially pressurized to 100 p.s.i., and the
regulator of the trailer test rig set at 100 p.s.i.
[S5.8.3 Automatic application of parking
brakes. Effective October 8, 1992, or at the f
manufacturer's option effective November 7, 1991,
(Rev. 10/8/91)
PART 571; S121-10
with an initial reservoir system pressure of 100
p.s.i. and initial supply line pressure of 100 p.s.i.,
and if designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air
brakes, with a 50 cubic inch test reservoir con-
nected to the rear supply line coupling, and with
any subsequent single leakage type failure in any
other brake system, of a part designed to contain
compressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of
a component of a brake chamber housing but in-
cluding failure of any diaphragm of a brake
chamber which is common to the parking brake
system and any other brake system), the parking
brakes shall not provide any brake retardation as a
result of complete or partial automatic application
of the parking brakes. (56 F.R. 50666— October 8,
1991. Effective: October 8, 1992. Optional compliance
November 7, 1991)1
S6. Conditions. The requirements of S5 shall
be met by a vehicle when it is tested according to
the conditions set forth below, without replacing
any brake system part or making any adjustments
to the brake system except as specified. Unless
otherwise specified, where a range of conditions is
specified, the vehicle must be capable of meeting
the requirements at all points within the range. On
vehicles equipped with automatic brake adjusters,
the automatic brake adjusters must remain ac-
tivated at all times. Compliance of vehicles manu-
factured in two or more stages may, at the option
of the final-stage manufacturer, be demonstrated
to comply with this standard by adherence to the
instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufac-
turer provided with the vehicle in accordance with
§ 568.4(a)(7Xii) and § 568.5 of title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
S6.1 Road test condition.
56.1.1 Except as otherwise specified, the vehi-
cle is loaded to its gross vehicle weight rating,
distributed proportionally to its gross axle weight
ratings. During the burnish procedure specified in
S6.1.8, truck tractors shall be loaded to their
GVWR, by coupling them to an unbraked flatbed
semitrailer, which semitrailer shall be loaded so
that the weight of the tractor-trailer combination
equals the GVMR of the truck tractor. The load on
the unbraked flatbed semitrailer shall be located so
that truck tractor's wheels do not lock during
burnish.
56.1.2 The inflation pressure is as specified by
the vehicle manufacturer for the gross vehicle
weight rating.
56.1 .3 Unless otherwise specified, the transmis-
sion selector control is in neutral or the clutch is
disengaged during all decelerations and during
static parking brake tests.
56.1.4 All vehicle openings (doors, windows,
hood, trunk, cargo doors, etc.) are in a closed position
except as required for instrumentation purposes.
56.1.5 The ambient temperature is between
32°F and 100°F.
56.1.6 The wind velocity is zero.
56.1.7 Unless otherwise specified, stopping
tests are conducted on a 12-foot wide, level,
straight roadway having a skid number of 81, in-
clusive, chosen at the option of the manufacturer.
The vehicle is aligned in the center of the roadway
at the beginning of the stop.
56.1 .8 The brakes are burnished before testing
in accordance with S6. 1.8.1. However, for vehicles
with parking brake systems not utilizing the
service brake friction elements, burnish the fric-
tion elements of such systems prior to the parking
brake test according to the manufacturer's
recommendations.
S6.1.8.1 I Vehicles manufactured before Sep-
tember 1, 1993 may be burnished according to the
procedures set forth in S6. 1.8. 1(a) or S6. 1.8. 1(b) of
this section, at the manufacturers option. Vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 shall
be burnished according to the procedures set forth
in S6. 1.8. 1(b) of this section.
(a) With the transmission in the highest gear ap-
propriate for the series given in Table IV, make
500 brake applications at a deceleration rate of 10
fsps, or at the vehicle's maximum deceleration
rate, if not less than 10 fsps, in the sequence
specified. Except where an adjustment is specified,
after each brake application accelerate to the next
speed specified and maintain that speed until mak-
ing the next brake application at a point 1 mile
from the initial point of the previous brake applica-
Table IV
Snubs
Snub conditions
(highest speed
indicated)
175
25
25
25
250
40 to 20 mph.
45 to 20 mph.
50 to 20 mph.
55 to 20 mph.
60 to 20 mph.
(Rev. 6/12/91)
PART 571; S121-11
tion. If a vehicle cannot attain any speed specified
in 1 mile, continue to accelerate until the specified
speed is reached or until the vehicle has traveled
1.5 miles from the initial point of the previous
brake application, whichever occurs first. If during
any of the brake applications specified in Table IV
the hottest brake reaches 550° F, make the re-
mainder of the 500 brake applications from that
snub condition, except that a higher or lower snub
condition shall be used as necessary to maintain an
after-stop temperature of 500° F + 50° F.
However, if at a snub condition of 40 to 20 mph,
the temperature of the hottest brake exceeds
550° F, make the remainder of the 500 brake ap-
plications from that snub condition, without regard
to brake temperature. The brakes shall be adjusted
three times during the burnish procedure, after
125, 250, and 375 snubs and after completing this
burnish, with each adjustment made in accordance
with the manufacturer's recommendations. Any
automatic pressure limiting valve is in use to limit
pressure as designed, except that any automatic
front axle pressure limiting valve is bypassed if the
temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle ex-
ceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a
front axle by more than 125° F. A bypassed valve
is reconnected if the temperature of the hottest
brake on a front axle exceeds the temperature of
the hottest brake on a rear axle by 100° F or more.
(b) With the transmission in the highest gear ap-
propriate for a speed of 40 mph, make 500 snubs
between 40 mph and 20 mph at a deceleration rate
of 10 fsps, or at the vehicle's maximum decelara-
tion rate if less than 10 fsps. Except where an ad-
justment is specified, after each brake application
accelerate to 40 mph and maintain that speed until
making the next brake application at a point 1 mile
from the initial point of the previous brake applica-
tion. If the vehicle cannot attain a speed of 40 mph
in 1 mile, continued to acclerate until the vehicle
reaches 40 mph or until the vehicle has traveled 1.5
miles from the initial point of the previous brake
application, whichever occurs first. Any automatic
pressure limiting valve is in use to limit pressure as
designed. The brakes shall be adjusted three times
during the burnish procedure, in accordance with
the manufacturer's recommendations, after 125,
250, and 375 snubs, and shall be adjusted after
burnish in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations.] (53 F.R. 8190— March 14, 1988.
Effective: September 11. 1988).
S6.1.9 Static parking brake tests for a semi-
trailer are conducted with the front end supported
by an unbraked dolly. The weight of the dolly is in-
cluded as part of the trailer load.
S6.1.10 In a test other than a static parking
brake test, a truck-tractor is tested at its gross
vehicle weight rating by coupling it to a flatbed
semitrailer (hereafter, control trailer) as specified
in S6.1.10.1 to S6.1.10.7.
56.1.10.1 The control trailer conforms to this
standard.
56.1 .1 0.2 The center of gravity of the loaded con-
trol trailer is on the trailer's longitudinal centerline
at a height of 66 + 3 in. above the ground.
56.1.10.3 For a truck-tractor with a rear axle
gross axle weight rating of 26,000 lb or less, the
control trailer has a single axle with a gross axle
weight rating of 18,000 lb and a length, measured
from the transverse centerline of the axle to the
centerline of the kingpin, of 258 ±6 in.
56.1.10.4 For a truck-tractor with a total rear
axle gross axle weight rating of more than 26,000
lb the control trailer has a tandem axle with a com-
bined gross axle weight rating of 32,000 lb and a
length, measured from the transverse centerHne
between the axles to the centerline of the kingpin,
of 390 ±6 in.
56.1 .1 0.5 The control trailer is loaded so that its
axle is loaded to its gross axle weight rating and
the tractor is loaded to its gross vehicle weight
rating, with the tractor's fifth wheel adjusted so
that the load on each axle measured at the tire-
ground interface is most nearly proportional to the
axles' respective gross axle weight ratings.
56.1.10.6 Test equipment specification. The
control trailer's service brakes are capable of stop-
ping the combination from the maximum, speed at
which the tractor is tested, under the conditions of
S6.1, without assistance from the tractor brakes,
in the distance found by multiplying the value 68,
90, 115, 143, 174, 208, or 245 (corresponding to a
speed of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 mph as ap-
propriate for the truck-tractor tested) by the ratio:
weight on all axles of combination
weight on trailer axles
with the tractor's fifth wheel adjusted as specified
in S6.1.10.5, the trailer service reservoirs
pressurized to 100 Ib./in.^, and the trailer loaded so
that its axle is at gross axle weight rating and its
kingpin is at empty vehicle weight. The stopping
PART 571; S121-12
distance is measured from the point at which
movement of the valve controlling the trailer
brakes begins. The service brake chambers on the
trailer reach 60 Ib./in.^ in not less than 0.20 second
and not more than 0.30 second, measured from the
instant at which movement of the valve controlling
the trailer brakes begins.
S6.1.10.7 Test equipment specification. The
control trailer's emergency brakes are capable of
stopping the combination under the conditions of
S6.1 from the maximum speed at which the tractor
is tested, without assistance from the tractor's
brakes, in the distance found by multiplying the
emergency brake stopping distance in column 3 of
Table II by the ratio:
weight on all axles of combination
weight on trailer axles
with the combination loaded in accordance with
S6.1.10.5. Stopping distance is measured from the
point at which movement of the valve controlling
the trailer brakes begins. In the case of control
trailers that utilize parking brakes for emergency
stopping capability, the pressure in the trailer's
spring parking brake chambers falls from 95
lb. /in. 2 to 5 lb./in.2 in not less than 0.50 second and
not more than 0.60 second, measured from the in-
stant at which movement of the valve controlling
the trailer's spring parking brakes begins.
56.1.11 Special drive conditions. A vehicle
equipped with an interlocking axle system of a
front wheel drive system that is engaged and
disengaged by the driver is tested with the system
disengaged.
56.1 .1 2 Lit table axles. A vehicle with a lif table
axle is tested at gross vehicle weight rating with
the liftable axle down and at unloaded vehicle
weight with the liftable axle up.
56.1.13 [Trailer test rig. The trailer test rig
shown in Figure 1 is calibrated in accordance with
the calibration curves shown in Figure 3. For the
requirements of S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.4.1, the
pressure in the trailer test rig reservoir is initially
set at 100 p.s.i. for actuation tests and 95 p.s.i. for
release tests.
(b) The trailer test rig shown in Figure 1(a) is
capable of increasing the pressure in a 50 cubic
inch reservoir from atmospheric to 60 Ib/in^ in 0.06
second, measured from the first movement of the
service brake control to apply service brake
pressure and of releasing pressure in such a reser-
voir from 95 to 5 Ib/in^ in 0.22 second measured
from the first movement of the service brake con-
trol to release service brake pressure. (54 F.R.
18890— May 3, 1989. Effective: June 2, 1989)1
S6.1.14 In testing the emergency braking
system of towing vehicles under S5.7.3(a) and
S5.7.3(b) the hose(s) is vented to the atmosphere at
any time not less than 1 second and not more than
1 minute before the emergency stop begins, while
the vehicle is moving at the speed from which the
stop is to be made and any manual control for the
towing vehicle protection system is in the position
to supply air and brake control signals to the vehi-
cle being towed. No brake application is made from
the time the line(s) is vented until the emergency
stop begins and no manual operation of the park-
ing brake system or towing vehicle protection
system occurs from the time the line(s) is vented
until the stop is completed.
S6.2 Dynamometer test conditions.
56.2.1 The dynamometer inertia for each wheel
is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle
loaded to its gross axle weight rating. For a vehicle
having additional gross axle weight ratings
specified for operation at reduced speeds, the
GAWR used is that specified for a speed of 50 mph,
or, at the option of the manufacturer, any speed
greater than 50 mph.
56.2.2 The ambient temperature is between
75°F and 100°F.
56.2.3 Air at ambient temperature is directed
uniformly and continuously over the brake drum or
disc at a velocity of 2,200 feet per minute.
56.2.4 The temperature of each brake is
measured by a single plus type thermocouple in-
stalled in the center of the lining surface of the
most heavily loaded shoe or pad as shown in Figure
2. The thermocouple is outside any center groove.
56.2.5 The rate of brake drum or disc rotation
on a dynamometer corresponding to the rate of
rotation on a vehicle at a given speed is calculated
by assuming a tire radius equal to the static loaded
radius specified by the tire manufacturer.
56.2.6 Brakes are burnished before testing as
follows: Place the brake assembly on an inertia
dynamometer and adjust the brake as recom-
mended by the brake manufacturer. Make 200
stops from 40 mph at a deceleration of 10 fpsps,
with an initial brake temperature on each stop of
PART 571; S 121-13
not less than 315°F and not more than 385°F. S6.2.7 The brake temperature is increased to a
Make 200 additional stops from 40 mph at a specified level by conducting one or more stops
deceleration of 10 fpsps with an initial brake from 40 mph at a deceleration of 10 fpsps. The
temperature on each stop of not less than 450°F brake temperature is decreased to a specified level
and not more than 550°F. The brakes shall be by rotating the drum or disc at a constant 30 mph.
adjusted three times during the burnish procedure,
after 100, 200, and 300 stops, and at the conclusion
of the burnishing, in accordance with the manu- 36 f.R 3817
facturer's recommendations. February 27 1971
PART 571; S121-14
DEPTH BEFORE GRIND
I
0010II02I RECESS
DIMENSIONS ARE IN (mm)
Figure 1.— Trailer Test Rig.
(56 F.R. 50666— October 8, 1991.
TRACTOR PROTECTION VALVE
(OPTIONAL)
SUPPLY COUPLING -^
CONTROL COUPLING ^^
SERVICE BRAKE PEDAL
Figure 1a.— Trailer Test Rig
PART 571; S121-Art Page 1
r
3/8" I.D. Line
30'-3/8" I.D. Line
Straight or Coiled)
Control
Valve
QRV
Control Line
Glad Hand
Shop Air
30'-3/8" I.D. Line (Straight or Coiled)
|_Su
pply Line
Glad Hand
SV -Shut-off Valve
R - Regulator (set at 100 psi for service brake actuation tests;
95 psi for service brake release tests;
100 psi for parking brake tests in S5.6.3.3, S5.6.3.4, S5.6.5.4, and S5.6.6.5,
and for the supply line pressure retention test in S5.8.2; and any
pressure above 70 psi for parking brake test in S5.6.5.3.)
CV -Check Valve
MV - Metering Valve (Variable or Fixed)
QRV - Quick Release Valve
Figure 2.— Thermocouple Installation
(Pressure vs Time lor
- Initial Valve Movement & Release 50 in' Test Reservoir)
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time (Sec.) Irom Initial Valve Movement
Figure 3.— Calibration Curves
PART 571; S121-Art Page 2
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 123
Motorcycle Controls and Displays
(Docket No. 91-13; Notice 2)
RIN: 2127-AD85
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls
and displays, by removing restrictions on the orienta-
tion of the axis of rotation for manual fuel shutoff
controls on motorcycles. This final rule makes no
change in the existing requirement that the controls
operate by being rotated. It also makes no change in
the existing requirement that the control positions
("On," "Off," and if provided, "Reserve") be separ-
ated by 90 degrees of rotation. However, it does
eliminate other restrictions on the location of those
control positions. This final rule will provide manufac-
turers with additional design flexibility without affect-
ing safety.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123,
Motorcycle Controls, and Displays, (49 CFR § 571.123)
specifies requirements for the location, operation, iden-
tification, and illumination of motorcycle controls and
displays. Currently, Table 1 of Standard No. 123 re-
quires that manual fuel shutoff controls on motorcycles
rotate around a transverse or longitudinal axis and that
the modes of operation ("Off", "On" and, if provided,
"Reserve On") be identified at appropriate points
around that axis. This current specification is a result
of a final rule published on September 7, 1984 (49 FR
35380). In the September 1984 final rule, the agency
determined that motor vehicle safety was best served
by retaining the standardization of control position
relationships while amending the standard to allow
manufacturers to place the control so that it may oper-
ate in its required positions around either a longitudinal
or transverse axis. The control was previously required
to operate around a transverse axis.
By a petition dated November 14, 1990, the Motor-
cycle Industry Council (MIC) petitioned the agency to
amend Standard No. 123 to permit the manual fuel
shutoff controls on motorcycles to rotate around any
axis, provided that the relationship of the control
positions (i.e "On", "Off", and, if provided, "Reserve")
to each other remained the same as required by the
current standard. MIC stated as its rationale for the
petition that the mechanical components on many of
today's motorcycles are enclosed in streamlined bodies.
MIC asserted that since few parts of streamlined bodies
follow the longitudinal or transverse axes of the motor-
cycle, "special provisions" must be made in the design
of the body in order to comply with Standard No. 123.
MIC stated that this restricts manufacturer's freedom
of design. On March 1, 1991, NHTSA granted MIC's
petition.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and Public Comment
Following its grant of MIC's petition, NHTSA
published, on June 27, 1991 (56 FR 29451), a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to
amend Standard No. 123 to remove restrictions on the
orientation of the axis of rotation for manual fuel
shutoff controls on motorcycles. In the NPRM, NHTSA
tentatively concluded that there is no safety-related
justification for restricting the design of manual fuel
shutoff controls to a longitudinal or transverse axis.
Among other factors, the agency noted that although
the axis orientation is standardized, there is no loca-
tion requirement for the control itself, nor a require-
ment that the control even be provided.
However, the agency also tentatively concluded that
the requirements for standardization of the relation-
ship between the control positions ("On", "Off," and
if provided, "Reserve") are a necessary crash
avoidance requirement. This is because standardization
of control positions enables the operator to use the con-
trol without taking his or her eyes off the road. The
agency therefore proposed to retain the requirement
that the control operate by rotating. NHTSA further
proposed to retain the requirement that the "Off" and
"On" positions be separated by 90 degrees of rotation
and that the "Off" and, if provided, "Reserve"
positions be separated by 90 degrees of rotation. The
proposed sequence of controls was "On"— "Off"—
"Reserve".
PART 571; S123-PRE 15
NHTSA did not propose to adopt MIC's suggestion
for the sequence of the control positions because the
workabiHty of MIC's sequence was premised on the
existence of a "Reserve" position. The agency stated
that although it was not aware of a shutoff control that
lacks a "Reserve" position. Standard No. 123 does not
require a "Reserve" position. In response to the
NPRM, the agency received one comment, from Ameri-
can Honda Motor Company, Inc. Honda wrote in favor
of the added design flexibility that the NPRM would
provide and agreed with NHTSA's conclusion that
there is no safety need to require that manual fuel
shutoff controls operate around a longitudinal or
transverse axis.
Final Rule
Since the public comment from Honda favored the
changes proposed in the notice of proposed rulemak-
ing and the agency received no other comment.
NHTSA adopts as final the tentative conclusions and
proposed regulatory text set forth in the NPRM.
Effective Date
Because this final rule relieves restrictions and is
optional in nature, the agency has concluded that this
rule should become effective sooner than 180 days after
the issuance of this rule. Therefore, the agency finds
for good cause that this rule should become effective
30 days after it is published.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.123
is amended as follows:
The operation requirements for the manual fuel
shutoff control (item 7) in column 3 of table 1 of Stan-
dard No. 123 is revised to read as follows:
Rotate to operate "On" and "Off" are separated by
90 degrees of rotation "Off and "Reserve" (if pro-
vided) are separated by 90 degrees of rotation. Se-
quence order: "On"— "Off— "Reserve".
Issued on November 26, 1991.
56 F.R. 61386
December 3, 1991
PART 571; S123-PRE 16
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 123
Motorcycle Controls and Displays
(Docket No. 70-26; Notice 3)
51. Scope. This standard specifies require-
ments for the location, operation, identification,
and illumination of motorcycle controls and
displays, and requirements for motorcycle stands
and footrests.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
minimize accidents caused by operator error in
responding to the motoring environment, by stand-
ardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays.
53. Application. This standard applies to motor-
cycles equipped with handlebars, except for motor-
cycles that are designed, and sold exclusively, for
use by law enforcement agencies.
54. Definitions. "Clockwise" and "counter-
clockwise" mean opposing directions of rotation
around following axes, as applicable:
(a) The operational axis of the ignition control,
viewed from in front of the ignition lock opening;
(b) The axis of the right handlebar on which the
twist-grip throttle is located, viewed from the end
of that handlebar;
(c) The axis perpendicular to the center of the
speedometer, viewed from the operator's normal
eye position.
55. Requirements.
55.1 Each motorcycle shall be equipped with a
supplemental engine stop control, located and
operable as specified in Table I.
55.2 Each motorcycle to which this standard ap-
plies shall meet the following requirements:
S5.2.1 Control location and operation. If any
item of equipment listed in Table 1, Column 1, is
provided, the control for such item shall be located
as specified in Column 2, and operable as specified
in Column 3. Each control located on a right
handlebar shall be operable by the operator's right
hand throughout its full range without removal of
the operator's right hand from the throttle. Each
control located on a left handlebar shall be
operable by the operator's left hand throughout its
full range without removal of the operator's left
hand from the handgrip. If a motorcycle with an
automatic clutch is equipped with a supplemental
rear brake control, the control shall be located on
the left handlebar. If a motorcycle is equipped with
self-proportioning or anti-lock braking devices
utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes,
the control shall be located and operable in the
same manner as a rear brake control.
55.2.2 Display illumination and operation. If an
item of equipment listed in Table 2, Column 1, is
provided, the display for such item shall be visible
to a seated operator under daylight conditions,
shall illuminate as specified in column 2, and shall
operate as specified in Column 3.
85.2.3 Control and display Identification. (If an
item of equipment listed in Table 3, Column 1, is
provided, the item and its operational function
shall be identified by;
(a) A symbol substantially in the form shown in
Column 3; or
(b) Wording shown in both Column 2 and Col-
umn 4; or
(c) A symbol substantially in the form shown in
Column 3 and wording shown in both Column 2
and Column 4.
The abbreviations "M.P.H.", "r/min", "Hi",
"Lo", "L", "R", and "Res" appearing in Column
2 and Column 4 may be spelled in full. Symbols and
words may be provided for equipment items where
none are shown in Column 2, Column 3, and Col-
umn 4. Any identification provided shall be placed
on or adjacent to the control or display position,
and shall appear upright to the operator. (49 F.R.
35503-September 10, 1984. Effective: October 11,
1984)1
Control positions shall be identified as speci-
fied in Column 3, to signify the function per-
(Rev. 9/10/84)
PART 571; S 123-1
formed at that setting. The abbreviations used in
Columns 2 and 3 are minimum requirements and
appropriate words may be spelled in full. Iden-
tification shall appear to the operator in an upright
position.
Functional identification need not be provided
for equipment items with no entry in Column 3.
55.2.4 Stands. A stand shall fold rearward and
upward if it contacts the ground when the motor-
cycle is moving forward.
55.2.5 Footrests. Footrests shall be provided for
each designated seating position. Each footrest for
a passenger other than an operator shall fold rear-
ward and upward when not in use.
Table 1.— Motorcycle Control Location and Operation Requirements
Equipment Control
Location
Operation
Column 1
1. Manual clutch or integrated
clutch and gear change
Column 2
Left handlebar
Column 3
Squeeze to disengage clutch.
2. Foot operated gear change
Left foot control
An upward motion of the operator's toe shift transmission
toward lower numerical gear ratios (commonly referred to
as "higher gears"), and a downward motion toward higher
numerical gear ratios (commonly referred to as "lower
gears"). If three or more gears are provided it shall not be
possible to shift from the highest gear directly to the lowest
gear, or vice versa.
3. Headlamp upper-lower beam
Left handlebar
Up for upper beam, down for lower beam. If combined with
the headlight on-off switch, means shall be provided to pre-
vent inadvertent actuation of the "off" function.
4. Horn
Left handlebar
Push to activate.
5. Turn signal lamps
Handlebars
6. Ignition
"Off— counterclockwise from other positions.
7. Manual fuel shutoff control
IRotate to operate. "On" and "OFF" are separated by 90
degrees of rotation. "Off and "Reserve" (if provided) are
separated by 90 degrees of rotation. Sequence order: "On"-
"Off'-'Reserve" (56 F.R. 61386— December 3, 1991.
Effective: January 2, 1992)1
8. Twist-grip throttle
Right handlebar
Self-closing to idle in a clockwise direction after release
of hand.
9. Supplemental engine stop
Right handlebar
10. Front wheel brake
Right handlebar
Squeeze to engage.
11. Rear wheel brakes
Right foot control '
Left handlebar per-
missible for motor-
driven cycles.
Depress to engage.
' See S5.2.1 for requirements for vehicles with
rear brake control.
single control for front and rear brakes, and with a supplemental
Table 2.— Motorcycle Display Illumination and Operation Requirements
Display
Illumination
Operation
Column 1
1. Speedometer
Column 2
Yes
Column 3
The display is illuminated whenever the headlamp is
activated.
2. Neutral indication
Green display lamp
The display lamp illuminates when the gear selector
is in neutral position.
PART 571; S 123-2
Table 3
Motorcycle Control and Display Identification Requirements
No.
Column 1
Column 2
IColumn 3
Column 4
Equipment
Control and Display
Identification
Word
Control and Display
Identification
Symbol
Identification at
Appropriate Position
of Control or Display
1
Ignition
Ignition
Off
2
Supplemental Engine
Stop (Off, Run)
Engine Stop
^ o
Off, Run
3
Manual Choke lor
Mixture Enrichment!
Choke |or
EnrichenerJ
vl
4
Electric Starter
0)
Start^
5
Headlamp Upper-Lower
Beam Control
Lights
WD to
Hi, Lo
6
Horn
Horn
kr
7
Turn Signal
Turn
<>^:
L, R
8
Speedometer
M.P.H.
M.P.H.^
9
Neutral Indicator
Neutral
N
10
Upper Beam Indicator
High Beam
ID'
n
Tachometer
R.P.M.
12
Fuel Tank Shutoff Valve
I(Off, On, Res.)l
Fuel
•UU^
Off, On, Res.J
^ Required only if electric starter is separate from ignition switch.
2 Framed areas may be filled.
3 The pair of arrows is a single symbol. When the Indicators for left and right turn
two arrows will be considered separate symbols and may be spaced accordingly.
'♦ M.P.H. increase in a clockwise direction. Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor
graduations at the 5 mph intervals. (49 F.R. 35380— September 7, 1984. Effective: October 8, 1984)
independently however, the
(Rev. 9/7/84)
PART 571; S 123-3-4
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205
Glazing Materials
(Docket No. 89-18; Notice 6)
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: In March and April 1991, this agency
published two separate final rules amending the safety
standard on glazing materials. This notice corrects
errors that occurred because the March 1991 amend-
ments took effect after the April 1991 amendments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments in this correc-
tion notice are effective September 27, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 27, 1991 (56 FR 12669), and April 23, 1991
(56 FR 18526), the agency published Federal Register
notices amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stan-
dard No. 205 Glazing materials (^9 CFR § 571.205).
The March 1991 rule permits specimen clamping for
Test 26, one of the tests applicable to glass-plastic
glazing. The April 1991 rule creates three new items
of glass-plastic glazing. The amendments were written
with the expectation that the March 1991 notice would
be published sufficiently before the April notice so that
the amendments in the former notice would take effect
first. The fact that the March 1991 amendments did
not become effective until September 23, 1991, while
the April 1991 amendments had an effective date of
May 23, 1991, has caused problems in the addition and
removal of provisions from Standard No. 205.
Specifically, the juxtaposition in the sequence of the
effective dates of the two notices resulted, effective
September 23, 1991, in S5. 1.2.4 Item 14 Glass Plas-
tics making reference to sections of Standard No. 205
that were removed or superseded effective May 23,
1991, and placing the specimen clamping test proce-
dure for Test 26 in an inappropriate section. This notice
corrects S5. 1.2.4 so that it now refers to the correct
sections of Standard No. 205 and moves the clamping
procedure from S5. 1.2.4 to S5.1.2.9. This notice also
corrects errors in the list of applicable tests for
S. 5. 1.2. 5 Item 15A Annealed Glass-Plastic for Use in
All Positions in a Vehicle Except the Windshield.
This amendment imposes no duties or responsibili-
ties on any party, nor does it make any substantive
changes to Standard No. 205. This amendment simply
ensures that Standard No. 205 reads as the agency
intended.
follows:
Glass-plastic glaz-
(1) S5. 1.2.4 is revised to read
55.1.2.4 Item U-Glass-Plastic
ing materials that comply with the labeling require-
ments of S5.1.2.10 and Tests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 26 and 28, as those tests are modi-
fied in S5. 1.2.9 Test Procedures for Glass-Plastics, may
be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, except that it may
not be used in convertibles, in vehicles that have no roof
or in vehicles whose roofs are completely removable.
(2) S5. 1.2.5 is correctly revised to read as follows:
55.1.2.5 Item 15A— Annealed Glass-Plastic for Use
in All Positions in a Vehicle Exceot the Windshield.
Glass-plastic glazing materials that comply with Test
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, and 28, as those
tests are modified in S5.1.2.9 Test Procedures for
Glass-Plastics, may be used anywhere in a motor vehi-
cle except the vnndshield, and may not be used in
covertibles, in vehicles that have no roof or in vehicles
whose roofs are completely removable.
(3) Paragraph (e) is added after paragraph (d) of
S5. 1.2.9 as follows:
(e) The glass-plastic glazing specimen tested in ac-
cordance with Test No. 26 shall be clamped in the test
fixture in Figure 1 of this standard in the manner
shown in that figure. The clamping gasket shall be
made of rubber 3 millimeters (mm) thick of hardness
50 IRHD (International Rubber Hardness Degrees),
plus or minus five degrees. Movement of the test speci-
men, measured after the test, shall not exceed 2 mm
at any point along the inside periphery of the fixture.
Movement of the test specimen beyond the 2 mm limit
shall be considered an incomplete test, not a test
failure. A specimen used in such an incomplete test
shall not be retested.
Issued on: September 23, 1991.
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
56 F.R. 49148
September 27, 1991
PART 571; S205-PRE 51-52
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205
Glazing Materials
51. Scope. This standard specifies re-
quirements for glazing materials for use in motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing sur-
faces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency
in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to
minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown
through the vehicle windows in collisions.
53. Application. This standard applies to
glazing materials for use in passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses,
motorcycles, slide-in campers, and pickup covers
designed to carry persons while in motion.
54. Definitions.
Bullet resistant shield means a shield or barrier
that is installed completely inside a motor vehicle
behind and separate from glazing materials that in-
dependently comply with the requirements of this
standard.
Camper means a structure designed to be
mounted in the cargo area of a truck, or attached
to an incomplete vehicle with motive power, for the
purpose of providing shelter for persons.
Motorhome means a multipurpose passenger
vehicle that provides living accommodations for
persons.
Pickup cover means a camper having a roof and
sides but without a floor, designed to be mounted
on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by
the user.
Slide-in camper means a camper having a roof,
floor, and sides, designed to be mounted on and
removable from the cargo area of a truck by the
user.
Glass-plastic glazing material means a laminate
of one or more layers of glass and one or more
layers of plastic in which a plastic surface of
the glazing faces inward when the glazing is in-
stalled in a vehicle.
S5. Requirements.
S5.1 Materials.
S5.1.1 Glazing materials for use in motor
vehicles, except as otherwise provided in this
standard, shall conform to the American National
Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing
Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on
Land Highways," Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977,
as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980
(hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26"). However,
Item IIB glazing as specified in that standard may
not be used in motor vehicles at levels requisite for
driving visibility, and Item IIB glazing is not re-
quired to pass Test Nos. 17, 30, and 31.
S5.1.1.1 The chemicals specified for testing
chemical resistance in Tests Nos. 19 and 20 of ANS
Z26 shall be:
(a) One percent solution of nonabrasive soap.
(b) Kerosene.
(c) Undiluted denatured alcohol, Formula SD
No. 30 (1 part 100-percent methyl alcohol in 10
parts 190-proof ethyl alcohol by volume).
(d) [Gasoline, ASTM Reference Fuel C, which is
composed of Isooctane 50 volume percentage and
Toluene 50 volume percentage. Isooctane must
conform to A2.7 in Annex 2 of the Motor Fuels
Section of the 1985 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards. Vol. 05.04 and Toluene must conform
to ASTM specification D362-84, Standard
Specification for Industrial Grade Toluene. ASTM
Reference Fuel C must be used as specified in:
(1) Paragraph A2.3.2 and A2.3.3 of Annex 2 of
Motor Fuels, Section 1 in the 1985 Annual Book of
ASTM Standards;
(2) OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.106-"Han-
dling Storage and Use of Flammable Combustible
(Rev. 4/23/91)
PART 571; S 205-1
Liquids." (56 F.R. 18526— April 23, 1991. Effective:
May 23, 1991)
55.1.1.2 The following locations are added to
the lists specified in ANS Z26 in which item 4, item
5, item 8 and item 9 safety glazing may be used:
(a)-(i) [Reserved]
(j) Windows and doors in motorhomes, except
for the windshield and windows to the immediate
right or left of the driver.
(k) Windows and doors in slide-in campers and
pickup covers.
(1) Windows and doors in buses except for the
windshield, windows to the immediate right or left
of the driver, and rearmost windows if used for
driving visibility.
(m) For Item 5 safety glazing only: Motorcycle
windscreens below the intersection of a horizontal
plane 15 inches vertically above the lowest seating
position.
55.1.1.3 The following locations are added to
the lists specified in ANS Z26 in which item 6 and
item 7 safety glazing may be used:
(a)-(i) [Reserved]
(j) Windows and doors in motorhomes, except
for the windshield, forward-facing windows, and
windows to the immediate right or left of the
driver.
(k) Windows, except forward-facing windows,
and doors in slide-in campers and pickup covers.
(1) For item 7 safety glazing only:
(1) Standee windows in buses.
(2) Interior partitions.
(3) Openings in the roof.
55.1.1.4 The following locations are added to
the lists specified in ANS Z26 in which item 8 and
item 9 safety glazing may be used:
(a)-(e) [Reserved)]
(f) Windows and doors in motorhomes, except
for the windshield and windows to the immediate
right or left of the driver.
(g) Windows and doors in slide-in campers and
pickup covers.
55.1.1.5 The phrase "readily removable" win-
dow as defined in ANS Z26, for the purposes of this
standard, in buses having a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds, shall include pushout windows and
windows mounted in emergency exits that can be
manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle
without the use of tools, regardless of whether
such windows remain hinged at one side to the
vehicle.
55.1.1.6 Multipurpose passenger vehicles. Ex-
cept as otherwise specifically provided by this
standard, glazing for use in multipurpose
passenger vehicles shall conform to the re-
quirements for glazing for use in trucks as
specified in ANS Z26.
55.1.1.7 Test No. 17 is deleted from the list of
tests specified in ANS Z26 for item 5 glazing
material and Test No. 18 is deleted from the lists of
tests specified in ANS Z26 for item 3 and item 9
glazing material.
S5.1.2 In addition to the glazing materials
specified in ANS Z26, materials conforming to
S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2, S5.1.2.3 or S5.1.2.4 maybe used
in the locations of motor vehicles specified in those
sections.
55.1.2.1 Item 11C— Safety Glazing Material for
Use in Bullet Resistant Shields. Bullet resistant
glazing that complies with Test Nos. 2, 17, 19, 20,
21, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32 of ANS Z26 and the
labeling requirements of S5. 1.2.5 may be used only
in bullet resistant shields that can be removed from
the motor vehicle easily for cleaning and mainte-
nance. A bullet resistant shield may be used in
areas requisite for driving visibility only if the com-
bined parallel luminous transmittance with perpen-
dicular incidence through both the shield and the
permanent vehicle glazing is at least 60 percent.
55.1.2.2 Item 12— Rigid plastics. Safety plastics
materials that comply with Test Nos. 10, 13, 16,
19, 20, 21 and 24 of ANS Z26, with the exception of
the test for resistance to undiluted denatured
alcohol Formula SD No. 30, and that comply with
the labeling requirements of S 5. 1.2. 5, may be used
in a motor vehicle only in the following specified
locations at levels not requisite for driving visibil-
ity.
(a) Windows and doors in slide-in campers and
pickup covers.
(b) Motorcycle windscreens below the intersec-
tion of a horizontal plane 15 inches vertically above
the lowest seating position.
(Rev. 4/23/91)
PART 571; S 205-2
(c) Standee windows in buses.
(d) Interior partitions.
(e) Openings in the roof.
(f) Flexible curtains or readily removable win-
dows or in ventilators used in conjunction with
readily removable windows.
(g) Windows and doors in motor homes, except
for the windshield and windows to the immediate
right or left of the driver.
(h) Windows and doors in buses except for the
windshield and window to the immediate right and
left of the driver.
S5.1.2.3 Item 13— Flexible plastics. Safety
plastic materials that comply with Tests Nos. 16,
19, 20, 22, and 23 or 24 of ANS Z26, with the ex-
ception of the test for resistance to undiluted
denatured alcohol Formula SD No. 30, and that
comply with the labeling requirements of S5. 1.2.5
may be used in the following specific locations at
levels not requisite for driving visibility.
(a) Windows, except forward-facing windows,
and doors in slide-in campers and pick-up covers.
(b) Motorcycle windscreens below the intersec-
' tion of a horizontal plane 15 inches vertically above
the lowest seating position.
(c) Standee windows in buses.
(d) Interior partitions.
(e) Openings in the roof.
(f) Flexible curtains or readily removable win-
dows or in ventilators used in conjunction with
readily removable windows.
(g) Windows and doors in motor homes, except
for the windshield, forward-facing windows, and
windows to the immediate right or left of the
driver.
S5.1.2.4. [Item 14— Glass-Plastics. Glass-
plastic glazing materials that comply with the
labeling requirements of S5.1.2.10 and Tests Nos.
1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 26, and 28, as
those tests are modified in S5.1.2.9 Test Pro-
cedures for Glass-Pldstics, may be used anywhere
in a motor vehicle, except that it may not be used in
convertibles, in vehicles that have no roof or in
vehicles whose roofs are completely removable.
S5.1.2.5 Item 15A— Annealed Glass-Plastic For
Use In All Positions In a Vehicle Except The Wind-
I shield. Glass-plastic glazing materials that comply
with Test Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24,
and 28 as those tests are modified in S5. 1.2.9 Test
Procedures for Glass-Plastics, may be used
anywhere in a motor vehicle except the windshield,
and may not be used in convertibles, in vehicles
that have no roof, or in vehicles with roofs that are
not completely removable. (56 F.R. 18526— April 23,
1991. Effective: May 23, 1991)1
55.1.2.6 [Reserved]
55.1.2.7 Item 16A— Annealed Glass-Plastic For
Usi In All Positions In a Vehicle Not Requisite For
Driving Visibility. Glass-plastic glazing materials
that comply with Test Nos. 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 19, 24,
and 28, as those test are modified in S5. 1.2.9 Test
Procedures for Glass-Plastics, may be used in a
motor vehicle in all locations not requisite for driv-
ing visibihty.
55.1.2.8 Item 16B— Tempered Glass-Plastic For
Use In All Positions In A Vehicle Not Requisite For
Driving Visibility. Glass-plastic glazing materials
that comply with Test Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16, 19, 24,
and 28, as those tests are modified in S5. 1.2.9 Test
Procedures for Glass-Plastics, may be used in a
motor vehicle in all locations not requisite for driv-
ing visibility.
55.1.2.9 Test Procedures for Glass-Plastics, (a)
Tests Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 18 shall be con-
ducted on the glass side of the specimen, i.e., the
surface which would face the exterior of the vehi-
cle. Tests Nos. 17, 19, 24, and 26 shall be conducted
on the plastic side of the specimen, i.e., the surface
which would face the interior of the vehicle. Test
No. 15 should be conducted with the glass side of
the glazing facing the illuminated box and the
screen, respectively. For Test No. 19, add the
following to the specified list: an aqueous solution
of isopropanol and glycol ether solvents in concen-
tration no greater than 10% or less than 5% by
weight and ammonium hydroxide no greater than
5% or less than 1% by weight, simulating typical
commercial windshield cleaner.
(b) Glass-plastic specimens shall be exposed to
an ambient air temperature of -40°C (±5°C),
which is equivalent to -40°F (±9°F), for a period
of 6 hours at the commencement of Test No. 28,
rather than at the initial temperature specified in
that test. After testing, the glass-plastic specimens
shall show no evidence of cracking, clouding,
delaminating, or other evidence of deterioration.
(Rev. 4/23(91)
PART 571; S 205-
(c) Glass-plastic specimens tested in accordance
with Test No. 17 shall be carefully rinsed with
distilled water following the abrasion procedure
and wiped dry with lens paper. After this pro-
cedure, the arithmetic mean of the percentage of
light scattered by the three specimens as a result of
abrasion shall not exceed 4.0 percent.
(d) Data obtained from Test No. 1 should be used
when conducting Test No. 2.
1(e) The glass-plastic glazing specimen tested in
accordance with Test No. 26 shall be clamped in
the test fixture in Figure 1 of this standard in the
manner shown in that figure. The clamping gasket
shall be made of rubber 3 millimeters (mm) thick of
hardness 50 IRHD (International Rubber Hard-
ness Degrees), plus or minus five degrees. Move-
ment of the test specimen, measured after the test,
shall not exceed 2 mm at any point along the inside
periphery of the fixture. Movement of the test
specimen beyond the 2 mm limit shall be con-
sidered an incomplete test, not a test failure. A
specimen used in such an incomplete test shall not
be retested. (56 F.R. 49148— September 27. 1991.
Effective: September 27. 1991)1
S5.1.2.10 Cleaning instructions, (a) Each
manufacturer of glazing materials designed to
meet the requirements of S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2,
55.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.7, or S5.1.2.8
shall affix a label, removable by hand without tools,
to each item of such glazing material. The label
shall identify the product involved, specify instruc-
tions and agents for cleaning the material that will
minimize the loss of transparency, and instructions
for removing frost and ice, and, at the option of the
manufacturer, refer owners to the vehicle's
Owner's Manual for more specific cleaning and
other instructions.
(b) Each manufacturer of glazing materials
designed to meet the requirements of paragraphs
55.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.7, or S5.1.2.8 may per-
manently and indelibly mark the lower center of
each item of such glazing material, in letters not
less than''^C inch nor more than V4 high, the follow-
ing words, "GLASS PLASTIC MATERIAL-
SEE OWNER'S MANUAL FOR CARE IN-
STRUCTIONS."
S5.2 Edges. In vehicles except school buses,
shall be treated in accordance with
accordance with SAE Recommended Practice
J673a, "Automotive Glazing," August 1967. In
school buses, exposed edges shall be banded.
S6. Certification and marking.
56.1 Each prime glazing material manufac-
turer, except as specified below, shall mark the
glazing materials it manufacturers in accordance
with section 6 of ANS Z26. The materials specified
in S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2, S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5,
S5.1.2.7, and S5.1.2.8 shall be identified by the
marks "AS IIC", "AS 12", "AS 13", "AS 14",
"AS 15A", "AS 16A", and "AS 16B", respec-
tively. A prime glazing material manufacturer is
one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glaz-
ing material.
56.2 Each prime glazing material manufac-
turer shall certify each piece of glazing material to
which this standard applies that is designed as a
component of any specific motor vehicle or
camper, pursuant to section 114 of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, by
adding to the mark required by S6.1 in letters and
numerals of the size specified in section 6 of ANS
Z26, the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code
mark, which will be assigned by the NHTSA on the
written request of the manufacturer.
56.3 Each prime glazing material manufacturer
shall certify each piece of glazing material to which
this standard applies that is designed to be cut into
components for use in motor vehicles or items of
motor vehicle equipment, pursuant to section 114
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act.
56.4 Each manufacturer or distributor who
cuts a section of glazing material to which this
standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or
camper, shall mark that material in accordance
with section 6 of ANS Z26.
56.5 Each manufacturer or distributor who
cuts a section of glazing material to which this
standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or
camper, shall certify that his product complies with
this standard in accordance with section 114 of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
PART 571; S 205-4
"^
Rubber gasket -
D 290
r
/
/
/
Sheel ol rubber
•^V^
Dimensions in millimeters
I
N'^\\\v\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^\r
D 350 (minimum)
Figure 1— Test Fixture for Clamped Specimens
37 F.R. 12237
June 21, 1972
PART 571; S 205-5-6
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 209
Occupant Crash Protection; Seat Belt Assemblies
(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 72)
RIN: 2127-AE26
ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration;
Final rule.
SUMMARY: NHTSA recently published a final rule to
express more accurately the static testing require-
ments for safety belts that do not apply to automatic
belts or to manual belts that are crash tested. In
response to petitions for reconsideration of that final
rule, this rule clarifies the scope of the labeling require-
ment for crash tested manual belts and modifies that
labeling requirement to make it identical to the label-
ing requirement for safety belts with load limiters.
These amendments will improve the clarity of the label-
ing requirements and avoid needless burdens on
manufacturers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These amendments take effect
September 1, 1992. Safety belts and vehicles manufac-
tured before September 1, 1992 may comply with the
post-September 1, 1992 requirements for belt labeling.
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 djmamic
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 requirements in Standard No. 209 are in-
tended 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 believes 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 ap-
propriate 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 surragates for human occupants. This
belief is based on the fact that the protection provided
by safety belts depends on more than the performance
of the safety belts themselves or of belt components
tested individually. Occupant protection depends on not
only the performance of the safety belts themselves but
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
work-_.g together, instead of evaluating each factor
individually. 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 rigid barrier at a
speed of 30 miles per hour (mph). In evaluating the
occupant crash protection capabilities of a vehicle, this
dynamic test also assesses safety belt performance. A
requirement for safety belts to conform to both the
dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 and
certain 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 redun-
dancies, 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
Standard No. 208. See 36 FR 23725; December 14,
1971.
PART 571; S209-PRE 61
April 1991 Final Rule
On April 16, 1991, NHTSA published a final rule
amending Standards No. 208 and 209 to avoid un-
necessary regulatory restrictions on safety belts that
have been dynamically tested (56 FR 15295). That final
rule amended that agency's regulations to express
more accurately the scope of the exemption from the
static testing requirements for safety belts that are
dynamically tested.
Specially, that rule:
1. Excluded 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 (e.g.,
webbing wddth, strength, and elongation);
2. Permitting the use of load limiters on all safety
belts installed at seating positions subject to the
dynamic testing requirements, regardless of whether
the subject belts are automatic or manual safety belts;
and
3. Identified 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.
Petition for Reconsideration
The final rule also more clearly identified the safety
belts to which the agency is referring when it describes
safety belts as "dynamically tested."
In response to the final rule, NHTSA received peti-
tions for reconsideration from Ford and Volkswagen
of America (Volkswagen). This notice responds to the
issues raised in the those petitions.
1. Whether the April 16 Rule Also Applies to
Standard No. 210
In its petition for reconsideration, Ford was con-
cerned that the final rule's clarification of the term
"dynamically tested belts" for the purposes of Stan-
dards No. 208 and 209 might be interpreted to apply
to Standard No. 210 as well. Ford was particularly
concerned that a manual belt provided at a seating
position also equipped with an air bag might no longer
be excluded from the anchorage location requirements
set forth in S4.3 of Standard No. 210. Ford asked
NHTSA to verify that the interpretation of which
manual belts are considered "dynamically tested"
manual belts for the purposes of Standards No. 208 209
is limited to those standards, and did not affect the
differing interpretation the agency had previously
made for the purposes of Standard No. 210.
The final rule did not purport to address Standard
No. 210. Throughout this rulemaking, there have been
no references to Standard No. 210 nor did this rule ever
propose to amend Standard No. 210. Thus, NHTSA
confirms Ford's understanding that nothing in this
rulemaking changed or modified anything with respect
to the existing requirements and interpretations of
Standard No. 210.
2. Whether Manual Belts are subject to the Labeling
Requirements (i.e., are Considered Dynamically Tested)
When They are Installed at Seating Positions Also
Equipped With Air Bags That are Not Certified as
Providing Automatic Crash Protection.
In the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA stated that
"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" concerning Standards No.
208 and 209, 56 FR 15297; April 16, 1991.
In its petition for reconsideration. Ford asked about
the final rule's applicability to manual safety belts
supplied wdth air bags that are not certified as provid-
ing automatic crash protection. Such air bags are some-
times referred to as "face bags." Ford explained that
it plans to install this sort of driver air bag on some
of its 1992 model year light trucks and vans. Since this
type of air bag is not certified as complying with the
automatic restraint requirements of S4. 1.2.1 of Stan-
dard No. 208, Ford stated its understanding that a
manual belt installed at a seating position also equipped
with a "face bag" would be considered a "dynamically
tested" manual belt for the purposes of Standards No.
208 and 209.
Again, NHTSA confirms that Ford's understanding
is correct. The new regulatory language adopted in the
final rule exempts from certain static testing require-
ments manual belts that are subject to crash testing
by virtue of any provision of Standard No. 208 other
than S4. 1.2. 1(c)(2). S4. 1.2. 1(c)(2) applies only to seat-
ing positions with air bags that are certified as provid-
ing automatic crash protection. Thus, if a vehicle is
equipped with an air bag at a front outboard seating
position that is not certified as providing automatic
crash protection, and the vehicle is subject to the crash
testing requirements in S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then
the manual belt required to be installed at such seat-
ing position would be considered "dynamically tested"
for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and 209.
3. Clarification of the Scope of the Labeling Require-
ment for Dynamically Tested Manual Belts
Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a "seat
belt assembly that meets the requirements of S4.6 of
Standard No. 208" to be 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).
PART 571; S209-PRE 62
The April 1991 final rule did not amend this provi-
sion in Standard No. 209. It did, however, amend S4.6
of Standard No. 208. First, it deleted the old provision
in S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 referring to dynamic
testing of manual belts in passenger cars if the require-
ment for automatic crash protectin were rescinded.
Second, it added new sections S4.6 and S4.6.3 to more
clearly specify which manual belts will be considered
"dynamically tested" for the purposes of Standards No.
208 and 209. In addition, the preamble stated that the
final rule was making no change to the existing label-
ing requirements for dynamically tested manual belts.
This decision meant that the pre-existing requirement
to label dynamically tested manual belts installed in
light trucks would remain in place and in effect, while
the proposal for a new requirement to label dynami-
cally tested manual belts installed in passenger cars
was not adopted.
Ford and Volkswagen petitioned to the agency to
reconsider these provisions on identical grounds. These
manufacturers argued that S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209
appears to require labeling of all dynamically tested
manual belt assemblies regardless of the type of vehicle
in which those belts are installed. This result is directly
contrary to the statement in the preamble that dynam-
ically tested manual belts installed in passenger cars
where not subject to the labeling requirements. This
is because S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires label-
ing of "a seat belt assembly that meets the require-
ments of S4.6 of Standard No. 208." Although S4.6.1
of Standard No. 208 provides that it applies only to
dynamically tested manual belts installed in light
trucks, S4.6.2. and S4.6.3 by their terms apply to all
dynamically tested manual belts, irrespective of the
vehicle type in which those dynamically tested belts are
installed. To clarify the agency's intentions, the peti-
tioners asked that S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 be
changed to refer to S4.6.1, instead of all of S4.6, of
Standard No. 208. The agency agrees that this re-
quested change makes the standard more precise, and
amends Standard No. 209 accordingly.
4. Inconsistency of Required Labeling for Dynami-
cally Tested Manual Belts With Load Limiters
In the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA stated that
it did not believe that extending the labeling require-
ments for automatic belts with load limiters (which
have been in place since 1981) to dynamically tested
manual belts with load limiters would result in any
undue burdens for manufacturers or consumers. See
56 FR 15297. Notwithstanding this stated belief, Volk-
swagen argued in its petition that the regulatory
language in S4.5 and 4.6 of Standard No. 209 imposed
inconsistent labeling requirements for dynamically
tested manual safety belts equipped with load limiters.
Volkswagen correctly stated that S4.5(c) of Standard
No. 209 requires all safety belts with load limiters to
be 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 vehi-
cle make(s) and model(s)). "However, S4.6(b) of
Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual
belt, including dynamically tested manual belts that
incorporate a load limiter, to be labeled with following
statement:
"This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use
only in (insert specific seating positions(s), e.g., 'front
right') in (insert specific vehicles make(s) and
model(s))." (Emphasis added) Volkswagen suggested
that the regulatory language in the final rule appears
to require dynamically tested manual belts with load
limiters to include two different labels, one consistent
with S4.5(c) and one consistent with S4.5(c) and one
consistent with S4.6(b).
To avoid such repetitive and unnecessary labeling,
Volkswagen asked in its petition that the label speci-
fied in S4.6(b) should be revised to be identical with
the label required in S4.5(c). NHTSA agrees. Accord-
ingly, this rule deletes the phrase "dynamically tested"
from the labeling required by S4.6(b) of Standard No.
209.
5. Effective Date
This notice makes two minor changes to the April
16, 1991 final rule in response to the petitions for recon-
sideration. The changes are a clarification of the scope
of the labeling requirement and a slight modification
of the information that must be labeled on dynamic-
ally tested manual belts pursuant to S4.6(b) of Stan-
dard No. 209. NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers
may need some leadtime to modify the labels on their
dynamically tested manual belts installed in light trucks
and vans. Therefore, manufacturers may comply with
either the label specified in the April 16, 1991 final rule
version of S4.6(b) (including the words "dynamically
tested") or the label specified in this amendment to
S4.6(b) (deleting the words "dynamically tested"), until
September 1, 1992, the effective date for this rule.
After September 1, 1992, the safety belts subject to
S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 must be labeled in accor-
dance with the amended S4.6(b) seat forth in this
notice.
In consideration of the foregoing 49 CFR part 209
is amended as follows:
In § 571.209 S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 is revised
to read as follows, effective on the and after September
1, 1992 and may be used at the manufacturer's option
before that date:
S4.6 Manual belts subject to crash protection re-
quirements of Standard No. 208.
PART 571; S209-PRE 63
(b) A seat belt assembly certified as complying with Issued on October 30, 1991.
S4.6.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) shall be
permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the
following statement: Jerry Ralph Curry,
This seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specif- Administrator
ic seating position(s), e.g., 'front right') in (insert
specific vehicles make(s) and madels(s)]. gg p_p_ 56323
***** November 4, 1992
PART 571; S209-PRE 64
(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) Buckle latch. The buckle latch of a seat belt
assembly when tested by the procedure specified in
S5.2(g) shall not fail, nor gall or wear to an extent
that normal latching and 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 maximum retraction foice 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 pelvic 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) A 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)]
S4.6 Manual belts subject to crash protection
requirements of Standard No. 208.
(a)(1) A manual seat belt assembly, which is sub-
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(c)(2) 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 S5.1 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(a)(2),
S4.4(b)(4), and S4.4(b)(5) of this standard.
(b) (A seat belt assembly certified as comply-
ing with S4.6.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR
571.208) 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 vehicle
make(s), and model(s))."
(56 F.R. 56323— November 4, 1992.)
Effective: September 1, 1992. Safety belts and
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992
may comply with the post September 1, 1992 re-
quirements for belt labeling.)!
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
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
ii;4;92)
PART 571; S 209-6
PREAMBLE TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 210
Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages
(Docket No. 90-26; Notice 2)
RIN: 2127-AD44
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends Standard No. 210, Seat
Belt Assembly Anchorages, to clarify the definition of
"seat belt anchorage." The amended definition expli-
citly states that any vehicle part or component that
transfers the load from a safety belt to the vehicle
structure is part of the anchorage. This amendment will
ensure that the safety belt system remains attached
to the vehicle, even when exposed to severe crash
forces.
DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effec-
tive September 1, 1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages, specifies performance requirements for
safety belt anchorages to reduce the likelihood of the
anchorage's faOure in a crash. The requirements, which
apply to passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipur-
pose passenger vehicles, specify the forces that an
anchorage must be capable of withstanding during a
static strength test.
On October 31, 1990, the agency published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend
the definition of "seat belt anchorage" in Standard No.
210. This notice was initiated in response to questions
about the scope of Standard No. 210 that had arisen
during the agency's compliance tests, for example,
instances when vehicle seats had separated from the
vehicle floor when testing seat-mounted anchorages
before the required loads were reached. Since Standard
No. 210 is intended to ensure that the safety belt
remains attached to the vehicle, the agency proposed
a new definition intending to clarify the scope of
Standard No. 210. The proposed definition was:
Seat belt anchorage means any component,
other than the safety belt webbing, involved
in transferring seat belt assembly loads to
the vehicle structure, including, but not
limited to, the attachment hardware, seat
frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure
itself, and any part of the vehicle whose
failure causes separation of the belt from the
vehicle structure.
NHTSA received 12 comments in response to this
NPRM. The commenters included seat, seat belt, and
vehicle manufacturers, a private citizen, and a state
government. All comments were considered while
formulating this final rule and the most significant
comments are addressed below.
Attachment hardware. Seven commenters, the
Automotive Occupant Restraints Council [AORC],
Chrysler Corp. [Chrysler], Ford Motor Company
[Ford], General Motors Corp. [GM], Mitsubishi Motors
Corp. [Mitsubishi], Navistar International Transporta-
tion Corp. [Navistar], and Volkswagen of America, Inc.
[VW], objected to the inclusion of attachment hardware
in the definition. Various reasons were given for these
objections. Ford, GM, Mitsubishi, and VH stated that
testing attachment hardware under Standard No. 210
was redundant because it is already tested under
Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Ford, GM,
and Mitsubishi stated that the agency had not demon-
strated a safety need to test attachment hardware
under Standard No. 210. AORC, Mitsubishi, Ford, and
VW believe that Standard No. 210 compHance tests
should be conducted by replacing the original attach-
ment hardware with fixtures that duplicate their
geometry, if the tests cannot be completed due to
failures of the attachment hardware before the re-
quired loads are reached. Mitsubishi objected because
the loading of the attachment hardware during the
Standard No. 210 test was different from the loading
during an actual crash or the loading during the Stan-
dard No. 209 test. Finally, AORC objected to the
inclusion of attachment hardware because this would
require cooperation between the seat belt manufac-
turer and the vehicle manufacturer.
PART 571; S210-PRE 69
On April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule
which, among other things, extended the applicability
of Standard No. 210 to the attachment hardware of a
safety belt system (55 FR 17970). The agency received
three petitions for reconsideration opposing this aspect
of the final rule. Elsewhere in today's edition of the
Federal Register the agency has published a response
to those petitions for reconsideration.
As explained in that response, the agency agreed
with the petitioners that the static performance re-
quirements of Standard No. 210 were unnecessarily
redundant for the attachment hardware of automatic
safety belt systems and for the attachment hardware
of dynamically tested manual safety belt systems which
are the only occupant restraint at a seating position.
To reflect this position, that response to the petitions
for reconsideration excludes the attachment hardware
for these safety belt systems from the requirements
of S4.1.1 and S4.1.2 of Standard No. 210. It should be
noted that, as further explained in that notice, the
agency does not consider a manual belt installed at a
seating position that is also equipped with an air bag
to be dynamically tested.
The agency disagrees with those commenters that
asserted that the requirement to test attachment hard-
ware for manual belts that are not dynamically tested
under Standard No. 210 is redundant. The agency also
disagrees that there is no safety need to test attach-
ment hardware under Standard No. 210. Attachment
hardware plays an integral part in the transfer of
safety belt loads to the vehicle structure. The strength
conditions in Standard No. 210 are intended to subject
the vehicle anchorage to force levels that are suffi-
ciently high that one can be reasonably certain that the
safety belt will remain attached to the vehicle struc-
ture even when exposed to severe crash conditions. If
the attachment hardware were not subjected to those
same force levels, during the Standard No. 210
strength 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 an-
chorage withstands the crash loading. To minimize the
chances of the attachment hardware breaking during
a crash, this rule adopts a requirement that attachment
hardware for non-dynamically-tested manual belts be
subject to the strength test in Standard No. 210.
In addition, the agency continues to believe that
original attachment hardware should be used during
Standard No. 210 compliance tests for the anchorages
for all safety belt systems, including those 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 reahstic as possible. The agency has considered
conducting the compliance tests using replacement fix-
tures which duplicate the geometry. However, the
agency is concerned that developing a fixture which
would accurately simulate every attachment would be
very difficult. The agency cannot justify devoting the
time necessary to solve this difficult problem, because
such a fixture would still be less representative than r
the particular attachment hardware in the vehicle being
tested.
The agency also was not persuaded by those com-
menters who stated that the loading for the Standard
No. 210 test was different than the loading experience
in either an actual crash or the Standard No. 209 test.
The agency has already explained at length that Stan-
dard No. 210's strength test is not intended to simu-
late an actual crash condition, but is instead intended
to be severe enough to ensure that the anchorage is
unlikely to fail in an actual crash, even a very severe
crash. For a detailed explanation of this, see 55 FR
17970, at 17972-17973; April 30, 1990. Thus, NHTSA
does not consider it a telling point to assert that load-
ing for the Standard No. 210 strength test is more se-
vere than loading in a typical crash.
The agency is also not persuaded by the assertions
that Standard No. 210's loading is different from that
in Standard No. 209. This is true and it reflects the
different purposes of these two standards. Standard
No. 209 is intended to measure the performance of seat
belt assemblies as separate pieces of equipment. Stan-
dard No. 209 assesses the performance of the attach-
ment hardware only as a part of the seat belt assembly.
Standard No. 210, however, is a broader assess- I
ment of vehicle performance. It focuses not on any
individual item of equipment or individual component.
Instead, the strength test of Standard No. 210 is
intended to assess the strength of the attachment of
the seat belt assembly to the vehicle, in order to ensure
that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle even
when exposed to severe crash conditions. NHTSA
believes it is appropriate to measure the performance
of the attachment hardware at the particular seating
position in the particular vehicle in which it is installed
for the purposes of Standard No. 210. as well as the
generic performance of the attachment hardware
pursuant to Standard No. 209.
Finally, the agency is aware that the inclusion of
attachment hardware in Standard No. 210 may require
greater coordination between the vehicle manufacturer
and the safety belt system manufacturer. This was
partially the intent of this requirement. From a regula-
tory standpoint, the burden of certifying compliance
with Standard No. 210 is entirely on the vehicle
manufacturer, not the safety belt manufacturer.
However, the agency believes that, since the safety belt
system is to become an integral part of the vehicle,
there will be interaction between the safety belt system
manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer to ensure
that the restraint will perform as intended.
PART 571; S210-PRE 70
For the above reasons, the agency has retained at-
tachment hardware within the definition of "seat belt
anchorage." The agency notes that the definition pro-
posed in the NPRM included the phrase "seat belt
assembly loads." Since "seat belt assembly" is defined
differently in Standard No. 209 than was intended
here, the agency has substituted the term "seat belt
loads" in the final rule to avoid any possibility of
confusion.
Alternate Definitions.
Two commenters, a private citizen and GM, stated
that the proposed definition was more ambiguous than
the existing one. Phrases that were considered ambig-
uous include; "including, but not limited to," "any part
of the vehicle structure," and "attachment hardware."
The agency disagrees with the commenters that
these phrases make the definition more ambiguous. The
new definition gives examples of some of the compo-
nents whose failure would result in non-compliance
with Standard No. 210, without limiting the scope of
the definition to those enumerated components. This
new definition will mean that the failure of any com-
ponent, other than the safety belt itself during Stan-
dard No. 210 compliance testing will be considered an
apparent non-compliance with the standard.
Americans with Disabilities Act.
One commenter, a private citizen, stated that the pro-
posed rulemaking may conflict with the requirement
to provide accessible vehicles under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101,
et seq). The commenter stated that the requirements
should not apply to vehicles equipped with custom or
special seating for the disabled. The agency has not
excluded such seating from the requirements of this
rule. The commenter did not submit any information
suggesting that it was not feasible for such seating to
comply with the requirements of this rule. Without
information that compliance is not feasible, the agency
believes that customized seating for the disabled should
provide the same level of occupant protection as is
provided by standard seating.
Another commenter, a state government, sup-
ported the inclusion of the seat structure and pedestal
in the anchorage definition. This state has required
safety belts for specialized seating installed for the
disabled to be anchored directly to the vehicle, rather
than to the seat, based upon experience with the lack
of strength of these seats. Under the new definition
of "seat belt anchorage," this state would no longer
have to retain this requirement since, if a safety belt
were anchored to the seat, the seat and its pedestal
would be considered part of the anchorage and there-
fore, subject to the strength requirements of Standard
No. 210.
Location Requirements.
Four commenters (Ford, Mitsubishi, VW, and Volvo
Cars of North America [Volvo]) pointed out that the
term "seat belt anchorage" is used in two contexts in
Standard No. 210. First, it is used in S4.2 to identify
the scope of the standard for performance testing for
the strength requirements. Second, it is used in S4.3
to define the reference point for determining compli-
ance with the location requirements. These commenters
stated that the new definition will result in confusion
with regard to determining the location of the
anchorage.
The agency admits that this rulemaking had
focused exclusively on clarifying the definition as it
applies to the strength requirements of S4.2. The
agency had not fully considered the effect of the pro-
posed definition on the anchorage location require-
ments of S4.3. The agency has reviewed S4.3 to
determine if the inclusion of attachment hardware in
the definition of "seat belt anchorage" will confuse the
means of measuring the location of the anchorage.
Except as noted below, the agency believes that the
anchorage locations are specified by means that are not
distorted by the new definition. For example, S4.3.1.4
uses the phrase "the vertical centerlines of the bolt
holes." a location which is constant under both the
current definition and the definition in this final rule.
VW stated that, in S4.3. 1.1(a) and (b), the words
"hardware attaching it to the" should be deleted. The
agency agrees with VW that these words are super-
fluous under the new definition. VW also stated that
references to the anchorage being attached to the seat
in S4.3.1.3 are inconsistent with the new definition.
Since the seat would be considered part of the an-
chorage in this situation, the agency also agrees that
this section should be revised. The agency finds for
good cause that notice and opportunity to comment on
these amendments is not necessary. The changes are
merely semantic and do not affect the requirements of
these sections.
Buckles.
Three commenters (Chrysler, Ford, and VW) noted
that, in discussing safety belt buckles in the preamble,
the agency stated that the definition of "seat belt an-
chorage" was not intended to include buckles surrounded
by webbing. These commenters stated that this discus-
sion did not include less obvious safety belt designs per-
mitted by Standard No. 209, such as metal straps.
The agency's intent in the discussion of the NPRM
preamble was to clarify that the definition of seat belt
anchorage included only the attachment points of the
seat belt, and not the webbing, straps or similar device,
or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself. This
discussion was intended to clarify that the phrase
"other than the safety belt webbing or strap" was not
PART 571; S210-PRE 71
intended to imply that the buckle was part of the an-
chorage. Since the webbing and straps are also involved
in transferring loads to the vehicle structure, this
phrase was intended to emphasize that they were not
included in the anchorage.
Cross-Reference in 207.
Ford stated that any enforcement questions about
the scope of Standard No. 210 for seat-mounted an-
chorages could be resolved by cross-referencing the re-
quirement in S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 with the
requirement for simultaneous testing in Standard No.
210. The agency disagrees. The suggested cross-
reference would not resolve questions that have aris-
en for seats which are not subject to the requirements
of Standard No. 207, for example, seats in small school
buses. The suggested cross-reference would also not
solve the problem of the number of incomplete tests
which result when attachment hardware breaks dur-
ing the Standard No. 210 tests. Hence, the suggested
cross-reference is not adopted in this rule.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.210
is amended as follows:
S3 of Standard No. 210 is revised to read as
follows:
S3. Definition. "Seat belt anchorage" means any
component, other than the webbing or straps, involved
in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure,
including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware,
seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself,
and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes sepa-
ration of the belt from the vehicle structure.
3. S4.3 of Standard No. 210 is amended by revising
S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3 to read as follows:
S4.3 Location.
S4.3 1 .1 In an installation in which the seat belt does
not bear upon the seat frame:
(a) If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line
from the seating reference point to the nearest con-
tact point of the belt with the anchorage shall extend
forward from the anchorage at an angle v«th the
horizontal of not less than 30 degrees and not more
than 75 degrees.
(b) If the seat is an adjustable seat, then a line from
a point 2.50 inches forward of and 0.375 inches above
the seating reference point to the nearest contact point
of the belt with the anchorage shall extend forward
from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal of
not less than 30 degrees and not more than 75 degrees.
S4.3.1.3 In an installation in which the seat belt
attaches to the seat structure, the line from the seat-
ing reference point to the nearest contact point of the
belt with the hardware attaching it to the seat struc-
ture shall extend forward from that contact point at
an angle with the horizontal of not less than 30 degrees
and not more than 75 degrees.
Issued on: November 27, 1991.
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
56 F.R. 63682
December 5, 1991
PART 571: S210-PRE 72
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 210
Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages— Passenger Cars, Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses
(Docket No. 2-14; Notice No. 4)
51. Purpose and scope. This standard estab-
lishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchor-
ages to insure their proper location for effective
occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of
their failure.
52. Application. This standard applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses.
53. Definition. "Seat belt anchorage" means
the provision for transferring seat belt assembly
loads to the vehicle structure.
54. Requirements.
S4.1 Type.
54.1.1 Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat
belt assembly shall be installed for each foward-
facing outboard designated seating position in
passenger cars, other than convertibles, and for
each designated seating position for which a Type
2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No.
208 (49 CFR 571.208) in vehicles other than
passenger cars. Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2
seat belt assembly shall be installed for each rear
forward-facing outboard designated seating posi-
tion in convertible passenger cars manufactured
on or after September 1, 1991.
54.1.2 Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a
Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each
designated seating position, except a passenger
seat in a bus or a designated seating position for
which seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt
assembly are required by S4.1.1.
54.1.3 (a) Notwithstanding the requirement of
S4.1.1, each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 1987, that is equipped with an auto-
matic restraint at the front right outboard desig-
nated seating position, which automatic restraint
cannot be used for securing a child restraint
system solely through the use of attachment hard-
ware installed as an item of original equipment by
the vehicle manufacturer shall have, at the
manufacturer's option, either anchorages for a
Type 1 seat belt assembly installed at that position
or a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly installed
at the position. If a manufacturer elects to install
anchorages for a Type 1 seat belt assembly to com-
ply with this requirement, those anchorages shall
consist of, at a minimum, holes threaded to accept
bolts complying with S4.1(f) of Standard No. 209
(49 CFR 571.209).
(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 seat a belt assembly that meets the frontal
crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard
No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). (56 F.R.
63682— December 5, 1991. Effective: September 1,
1992)1
S4.2 Strength.
S4.2.1 [Except as provided in S4.2.5, and ex-
cept for side-facing seats, the anchorages, attach-
ment hardware, 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: (56 F.R. 63682— December 5,
1991. Effective: September 1, 1992)]
(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 voluntarily installed at a seating posi-
tion; and
(c) Lap belt portion of either a Type 2 or auto-
matic seat belt assembly, if such seat belt assembly
is equipped with a detachable upper torso belt.
(Rev. 12/5/91)
PART 571; S 210-1
54.2.2 fExcept 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 Stan-
dard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) shall withstand
3,000-pound forces when tested in accordance with
S5.2. (56 F.R. 63682— December 5, 1991. Effective:
September 1, 1992)]
54.2.3 Permanent deformation or rupture of a
seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not
considered to be a failure, if the required force is
sustained for the specified time.
54.2.4 [Anchorages, attachment hardware, and
attachment bolts shall be tested by simultaneously
loading 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 occu-
pant seat, but that face in the same direction, if the
vertical centerline 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 for an anchorage for
one of the adjacent seating positions. (56 F.R. 63682—
December 5, 1991. Effective: September 1, 1992)1
[S4.2.5 The attachment hardware of a 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 (49
CFR 571.208) by virtue of any provision of Stan-
dard No. 208 other than S4.1. 2.1(c)(2) of that stan-
dard, does not have to meet the requirements of
S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 of this standard. (56 F.R.
63682— December 5, 1991. Effective: September 1,
1992)1
S4.3 Location. [As used in this section, "for-
ward" means in the direction in which the seat
faces, and other directional references are to be in-
terpreted accordingly. Anchorages for seat belt
assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection
requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR
Part 571.208) are exempt from the location re-
quirements of this section. (56 F.R.
63682— December 5, 1991. Effective: September 1,
1992)1
S4.3.1 Seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt
assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat
belt assemblies. (55 F.R. 17970— April 30, 1990.
Effective: September 1, 1992)1
S4.3.1.1 In an installation in which the seat belt
does not bear upon the seat frame:
(a) If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line
from the seating reference point to the nearest
contact point of the belt with the hardware at-
taching it to the anchorage shall extend forward
from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal
of not less than 30 degrees and not more than 75
degrees.
(b) If the seat is an adjustable seat, then a line
from a point 2.50 inches forward of and 0.375 inch
above the seating reference point to the nearest
contact point of the belt with the hardware at-
taching it to the anchorage shall extend forward
from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal
of not less than 30 degrees and not more than 75
54.3.1.2 In an installation in which the belt
bears upon the seat frame, the seat belt anchorage,
if not on the seat structure, shall be aft of the rear-
most belt contact point on the seat frame with the
seat in the rearmost position. The line from the
seating reference point to the nearest belt contact
point on the seat frame, with the seat positioned at
the seating reference point, shall extend forward
from that contact point at an angle with the
horizontal of not less than 30° and not more than
75°.
54.3.1 .3 In an installation in which the seat belt
anchorage is on the seat structure, the line from
the seating reference point to the nearest contact
point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to
the anchorage shall extend forward from that con-
tact point at an angle with the horizontal of not less
than 30° and not more than 75°.
54.3.1.4 Anchorages for an individual seat belt
assembly shall be located at least 6.50 inches apart
laterally, measured between the vertical center-
lines of the bolt holes.
[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 bet-
ween 20 degrees and 75 degrees for vehicles
manufactured between September 1, 1992 and
September 1, 1993. (56 F.R. 63682— December 5,
1991. Effective: September 1, 1992)1
(Rev. 12/5/91)
PART 571; S 210-2
S4.3.2 Seat belt anchorages for the upper torso
portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. [Adjust the
seat to its full rearward and downward position
and adjust the seat back to its most upright posi-
tion. With the seat and seat back so positioned, the
seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper
torso restraint shall be located within the accept-
able range shown in Figure 1, with reference to a
two-dimensional drafting template described in
SAE Recommended Practice J826 (May 1987). The
template's "H" point shall be at the design "H"
point of the seat for its full rearward and full
downward position, as defined in SAE Recom-
mended Practice JllOO (June 1984), and the
template's torso line shall be at the same angle
from the vertical as the seat back. (55 F.R.
17970— April 30, 1990. Effective: September 1, 1992)1
S5. Test procedures. [Each vehicle shall meet
the requirements of S4.2 of this standard when
tested according to the following procedures.
Where a range of values is specified, the vehicle
shall be able to meet the requirements at all points
within the range. 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 original
equipment at that seating position. The geometry
of the attachment duplicates the geometry, at the
initiation of the test, of the attachment of the
originally installed seat belt assembly. (56 F.R.
63682— December 5, 1991. Effective: September 1,
1992)1
S5.1 Seats with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt anchor-
ages. [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 in-
itial 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 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
simultaneously loaded in accordance with S4.2.4 of
this standard. (56 F.R. 63682— December 5, 1991. Ef-
fective: September 1. 1992)1
S5.2 Seats with Type 2 seat belt anchorages.
[With the seat in its rearmost position, apply
forces of 3,000 pounds in the direction in which the
seat faces simultaneously to a pelvic body block, as
described in Figures 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°
nor more than 15° above the horizontal. Apply the
forces at the onset rate of not more than 30,000
pounds per second. Attain the 3,000-pound forces
in not more than 30 seconds and maintain it for 10
seconds. At the manufacturer's option, the pelvic
body block described in Figure 2B 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 simultaneously loaded
in accordance with S4.2.4 of this standard. (56 F.R.
63682— December 5, 1991. Effective: September 1,
1992)1
86. Owner's Manual Information. The owner's
manual in each vehicle with GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less, manufactured after September 1,
1987, shall include:
(a) A section explaining that all child restraint
systems are designed to be secured in vehicle seats
by lap belts or the lap belt portion of a lap-shoulder
belt. The section shall also explain that children
could be endangered in a crash if their child
restraints are not properly secured in the vehicle.
(b) In a vehicle with rear designated seating
positions, a statement alerting vehicle owners
that, according to accident statistics, children are
safer when properly restrained in the rear seating
positions than in the front seating positions.
(c) In each passenger car, a diagram or
diagrams showing the location of the shoulder belt
anchorages required by this standard for the rear
outboard designated seating positions, if shoulder
belts are not installed as items of original
equipment by the vehicle manufacturer at those
positions.
S7. Installation Instructions. The owner's man-
ual in each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 1987, with an automatic restraint at
the front right outboard designated seating posi-
tion that cannot be used to secure a child restraint
system when the automatic restraint is adjusted to
(Rev. 12/5/91)
PART 571; S 210-
meet the performance requirements of S5.1 of
Standard No. 208 shall have:
(a) A statement that the automatic restraint at
the front right outboard designated seating posi-
tion cannot be used to secure a child restraint and,
as appropriate, one of the following three
statements:
(1) A statement that the automatic restraint
at the front right outboard designated seating
position can be adjusted to secure a child
restraint system using attachment hardware in-
stalled as original equipment by the vehicle
manufacturer;
(2) A statement that anchorages for installa-
tion of a lap belt to secure a child restraint
system have been provided at the front right out-
board designated seating position; or
(3) A statement that a lap or manual lap or
lap/shoulder belt has been installed by the vehicle
manufacturer at the front right outboard
designated seating position to secure a child
restraint.
(b) In each vehicle in which a lap or lap/shoulder
belt is not installed at the front right outboard
designated seating position as an item of original
equipment, but the automatic restraint at that
position can be adjusted by the vehicle owner to
secure a child restraint system using an item or
items of original equipment installed in the vehicle
by the vehicle manufacturer, the owner's manual
shall also have:
(1) A diagram or diagrams showing the loca-
tion of the attachment hardware provided by the
vehicle manufacturer.
(2) A step-by-step procedure with a diagram or
diagrams showing how to modify the automatic
restraint system to secure a child restraint
system. The instructions shall explain the proper
routing of the attachment hardware.
(c) In each vehicle in which the automatic
restraint at the front right outboard designated
seating position cannot be modified to secure a
child restraint system using attachment hardware
installed as an original equipment by the vehicle
manufacturer and a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt
is not installed as an item of original equipment by
the vehicle manufacturer, the owner's manual shall
also have:
(1) A diagram or diagrams showing the loca-
tions of the lap belt anchorages for the front
right outboard designated seating position.
(2) A step-by-step procedure and a diagram or
diagrams for installing the proper lap belt an-
chorage hardware and a Type 1 lap belt at the
front right outboard designated seating position.
The instructions shall explain the proper routing
of the seat belt assembly and the seat belt attach-
ment of the assembly to the lap belt anchorages.
Issued on August 12, 1986
51 F.R. 29552
August 19, 1986
PART 571; S 210-4
PART 571; S 210-ART PAGE 1
H
|-^- 2.00
T k 5.26 -^\^ 1
20.00
^
.94
(TYP)
Figure 2A - Body Block for Lap Belt Anchorage
1.94R Jf
(TYP)
0.75 Diam.
Thru Hole
'3 yiam. 2.00R ,
hruHole y — ►] 3.34 -^—
\xy 7 00R f i-T-
4-.^ 1^2.00 T ^5.26^\ ,94
-* 13 *■ (TYP)
Notes:
1 . Block covered by
1 00 med, density canvas
covered foam rubber
2. All dimensions in inches
Notes:
1 . Block covered by
1.00 med. density canvas
covered foam rubber
2. All dimensions in inches
Figure 2B - Optional Body Block for Center Seating Positions
PART 571; S 210-ART PAGE 2
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 531
Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards
(Docket No. LVM 89-01; Notice 10)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This decision is issued in response to a
petition filed by Dutcher Motors, Inc. (Dutcher)
requesting that it be exempted from the generally
applicable average fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles
per gallon (mpg) for model year (MY) 1992 passenger
automobiles, and that a lower alternative standard be
established for it for each of these model years. This
decision exempts Dutcher and establishes an alternate
standard of 17.0 mpg for each of MY 1992. The deci-
sion was preceded by publication of a notice request-
ing public comments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1991. Thie exemption and
the alternative standard apply to Dutcher for MY 1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is exempt-
ing Dutcher from the generally applicable average fuel
economy standard for 1992 model year passenger au-
tomobiles and establishing an alternative standard ap-
plicable to Dutcher for that model year. This exemption
is issued under the authority of section 502(c) of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as
amended (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 2002(c)). Section 502(c)
provides that a passenger automobile manufacturer
which manufactures fewer than 10,000 passenger auto-
mobiles annually may be exempted from the generally
applicable average fuel economy standard for a
particular model year if that standard is greater than
the low volume manufacturer's maximum feasible
average fuel economy and if NHTSA establishes an
alternative standard for the manufacturer at its
maximum feasible level. Section 502(e) of the Act (15
U.S.C. 2002(e)) requires NHTSA, in determining
maximum feasible average fuel economy, to consider:
(1) Technological feasibility;
(2) Economic practicability;
(3) The effect of other Federal motor vehicle
standards on fuel economy; and
(4) The need of the Nation to conserve energy.
This final decision was preceded by a proposed deci-
sion announcing the agency's tentative conclusion that
Dutcher should be exempted from the generally
applicable MY 1992 passenger automobile average fuel
economy standard of 27.5 mpg, and that an alterna-
tive standard of 17.0 mpg should be established for
Dutcher for each of these model years (56 FR 3441,
January 30, 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 1992 model year 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.
(6) The following manufacturers shall comply with
the standards indicated below for the specified model
years:
(11) Dutcher Motors, Inc.
Model '
V'ear
Average Fuel Economy Standard
(miles per gallon)
1986
16.0
1987
16.0
1988
16.0
1992
17.0
1993
17.0
1994
17.0
1995
17.0
Issued on: August 1, 1991.
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
56 F.R. 20362
May 3, 1991
PART 531-PRE 185-
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 556
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance
(Docket No. 75-21; Notice 3)
RIN: 2127-AE30
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: A manufacturer which determines that its
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment fails to
comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard
or contains a safety-related defect may, under Part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncom-
pliance, petition to be exempted from the obligation
under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act to notify owners and remedy the noncompliance
or defect, upon a showing that the noncompliance or
defect is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. Under Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Reports, a manufacturer making a noncomplance or
defect determination must, within 5 working days of
that determination, file a report with NHTSA. The
final rule adopted by this notice requires a manufac-
turer petitioning under Part 556 to attach a copy of
its Part 573 report with its petition.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 22, 1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Under 49 CFR 573.5(a), "Each manufacturer shall
furnish a report to the NHTSA" for each noncompli-
ance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or
each safety related defect in the vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment that he manufactures "that he or the
Administrator determines to exist." Section 573.5(b)
requires that the manufacturer submit the report "not
more than 5 working days after" a noncompliance or
safety related defect "has been determined to exist."
A manufacturer making such a determination is
required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act to notify its purchasers and to remedy the
noncompliance or the safety related defect. However,
under 49 CFR 556.4(a), the manufacturer may file a
petition with the Administrator for a determination
that the noncompliance or safety related defect is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Such petition must be filed within 30 days after the
determination. If the petition is granted, the manu-
facturer is excused from the obligation to notify and
remedy.
It is clear that if a noncompliance or safety related
defect does not exist, the obligation to notify and
remedy does not arise. Thus, section 556.4(a) extends
the right to petition only to "A manufacturer who has
determined the existence, in a motor vehicle or item
of replacement equipment that he produces, of a defect
related to motor vehicle safety or a noncompliance with
an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety stan-
dard . . . ." In other words, the right extends only to
a manufacturer which has the related obligation to file
a Part 573 report.
On occasion, the fact that a manufacturer must de-
termine the existance of a noncompliance before the
manufacturer can file a Part 556 petition does not
appear clear to manufacturers seeking an inconsequen-
tiality determination. When the agency receives a
petition, but no Part 573 report relating to the non-
compliance or defect forming the basis for the petition,
the agency must take time to obtain the manufacturer's
determination of noncompliance before it can consider
the petition. This delay is not in the interest of safety
in those instances in which the Administrator ulti-
mately denies the petition because it is important that
notification and remedy begin as soon as practicable
after the denial. Although the agency believes that the
relationship between Part 573 and Part 556 is presently
unambiguous, it wishes to make the relationship even
clearer by explicitly providing in Part 556 that a
petitioning manufacturer is required to submit a copy
of its Part 573 report as part of its petition. It is there-
fore adding that requirement as Section 556.4(bX6) (the
regulation already requires the manufacturer to sub-
mit its petition in three copies; thus, three copies of
the report will also be required).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) and (B),
because the amendment is procedural in nature and
does not alter the existing requirement to submit Part
573 reports containing defect or noncompliance deter-
minations, it is hereby found for good cause shown that
notice and public procedure thereon are unnecessary,
and the amendment is effective thirty days after its
publication in the Federal Register.
PART 556-PRE 5
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 5556 is safety related defect or noncompliance with an applica-
amended as follows: ble safety standard that is the subject of the petition."
In Section 556.4(b), new subsection (6) is added to
read: "(6) Be accompanied by three copies of the report ^^^"^^ O" December 16, 1991.
the manufacturer has submitted, or is submitting, to
NHTSA in accordance with Part 573 of this chapter, 56 p.R. 66374
relating to its determination of the existence of the December 23, 1991
PART 556-PRE 6
PART 556-EXEMPTION FOR INCONSEQUENTIAL DEFECT OR NONCOMPLIANCE
§ 556.1 Scope.
This part sets forth procedures, pursuant to
section 157 of the Act, for exempting manufac-
turers of motor vehicles and replacement equip-
ment from the Act's notice and remedy
requirements when a defect or noncompliance is
determined to be inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
§ 556.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to enable manufac-
turers of motor vehicles and replacement equip-
ment to petition the NHTSA for exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of the
Act due to the inconsequentiality of the defect or
noncompliance as it relates to motor vehicle
safety, and to give all interested persons an op-
portunity for presentation of data, views, and
arguments on the issue of inconsequentiality.
§ 556.3 Application.
This part applies to manufacturers of motor
vehicles and replacement equipment.
§ 556.4 Petition for exemption.
(a) A manufacturer who has determined the
existence, in a motor vehicle or item of replace-
ment equipment that he produces, of a defect
related to motor vehicle safety or a noncompli-
ance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standard, or who has received notice of an
initial determination by the NHTSA of the
existence of a defect related to motor vehicle
safety or a noncompliance, may petition for
exemption from the Act's notification and remedy
requirements on the grounds that the defect or
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
(b) Each petition submitted under this part
shall-
(1) Be written in the English language;
(2) Be submitted in three copies to: Admin-
istrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, Washington, D.C. 20590;
(3) State the full name and address of the
applicant, the nature of its organization (e.g.,
individual, partnership, or corporation) and the
name of the State or country under the laws of
which it is organized.
(4) Describe the motor vehicle or item of
replacement equipment, including the number in-
volved and the period of production, and the
defect or noncompliance concerning which an
exemption is sought; and
(5) Set forth all data, veiws, and arguments
of the petitioner supporting his petition.
1(6) Be accompanied by three copies of the re-
port the manufacturer has submitted, or is sub-
mitting, to NHTSA in accordance with Part 573 of
this chapter, relating to its determination of the
existence of the safety related defect or noncom-
pliance with an applicable safety standard that is
the subject of the petition." (56 F.R. 66374— Dec-
ember 23, 1991. Effective: January 22, 1992.)!
(c) In the case of defects related to motor
vehicle safety or noncompliances determined to
exist by a manufacturer, petitions under this part
must be submitted not later than 30 days after
such determination. In the case of defects re-
lated to motor vehicle safety or noncompliances
initially determined to exist by the NHTSA,
petitions must be submitted not later than 30 days
after notification of the determination has been
received by the manufacturer. Such a petition
will not constitute a concession by the manufac-
turer of, nor will it be considered relevant to, the
(Rev. 12/23/91)
PART 556-1
turer of, nor will it be considered relevant to, the
existence of a defect related to motor vehicle
safety or a nonconformity.
§ 556.5 Processing of petition.
(a) The NHTSA publishes a notice of each
petition in the Federal Register. Such notice
includes:
(1) A brief summary of the petition;
(2) A statement of the availability of the
petition and other relevant information for pub-
lic inspection; and
(3) (i) In the case of a defect related to
motor vehicle safety or a noncompliance deter-
mined to exist by the manufacturer, an invitation
to interested persons to submit written data,
views, and arguments concerning the petition,
and, upon request by the petitioner or interested
persons, a statement of the time and place of a
public meeting at which such materials may be
presented orally if any person so desires.
(ii) In the case of a defect related to
motor vehicle safety or a noncompliance initially
determined to exist by the NHTSA, an invitation
to interested persons to submit written data,
views, and arguments concerning the petition or
to submit such data, views, and arguments orally
at the meeting held pursuant to section 152(a)
of the Act following the initial determination, or
at a separate meeting if deemed appropriate by
the agency.
§ 556.6 Meetings.
(a) At a meeting held under this part, any
interested person may make oral (as well as
written) presentations of data, views, and argu-
ments on the question of whether the defect or
noncompliance described in the Federal Register
notice is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
(b) Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5, United
States Code, do not apply to any meeting held
under this part. Unless otherwise specified, any
meeting held under this part is an informal,
nonadversary, fact-finding proceeding, at which
there are no formal pleadings or adverse parties.
A decision to grant or deny a petition, after a
meeting on such petition, is not necessarily
exclusively on the record of the meeting.
(c) The Administrator designates a represen-
tative to conduct any meeting held under this
part. The Chief Counsel designates a member
of his staff to serve as legal officer at the meeting.
A transcript of the proceeding is kept and ex-
hibits may be kept as part of the transcript.
§ 556.7 Disposition of petition.
Notice of either a grant or denial of a petition
for exemption from the notice and remedy re-
quirements of the Act based upon the inconse-
quentiality of a defect or noncompliance is issued
to the petitioner and published in the Federal
Register. The effect of a grant of a petition is
to relieve the manufacturer from any further re-
sponsibility to provide notice and remedy of the
defect or noncompliance. The effect of a denial
is to continue in force, as against a manufacturer,
all duties contained in the Act relating to notice
and remedy of the defect or noncompliance. Any
interested person may appeal the grant or denial
of a petition by submitting written data, views,
or arguments to the Administrator.
§ 556.8 Rescission of decision.
The Administrator may rescind a grant or de-
nial of an exemption issued under this part any
time after the receipt of new data and notice and
opportunity for comment thereon, in accordance
with § 556.5 and § 556.7.
§ 556.9 Public inspection of relevant information.
Information relevant to a petition under this
part, including the petition and supporting data,
memoranda of informal meetings with the peti-
tioner or any other interested person concerning
the petition, and the notice granting or denying
the petition, are available for public inspection
in the Docket Section, Room 5108, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Copies of available information may be obtained
in accordance with Part 7 of the regulations of
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (49
CFR Part 7).
42 F.R. 7147
February 7, 1977
PART 556-2
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations; Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(Docket No. 25; Notice 65)
RIN: 2127-AE-02
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for recon-
sideration.
SUMMARY: This notice amends certain provisions of
the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS),
by rescinding the initial 30-day effective date concern-
ing tire rotation in treadwear convoys and adopting a
new effective date of September 1, 1993. Based on its
further review, the agency has determined that the
final rule provided insufficient leadtime to require tire
rotation among vehicles in treadwear convoys. This no-
tice also postpones the effective date for the provision
regarding assigning treadwear grades in 20-point in-
tervals until September 1, 1993. The agency believes
that this additional leadtime will reduce the costs of
this amendment. Finally, this notice responds to other
issues raised in petitions for reconsideration by clarify-
ing the amendment to the wheel alignment specifica-
tion and denjring a request to modify the simplified
grading method.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The amendment in amendatory
instruction 3 to § 575.104(eXl) and (eX2Xi)-(viii) is
effective June 11, 1991, through August 31, 1993.
The amendments in amendatory instruction 3A to §
575.104(eXl) and (eX2XiHviii) become effective on Sep-
tember 1, 1993. Tires manufactured before September
1, 1993, may comply with the post-September 1993
requirements for tire rotation among treadwear con-
voy vehicles.
The amendments to §§ 575.104(d)(2)(l) and
575.104(eX2XixXF) become effective on September 1,
1993.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information
Under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(UTQGS), manufacturers or brand name owners of pas-
senger car tires are required to provide consumers with
information about their tires' relative performance in
terms of treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance (49 CFR §575.104). The primary purpose of
jthe treadwear grades is to aid consumers in the
selection of new tires by informing them of the rela-
tive amount of expected tread life for each tire offered
for sale.
The treadwear grades are based on the test results
of tires on vehicles traveling 6,400 miles over a
predetermined outdoor course on public roads near San
Angelo, Texas. In order to compare candidate tire per-
formances measured at different times under differ-
ent road conditions, there must be a correction of test
results to account for the effects of the particular
environmental conditions of each test. This correction
is accomplished by including "course monitoring tires"
(CMTs) in all treadwear test fleets. The treadwear of
the GMT reflects changes in course severity due to fac-
tors such as road surface wear and environmental con-
ditions. Differences between the wear rate of the CMT
under the set of conditions experienced by test fleets
versus a base wear rate (explained further later in this
notice) for the CMT are used to adjust the measured
treadwear of the candidate tires.
Until very recently, treadwear test convoys consisted
of one rear- wheel-drive passenger car with four CMTs
and up to three other rear-wheel-drive passenger cars
with candidate tires of the same construction type (49
CFR §575.104(eXl)-(2)). After each 800 miles of the
test, each tire's tread depth was measured, the tires
on each car were rotated to a different position on the
same car, the order of the cars in the convoy was
changed, and the wheel alignments were readjusted if
necessary to bring them within the ranges of the vehi-
cle manufacturer's specifications. At the end of the
16-circuit test, each tire's overall wear rate was calcu-
lated from the tread depths measured after each in-
terval by using the regression line technique in
Appendix C of §575.104. The tires were then assigned
treadwear grades in 10-point intervals.
On January 19, 1989, NHTSA issued a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing four changes
that the agency tentatively concluded would make
treadwear grades more representative by reducing the
variability or simplifying the calculations related to
these grades (54 FR 2167). Less variability in tread-
wear test results would provide consumers with more
precise information about relative tread life of differ-
ent tires.
PART 575-PRE 175
These proposals were adopted in a final rule issued
on November 15, 1990 (55 FR 47765). First, the new
rule amended the requirements about the wheel align-
ment of test vehicles so that they are set more pre-
cisely, based on the vehicle manufacturer's specifi-
cations. Second, the rule amended the requirements
about tire rotation so that all tires, both candidate tires
and CMTs, in a treadwear convoy are to be driven on
each wheel position on each vehicle the same distance.
Third, the rule amended the requirements to permit
a simplified method for treadwear grading so that tire
tread depth measurements may be taken twice instead
of nine times. Fourth, it-amended the requirements to
replace the previous practice of assigning grades in
10-point intervals to reflect the differences in tread-
wear with a new practice of assigning grades in
20-point intervals. The first three amendments became
effective on December 17, 1990. The fourth amend-
ment was set to take effect on November 15, 1991.
Petitions for Reconsideration
In response to the final rule, the agency received
petitions for reconsideration from the Rubber Manufac-
turers Association (RMA), Standards Testing Labora-
tories (STL), Texas Test Fleet, Long and Associates,
and Smithers Scientific Services. This notice responds
to the petitions for reconsideration.
Wheel Alignment Specification
The previous UTQGS provisions required wheel
alignment to be adjusted, as specified by the vehicle
manufacturer. Thus, alignment factors could vary with
the range specified by the manufacturer. To reduce
variability, the final rule prescribed exact alignment
settings rather than a range.
In their petitions for reconsideration, Smithers and
RMA commented that, because no ali^ment equip-
ment can be perfectly accurate, all such equipment per-
mit an allowable tolerance. Accordingly, they requested
that the wheel alignment requirements be modified to
account for this limitation by including the phrase
"within the capability of the equipment used."
Upon reconsideration, the agency recognizes that
vehicle alignment factors set to the mid-point of the
manufacturer's specifications or to the manufacturer's
recommended tolerance cannot be absolute, given the
physical limitations of alignment machines. Despite
these limitations, these settings can be made within the
tolerances of the alignment machines. To accommodate
this situation, the agency has decided to add the
sentence— "In all cases, the setting is within the toler-
ance specified by the manufacturer of the alignment
machine"— to the provisions that address wheel align-
ment (575.104XeX2Xiv), (eX2Xvii), and (eX2XviiiXC) and
(D)).
Tire Rotation Among Convoy Vehicles
The previous UTQGS provisions required that tires
be rotated to each wheel position on a given passenger
car in a treadwear test convoy (575.104(e)). However,
tires were not required to be rotated to other cars in
a convoy.
In the November 15, 1990 final rule, the agency
amended 575.104(e) to require tires to be rotated
among convoy vehicles so that each tire is at each wheel
position in the test convoy for the same distance. The
agency believed that this amendment would limit the
effects of vehicle and driver variability. At the time,
the agency believed that the amendment would be
feasible and would not impose significant hardships,
even for tires that were not 14 inches in diameter.
In their petitions for reconsideration, all the petition-
ers commented that the new rotation requirements
would result in significant problems. Accordingly, the
petitioners requested the agency to withdraw the new
rotation requirements or delay the amendment's effec-
tiveness until the agency can procure CMTs and make
them available to UTQG testers. The petitioners stated
that at present NHTSA did not have CMTs available
in enough sizes and load carrying capacities to prop-
erly test all tire lines. In addition, Smithers, RMA, and
STL argued that a delay was necessary to allow the
agency time to establish base course wear rates for the
new CMTs.
Upon reconsideration, the agency has determined
that the December 17, 1990 effective date for the tire
rotation requirements provided insufficient leadtime
to require tire rotation among vehicles in treadwear
convoys. In light of the arguments presented in the
petitions, NHTSA has carefully reexamined the tire
rotation amendment to determine an appropriate
effective date. Based on this reexamination, the agency
has decided to adopt an effective date of Septem-
ber 1, 1993. As the petitioners correctly noted,
additional leadtime is necessary to avoid practicability
problems which would arise from a short leadtime. Spe-
cifically, rotation of tires among all vehicles in a tread-
wear convoy requires the availability of CMTs of
approximately the same size as the candidate tires.
CMTs are specially manufactured tires whose wear
rate is compared to the wear rate of the candidate tires
to minimize variations in treadwear caused by factors
other than the quality of the candidate tires. Along with
the time needed to procure and produce CMTs,
NHTSA normally makes two determinations about a
new group of CMTs before making those CMTs avail-
able to manufacturers for use in testing. First, the
agency ensures that the coefficient of variation (COV)
for new CMTs does not exceed 5.0. Second, it deter-
mines the base course wear rate (BCWR) for new
CMTs. The BCWR is necessary to allow persons test-
ing candidate tires to adjust the wear rates of the can-
didate tires to reflect the severity of the environmental
conditions encountered during the testing.
Contrary to the agency's determination in the final
rule that the new rotation requirements could take
PART 575-PRE 176
effect soon after the rule was published, the agency
now believes that such an implementation date is
impracticable, given the additional time necessary to
procure and test CMTs in sizes other than the currently
available 14-inch CMTs. Accordingly, the agency is
adopting a September 1, 1993 effective date for the tire
rotation requirements. The agency notes that tires
manufactured before September 1, 1993 may comply
with the new requirements. To minimize the disrup-
tion of the treadwear grading, the agency is immedi-
ately reinstating the requirements for treadwear
convoys that were in effect before the recent amend-
ments. In the meantime, the agency will begin to pro-
cure new CMTs and establish their new base course
wear rates. The agency further notes that it will take
no enforcement action regarding the requirements
about rotation among treadwear convoy vehicles in
effect between December 17, 1990 and the issuance of
this notice.
This notice's regulatory text sets forth the complete
"treadwear grading procedures and conditions" in
575.104(e) for both before and after September 1, 1993,
except for the requirements in 574.105(eX2Xix) which
remain essentially unchanged. Given the complexity of
these requirements, the agency believes that this ap-
proach will facilitate making the amendments under-
standable to the reader.
Simplification of the Grading Procedure
The previous UTQGS provisions require the evalua-
tor to measure tread depth nine times, resulting in
4,320 measurements, during the test. In the final rule,
the agency amended 575.104(e) to permit the evalua-
tor to measure tread depth either twice or nine times,
thus resulting in the need for 960 rather than 4,320
measurements. The final rule explained that the sim-
plified grading method will provide representative
treadwear grades, while simplifying the test proce-
dures, reducing costs, and reducing the complexity of
the calculations.
In its petition for reconsideration, Smithers com-
mented that the two-point method would result in in-
creased variability and the issuance of an unneeded,
additional report. It further stated that evaluators
would still rely on the 9-point method and that no
manufacturer would elect the two-point method unless
it yielded a higher grade. Accordingly, Smithers re-
quested that the nine-point method be mandatory.
After reviewing the treadwear grading procedures,
the agency has decided to deny the petitioner's request
to permit only the nine-point method. As explained in
the final rule, because the grades determined by the
simplified two-point method and the nine-point method
are not significantly different, variability is not a
problem. In addition, providing the optional two-point
method permits a simplified test procedure, may reduce
costs, and reduces the complexity of the calculations.
Increased Treadwear Grade Interval
from 10 to 20 Points
The previous UTQGS provisions required that the
projected mileage for treadwear grades be expressed
in 10-point intervals (575.104(d)(2)(i), see also
575.104(eXixXF)). In the November 15, 1990 final rule,
the agency amended the provisions to require tread-
wear grades to be expressed in 20-point intervals. The
agency believed that since most passenger car tires are
of a radial design with significantly longer treadwear
than bias and bias-ply tires, the 20-point interval is
more relevant to consumer's buying decisions. The
agency provided a one-year leadtime for this amend-
ment, which was set to take effect on November 15,
1991.
In its petition for reconsideration, RMA requested
that the amendment about the 20-point grade interval
be withdrawn. In the alternative, the petitioner re-
quested that for tire lines existing on December 17,
1990 with treadwear grades in multiples of 10, the
agency should allow them to retain their current grade
until the tire line is phased out of production or the
grade is changed. The petitioner stated that applying
the 20-point grade amendment to molds of currently
existing tire lines would provide no benefit to con-
sumers but would cause considerable costs and
problems to manufacturers.
Upon reconsideration, the agency has determined
that a longer leadtime is necessary to reduce the costs
associated with the amendment. Accordingly, the
agency is postponing the effective date of November
15, 1991 and adopting a new effective date of Septem-
ber 1, 1993. Based on statements in the petition, the
agency now believes that without the additional lead-
time, the amendment might result in considerable costs
and problems to tire manufacturers without providing
corresponding benefits to consimiers sufficient to jus-
tify the burdens. In particular, the agency is concerned
that the new grading requirements would require the
restamping of thousands of tire molds and related con-
sumer publications within an unreasonably short
timeframe, potentially resulting in substantial costs and
unjustified losses of production. Additionally, the
agency notes that a significant number of tire lines are
routinely phased-out or regraded over the course of
three years. These difficulties can be substantially
reduced by allowing additional leadtime. Therefore, the
agency has decided to postpone the implementation of
this provision until September 1, 1993.
Effective Date
Section 103(c) of the Vehicle Safety Act requires that
each order shall take effect no sooner than 180 days
or later than one year from the date the order is issued
unless "good cause" is shown that an earlier or later
effective date is in the public interest. After reevalu-
ating the amendments in light of the petitions for
PART 575-PRE 177
reconsideration, NHTSA believes that there is "good
cause" to provide leadtime of less than 180 days for
the modification of the wheel alignment requirements,
since the amendment merely clarifies the provisions.
For the same reason, there is "good cause" to make
this provision effective within less than 30 days. The
agency further believes that there is "good cause" to
provide leadtime of more than one year for the other
amendments. The additional leadtime to the rotation
requirements should alleviate the practicability
problems raised by the petitioners. The agency notes
that tires manufactured before September 1, 1993 may
comply with the new requirements. The additional lead-
time to the provisions about 20-point intervals should
significantly reduce the costs associated with that
amendment.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR §575.104,
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards is amended
as follows:
1. Section 575.104(d)(2)(i) is revised to read as
follows:
(2) Performance— (i) Treadwear. Each tire shall be
graded for treadwear performance with the word
"TREADWEAR" followed by a number of two or
three digits representing the tire's grade for tread-
wear, expressed as a percentage of the NHTSA nomi-
nal treadwear value, when tested in accordance with
the conditions and procedures specified in paragraph
(e) of this section. On and before August 31, 1993.
treadwear grades shall be in multiples of 10 (e.g., 80,
150). On and after September 1, 1993, treadwear
grades shall be in multiples of 20 (e.g., 80, 120, and
160).
2. Section 575.104(eXl) and (eX2Xi) through (viii) are
revised to read as follows:
(e) Treadwear grading conditions and procedures—
The following requirements in subsections (e)(1) and
(e)(2)(i) through (viii) are effective frcm [INSERT DATE
OF PUBLICATION] until August 31, 1993:
(1) Conditions.
(i) Tire treadwear performance is evaluated on a
specific roadway course approximately 400 miles in
length, which is established by the NHTSA both for
its own compliance testing and for that of regulated
persons. The course is designed to produce treadwear
rates that are generally representative of those encoun-
tered by tires of differing construction types. The
course and driving procedures are described in Appen-
dix A of this section.
(ii) Treadwear grades are evaluated by first meas-
uring the performance of a candidate tire on the
government test course, and then correcting the
projected mileage obtained to account for environmen-
tal variations on the basis of the performance of the
course monitoring tires of the same general construc-
tion type (bias, bias-belted, or radial) run in the same
convoy. The three types of course monitoring tires are
made available by the NHTSA at Goodfellow Air Force
Base, San Angelo, Tex., for purchase by any persons
conducting tests at the test course.
(iii) In convoy tests, each vehicle in the same con-
voy, except for the lead vehicle, is throughout the test
within human eye range of the vehicle immediately
ahead of it.
(iv) A test convoy consists of no more than four
passenger cars, each having only rear-wheel drive.
(v) On each convoy vehicle, all tires are mounted
on identical rims of design or measuring rim width
specified for tires of that size in accordance wath 49
CFR 571.109, S4.4.1(a) or (b), or a rim having a width
within - 0 to -I- .0.50 inches of the width listed.
(2) Treadwear grading procedure.
(i) Equip a convoy as follows: Place four course
monitoring tires on one vehicle. On each other vehi-
cle, place four candidate tires with identical size desig-
nations. On each axle, place tires that are identical with
respect to manufacturer and line.
(ii) Inflate each candidate and each course monitor-
ing tire to the applicable pressure specified in Table
1 of this section.
(iii) Load each vehicle so that the load on each
course monitoring and candidate tire is 85 percent of
the test load specified in §575. 104(h).
(iv) Adjust wheel alignment to the midpoint of the
vehicle manufacturer's specifications, unless adjust-
ment to the midpoint is not recommended by the
manufacturer; in that case, adjust the alignment to the
manufacturer's recommended setting. In all cases, the
setting is within the tolerance specified by the manufac-
turer of the alignment machine.
(v) Subject candidate and course monitoring tires
to "break-in" by running the tires in the convoy for
two circuits of the test roadway (800 miles). At the end
of the first circuit, rotate each vehicle's tires by mov-
ing each front tire to the same side of the rear axle and
each rear tire to the opposite side of the front axle.
Visually inspect each tire for any indication of abnor-
mal wear, tread separation, bulging of the sidewall, or
any sign of tire failure. Void the grading results from
any tire with any of these anomalies, and replace the
tire.
(vi) After break-in, allow the air pressure in the
tires to fall to the applicable pressure specified in
Table 1 of this section or for 2 hours, whichever occurs
first. Measure, to the nearest 0.001 inch, the tread
depth of each candidate and each course monitoring
tire, avoiding treadwear indicators, at six equally
spaced points in each groove. For each tire compute
the average of the measurements. Do not measure
those shoulder grooves which are not provided with
treadwear indicators.
PART 575-PRE 178
(vii) Adjust wheel alignment to the midpoint of the
manufacturer's specifications, unless adjustment to the
midpoint is not recommended by the manufacturer; in
that case, adjust the alignment according to the
manufacturer's recommended setting. In all cases, the
setting is within the tolerance specified by the manufac-
turer of the alignment machine.
(viii) Drive the convoy on the test roadway for
6,400 miles. After each 800 miles:
(A) Following the procedure set out in para-
graph (eX2Xvi) of this section, allow the tires to cool
and measure the average tread depth of each tire.
(B) Rotate each vehicle's tires by moving each
front tire to the same side of the rear axle and each
rear tire to the opposite side of the front axle.
(C) Rotate the vehicles in the convoy by moving
the last vehicle to the lead position. Do not rotate driver
position within the convoy.
(D) Adjust the wheel alignment to the midpoint
of the vehicle manufacturer's specification, unless ad-
justment to the midpoint is not recommended by the
manufacturer; in that case, adjust the alignment to the
manufacturer's recommended setting. In all cases, the
setting is within the tolerance specified by the manufac-
turer of the alignment machine.
(E) If determining the projected mileage by the
nine-point method set forth in (eX2XixXAXl), measure
the average tread depth of each tire following the
procedure set forth in paragraph (eX2Xvi) of this
section.
(F) At the end of the test, measure the tread
depth of each tire pursuant to the procedure set forth
in paragraph (eX2Xvi) of this section.
The following requirements in subsections (e)(1) and
(e)(2)(i) through (viii) are effective on and after Septem-
ber 1, 1993 and may be used at the manufacturer's
option before this date:
(e) Treadwear grading conditions and procedures—
(1) Conditions.
(i) Tire treadwear performance is evaluated on a
specific roadway course approximately 400 miles in
length, which is estabhshed by the NHTSA both for
its own compliance testing and for that of regulated
persons. The course is designed to produce treadwear
rates that are generally representative of those encoun-
tered by tires in public use. The course and driving
procedures are described in Appendix A of this section.
(ii) Treadwear grades are evaluated by first meas-
uring the performance of a candidate tire on the
government test course, and then correcting the
projected mileage obtained to account for environmen-
tal variations on the basis of the performance of the
course monitoring tires run in the same convoy. The
course monitoring tires are made available by the
NHTSA at Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo,
Tex., for purchase by any persons conducting tests at
the test course.
(iii) In convoy tests, each vehicle in the same con-
voy, except for the lead vehicle, is throughout the test
within human eye range of the vehicle immediately
ahead of it.
(iv) A test convoy consists of two or four passenger
cars, each having only rear-wheel drive.
(v) On each convoy vehicle, all tires are mounted
on identical rims of design or measuring rim width
specified for tires of that size in accordance with 49
CFR 571.109, S4.4.1(a) or (b), or a rim having a width
within -0 to -1-0.50 inches of the width listed.
(2) Treadwear grading procedure.
(i) Equip a convoy as follows: Place four course
monitoring tires on one vehicle. Place four candidate
tires with identical size designations on each other
vehicle in the convoy. On each axle, place tires that are
identical with respect to manufacturer and line.
(ii) Inflate each candidate and each course mon-
itoring tire to the applicable pressure specified in
Table 1 of this section.
(iii) Load each vehicle so that the load on each
course monitoring and candidate tire is 85 percent of
the test load specified in §575. 104(h).
(iv) Adjust wheel alignment to the midpoint of the
vehicle manufacturer's specifications, unless adjust-
ment to the midpoint is not recommended by the
manufacturer; in that case, adjust the alignment to the
manufacturer's recommended setting. In all cases, the
setting is within the tolerance specified by the manufac-
turer of the alignment machine.
(v) Subject candidate and course monitoring tires
to "break-in" by running the tires in the convoy for
two circuits of the test roadway (800 miles). At the end
of the first circuit, rotate each vehicle's tires by mov-
ing each front tire to the same side of the rear axle and
each rear tire to the opposite side of the front axle.
Visually inspect each tire for any indication of abnor-
mal wear, tread separation, bulging of the sidewall, or
any sign of tire failure. Void the grading results from
any tire with any of these anomalies, and replace the
tire.
(vi) After break-in, allow the air pressure in the
tires to fall to the applicable pressure specified in
Table 1 of this section or for 2 hours, whichever oc-
curs first. Measure, to the nearest 0.001 inch, the tread
depth of each candidate and each course monitoring
tire, avoiding treadwear indicators, at six equally
spaced points in each groove. For each tire compute
the average of the measurements. Do not measure
those shoulder grooves which are not provided with
treadwear indicators.
(vii) Adjust wheel alignment to the midpoint of the
manufacturer's specifications, unless adjustment to the
midpoint is not recommended by the manufacturer; in
that case, adjust the alignment according to the
PART 575-PRE 179
manufacturer's recommended setting. In all cases, the
setting is within the tolerance specified by the manufac-
turer of the alignment machine.
(viii) Drive the convoy on the test roadway for
6,400 miles.
(A) After each 400 miles, rotate each vehicle's
tires by moving each front tire to the same side of the
rear axle and each rear tire to the opposite side of the
front axle. Visually inspect each tire for treadwear
anomalies.
(B) After each 800 miles, rotate the vehicles in
the convoy by moving the last vehicle to the lead posi-
tion. Do not rotate driver positions within the convoy.
In four-car convoys, vehicle one shall become vehicle
two, vehicle two shall become vehicle three, vehicle
three shall become vehicle four, and vehicle four shall
become vehicle one.
(C) After each 800 miles, if necessary, adjust
wheel alignment to the midpoint of the vehicle
manufacturer's specification, unless adjustment to the
midpoint is not recommended by the manufacturer; in
that case, adjust the alignment to the manufacturer's
recommended setting. In all cases, the setting is within
the tolerance specified by the manufacturer of the
alignment machine.
(D) After each 800 miles, if determining the
projected mileage by the 9-point method set forth in
(eX2XixXAXl), measure the average tread depth of each
tire following the procedure set forth in paragraph
(eX2Xvi) of this section.
(E) After each 1,600 miles, move the complete
set of four tires to the following vehicle. Move the tires
on the last vehicle to the lead vehicle. In moving the
tires, rotate them as set forth in (eX2XviiiXA) of this
section.
(F) At the end of the test, measure the tread
depth of each tire pursuant to the procedure set forth
in paragraph (eX2Xvi) of this section.
4. Section 575.104(eX2XixXF) is revised to read as
follows:
(F) Compute the percentage (P) of the NHTSA
nominal treadwear value for each candidate tire using
the following formula:
Projected mileage
30,000
100
On and before August 31, 1993, round off the per-
centage to the nearest lower 10-point increment. On
and after September 1, 1993, round off the percentage
to the nearest lower 20-point increment.
Issued on June 4, 1991
56 F.R. 26769
June 11, 1991
PART 575-PRE 180
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations; Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards:
Treadwear Test Course
(Docket No. 25; Notice 67)
RIN: 2127-AE-01
ACTION: Final rule.
SU M M ARY: The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Stand-
ards (UTQGS) contain detailed testing procedures for
generating consumer information about the treadwear,
traction, and temperature resistance of passenger car
tires. The treadwear grading procedures specify the
specific test course along which treadwear convoys
must travel to ensure uniformity among test grades.
This rule amends the test course to account for poten-
tially unsafe traffic patterns along the test route. The
agency has concluded that the course change will not
compromise the reliability of the treadwear grades.
EFFECTIVE DATES: December 16, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(UTQGS) set forth conditions and procedures in 49
CFR 574.104(e) for convoys used to generate tread-
wear data. Those data are in turn used to determine
treadwear grades. The treadwear grades inform con-
sumers about the amount of expected tread life for each
tire offered for sale. This allows the tire purchaser to
compare passenger car tires based on tread life.
Although these treadwear grades are not intended to
be used to predict the actual mileage that a particular
tire will achieve, they must be sufficiently accurate to
help consumers choose among tires based on their rela-
tive tread life.
On March 26, 1991, the agency proposed amending
the specified roadway course on which treadwear con-
voys are required to be run (56 FR 12503). As a result
of recent road improvements, the current course, as
specified in Appendix A to the UTQGS, poses a sig-
nificant safety problem to certain test convoys which
must make a U-turn on a heavily travelled road. Ac-
cordingly, the agency proposed substituting a similar
3.6 mile portion to the test course at a more convenient
location to help the adversely affected convoys avoid
the U-turn. The agency tentatively determined that
differences, if any, in the wear characteristics between
the two alternate portions of the test course should
have an insignificant effect on treadwear grades.
The agency received one comment to the proposal
from Smithers Laboratory, which supported the
proposal. No comments were received opposing the
proposal. The agency therefore has decided to amend
the treadwear test course, as proposed. Accordingly,
test convoys may travel on an alternative 3.6 mile leg
of the test course to avoid the unsafe traffic situation.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR §575.104,
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards is amended
as follows:
Eastern Loop. From junction of Loop Road 306 and
FM388 (2), make right turn onto FM388 and drive east
to junction with FM2334 (13). Turn right onto FM2334
and proceed south across FM765 (14) to junction of
FM2334 and US87 (15). For convoys that originate at
Goodfellow AFB, make U-turn and return to junction
of FM388 and Loop Road 306 (2) by the same route.
For convoys that do not originate at Goodfellow AFB,
upon reaching junction of FM2334 and US87 (15), make
U-turn and continue north on FM2334 past the inter-
section with FM388 to Veribest Cotton Gin, a distance
of 1.8 miles beyond the intersection. Make U-turn and
return to junction of FM2334 and FM388. Turn right
onto FM388, proceed west to junction FM388 and Loop
Road 306.
Northwestern Loop. From junction of Loop Road
306 and FM388 (2), make right turn onto Loop Road
306. Proceed onto US277, to junction with FM2105 (8).
Turn left onto FM2105 and proceed west to junction
with US87 (10). Turn right on US87 and proceed north-
west to the junction with FM2034 near the town of
Water Valley (11). Turn right onto FM2034 and pro-
ceed north to Texas 208 (12). Turn right onto Texas
208 and proceed south to junction with FM2105 (9).
Turn left onto FM2105 and proceed east to junction
with US277 (8). Turn right onto US277 and proceed
south onto Loop Road 306 to junction with FM388 (2).
For convoys that originate at Goodfellow AFB, turn
right onto FM388 and proceed to starting point at junc-
tion of Ft. McKavitt Road and FM388 (1). For convoys
that do not originate at Goodfellow AFB, do not turn
right onto FM388 but continue south on Loop Road
306.
PART 575-PRE 181
3 In 575.104, the Chart "KEY POINTS ALONG
TREADWEAR TEST COURSE, APPROXIMATE
MILEAGES, AND REMARKS" is revised to read as
follows:
KEY POINTS ALONG TREADWEAR
TEST COURSE, APPROX. MILEAGES,
AND REMARKS ***
Mileages Remarks
1 Ft. McKavitt Road & . . 0
FM388
2 FM388 & Loop 306* ., 2 STOP
3 Loop 306 &US277.... 10
4 Sonora 72
5 US277&FM189 88
6 FM 189 & Texas 163 .. 124
7 Historical Marker 143 U-TURN
(Camp Hudson)
4 Sonora 214
3 Loop 306 & US 277 ... 276
2 FM 388 & Loop 306 .. . 283
13 FM388&FM2334** . 290 STOP
14 FM 2334 &FM 765 ... 292 STOP
15 FM2334&US87 295 U-TURN
14 FM 2334 &FM 765 ... 298 STOP
13 FM 388 &FM 2334 ... 300 STOP/ YIELD/
BLINKING RED
LIGHT
2 FM388&Loop306 ... 307 STOP/ YIELD/
BLINKING RED
LIGHT
8 US277&FM2105.... 313
9 FM 2105 & Texas 208 . 317 STOP
10 FM2105&US87 320 STOP
11 FM2034&US87 338
12 FM 2034 & Texas 208 . 362 YIELD
9 FM 2105 & Texas 208 . 387
8 FM 2105 & US 277.... 391 YIELD/ STOP
2 FM 388 & Loop 306 * . . 398
1 Ft. McKavitt Road & . . 400
FM388
16 Veribest Cotton Gin... 1.8 U-TURN
* Convoys not originating at Goodfellow AFB will not traverse
the leg of course.
••Convoys not originating at Goodfellow AFB will proceed to
16, Veribest Cotton Gin, Make U-turn and return to 13.
••• (56 F.R. 26769— June 11, 1991. Effective: September 1,
1993)
FIGURE 2
4. In 575.104, Figure 8 is amended to read
follows:
WATER VALLEY
AVENUE C (CONVOY GATE)^ -^^'-^^ytTrTSl
1 FORCE BASE p-^__ i "~~^-~-
ANGELO. TEXAS 1 ^^.^^^T^P fa?] ®
©
t
CAMP HUDSON SITE
Issued on September 11, 1991.
56 F.R. 47011
September 17, 1991
PART 575-PRE 182
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations; Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards:
Vehicles in Treadwear Convoys
(Docket No. 25; Notice 66)
RIN: 2127-AD68
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends the treadwear testing
procedures in the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Stan-
dards (UTQGS) to permit the use of front-wheel-drive
passenger cars and light trucks, vans, and multipur-
pose passenger vehicles. Prior to this amendment, the
treadware grading procedures only permitted testing
of passenger car tires on rear- wheel -drive passenger
cars. The agency concludes that the amendment will
result in the use of test vehicles that more accurately
reflect the types of vehicles currently being produced.
The amendment will also provide treadwear evaluators
with greater flexibility in obtaining vehicles.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This amendment becomes effective
December 16, 1991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(UTQGS) set forth procedures for treadwear testing
in 49 CFR 575.104(e). The purpose of the treadwear
grades is to aid consumers in the selection of new tires
by informing them of the relative amount of expected
tread life for each tire offered for sale. This allows the
tire purchaser to compare passenger car tires based
on tread life. Although these treadwear grades are not
intended to be used to predict the actual mileage that
a particular tire will achieve, they must be reasonably
accurate to help consumers choose among tires based
on their relative tread life.
On February 25, 1991, the agency proposed amend-
ing the treadwear grading procedures to permit tread-
wear convoys to consist of front-wheel-drive passenger
cars and light trucks, vans and multipurpose passenger
vehicles (MPVs) (or any combination thereof) (56 FR
7643). At the time of the proposal, the regulations
specified that only rear-wheel-drive passenger cars
could be used in the testing to determine treadwear
grades (575.104(eXlXiv)). The reason for this limitation
was that most vehicles used by consumers were of this
type when the regulations were initially issued. Since
then, the proportion of the rear-wheel-drive and front-
wheel-drive vehicles has changed radically.
Approximately 80 percent of all model year 1989 pas-
sengers cars have front-wheel-drive. In addition, the
overall light duty vehicle fleet includes a steadily in-
creasing percentage of light trucks, vans, and other
MPVs. Given these changes, the agency studies the
feasibility of using front-wheel-drive cars and light
trucks, vans, and MPVs for treadwear testing. The
age*- y's analysis of data indicated that treadwear rates
of lires tested on these vehicles were comparable to
the treadwear rates on rear-wheel-drive passenger
cars. Based on the foregoing, the agency proposed the
amendment, believing that it would result in the use
of test vehicles that more accurately reflect the types
of vehicles being manufactured and would make it eas-
ier for test fleet operators to obtain vehicles. The
amendment also changes the specified size of the test
convoy from "no more than four passenger cars" to
either "two or four passenger cars, light trucks, or
MPVs."
The agency received no comments to the February
proposal. The agency therefore has decided to amend
the treadwear convoy requirements, as proposed. Ac-
cordingly, front-wheel-drive passenger cars and light
trucks, vans, and MPVs may be used in treadwear
convoys.
56 F.R. 57988
November 15, 1991
PART 575-PRE 183-184
(c) Application. (1) This section applies to new
pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars.
However, this section does not apply to deep tread,
winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary
use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of
10 to 12 inches, or to limited production tires as
defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) "Limited production tire" means a tire
meeting all of the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) The annual domestic production or impor-
tation into the United States by the tire's
manufacturer of tires of the same design and
size as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;
(ii) In the case of a tire marketed under a
brand name, the annual domestic purchase or
importation into the United States by a brand
name owner of tires of the same design and
size as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;
(iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle
manufacturer's recommended tire size designa-
tion for a new motor vehicle produced in or im-
ported into the United States in quantities
greater than 10,000 during the calendar year
preceeding the year of the tire's manufacturer;
and
(iv) The total annual domestic production or
importation into the United States by the tire's
manufacturer, and in the case of a tire manufac-
turer, and in case of a tire marketed under a
brand name, the total annual domestic purchase
or purchase for importation into the United
States by the tire's brand name owner, of tires
meeting the criteria of paragraphs (cX2) (i), (ii),
and (iii) of this section, does not exceed 35,000
tires.
Tire design is the combination of general struc-
tural characteristics, materials, and tread pat-
tern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or
other minor variations among tires,
(d) Requirements.
(1) Information.
(i) Each manufacturer of tires, or in the case
of tires marketed under a brand name, each
brand name owner, shall provide ghading in-
formation for each tire of which he is the
manufacturer or brand name owner in the
manner set forth in paragraphs (d) (1) (i) (A)
and (d) (1) (i) (B) of this section. The grades for
each tire shall be only those specified in
paragraph (d) (2) of this section. Each tire shall
be able to achieve the level of performance
represented by each grade with which it is
labeled. An individual tire need not, however,
meet further requirements after having been
subjected to the test for any one grade.
(A) Except for a tire line, manufactured
within the first six months of production of
the tire line, each tire shall be graded with
the words, letters, symbols, and figures
specified in paragraph (d) (2) of this section,
permanently molded into or onto the tire
sidewall between the tire's maximum section
width and shoulder in accordance with one of
the methods in Figure 1.
(B) (1) Each tire manufactured before Oc-
tober 1, 1980, other than a tire sold as original
equipment on a new vehicle, shall have affixed
to its tread surface in a manner such that it is
not easily removable a label containing its
grades and other information in the form il-
lustrated in Figure 2, Part II, bearing the
heading "DOT QUALITY GRADES." The
treadwear grade attributed to the tire shall be
either imprinted or indelibly stamped on the
label adjacent to the description of the
tread- ear grade. The label shall also depict
all possible grades for traction and temper-
ature resistance. The traction and temper-
ature resistance performance grades attri-
buted to the tire shall be indelibly circled.
However, each tire labeled in conformity with
the requirements of paragraph (dXlXiXBX^)
of this section need not comply with the provi-
sions of this paragraph.
(2) Each tire manufactured on or after
October 1, 1980, other than a tire sold as
original equipment on a new vehicle, shall
have affixed to its tread surface so as not
to be easily removable a label or labels con-
taining its grades and other information in
the form illustrated in Figure 2, Parts I
and II. The treadwear grade attributed to
the tire shall be either imprinted or in-
delibly stamped on the label containing the
material in Part I of Figure 2, directly to
the right of or below the word "TREAD-
WEAR". The traction and temperature
resistance performance grades attributed
to the tire shall be indelibly circled in an ar-
ray of the potential grade letters (ABC)
directly to the right of or below the words
"TRACTION" and "TEMPERATURE"
in Part I of Figure 2. The words "TREAD-
WEAR," "TRACTION," and "TEMPER-
ATURE," in that order, may be laid out
PART 575-7
vertically or horizontally. The text part of
Part II of Figure 2 may be printed in
capital letters. The text of Part I and the
text of Part II of Figure 2 need not appear
on the same label, but the edges of the two
texts must be positioned on the tire tread
so as to be separated by a distance of no
more than one inch. If the text of Part I
and the text of Part II are placed on sepa-
rate labels, the notation "See EXPLAN-
ATION OF DOT QUALITY GRADES"
shall be added to the bottom of the Part I
text, and the words "EXPLANATION OF
DOT QUALITY GRADES" shall appear at
the top of the Part II text. The text of
Figure 2 shall be oriented on the tire tread
surface with lines of type running perpen-
dicular to the tread circumference. If a
label bearing a tire size designation is at-
tached to the tire tread surface and the tire
size designation is oriented with lines of
type running perpendicular to the tread
circumference, the text of Figure 2 shall
read in the same direction as the tire size
designation,
(ii) In the case of information required in
accordance with § 575.6(c) to be furnished to
prospective purchasers of motor vehicles and
tires, each vehicle manufacturer and each tire
manufacturer or brand name owner shall as
part of that information list all possible grades
for traction and temperature resistance, and
restate verbatim the explanations for each
performance area specified in Figure 2. The in-
formation need not be in the same format as in
Figure 2. In the case of a tire manufacturer or
brand name owner, the information must in-
dicate clearly and unambiguously the grade in
each performance area for each tire of that
ma ufacturer or brand name owner offered for
sale at the particular location.
(iii) In the case of information required in
accordance with § 575.6(a) to be furnished to
the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle,
other than a motor vehicle equipped with bias-
ply tires manufactured prior to October 1,
1979, and April 1, 1980, and a radial-ply tire
manufactured prior to October 1, 1980, each
manufacturer of motor vehicles shall as part of
the information list all possible grades for trac-
tion and temperature resistance and restate
verbatim the explanation for each perform-
ance area specified in Figure 2. The informa-
tion need not be in the format of Figure 2, but it
must contain a statement referring the reader
to the tire sidewall for the specific tire grades
for the tires with which the vehicle is equipped.
(2) Performance.
(i) Treadwear. Each tire shall be graded for
treadwear performance with the word
"TREADWEAR" followed by a number of
two of three digits representing the tire's
grade for treadwear, expressed as a percen-
tage of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value,
when tested in accordance with the conditions
and procedures specified in paragraph (e) of
this section. [On and before August 31, 1993,
treadwear grades shall be multiples of 10 (e.g.,
80, 150). On and after September 1, 1993,
treadwear grades shall be in multiples of 20.
(e.g., 80, 120, and 160). (56 F.R. 26769— June 11,
1991. Effective: September 1, 1993)1
(ii) Traction. Each tire shall be graded for
traction performance with the word "TRAC-
TION," followed by the symbols C, B, or A
(either asterisks or 5-pointed stars) when the
tire is tested in accordance with the conditions
and procedures specified in paragraph (f) of
this section.
(A) The tire shall be graded C when the
adjusted traction coefficient is either:
(1) 0.38 or less when tested in accord-
ance with paragraph (f) (2) of this section
on the asphalt surface specified in
paragraph (f) (1) (i) of this section, or
(2) 0.26 or less when tested in accord-
ance with paragraph (f ) (2) of this section
on the concrete surface specified in
paragraph (f) (1) (i) of this section.
(B) The tire may be graded B only when
its adjusted traction coefficient is both:
(i) More than 0.38 when tested in
accordance with paragraph (f) (2) of this
section on the asphalt surface specified in
paragraph (f) (1) (i) of this section, and
(2) More than 0.26 when tested in
accordance with paragraph (f) (2) of this
section on the concrete surface specified in
paragraph (f) (1) (i) of this section.
(C) The tire may be graded A only when
its adjusted traction coefficient is both:
(1) More than 0.47 when tested in accord-
ance with paragraph (f) (2) of this section on
the asphalt surface specified in paragraph
(f) (1) (i) of this section, and
6/11/91)
PART 575-8
(2) More than 0.35 when tested in accord-
ance with paragraph (f ) (2) of this section on
the concrete surface specified in paragraph
(f) (1) (i) of this section,
(iii) Temperature resistance. Each tire shall
be graded for temperature resistance perform-
ance with the word "TEMPERATURE" fol-
lowed by the letter A, B, or C, based on its
performance when the tire is tested in accord-
ance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (g) of this section. A tire shall be
considered to have successfully completed a
test stage in accordance with this paragraph if,
at th end of the test stage, it exhiJbits no visual
evidence of tread, sidewall, ply, cord, in-
nerliner or bead separation, chunking, broken
cords, cracking or open splices a defined in
§ 571.109 of this chapter, and the tire pressure
is not less than the pressure specified in
paragraph (g) (1) of this section.
(A) The tire shall be graded C if it fails to
complete the 500 rpm test stage specified in
paragraph (g) (9) of this section.
(B) The tire may be graded B only if it
successfully completes the 500 rpm test stage
specified in paragraph (g) (9) of this section.
(C) The tire may be graded A only if it
successfully completes the 575 rpm test stage
specified in paragraph (g) (9) of this section.
(e) Treadwear grading conditions and proce-
dures— (1) Conditions, (i) Tire treadwear per-
formance is evaluated on a specific roadway course
approximately 400 miles in length, which is
established by the NHTSA both for its own com-
pliance testing and for that of regulated persons.
The course is designed to produce treadwear rates
that are generally representative of those en-
countered by tires in public use. The course and
driving procedures are described in Appendix A to
this section.
(ii) Treadwear grades are evaluated by first
measuring the performance of a candidate tire
on the government test course, and then
correcting the projected mileage obtained to
account for environmental variations on the
basis of the performance of the course
monitoring tires run in the same convoy. The
course monitoring tires are made available by
the NHTSA at Goodfellow Air Force Base, San
Angelo, Tex., for purchase by any persons con-
ducting tests at the test course.
(iii) In convoy tests each vehicle in the same
convoy, except for the lead vehicle, is
throughout the test within human eye range of
the vehicle immediately ahead of it.
(iv) [A test convoy consists of two or four
passenger cars, light trucks, or MVPs, each
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. (56 F.R.
57988— November 15. 1991. Effective: December
16, 1991)1
(v) On each convoy vehicle, all tires are
mounted on identical rims of design or measur-
ing rim width specified for tires of that size in
accordance with 49 CFR 571.109, § 4.4.1(a) or
(b), or a rim having a width within -0 to -1-0.50
inches of the width oisted.
(2) Treadwear grading procedure, (i) [Equip a
convoy as follows: Place four course monitoring
tires on one vehicle. Place four candidate tires
with identical size designations on each other
vehicle in the convoy. On each axle, place tires
that are identical with respect to manufacturer
and line.
(ii) Inflate each candidate and each course
monitoring tire to the applicable pressure
specified in Table 1 of this section.
(iii) Load each vehicle so that the load on each
course monitoring and candidate tire is 85 per-
cent of the test load specified in § 575.104(h).
(iv) Adjust wheel alignment to the midpoint
of the vehicle manufacturer's specifications,
unless adjustment to the midpoint is not
recommended by the manufacturer; in that
case, adjust the alignment to the manufac-
turer's recommended setting. In all cases, the
setting is within the tolerance specified by the
manufacturer of the alignment machine.
(v) Subject candidate and course monitoring
tires to "break-in" by running the tires in con-
voy for two circuits of the test roadway (800
miles). At the end of the first circuit, rotate
each vehicle's tires by moving each front tire
to the same side of the rear axle and each rear
tire to the opposite side of the front axle.
Visually inspect each tire for any indication of
abnormal wear, tread separation, bulging of
the sidewall, or any sign of tire failure. Void
the grading results from any tire with any of
these anomalies, and replace the tire.
(vi) After break-in, allow the air pressure in
the tires to fall to the applicable pressure
specified in Table 1 of this section or for 2
hours, whichever occurs first. Measure, to the
nearest 0.001 inch, the tread depth of each can-
didate and each course monitoring tire,
avoiding treadwear indicators, at six equally
spaced points in each groove. For each tire
compute the average of the measurements. Do
not measure those shoulder grooves which are
not provided with treadwear indicators.
(Rev. 11/15/91)
PART 575-
(vii) Adjust wheel alignment to the midpoint
of the manufacturer's specifications, unless ad-
justment to the midpoint is not recommended
by the manufacturer; in that case, adjust the
alignment according to the manufacturer's
recommended setting. In all cases, the setting
is within the tolerance specified by the
manufacturer of the alignment machine.
(viii) Drive the convoy on the test roadway
for 6,400 miles.
(A) After each 400 miles, rotate each vehi-
cle's tires by moving each front tire to the
same side of the rear axle and each rear tire
to the opposite side of the front axle. Visually
inspect each tire for treadwear anomalies.
(B) After each 800 miles, rotate the
vehicles in the convoy by moving the last
vehicle to the lead position. Do not rotate
driver positions within the convoy. In four-
car convoys, vehicle one shall become vehicle
two, vehicle two shall become vehicle three,
vehicle three shall become vehicle four, and
vehicle four shall become vehicle one.
(C) After each 800 miles, if necessary,
adjust wheel alignment to the midpoint of
the vehicle manufacturer's specification,
unless adjustment to the midpoint is not
recommended by the manufacturer; in that
case, adjust the alignment to the manu-
facturer's recommended setting. In all cases,
the setting is within the tolerance specified
by the manufactur of the alignment machine.
(D) After each 800 miles, if determining
the projected mileage by the 9-point method
set forth in (e)(2)(ix)(aXl), measure the
average tread depth of each tire following
the procedure set forth in paragraph
(e)(2)(vi) of this section.
(E) After each 1,600 miles, move the com-
plete set of four tires to the following vehi-
cle. Move the tires on the last vehicle to the
lead vehicle. In moving the tires, rotate them
as set forth in (e)(2)(viii)(A) of this section.
(F) At the end of the test, measure the
tread depth of each tire pursuant to the pro-
cedure set forth in paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this
section.
(ix)(A) Determine the projected mileage for
each candidate tire either by the nine-point
method of least squares set forth in
(eX2Xix)(A)(l) and Appendix C, or by the two-
point arithmetical method set forth in
(eX2XixXAX2). Notify NHTSA about which of
the alternative grading methods is being used.
(1) Nine-Point Method of Least Sqwares. For
each course monitoring and candidate
tire in the convoy, using the average tread
depth measurements obtained in accordance
with paragraphs (e) (2) (vi) of this section and
the corresponding mileages as data points,
apply the method of least squares as described
in Appendix C of this section to determine the
estimated regression line of y on x given by the
following formula:
y = a -I- bx
1000
where:
y = average tread depth in mils,
x = miles after break-in,
a = y intercept of regression line (reference tread
depth) in mils, calculated using the method of least
squares; and
b = the slope of the regression line in mils of tread
depth per 1,000 miles, calculated using the method
of least squares. This slope will be negative in
value. The tire's wear rate is defined as the ab-
solute value of the slope of the regression line.
(2) Two-Point Arithmetical Method. For
each course monitoring and candidate tire in
the convoy, using the average tread depth
measurements obtained in accordance with
paragraph (e) (2) (vi) and (eX2XviiiXF) of this
section and the corresponding mileages as data
points, determine the slope (m) of the tire's
wear in mils of thread depth per 1,000 miles by
the following formula:
m = 1000 (Yl-Yo)
(Xl-Xo)
where:
Yo = average tread depth after break-in, mios
Yl = average tread depth at 6,400 miles, mils
Xo = o miles (after break-in).
Xl=6,400 miles of travel
This slope (m) wiW be negative in value, tire's
wear rate is defined as the slope (m) expressed
in mils per 1000 miles.
(B) Average the wear rates of the four
course monitoring tires as determined in ac-
cordance with paragraph (eX2Xix)(A) of this
section.
(C) Determine the course severity adjust-
ment factor by dividing the base wear rate for
the course monitoring tires (see note below) by
the average wear rate for the four course
monitoring tires.
PART 575-10
.»J> Sui. Mold S? V^
xjy OPTION. y\
TREAOWEAR 160 ^
TRACTION B
TEMPERATURE B ^ i
[Part 1] DOT Quality Grades
Treadwear
The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions
on a specified government test course. For example, a tire graded 150 would wear one and a half (1 V2) times as well on
the government course as a tire graded 100. The relative performance of tires depends upon the actual conditions of
their use, however, and may depart significantly from the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices,
and differences in road characteristics and climate.
Traction
The traction grades, from highest to lowest, are A, B, and C, and they represent the tire's ability to stop on wet
pavements as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A
tire marked C may have poor traction performance. WARNING: The traction grade assigned to this tire is based on
braking (straightahead) traction tests and does not included cornering (turning) traction.
Temperature
The temperature grades of A (the highest), B, and C, representing the tire's resistance to the generation of heat and its
ability to dissipate heat when tested under controlled conditions on a specified indoor laboratory test wheel. Sustained
high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degenerate and reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can
lead to sudden tire failure. The grade C corresponds to a level of performance which all passenger car tires must meet
under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Grades B and A represent higher levels of performance on
the laboratory test wheel than the minimum required by law. WARNING: The temperature grade for this tire is
established for a tire that is properly inflated and not overloaded. Excessive speed, under-inflation, or excessive
loading either separately or in combination, can cause heat buildup and possible tire failure.
(Part II] All Passenger Car Tires Must Conform to Federal Safety Requirements in Addition to These Grades.
(Rev. 11/15/90) PART 575-11
NOTE: The base wear rates for the cou Go
monitoring tires will be furnished to
the purchaser at the time of purchase.
(d) Determine the adjusted wear rate for each
candidate tire by multiplying its wear rate deter-
mined in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(ix)(A) of
this section by the course severity adjustment fac-
tor determined in accordance with paragraph
(e)(2)(ix)(C) of this section.
(E) Determine the projected mileage for each
candidate tire by applying the appropriate formula
set forth below:
(1) If the projected mileage is calculated pur-
suant to (e)(2)(ix)(a)(l), then
Projected mileage =
where:
a =y intercept of regression line (reference tread depth)
for the candidate tire as determined in accordance
with paragraph (e) (2) (ix) (A) of this section.
b' = the adjusted wear rate for the candidate tire as
determined in accordance with paragraph
(e) (2) (ix) (D) of this section.
(2) If the projected mileage is calculated pur-
suant to (e)(2)(ix)(a)(2), then:
-800
Projected mileage =
1000 (Yo- 62)
mc
-800
where:
Yo = average tread depth after break-in, mils.
mc = the adjusted wear rate for the candidate tire as
determined in accordance with paragraph
(e) (2) (ix) (D) of this section.
(F) Compute the percentage (P) of the
NHTSA nominal treadwear value for each
candidate tire using the following formula:
P =
Projected Mileage
On and before August 31, 1993, round off the
percentage to the nearest lower 10% incre-
ment. [On and after September 1, 1993,
round off the percentage to the nearest
lower 20-point increment. (56 F.R. 26769—
June 11, 1991. Effective: September 1, 1993)]
(f) Traction grading conditions and proce-
dures—(1) Conditions, (i) Tire traction perfor-
mance is evaluated on skid pads that are estab-
lished, and whose severity is monitored, by the
NHSTA both for its compliance testing and for
that of regulated persons. The test pavements are
asphalt and concrete surfaces constructed in accor-
dance with the specifications for pads "C" and
"A" in the "Manual for the Construction and
Maintenance of Skid Surfaces," National Tech-
nical Information Service No. DOT-HS-800-814.
The surfaces have locked wheel traction coeffi-
cients when evaluated in accordance with para-
graphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vii) of this section of
0.50 ± 0.10 for the asphalt and 0.35 ± 0.10 for the
concrete. The location of the skid pads is described
in Appendix B of this section.
(ii) The standard tire is the American Soci-
ety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 501
"Standard Tire for Pavement Skid Resistance
Tests."
(iii) The pavement surface is wetted in ac-
cordance with paragraph 3.5, "Pavement Wet-
ting System," of ASTM Method E 274-79,
"Skid Resistance of Paved Surfaces Using a
Full-Scale Tire."
(iv) The test apparatus is a test trailer built
in conformity with the specifications in
paragraph 3, "Apparatus," of ASTM Method
E 274-79, and instrumented in accordance
with paragraph 3.3.2 of that Method, except
that "wheel load" in paragraph 3.2.2 and tire
and rim specifications in paragraph 3.2.3 of
that Method are as specified in the procedures
in paragraph (f ) (2) of this section for standard
and candidate tires.
(v) The test apparatus is calibrated in ac-
cordance with ASTM Method F 377-74,
"Standard Method for Calibration of Braking
Force for Testing of Pneumatic Tires" with
the trailer's tires inflated to 24 psi and loaded
to 1,085 pounds.
(vi) Consecutive tests on the same surface
are conducted not less than 30 seconds apart,
(vii) A standard tire is discarded in accord-
ance with ASTM Method E 501.
(2) Procedure, (i) Prepare two standard tires
as follows:
(A) Condition the tires by running them
for 200 miles on a pavement surface.
(B) Mount each tire on a rim of design or
measuring rim width specified for tires of its
size in accordance with 49 CFR 571.109,
§ 4.4.1(a) or (b), or a rim having a width
within -0 to -1-0.50 inches of the width
listed. Then inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in
the case of a tire with inflation pressure
measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa.
(C) Statically balance each tire-rim com-
bination.
(D) Allow each tire to cool to ambient tem-
perature and readjust its inflation pressure to
24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation
pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa.
PART 575-12
(ii) Mount the tires on the test apparatus
described in paragraph (f) (1) (iv) of this sec-
tion and load each tire to 1,085 pounds.
(iii) Tow the trailer on the asphalt test sur-
face specified in paragraph (f) (1) (i) of this sec-
tion at a speed of 40 mph, lock one trailer wheel,
and record the locked-wheel traction coefficient
on the tire associated with that wheel between
0.5 and 1.5 seconds after lockup.
(iv) Repeat the test on the concrete surface,
locking the same wheel.
(v) Repeat the tests specified in paragraphs
(f) (2) (iii) and (f) (2) (iv) of this section for a
total of 10 measurements on each test surface.
(vi) Repeat the procedures specified in para-
graphs (f) (2) (iii) through (f) (2) (v) of this sec-
tion, locking the wheel associated with the
other tire.
(vii) Average the 20 measurements taken on
the asphalt surface to find the standard tire
traction coefficient for the asphalt surface.
Average the 20 measurements taken on the
concrete surface to find the standard tire trac-
tion coefficient for the concrete surface. The
standard tire traction coefficient so determined
may be used in the computation of adjusted
traction coefficients for more than one can-
didate tire.
(viii) Prepare two candidate tires of the same
construction type, manufacturer, line, and size
designation in accordance with paragraph (f) (2)
(i) of this section, mount them on the test ap-
paratus, and test one of them according to the
procedures of paragraph (fX2Xii) through (v) of
this section, except load each tire to 85% of the
test load specified in §575. 104(h). [For CT tires,
the test inflation of candidate tires shall be 230
kPa. (55 F.R. 49618— November 30, 1990. Effec-
tive: December 31, 1990)]
(ix) Compute a candidate tire's adjusted traction
coefficient for asphalt (na) by the following formula:
;^= Measured candidate tire coefficient for
asphalt +0.50
- Measured standard tire coefficient for asphalt
(x) Compute a candidate tire's adjusted trac-
tion coefficient for concrete (nc) by the follow-
ing formula:
ft, = Measured candidate tire coefficient for con-
crete + 0.35
- Measured standard tire coefficient for concrete
(g) Temperature resistance grading. (1) Mount
the tire on a rim of design or measuring rim width
specified for tires of its size in accordance with 49
CFR 571.109, § 4.4.1(a) or (b) CFR 571.109,
§ 4.4.1(a) or (b) and inflate it to the applicable
pressure specified in Table 1 of this section.
(2) Condition the tire-rim assembly to any
temperature up to 95°F for at least 3 hours.
(3) Adjust the pressure again to the applicable
pressure specified in Table 1 of this section.
(4) Mount the tire-rim assembly on an axle,
and press the tire tread against the surface of a
flat-faced steel test wheel that is 67.23 inches in
diameter and at least as wide as the section
width of the tire.
(5) During the test, including the pressure
measurements specified in paragraphs (g) (1) and
(g) (3) of this section, maintain the temperature of
the ambient air, as measured 12 inches from the
edge of the rim flange at any point on the circum-
ference on either side of the tire at any tempera-
ture up to 95°F. Locate the temperature sensor so
that its readings are not affected by heat radia-
tion, drafts, variations in the temperature of the
surrounding air, or guards or other devices.
(6) Press the tire against the test wheel with a
load of 88 percent of the tire's maximum load
rating as marked on the tire sidewalk
(7) Rotate the test wheel at 250 rpm for 2 hours.
(8) Remove the load, allow the tire to cool to
95°F or for 2 hours, whichever occurs last, and
readjust the inflation pressure to the applicable
pressure specified in Table 1 of this section.
Table 1.— Test Inflation Pressures
Maximum permissible inflat
ion pressure for the following test:
lbs/ in ±
kPa
IkPa (1)
ITesttest]
S2
36
40
60
2i0
280 300
SJ^O
290
330 350
390
[Treadwear test]
. 224
28
32
52
180
220 180
220
230
270 230
270
Temperature resistance
test]...
. 30
34
38
58
220
260 220
260
270
310 270
310]
[(1) For CT tires only]
1(55 F.R. 49618-November 30. 1990. Effective: December 31, 1990)1
(Rev. 11/30/90) PART 575-13
(9) Reapply the load and without interruption
or readjustment of inflation pressure, rotate the
test wheel at 375 rpm for 30 minutes, and then at
successively higher rates in 25 rpm increments,
each for 30 minutes, until the tire has run at 575
rpm for 30 minutes, or to failure, whichever oc-
curs first.
(h) Determination of test load. [(1) To determine
test loads for purposes of paragraphs (e) (2) (iii)
and (f) (2) (viii), follow the procedure set forth in
paragraphs (h) (2) through (5) of this section.
(2) Determine the tire's maximum inflation
pressure and maximum load rating both as
specified on the tire's sidewall.
(3) Determine the appropriate multiplier cor-
responding to the tire's maximum inflation
pressure, as set forth in Table 2.
(4) Multiply the tire's maximum load rating by
the multiplier determined in paragraph (3). This
is the tire's calculated load.
(5) Round the product determined in paragraph
(4) (the calculated load) to the nearest multiple of
ten pounds or, if metric units are used, 5
kilograms. For example, 903 pounds would be
rounded to 900 and 533 kilograms would be
rounded to 535. This figure is the test load.
Table 2'
Maximum
Inflaction
Pressure
Multiplier to be
v^efor
treadwear testing
Multiplier to be
used for
traction testing
[32 lbs/in2 . . .
R^^
851
361bs/in2
870
.797
401bs/in2
883
.753
240 kPa
866
.866
280 kPa
887
.804
300 kPa
866
.866
340 kPa
887
.804
290kPa(l)
866
.866
330kPa(l)
887
.804
350kPa(l)
866
.866
390kPa(l)
887
.804
(1) For CT tires onlyj
' Prior to July 1, 1984, the multipliers in the above table are not
to be used in determining loads for the tire size designations
listed below in Table 2A. For those designations, the load
specifications in that table shall be used in UTQG testing during
that period. These loads are the actual loads at which testing
shall be conducted and should not be multiplied by the 85 per-
cent factors specified for treadwear and traction testing.
(55 F.R. 49618— November
December 31, 1990)]
1990. Effective:
Table 2A
Temp Resistance
Traction
Treadwear
Tire Size Designation
Max Pressure
Max Pressure
32
36
■iO
32
36
JfO
145/70 R13
615
650
685
523
523
553
582
155/70 R13
705
740
780
599
599
629
663
165/70 R13
795
835
880
676
676
710
748
175/70 R13
890
935
980
757
757
795
833
185/70 R13
990
1040
1090
842
842
884
926
195/70 R13
1100
1155
1210
935
935
982
1029
155/70 R14
740
780
815
629
629
663
693
175/70 R14
925
975
1025
786
786
829
871
185/70 R14
1045
1100
1155
888
888
935
982
195/70 R14
1155
1220
1280
982
982
1037
1088
155/70 R15
770
810
850
655
655
689
723
175/70 R15
990
1040
1090
842
842
884
927
185/70 R15
1100
1155
1210
935
935
982
1029
5.60-13
725
810
880
616
616
689
748
5.20-14
695
785
855
591
591
667
727
165-15
915
1015
1105
779
779
863
939
185/60 R13
845
915
980
719
719
778
833
PART 575-14
[(i) Effective dates for treadwear grading
requirements for radial tires.
(1) Treadwear labeling requirements of
§575.104 (d)(l)(i)(B)(2) apply to tires manufac-
tured on or after April 1, 1985.
(2) Requirements for NHTSA review of tread-
wear information in consumer brochures, as
specified in paragraph 575.6(d)(2), are effective
April 1, 1985.
(3) Treadwear consumer information brochure
requirements of paragraph 575.6(c) are effective
May 1, 1985.
(4) Treadwear sidewall molding requirements
of S575.104(d)(lXi)(A) apply to tires manufac-
tured on or after September 1, 1985.
(j) Effective dates for treadwear grading require-
ments for bias ply tires.
(1) Treadwear labeling requirements of
§575.104 (d)(l)(iXB)(2) apply to tires manufac-
tured on or after December 15, 1984.
(2) Requirements for NHTSA review of
treadwear information in consumer brochures,
as specified in paragraph 575.6(d)(2), are effec-
tive December 15, 1984.
(3) Treadwear consumer information brochure
requirements of paragraph 575.6(c) are effective
January 15, 1985.
(4) Treadwear sidewall molding requirements
of §575.104(d)(l)(i)(A) apply to tires manufac-
tured on or after May 15, 1985.
(k) Effective dates for treadwear grading re-
quirements for bias belted tires.
(1) Treadwear labeling requirements of
§575.104 (d)(l)(i)(B)(2) apply to tires manufac-
tured on or after March 1, 1985.
(2) Requirements for NHTSA review of
treadwear information in consumer brochures,
as specified in paragraph 575.6(d)(2), are effec-
tive March 1, 1985.
(3) Treadwear consumer information brochure
requirements of paragraph 575.6(c) are effective
April 1, 1985.
(4) Treadwear sidewall molding requirements
of §575.104(d)(lXi)(A) apply to tires manufac-
tured on or after August 1, 1981.
(1) Effective date for treadwear information
requirements for vehicle manufacturers.
Vehicle manufacturer treadwear information
requirements of §§575.6(a) and 575.104(dXlXiii)
are effective September 1, 1985. (49 F.R. 49293—
December 19, 1984. Effective: see Preamble to Docket
No. 25; Notice 58))
§ 575.105 Utility Vehicles.
(a) Purpose and scope. This section requires
manufacturers of utility vehicles to alert drivers
that the particular handling and manuvering
characteristics of utility vehicles require special
driving practices when those vehicles are operated
on paved roads.
(b) Application. This section applies to
multipurpose passenger vehicles (other than those
which are passenger car derivatives) which have a
wheelbase of 110 inches or less and special features
for occasional off-road operation ("Utility
vehicles").
(c) Required information. Each manufacturer
shall prepare and affix a vehicle sticker as specified
in paragraph 1 of this subsection and shall provide
in the vehicle Owner's Manual the information
specified in paragraph 2 of this subsection.
(1) A sticker shall be permanently affixed to
the instrument panel, windshield frame, driver's
side sun visor, or in some other location in each
vehicle prominent and visible to the driver. The
sticker shall be printed in a typeface and color
which are clear and conspicuous. The sticker
shall have the following or similar language:
This is a multipurpose passenger vehicle which
will handle and maneuver differently from an or-
dinary passenger car, in driving conditions which
may occur on streets and highways and off road.
As with other vehicles of this type, if you make
sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers, the vehicle
may rollover or may go out of control and crash.
You should read driving guidelines and instruc-
tions in the Owner's Manual, and WEAR YOUR
SEATBELTS AT ALL TIMES.
The language on the sticker required by
paragraph (1) and in the Owner's Manual, as re-
quired in paragraph (2), may be modified as is
desired by the manufacturer to make it appro-
priate for a specific vehicle design, to ensure that
consumers are adequately informed concerning
the unique propensities of a particular vehicle
model.
(2Xi) The vehicle Owner's Manual shall include
the following statement in its introduction:
As with other vehicles of this type, failure to
operate this vehicle correctly may result in loss
PART 575-15
of control or an accident. Be sure to read "on-
pavement" and "off- road" driving guidelines
which follow.
(ii) The vehicle Owner's Manual shall include
the following or similar statement:
Utility vehicles have higher ground clear-
ance and a narrower track to make them
capable of performing in a wide variety of off-
road applications. Specific design character-
istics give them a higher center of gravity than
ordinary cars. An advantage of the higher
ground clearance is a better view of the road
allowing you to anticipate problems. They are
not designed for cornering at the same speeds
as conventional 2-wheel drive vehicles any
more than low-slung sports cars are designed
to perform satisfactorily under off-road condi-
tions. If at all possible, avoid sharp turns or
abrupt maneuvers. As with otheh vehicles of
this type, failure to operate this vehicle cor-
rectly may result in loss of control or vehicle
rollover.
§575.106 Deleted.
34 F.R. 8112
May 23, 1969
PART 575-16
APPENDIX A
Treadwear Test Course and
Driving Procedures
INTRODUCTION
The test course consists of three loops of a total
of 400 miles in the geographical vicinity of
Goodfellow AFB, San Angelo, Texas.
The first loop runs south 143 miles through the
cities of Eldorado, Sonora, and Juno, Texas, to the
Camp Hudson Historical Marker, and returns by
the same route.
The second loop runs east over Farm and Ranch
Roads (FM) and returns to its starting point.
The third loop runs northwest to Water Valley,
northeast toward Robert Lee and returns via
Texas 208 to the vicinity of Goodfellow AFB.
ROUTE
The route is shown in Figure 3. The table iden-
tifies key points by number. These numbers are en-
circled in Figure 3 and are in parentheses in the
descriptive material that follows.
Southern Loop
The course begins at the intersection (1) of
Ft. McKavitt Road and Paint Rock Road (FM 388)
at the northwest corner of Goodfellow AFB.
Drive east via FM 388 to junction with Loop
Road 306 (2). Turn right onto Loop Road 306 and
proceed south to junction with US 277 (3). Turn
onto US 277 and proceed south through Eldorado
and Sonora (4), continuing on US 277 to junction
with FM 189 (5). Turn right onto FM 189 and pro-
ceed to junction with Texas 163 (6). Turn left onto
Texas 163, proceed south to Camp Hudson Histor-
ical Marker (7) and onto the paved shoulder.
Reverse route to junction of Loop Road 306 and
FM 388 (2).
Eastern Loop
From junction of Loop Road 306 and FM 388 (2),
make right turn onto FM 388 and drive east to
junction with FM 2334 (13). Turn right onto FM
2334 and proceed south across FM 765 (14) to junc-
tion of FM 2334 and US 87 (15). For convoys that
originate at Goodfellow AFB, make U-turn and
return to junction of FM 388 and Loop Road 306
(2) by the same route. For convoys that do not
originate at Goodfellow AFB, upon reaching junc-
tion of FM 2334 and US 87 (15), make U-Turn and
continue northon FM 2334 past the intersecton
with FM 388 to Veribest Cotton Gin, a distance of
WATER VALLEY
Amended: (56 F.R. 47011— September 17, 1991)
1.8 miles beyond the intersection. Make U-turn and
return to junction of FM 2334 and FM 388. Turn
right onto FM 388, proceed west to junction FM
388 and Loop Road 306.
Northwestern Loop
From junction of Loop Road 306 and FM 388 (2),
make right turn onto Loop Road 306. Proceed onto
US 277, to junction with FM 2105(8). Turn left
onto FM 2105 and proceed west to junction with
US 87 (10). Turn right on US 87 and proceed north-
west to the junction with FM 2034 near the
PART 575-17
town of Water Vally (11), turn right onto FM 2034
and proceed north to Texas 208 (12). Turn right
onto Texas 208 and proceed south to junction with
FM 2105 (9). Turn left onto FM 2105 and proceed
east to junction with US 277 (8). Turn right onto
US 277 and proceed south onto Loop Road 306 to
junction with 388 (2). For convoys that originate at
Goodfellow AFB, turn right onto FM 388 and pro-
ceed to starting point at junction of Ft. McKavitt
Road and FM 388 (1). For convoys that do not
originate at Goodfellow AFB, do not turn right
onto FM 388, but continue south on Loop Road
306.
DRIVING INSTRUCTIONS
The drivers shall run at posted speed limits
throughout the course unless an unsafe condition
arises. If such condition arises, the speed should be
reduced to the maximum safe operating speed.
BRAKING PROCEDURES AT STOP SIGNS
There are a number of intersections at which
stops are required. At each of these intersections a
series of signs is placed in a fixed order as follows:
Sign Legend
Highway Intersection 1000 (or 2000) Feet
STOP AHEAD
Junction XXX
Direction Sign (Mereta— )
STOP or YIELD
PROCEDURES
1. Approach each intersection at the posted
speed limit.
2. When abreast of the S T 0 P A H E A D sign,
apply the brakes so that the vehicle decelerates
smoothly to 20 mph when abreast of the direction
sign.
3. Come to a complete stop at the STOP sign
or behind any vehicle already stopped.
Key Points Along Treadwear
Test Course, Approximate Mileages,
and Remarks ***
Mileages Remarks
1
Ft. McKavitt Road & .
FM388
0
2
FM388& Loop 306* .
2
TOP
3
Loop 306 & US277 . . .
10
4
Sonora
72
5
US277&FM189....
88
6
FM 189 & Texas 163 .
. 124
7
Historical Marker ....
(Camp Hudson)
. 143
U-TURN
4
Sonora
. 214
3
Loop 306 & US 277 ..
. 276
2
FM 388 & Loop 306 ..
. 283
13
FM 388 &FM 2334**
. 290
STOP
14
FM 2334 &FM 765 ..
. 292
STOP
15
FM 2334 & US 87 ... .
. 295
U-TURN
14
FM 2334 &FM 765 ..
. 298
STOP
13
FM 388 &FM 2334 ..
. 300
STOP/YIELD/
BLINKING RED
LIGHT
^
FM 388 & Loop 306 . .
. 307
TOP/YIELD/
BLINKING RED
LIGHT
8
US 277 &FM 2105...
. 313
9
FM 2105 & Texas 208
. 317
STOP
10
FM2105&US87....
. 320
STOP
11
FM2034&US87....
. 338
12
FM 2034 & Texas 208
. 362
YIELD
9
FM 2105 & Texas 208
. 387
8
FM 2105 & US 277...
. 391
YIELD/STOP
2
FM 388 & Loop 306*.
. 398
1
Ft. McKavitt Road & .
FM388
. 400
16
Veribest Cotton Gin . .
. 1.8
U-TURN
* Convoys not originating at Goodfellow AFB will not traverse
the leg of course.
•* Convoys not originating at Goodfellow AFB will proceed to
16, Veribest Cotton Gin, Make U-turn and return to 13.
***(56 F.R. 47011— September 17. 1991. Effective:
December 16, 1991)]
FIGURE 2
PART 575-18
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 580
Odometer Disclosure Requirements
(Docket No. 8709; Notice 15)
RIN: 2127-AC42
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the odometer regu-
lations in 49 CFR part 580 to implement the 1990
amendments to the Federal odometer law relating to
the use of powers of attorney (Pub. L. 101-641). The
notice defines "original secure power of attorney," pro-
vides that a transferee who exercises a power of at-
torney may submit a copy of the title to the State
(without having to submit an application for a new ti-
tle) along with the original power of attorney, provides
that the State shall retain the documents, and estab-
lishes a process for the States to petition for approval
of alternative procedures. It also addresses the use of
reassignment documents and makes additional clarify-
ing amendments.
DATES: This final rule is effective as of October 21,
1991, except that the amendment to § 580.5 is effec-
tive as of June 22, 1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This notice issues a final rule to implement the latest
in a series of amendments to the Federal odometer law,
enacted as part of an ongoing effort to accommodate
the commercial needs of the automobile industry and
the administrative needs of the State titling agencies
without compromising the consumer protection
afforded by the law.
These legislative adjustments reflect circumstances
arising after the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 (Pub.
L. 99-579) (TIMA), a law that amended the odometer
law (Pub. L. 92-513, 15 U.S.C. 1981-1991) to require
each person selling a motor vehicle to disclose the
odometer reading on the vehicle's title, rather than
using a separate statement. The law directed the States
to conform their titles and titling procedures to enable
the titles to be used for odometer disclosure. Although
most States had already begun to use the title for
odometer disclosure, the final rule issued by NHTSA
to implement the law (53 FR 29464, August 5, 1988)
required a number of adjustments in State procedures
as well as in commercial practices.
The adjustment in commercial practice that met the
strongest opposition from the motor vehicle industry
was the rule's prohibition of the use of powers of
attorney (POA) for odometer disclosure. The agency
considered the vehicle title to be of paramount impor-
tance in retaining odometer information necessary for
enforcement purposes, and regarded the POA as a
docimient that could be used to avoid disclosure on the
title. The industry, in contrast, saw the POA as essen-
tial in transactions where the title was lost or in the
hands of a bank or other lienholder and was therefore
not available to the owner at the time of the sale.
Without a POA authorizing the purchaser to execute
the odometer disclosure on the title, it was argued, the
purchaser would have to have the seller return to
complete the transaction— a situation that could lead
to costly delays for commercial purchasers.
In response to the industry's concerns. Congress
amended TIMA in 1988 (Pub. L. 100-561) to permit
the use of a secure power of attorney in circumstances
where the title was not present at the time of sale, on
condition that the transferor keep a copy of the POA
and that the transferee return the original POA to the
State after executing the disclosure on the title. The
amendment directed NHTSA to establish reasonable
conditions for the use of the POA.
In an interim final rule to implement the amendment
(54 FR 9809, March 8, 1989), the agency permitted the
use of a secure POA when the title is held by a lien-
holder and stipulated that the person receiving the
POA must return the original POA to the State, along
with the title showing the executed odometer state-
ment and an application for a new title.
In response to comments that the POA procedures
were too restrictive, NHTSA issued a final rule (54 FR
35879, August 30, 1989) modifying the procedure by
permitting the use of a POA when the title has been
lost or misplaced as well as when it is held by a lien-
PART 580-PRE 63
holder, but adopting the requirement for the transferee
to submit a title application with the POA. The latter
requirement prompted four petitions for reconsidera-
tion, which the agency denied on February 22, 1990
(55 FR 6257).
The denial of the petitions for reconsideration did not
quiet the controversy about the requirement that a title
application be submitted with the POA. The dealers
associations argued that the requirement disregarded
the commercial reality of the used car business, in
which a significant percentage of vehicles acquired by
trade or purchase are not sold directly to a retail
consumer but are wholesaled. In the typical wholesale
transaction, it was argued, the selling dealer would
never obtain title himself but would simply execute the
reassignment form on the title to the wholesale pur-
chaser. A requirement to obtain a title would thus
create delays and add cost to many transactions,
without benefit to consumers.
In the midst of these objections, the agency received
a petition from the State of Florida which seemed to
offer a suitable alternative. Under the Florida proposal,
the transferee would use its authority under a POA to
execute the odometer disclosure on the title, but, in-
stead of submitting an application for title to the State
with the original POA, would submit only a copy of the
title showing the executed odometer statement. The
State would thereupon file both documents and would
have them available for any investigation of alleged
odometer fraud. The transferee could proceed to use
the original title to reassign ownership to a wholesaler,
without delay or hindrance. NHTSA granted the
Florida petition on July 23, 1990, and subsequently
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (55 FR 34941,
August 27, 1990).
During the pendency of the rulemaking on the
Florida petition, another amendment to TIMA was
enacted (Pub. L. 101-164, November 28, 1990), which
bars the agency from requiring a new title to be issued
by the State which issued the power of attorney. This
amendment effectively directs NHTSA to terminate its
requirement that the transferee submit an application
for title with the original POA. At the same time, the
amendment authorizes the agency to require the State
to retain the power of attorney or to adopt alternative
measures consistent with the purposes of the act. The
amendment thus authorizes the agency to adopt a
procedure resembling that proposed in response to the
Florida petition.
On February 28, 1991, NHTSA issued a notice with-
drawing the August 1990 NPRM and proposing
rulemaking to implement the provisions of the new
amendment (56 FR 8313), and has completed its review
of the comments submitted in response to that notice.
It is the agency's hope that the following discussion of
the provisions adopted in the final rule will resolve the
issues surrounding the use of the POA and other docu-
ments used for the disclosure of odometer information.
Definitions
In the February 28 notice, NHTSA proposed to
amend § 580.3 to define "original power of attorney"
as the secure document issued by the State and any
attached copies which are also printed on secure paper.
Only two commenters, the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NAD A) and the National Auto
Auction Association (NAAA), addressed this definition.
NADA supported the definition, stating that the pro-
posed amendment "will facilitate commerce in in-
stances where the State that issued the power of
attorney is not the same as the State that will issue
the new title." NAAA, however, opposed the defini-
tion as too narrow and proposed instead to allow any
copy, whether or not on secure paper, to be an "origi-
nal." The adoption of such a definition would thwart
Congress' intent that the secure document be trans-
ferred back to the issuing State. By specifying that the
secure power of attorney form be set forth by means
of a secure printing process or other secure process,
it seems clear that Congress intended the distinguish-
ing feature between an "original" and a "copy" be the
secure nature of the "original."
NAAA also suggested that the making of secure
copies might be technically unfeasible. Although
NHTSA does not require more than one secure docu-
ment, there is nothing in the rulemaking record to
indicate that a multi-copy form with more than one
secure copy could not be readily produced. Neither the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA), nor any other commenter, suggested this
would be technically unfeasible and NAAA did not
provide any data or information to support its position.
Rather, the Texas State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation suggested that such secure copy
forms could be made available. Thus, the NAAA sug-
gestion will not be adopted and the definition of
"original power of attorney" will remain as proposed.
The proposed definition of original power of attor-
ney raised another issue. AAMVA, NADA, NAAA, the
Texas State Department of Highways and Public
Transportation and the California Department of
Transportation each suggested that the original POA
should be passed on with the title instead of being
returned to the issuing State. These commenters
argued that by keeping the original title and POA
together, any alterations on the title or POA would be
easier to detect when they are eventually submitted
to the State in which the car is next titled.
Although there may be merit in having the original
POA accompany the title, the agency has no discretion
to permit this procedure as an alternative to return-
ing the POA with the title. The statute states that "the
PART 580-PRE 64
person granted such power of attorney . . . shall sub-
mit the original back to the State." In view of this
statutory requirement, the final rule requires the
original POA to be returned to the State of issuance.
However, to address the concerns of those who believe
that the POA should accompany the title, the agency
notes that the definition of "original power of attor-
ney" permits a secure copy of the POA to be considered
an "original." As NADA stated in support of our
definition, "allowing for multicopy originals will allow
an 'original' to be sent to the State that issued the
power of attorney as well as one to be sent forward
with the title," as the States would like.
Submission of the Power of Attorney and
Title to the State
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) noted that the language in the rule re-
quiring the person exercising the power of attorney to
submit it to the issuing State "with a copy of the trans-
feror's title" could, "[u]nder strict interpretation, . . .
require a copy of the title even in circumstances where
the power of attorney was being submitted with the
actual title for processing of a [new title application]."
NHTSA did not intend to require a copy of the title
in addition to the actual title document in such cases,
nor does the agency believe that Congress intended
such a result. Accordingly, NHTSA adopts, with minor
editorial adjustment, PennDOT's suggestion to amend
the language of § 580.13(f) to specify that the trans-
feree exercising a power of attorney shall submit to
the issuing State the original power of attorney with
either a copy of the transferor's title or the actual title
if the transferee is submitting a title application at the
same time.
Another clarifying amendment was suggested by the
Missouri Department of Revenue. Missouri recom-
mended that § 580.13(f) of the rule state specifically
that the transferee submit a copy of the "front and
back" of the transferor's title when returning the
executed power of attorney to the issuing State. We
appreciate Missouri's concern but do not think it is
necessary to add such language to the regulatory text.
We think it is clear that the term "title" refers to the
entire document, front and back, and that anything less
than the whole of the title is not the "title," but a
portion of the title. The transferee will need to submit
a copy of both sides of the title in order to comply with
the requirements of § 580.13(f).
The Washington State Department of Licensing
commented that returning the power of attorney and
a copy of the title to the issuing State will create
problems because the power of attorney and the title
may not have been issued by the same State and, there-
fore, the documents would have to be returned to
different States. Such is not the case. The regulation
specifies that "[t]he transferee shall submit the origi-
nal power of attorney form to the State that issued it,
with a copy of the transferor's title." Consequently,
the "issuing" State to which both documents must be
returned is the State that issued the power of attorney.
There is no requirement for submitting any document
to the State that issued the original title.
Retention of Powers of Attorney
by the State
The new law expressly prohibits NHTSA from
requiring title applications to be filed with powers of
attorney (POA), and expressly grants NHTSA the
authority to require the States to retain submitted
powers of attorney. The agency therefore proposed to
amend § 580.13(f) to eliminate the requirement that
title applications accompany the powers of attorney
submitted back to the State by the persons exercising
them. The agency received no comments regarding this
proposed amendment and adopts it without change.
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
requested an amendment stating that the "State
issuing the original power of attorney form MAY
choose whether to accept a copy of the transferor's title
or require the original title document to be submitted
with the secure power of attorney." As with other dis-
cretionary provisions in TIMA, the Federal law will not
require any transferee to retitle a vehicle in connec-
tion with the use of a secure power of attorney, but
the Federal law does not prohibit a State from adopt-
ing such a requirement if it so chooses.
NHTSA further proposed to amend § 580.13(f) to
require a State which receives an executed power of
attorney and transferor's title in accordance with that
section, to retain those documents for five years. The
five-year retention period was intended to parallel the
record retention requirement imposed on dealers,
distributors and lessors.
The Washington State Department of Licensing was
the only commenter who objected to any State record
retention requirement. Although it did not actually
suggest that the proposed retention requirement be
withdrawn, it did state that "NHTSA cannot expect
States to keep the original secure POA and title copy
documents (even in microfilm form) of vehicles which
have left their jurisdictions to be titled in another
jurisdiction." Washington provided no evidence to sup-
port its claim that the mere retention of records would
be impossible. While the State did note a trend toward
"paper elimination," States are not limited to retaining
the records in paper form. Furthermore, none of the
other States who commented nor AAMVA in any way
suggested that the very concept of retaining these
records is impracticable. Finally, elimination of the
requirement would hamper enforcement efforts and
thwart the intent of Congress.
PART 580-PRE
Several commenters urged NHTSA to decrease the
retention period, recommending instead a one-year
retention requirement or a retention period equal to
the State's current titling record retention period. The
California Department of Motor Vehicles (CaDMV) and
the AAMVA, for example, each noted that most fraud
is detected within 12 months of titling, making the first
year of retention most crucial. The Texas State Depart-
ment of Highways and Public Transportation indicated
that, once retitled, the new titling State will have a
copy of the requisite records. AAMVA, NADA,
CaDMV and the Iowa Department of Transportation
all commented that five years is longer than most cur-
rent State titling record retention periods and that a
iive-year period will require additional handling, result-
ing in additional costs to the States.
Upon reviewing these comments, the agency has
concluded that a fixed five-year retention period would
be unduly burdensome to the States. NHTSA does not
favor an across-the-board one-year retention period.
While most fraud may be detected within the first 12
months after titling, a significant amount of fraud is
not detected within that time. Consequently, a period
longer than 12 months is perferable. Under § 580.13(f)
as originally adopted, a power of attorney form sub-
mitted to the State with a title application would be
retained for a period equal to the State's standard
titling record retention period, which would not neces-
sarily be five years (but, given current State practice,
would exceed one year). In light of this and of the cost
concerns of the commenters, the agency agrees that
its enforcement concerns can be met without mandat-
ing a five-year retention period and therefore adopts
the suggestion of several commenters that the powers
of attorney be retained by the State for a period of
three years or at least equal to the State's titling record
retention period, whichever is shorter. As stated in the
NPRM, the State may retain either the original copies
it receives or a photostat, carbon or other facsimile
copy, including any media by which such information
may be stored, provided there is no loss of information.
Approval of Alternate Requirements
The TIMA contemplates the administrative approval
by NHTSA of alternative methods of odometer dis-
closure, provided those alternate methods are consis-
tent with the purposes of the Act. At the time the 1990
amendment was enacted, the agency had issued a
rulemaking notice proposing a mechanism in § 580.11
whereby the agency could grant a State's request for
approval of an alternative to the requirements of
§ 580.13(f) regarding the disposition of POAs.
Although that notice was withdrawn, the proposal was
reissued with the NPRM. Under that proposal, a State
could submit a petition to NHTSA's Chief Counsel
setting forth the requirements in effect in the petition-
ing State, including a copy of the applicable State law
or regulation and an explanation of how the require-
ments are consistent with the Act. Notice of grant or
denial of the petition would be issued by the Chief
Counsel to the petitioner without further notice in the
Federal Register.
Three commenters, NAAA, NADA and the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), expressed an
opinion on this proposal. NAAA opposed the proposal
while NADA and ODOT supported it with suggestions
for further improvement.
As an initial matter, NAAA questioned NHTSA's
authority to approve alternate State procedures for
submission of odometer disclosure documents. To
substantiate its claim, NAAA argued that the section
of TIMA dealing with approval of alternate require-
ments does not address the procedure by which dis-
closure documents shall be submitted to the State. It
is the agency's view that TIMA authorizes the agency
to approve procedural alternatives as well as disclosure
format alternatives. House Report 99-833, discussing
inter alia, the requirements contained in TIMA, ex-
plains the intended reach of the alternate requirement
approval requirement: "[this provision] states that the
requirements of subsections (d) and (e)(1) [which con-
cern the use of secure titles containing mileage dis-
closure statements and require lessees to provide
mileage statements to their lessors upon the lessors'
transfers of their vehicles] shall apply in a State un-
less the State has in effect alternate motor vehicle mile-
age requirements approved by the Secretary of
Transportation." This language does not imply that
Congress intended to limit the agency's authority to
approve alternate disclosure formats only.
While the agency believes that the "alternate re-
quirements" section of TIMA alone provides statutory
authority to NHTSA to create the approval mechan-
ism we have proposed, the subsequent amendments
provide further authority. For example, 1988 and 1990
amendments each specifically discuss the disposition
of the secure power of attorney and neither suggests
that the agency's authority to approve alternatives is
circumscribed.
N AAA's substantive opposition to the proposal
centers around a concern that the creation of such an
approval mechanism will foster non-uniformity and will
"exacerbate . . . confusion ... in interstate titling
procedures." We appreciate NAAA's concern and
agree that greater uniformity among State titling laws
and procedures would be desirable. However, Congress
never intended to preempt all State vehicle registra-
tion, titling and sales laws. In fact, as noted in House
Report 99-833, Congress provided in the law for
approval of alternate requirements to "give States
maximum flexiblity in implementing odometer dis-
closure provisions."
PART 580-PRE 66
NHTSA has attempted to follow this approach through-
out the rulemaking process. We have tried, where
possible, to preserve State discretion. Where we have
limited that discretion, it is because Congressional
intent and the needs of the act demand it.
Moreover, NHTSA does not share NAAA's belief
that the creation of a mechanism to approve alternate
procedures for the disposition of secure powers of
attorney will, in fact, result in "fifty or more different
procedures." The creation of a mechanism does not
automatically result in the exercise of that mechanism.
Since its original effective date of April 29, 1989,
§ 580.11 has contained a procedure for the approval
of disclosures other than those specified in the regula-
tion and the agency has yet to receive a petition under
that section. Furthermore, the need for alternate
secure power of attorney disposition methods should
be diminished because the retitling requirement has
been eliminated. However, the agency still believes that
it is important to have the ability to assess alternate
methods should a State develop a system that will meet
enforcement needs while better meeting some State-
specific need of its own.
We also disagree with NAAA's charges that we
failed to consider whether the proposed rule will
undercut fraud prevention and what the consequences
will be for interstate transactions. As noted in the
NPRM, any State requesting approval of an alternate
system will have to demonstrate specifically how its
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Act,
including an analysis of what effect the proposed
alternative will have on combating odometer fraud.
With respect to NAAA's concern about the effects on
interstate transactions, the agency notes that the
States have maintained their own vehicle registration,
titling and sales laws since long before the introduc-
tion of Federal odometer laws. Many of the problems
currently encountered by the auctions stem from differ-
ences in State laws not affected by the odometer law.
Moreover, to the extent that problems have arisen due
to varying State implementation of odometer matters
within their discretion, NHTSA encourages the States
to work together to ameliorate such differences.
Finally, NAAA notes that the proposal that petitions
be reviewed and acted upon wathout notice in the
Federal Register will add to the confusion of title clerks
and others who already have to master many differ-
ent State practices. NADA also suggested that a brief
period of public notice and comment would be appro-
priate. Upon reflection, we agree that a notice and
comment period and public notice of the disposition of
the petitiion would benefit all concerned. Accordingly,
the final rule provides that, upon submission of a peti-
tion under this section, NHTSA will publish a Federal
Register notice describing the State proposal and
indicating an initial determination, pending a 30-day
comment period. Notice of the final action on the
petition will also be published in the Federal Register.
The Oregion DOT supported the alternative proce-
dures proposal, but requested that the "criteria for
approving alternate programs be expanded" because
the proposal, as written, allows for "very little in the
way of 'alternatives.'" Since the only criterion for
approving petitions submitted under the proposal is
that the State alternative be consistent with the pur-
poses of the act, and since we do not have the author-
ity to approve alternatives that are not consistent with
the purposes of the act, and since we do not have the
authority to approve alternatives that are not consis-
tent with the purposes of the Act, we believe that the
language is sufficiently broad. Accordingly, we are
adopting the changes to § 580.11, as proposed, with the
addition of the comment period.
Use of Reassignment Forms by Titled Owners
A number of commenters objected to a proposed
amendment to § 580.5 that would require a titled owner
to make his or her odometer disclosure on the vehicle's
title, and not on a reassignment document. It is apparent
from the comments that the purpose and scope of the
proposed amendment were not clearly understood.
The purpose of the proposed amendment was to pre-
vent a titled owner who sells a vehicle from using a docu-
ment other than the title or a secure power of attorney
to make the odometer disclosure required by law. The
central purpose of TIMA had been to make the title
document the sole vehicle for odometer disclosure,
thereby completing a years-long movement among the
States toward the use of the title for disclosure. The
practice of using a separate document for odometer dis-
closure, which had been common in the early days of
the Federal odometer law, had been shown to be too
vulnerable to abuse. Although the 1988 and 1990 amend-
ments had recognized the necessity of using a power
of attorney in some circumstances, the Congress had
placed strict controls on the circumstances in which a
POA could be used. These controls reflect Congress's
reluctance to allow the use of any document other than
the title document for odometer disclosure.
In proposing to prohibit titled owners from using reas-
signment forms for odometer disclosure, the agency
acted in the belief that the reassignment forms would
be subject to the same abuses that had compromised the
effectiveness of the older, separate disclosure state-
ments. Unlike the POA, which has a legitimate purpose
if the title is lost or held by a lienholder, a separate reas-
signment form has no commercial purpose at the time
of the first transfer by a titled owner. In most cases,
the title itself would be available to the owner. Alter-
natively, if a lienholder has the titie, the owner could
execute a POA authorizing the transferee to complete
the odometer disclosure on the title.
The limited scope of the proposal needs to be
stressed: it would prohibit reassignment forms only
for the titled owner. States may continue to provide
PART 580-PRE 67
supplementary reassignment forms. Thus, the proposal
would not interfere with dealer-to-dealer reassign-
ments, all of which could take place as they do now.
The commenter expressing the strongest objection
to the proposal was the State of Arkansas, which had
been under the impression that NHTSA had previously
approved the State's reassignment form. The South
Carolina Department of Highways and Public Trans-
portation and the NADA shared Arkansas' belief that
NHTSA had approved the Arkansas reassignment
form. In reviewing the communications between
Arkansas and NHTSA, we note that we approved the
information content of the form, but that we were not
asked to approve the use of the form and did not
approve its use as a substitute for TIMA disclosure.
Moreover, NHTSA specifically advised AAMVA that
although Arkansas' proposed form allowing transfer
by titled owners as well as dealers would appear not
to be prohibited under the rules, NHTSA could not en-
dorse such a use because it is at odds with the use of
the secure power of attorney and its attendant
protection against fraud. This position has been re-
peated by the agency, both orally and in writing,
including admonitions that the agency would address
this issue by rule if necessary. At this time, we believe
it is necessary to promulgate a rule expressly prohibit-
ing the use of the reassignment form by titled owners.
In reaffirming its position, the agency acknowledges
that there may be circumstances under which a docu-
ment other than the title itself or a secure POA could
be used for odometer disclosure. At the least, however,
such a document would have to be used in a way that
would ensure the retention of the odometer informa-
tion and enable law enforcement agencies to use it in
investigating odometer fraud. This is the case with the
POA procedure, which contains a number of safe-
guards. The appropriate procedure for condidering
such an alternative would be the petition process es-
tablished in § 580.11 for considering alternative odom-
eter disclosures.
Upon reviewing all of the comments on the proposed
amendment to § 580.5, NHTSA has decided to adopt
the amendment as proposed, to prohibit a titled own-
er from using a reassignment form for his or her odo-
meter disclosure. This amendment has an effective date
of June 22, 1991, rather than October 21, 1991.
NHTSA has chosen a later effective date for this
amendment to allow States the opportunity to deplete
form supplies, make necessary alterations to existing
forms and/or pursue the alternate disclosure petition
process, as they may wish. NHTSA believes a nine-
month lead time will be sufficient to accommodate the
needs of the States.
Clarification of Section 580.11(c)
In reviewing § 580.11, the agency tentatively deter-
mined that the language of paragraph (c) of that section
was unclear. Specifically, the use of the term "exten-
sion" in the sentence "The effect of a grant of a petition
is to relieve a State from responsibility to conform the
State motor vehicle titles with §§ 580.5 and 580.7 of
this part during the time of the extension" could cause
some confusion. The effect of a grant of such a peti-
tion would be to relieve a State from responsibility to
conform its titles with §§ 580.5 and 580.7 for as long
as the approved alternate disclosure requirements were
in effect in that State, but the term "extension" in that
sentence could be confused with the extension given
a State to bring its title into conformance with the re-
quirements of this part.
To avoid any confusion, NHTSA proposed to amend
that sentence to read as follows: "The effect of the
grant of a petition is to relieve a State from responsi-
bility to conform the State disclosure requirements
with §§ 580.5, 580.7 or 580.13(f) for as long as the
approved alternate disclosure requirements remain in
effect in that State." The agency received no comments
on this proposal and is, accordingly, adopting it as
proposed.
Extension of Implementation Dates
AAMVA requested that NHTSA include in the final
rule a provision allowing States to "petition for an ex-
tension of any established implementation date based
upon which existing statutes and regulations must be
amended to comply with the provisions of this new rule,
as well as allowing States to exhaust currently exist-
ing forms and other documents which may need to be
changed."
Since the NPRM had not proposed a new implemen-
tation extension process, the agency would not be able
to grant AAMVA's request vrithout first seeking
additional comment. Based on its initial review,
NHTSA does not believe that such an extension is
necessary or advisable.
Neither the statute nor the rule requires States to
make secure powers of attorney available. Conse-
quently, there is no "deadline" by which a State must
change any statutes or regulations regarding the use
of such powers of attorney. Nor does this rulemaking
action require the alteration of any forms. Accordingly,
there is no need for any implementation extension and,
therefore, no need for any new procedure by which to
request such an extension. With respect to the
implementation dates regarding the availability of
Federally conforming title documents, nothing in this
rulemaking affects those documents and, therefore,
there is no need to alter the existing extension peti-
tion procedure. In the interests of achieving full
implementation, we would not want to take any action,
especially unnecessary action, which would encourage
further delays.
PART 580-PRE
Odometer Disclosure by Power of Attorney
We received one comment suggesting a technical
amendment to § 580.13(b). The commenter, Joanne S.
Faulkner, Esq., suggests that this section should be
amended to require that, if a power of attorney is to
be used, such power of attorney/odometer disclosure
statement should be completed "before executing any
transfer of ownership documents." Ms. Faulkner
argues that this restriction should replace the "in
connection with" language that generally controls the
time frame in which disclosures are to be made as a
means of reducing the possibility of abuse inherent in
a flexible time frame.
We decline to adopt Ms. Faulkner's suggestion. We
note first that her suggestion lies outside the scope of
the NPRM. Further, we do not think such a change is
necessary. Ms. Faulkner notes that there is no reason
why the parties to a vehicle transfer cannot complete
the secure power of attorney at the time of transfer.
We agree. However, it is because of this fact that we
find her suggested amendment unnecessary. The
power of attorney is intended for use when the title
is not present at the time of sale so the seller will not
have to make a return trip to the dealership. Thus,
there is every incentive for the parties to complete the
power of attorney form at the time of sale, without the
rule having to so specify. At this point we have no
indication that parties using secure powers of attor-
ney are completing them at any time other than the
point of sale, or that the "flexible time frame" is being
used to perpetrate fraud in the use of secure powers
of attorney.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 580
is amended as follows:
1. In § 580.3 the following is added between the
definitions of "mileage" and "secure printing process
or other secure process."
§ 580.3 Definitions
Original power of attorney means, for single copy
forms, the document set forth by secure process which
is issued by the State, and, for multicopy forms, any
and all copies set forth by secure process which are
issued by the State.
2. In § 580.5, paragraph (c) introductory text is
revised as follows:
§ 590.5 Disclosure of odometer information.
(c) In connection with the transfer of ownership of
a motor vehicle, each transferor shall disclose the mile-
age to the transferee in writing on the title or, except
as noted below, on the document being used to reas-
sign the title. In the case of a transferor in whose name
the vehicle is titled, the transferor shall disclose the
mileage on the title, and not on a reassignment docu-
ment. This written disclosure must be signed by the
transferor, including the printed name. In connection
with the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle in
which more than one person is a transferor, only one
transferor need sign the written disclosure. In addition
to the signature and printed name of the transferor,
the written disclosure must contain the following in-
formation:
3. In § 580.11, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised as
follows:
%580.11 Petition for approval of alternate
disclosure requirements.
(a) A State may petition NHTSA for approval of
disclosure requirements which differ from the dis-
closure requirements of §§ 580.5, 580.7 or 580.13(f) of
this part.
(c) Notice of the petition and an initial determina-
tion pending a 30-day comment period will be published
in the Federal Register. Notice of final grant or denial
of a petition for approval of alternate motor vehicle dis-
closure requirements will be published in the Federal
Register. The effect of the grant of a petition is to
relieve a State from responsibUity to conform the State
disclosure requirements with §§ 580.5, 580.7 or
580.13(f), as applicable, for as long as the approved al-
ternate disclosure requirements remain in effect in that
State. The effect of a denial is to require a State to con-
form to the requirements of §§ 580.5, 580.7 or
580.13(f), as applicable, of this part until such time as
the NHTSA approves any alternate motor vehicle dis-
closure requirements.
4. In § 580.13, paragraph (f) is revised as follows:
§ 580.13 Disclosure of odometer information
of attorney.
(f) Upon receipt of the transferor's title, the tran-
feree shall complete the space for mileage disclosure
on the title exactly as the mileage was disclosed by the
transferor on the power of attorney form. The trans-
feree shall submit the original power of attorney form
to the State that issued it, with a copy of the trans-
feror's title or with the actual title when the transferee
submits a new title application at the same time. The
State shall retain the power of attorney form and title
for three years or a period equal to the State titling
record retention period, whichever is shorter. If the
mileage disclosed on the power of attorney form is low-
er than the mileage appearing on the title, the power
of attorney is void and the dealer shall not complete
the m.ileage disclosure on the title.
Issued on September 13, 1991.
56 F.R. 47681
September 20, 1991
PART 580-PRE 69-70
PART 580-ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
(Docket No. 87-09; Notice 4)
§ 580.1 Scope.
This part prescribes rules requiring transferors
and lessees of motor vehicles to make written
disclosure to transferees and lessors respectively,
concerning the odometer mileage and its accuracy
as directed by sections 408(a) and (e) of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act as
amended, 15 U.S.C. 1988 (a) and (e). In addition,
this part prescribes the rules requiring the reten-
tion of odometer disclosure statements by motor
vehicle dealers, distributors and lessors and the
retention of certain other information by auction
companies as directed by sections 408(g) and 414 of
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act as ammended, 15 U.S.C. 1990 (d) and 1988 (g).
§ 580.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to provide purchasers
of motor vehicles with odometer information to
assist them in determining a vehicle's condition
and value by making the disclosure of a vehicle's
mileage a condition of title and by requiring lessees
to disclose to their lessors the vehicle's milage at
the time the lessors transfer the vehicle. In addi-
tion, the purpose of this part is to preserve records
that are needed for the proper investigation of
possible violations of the Motor Vehicle Informa-
tion Cost Savings Act and any subsequent pro-
secutorial, adjudicative or other action.
§ 580.3 Definitions.
All terms defined in Sections 2 and 402 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
are used in their statutory meaning. Other terms
used in this part are defined as follows:
Lessee means any person, or the agent for any
person, to whom a motor vehicle has been leased
for a term of at least 4 months.
Lessor means any person, or the agent for any
person, who has leased 5 or more motor vehicles in
the past 12 months.
Mileage means actual distance that a vehicle has
traveled.
lOriginal power of attorney means, for single
copy forms, the document set forth by secure pro-
cess which is issued by the State, and, for multicopy
forms, any and all copies set forth by secure process
which are issued by the State. (56 F.R. 47681—
September 20, 1991. Effective: October 21, 1991)1
Secure printing process or other secure process
means any process which deters and detects
counterfeiting and/or unauthorized reproduction and
allows alterations to be visible to the naked eye.
Transferee means any person to whom owner-
ship of a motor vehicle is transferred, by purchase,
gift, or any other means other than by the creation
of a security interest, and any person who, as
agent, signs an odometer disclosure statement for
the transferee.
Transferor means any person who transfers his
ownership of a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any
means other than by the creation of a security
interest, and any person who, as agent, signs an
odometer disclosure statement for the transferor.
§ 580.4 Security of title documents and power of
attorney forms.
Each title shall be set forth by means of a secure
printing process or other secure process. In addi-
tion, power of attorney forms issued pursuant to
§§ 580.13 and 580.14 and documents which are
used to reassign the title shall be issued by the
State and shall be set forth by a secure process.
§ 580.5 Disclosure of odometer information.
(a) Each title, at the time it is issued to the
transferee, must contain the mileage disclosed by
the transferor when ownership of the vehicle was
transferred and contain a space for the informa-
tion required to be disclosed under paragraphs (c),
(d), (e) and (f) of this section at the time of future
transfer.
(Rev. 9/20/91)
PART 580-1
(b) Any documents which are used to reassign a
title shall contain a space for the information re-
quired to be disclosed under paragraphs (c), (d), (e)
and (f) of this section at the time of transfer of
ownership.
(c) [In connection with the transfer of ownership
of a motor vehicle, each transferor shall disclose the
mileage to the transferee in writing on the title or,
except as noted below, on the document being used
to reassign the title. In the case of a transferor in
whose name the vehicle is titled, the transferor shall
disclose the mileage on the title, and not on a
reassignment document. This v/ritten disclosure
must be signed by the transferor, including the
printed name. In connection with the transfer of
ownership of a motor vehicle in which more than
one person is a transferor, only one transferor need
sign the written disclosure. In addition to the
signature and printed name of the transferor, the
written disclosure must contain the following infor-
mation: (56 F.R. 47681— September 20, 1991. Effec-
tive: June 22, 1992)1
(1) The odometer reading at the time of
transfer (not to include tenths of miles);
(2) The date of transfer;
(3) The transferor's name and current address;
(4) The transferee's name and current address;
and
(5) The identity of the vehicle, including its
make, model, year, and body type, and its vehicle
identification number.
(d) In addition to the information provided
under paragraph (c) of this section, the statement
shall refer to the Federal law and shall state that
failure to complete or providing false information
may result in fines and/or imprisonment. Refer-
ence may also be made to applicable State law.
(e) In addition to the information provided under
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
(1) The transferor shall certify that to the best
of his knowledge the odometer reading reflects
the actual mileage, or;
(2) If the transferor knows that the odometer
reading reflects the amount of mileage in excess
of the designed mechanical odometer limit, he
shall include a statement to that effect; or
(3) If the transferor knows that the odometer
reading differs from the mileage and the the dif-
ference is greater than that caused by odometer
calibration error, he shall include a statement that
the odometer reading does not reflect the actual
mileage, and should not be relied upon. This state-
ment shall also include a warning notice to alert
the transferee that a discrepancy exists between
the odometer reading and the actual mileage.
(f) The transferee shall sign the disclosure state-
ment, print his name, and return a copy to his
transferor.
(g) If the vehicle has not been titled or if the title
does not contain a space for the information re-
quired, the written disclosure shall be executed as a
separate document.
(h) No person shall sign an odometer disclosure
statement as both the transferor and transferee in
the same transaction, unless permitted by § 580.13
or § 580.
§ 580.6 Exemptions.
Notwithstanding the requirements of § 580.5 and
580.7:
(a) A transferor or a lessee of any of the following
motor vehicles need not disclose the vehicle's
odometer mileage:
(1) A vehicle having a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating, as defined in § 571.3 of this title, of more
the 16,000 pounds;
(2) A vehicle that is not self-propelled;
(3) A vehicle that is 10 years old or older; or
(4) A vehicle sold directly by the manufacturer
to any agency of the United States in conformity
with contractual specifications.
(b) A transferor of a new vehicle prior to its first
transfer for purposes other than resale need not
disclose the vehicle's odometer mileage.
(c) A lessor of any of the vehicles listed in
paragraph (a) of this section need not notify the
lessee of any of these vehicles of the disclosure re-
quirements of § 580.7.
§ 580.7 Disclosure of Odometer Information for
Leased Motor Vehicles.
(a) Before executing any transfer of ownership
document, each lessor of a leased motor vehicle
shall notify the lessee in writing that the lessee is re-
quired to provide a written disclosure to the
(Rev. 9/20/91)
PART 580-2
lessor regarding the mileage. This notice shall con-
tain a reference to the federal law and shall state
that failure to complete or providing false informa-
tion may result in fines and/or imprisonment.
Reference may also be made to applicable State
law.
(b) In connection with the transfer of ownership
of the leased motor vehicle, the lessee shall furnish
to the lessor a written statement regarding the
mileage of the vehicle. This statement must be
signed by the lessee and, in addition to the infor-
mation required by paragraph (a) of this section,
shall contain the following information:
(1) The printed name of the person making the
disclosure;
(2) The current odometer reading (not to include
tenths of miles);
(3) The date of the statement;
(4) The lessee's name and current address;
(5) The lessor's name and current address;
(6) The identity of the vehicle, including its
make, model, year, and body type, and its vehicle
identification number;
(7) The date that the lessor notified the lessee of
disclosure requirements;
(8) The date that the completed disclosure state-
ment was received by the lessor; and
(9) The signature of the lessor.
(c) In addition to the information provided under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
(1) The lessee shall certify that to the best of
his knowledge the odometer reading reflects the
actual mileage; or
(2) If the lessee knows that the odometer
reading reflects the amount of mileage in excess
of the designed mechanical odometer limit, he
shall include a statement to that effect; or
(3) If the lessee knows that the odometer
reading differs from the mileage and that the dif-
ference is greater than that caused by odometer
calibration error, he shall include a statement
that the odometer reading is not the actual
mileage and should not be relied upon.
(d) If the lessor transfers the leased vehicle
without obtaining possession of it, the lessor may
indicate on the title the mileage disclosed by the
lessee under paragraph (b) and (c) of this section,
unless the lessor has reason to believe that the
disclosure by the lessee does not reflect the actual
mileage of the vehicle.
§ 580.8 Odometer Disclosure Statement Retention.
(a) Dealers and distributors of motor vehicles
who are required by this part to execute an
odometer disclosure statement shall retain for five
years a photostat, carbon or other facsimile copy of
each odometer mileage statement which they issue
and receive. They shall retain all odometer
disclosure statements at their primary place of
business in an order that is appropriate to business
requirements and that permits systematic
retrieval.
(b) Lessors shall retain, for five years following
the date they transfer ownership of the leased
vehicle, each odometer disclosure statement which
they receive from a lessee. They shall retain all
odometer disclosure statements at their primary
place of business in an order that is appropriate to
business requirements and that permits systematic
retrieval.
1(c) Dealers and distributors of motor vehicles
who are granted a power of attorney by their
transferor pursuant to § 580.13, or by their
transferee pursuant to § 580.14, shall retain for
five years a photostat, carbon, or other facsimile
copy of each power of attorney that they receive.
They shall retain all powers of attorney at their
primary place of business in an order that is ap-
propriate to business requirements and that per-
mits systematic retrieval. (54 F.R. 35879— August
30, 1989. Effective: August 30, 1989)1
§ 580.9 Odometer Record Retention for Auction
Companies.
Each auction company shall establish and retain
at it primary place of business in an order that is
appropriate to business requirements and that per-
mits systematic retrieval, for five year following
the date of sale of each motor vehicle, the following
records:
(a) The name of the most recent owner (other
than the action company);
(b) The name of the buyer;
(c) The vehicle identification number; and
(d) The odometer reading on the date which the
auction company took possession of the motor
vehicle.
PART
§ 580.10 Application for Assistance.
(a) A State may apply to NHTSA for assistance
in revising its laws to comply with the requirements
of 408(dXl) and (2) of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 1988(dXl) and (2)
and §§ 580.4 and 580.5 of this part.
(b) Each application filed under section shall—
(1) Be written in the English language;
(2) Be submitted, to the Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590;
(3) Include a copy of current motor vehicle titl-
ing and/or disclosure requihements in effect in
the State; and
(4) Include a draft of legislation or regulations
intended to amend or revise current State motor
vehicle titling and/or disclosure requirements to
conform with Federal requirements.
(c) The agency will respond to the applicant, in
writing, and provide a list of the Federal statutory
and/or regulatory requirements that the State may
have failed to include in its proposal and indicate if
any sections of the proposal appear to conflict with
Federal requirements.
§ 580.11 Petition for Approval of Alternate
Disclosure Requirements.
(a) A State may petition NHTSA for approval of
disclosure requirements which differ from the
disclosure requirements of §§ 580.5 and 580.7 [or
580.13(f)l of this part.
(b) Each petition filed under this section shall—
(1) Be written in the English language;
(2) Be submitted to the Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590;
(3) Set forth the motor vehicle disclosure re-
quirements in effect in the State, including a copy
of the applicable State law or regulation; and
(4) Explain how the State motor vehicle
disclosure requirements are consistent with the
purposes of the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act.
(c) INotice of the petition and an initial deter-
mination pending a 30-day comment period will be
published in the Federal Register. Notice of final
grant or denial of a petition for approval of alter-
nate motor vehicle disclosure requirements will be
published in the Federal Register. The effect of a
grant of a petition is to relieve a State from respon-
sibility to conform the State disclosure require-
ments with §§ 580.5, 580.7, or 580.13(f), as ap-
plicable, for long as the approved alternate
disclosure requirements remaine in effect in that
State. The effect of a denial is to require a State to
conform to the requirements of §§ 580.5 and 580.7
or 580.13(f), as applicable, of this part until such
time as the NHTSA approves any alternate motor
vehicle disclosure requirements. (56 F.R.
47681— September 20, 1991. Effective: October 21,
1991)1
§ 580.12 Petition for Extension of Time.
(a) If a State cannot conform its laws to achieve
compliance with this part by April 29, 1989, the
State may petition for an extension of time.
(b) Each petition filed under this section shall—
(1) Be written in the English Language;
(2) Be submitted, by I^ebruary 28, 1989, to
the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C, 20590;
(3) Set forth a chronological analysis of the ef-
forts the State has taken to meet the deadline, the
reasons why it did not do so, the length of time
desired for extension and a description of the
steps to be taken while the extension is in effect.
(c) Notice of either the grant or denial of the
petition is issued to the petitioner and will be
published in the Federal Register.
(d) A petition for a renewal of an extension of
time must be filed no later than 30 days prior to the
termination of the extension of time granted by the
Agency. A petition for a renewal of an extension of
time must meet the same requirements as the
original petition for the extension of time.
(e) If a petition for a renewal of the extension of
the time which meets the requirements of § 580.12
(b) is filed, the extension of time will continue until
a decision is made on the renewal petition.
§ 580.13 Disclosure of odometer information
by power of attorney.
(a) If the transferor's title is physically held by a
lienholder, or if the transferor to whom the title
(Rev. 9;20;91)
PART 580-4
was issued by the State has lost his title and the
transferee obtains a duplicate title on behalf of the
transferor, and if otherwise permitted by State
law, the transferor may give a power of attorney to
his transferee for the purpose of mileage
disclosure. The power of attorney shall be on a
form issued by the State to the transferee that is
set forth by means of a secure printing process or
other secure process, and shall contain, in Part A,
a space for the information required to be disclosed
under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e), of this
section. If a State permits the use of a power of
attorney in the situation described in § 580.14(a),
the form must also contain, in Part B, a space for
the information required to be disclosed under
§ 580.14, and in Part C, a space for certification
required to be made under § 580.15.
(b) In connection with the transfer of ownership
of a motor vehicle, each transferor to whom a title
was issued by the State whose title is physically
held by a lienholder or whose title has been lost,
and who elects to give his transferee a power of
attorney for the purpose of mileage disclosure,
must appoint the transferee his attorney-in-fact for
the purpose of mileage disclosure and disclose the
mileage on the power of attorney form issued by
the State. This written disclosure must be signed
by the transferor, including the printed name, and
contain the following information:
(1) The odometer reading at the time transfer
(not to include tenths of miles);
(2) The date of transfer;
(3) The transferor's name and current address;
(4) The transferee's name and current ad-
dress; and
(5) The identity of the vehicle, including its
make, model, year, body type, and vehicle iden-
tification number.
(c) In addition to the information provided under
paragraph (b) of this section, the power of attorney
form shall refer to the Federal odometer law and
state that providing false information or the failure
of the person granted the power of attorney to sub-
mit the form to the State may result in fines and/or
imprisonment. Reference may also be made to ap-
plicable State law.
(d) In addition to the information provided
under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
(1) The transferor shall certify that to the best
of his knowledge the odometer reflects the actual
(2) If the transferor knows that the odometer
reading reflects mileage in excess of the de-
signed mechanical odometer limit, he shall in-
clude a statement to that effect; or
(3) If the transferor knows that the odometer
reading differs from the mileage and the dif-
ference is greater than that caused by a calibra-
tion error, he shall include a statement that the
odometer reading does not reflect the actual
mileage and should not be relied upon. This
statement shall also include a warning notice to
alert the transferee that a discrepancy exists
between the odometer reading and the actual
mileage.
(e) The transferee shall sign the power of
attorney form, print his name, and return a copy of
the power of attorney form to the transferor.
(f) [Upon receipt of the transferor's title, the
transferee shall complete the space for mileage
disclosure on the title exactly as the mileage was
disclosed by the transferor on the power of
attorney form. The transferee shall submit the
original power of attorney form to the State that
issued it, with a copy of the transferor's title or
with the actual title when the transferee submits a
new title application at the same time. The State
shall retain the power of attorney form and title
for three years or a period equal to the State titling
record retention period, whichever is shorter. If
the mileage disclosed on the power of attorney
form is lower than the mileage appearing on the
title, the power of attorney is void and the dealer
shall not complete the mileage disclosure on the
title. (56 F.R. 47681— September 20, 1991. Effective:
October 21, 1991)1
§ 580.14 Power of attorney to review title docu-
ments and acknowledge disclosure.
(a) In circumstances where Part A of a secure
power of attorney form has been used pursuant to
§ 580.13 of this Part, and if otherwise permitted by
State, law a transferee may give a power of
attorney to his transferor to review the title and
any reassignment documents for mileage dis-
crepancies, and if no discrepancies are found, to
acknowledge disclosure on the title. The power of
attorney shall be on Part B of the form referred to
in § 580.13(a), which shall contain a space for the
information required to be disclosed under
paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section and,
in Part C, a space for the certification required to
be made under § 580.15.
PART 580-5
(b) The power of attorney must include a
mileage disclosure from the transferor to the
transferee and must be signed by the transferor,
including the printed name, and contain the follow-
ing information:
(1) The odometer reading at the time of
transfer (not to include tenths of miles);
(2) The date of transfer;
(3) The transferor's name and current ad-
dress; and
(4) The transferee's name and current ad-
dress; and
(5) The identity of the vehicle, including its
make, model, year, body type, and vehicle iden-
tification number.
(c) In addition to the information provided under
paragraph (b) of this section, the power of attorney
form shall refer to the Federal odometer law and
state that providing false information or the failure
of the person granted the power of attorney to sub-
mit the form to the State may result in fines and/or
imprisonment. Reference may also be made to
applicable State law.
(d) In addition to the information provided
under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(1) The transferor shall certify that to the best
of his knowledge the odometer reflects the actual
mileage; or
(2) If the transferor knows that the odometer
reading reflects mileage in excess of the
designated mechanical odometer limit, he shall
include a statement to that effect; or
(3) If the transferor knows that the odometer
reading differs from the mileage and the
difference is greater than that caused by calibra-
tion error, he shall include a statement that the
odometer reading does not reflect the actual
mileage and should not be relied upon. This
statement shall also include a warning notice to
alert the transferee that a discrepancy exists be-
tween the odometer reading and the actual
mileage.
(e) The transferee shall sign the power of at-
torney form, and print his name.
(f) The transferor shall give a copy of the power
of attorney form to his transferee.
[§ 580.15 Certification by person exercising
power(s) of attorney.
(a) A person who exercises a power of attorney
under both §§ 580.13 and 580.14 must complete a
certification that he has disclosed on the title docu-
ment the mileage as it was provided to him on the
power of attorney form, and that upon examina-
tion of the title and any reassignment documents,
the mileage disclosure he has made on the title pur-
suant to the power of attorney is greater than that
previously stated on the title and reassignment
documents. This certification shall be under Part C
of the same form as the powers of attorney
executed under §§ 580.13 and 580.14, and shall
include:
(1) The signature and printed name of the per-
son exercising the power of attorney;
(2) The address of the person exercising the
power of attorney; and
(3) The date of the certification.
(b) If the mileage reflected by the transferor on
the power of attorney is less than that previously
stated on the title and any reassignment
documents, the power of attorney shall be
void. (54 F.R. 35879— August 30, 1989. Effective:
August 30, 1989)1
[§ 580.16 Access of transferee to prior title
and power of attorney documents.
(a) In circumstances in which a power of at-
torney has been used pursuant to § 580.13 of this
Part, if a subsequent transferee elects to return to
his transferor to sign the disclosure on the title
when the transferor obtains the title and does not
give his transferor a power of attorney to review
the title and reassignment documents, upon
transferee's request, the transferor shall show to
the transferee a copy of the power of attorney that
he received from his transferor.
(b) Upon request of a purchaser, a transferor
who was granted a power of attorney by his
transferor and who holds the title to the vehicle in
his own name, must show to the purchaser the
copy of the previous owner's title and the power of
attorney form. (54 F.R. 35879— August 30, 1989. Ef-
fective: August 30, 1989)1
53 F.R. 29464
August 5, 1988
PART 580-6
o U S COVERNMENTT PRINTTINC OFFICE 19 9 2- 322- 5 K 7 6 0 3 2 C
o
U.S. Department
ofltansportatlon
National Highway
Ttaffic Safety
Administration
i6/2:990/supp.49
al flotor Vehicle Saf...
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards and Regulations
Supplement 49— Amendments
and Interpretations Issued
During 1991
Page Control Chart
(1) Part 572— Anthropomorphic Test Dummies: 9-Month-Oid Child
(a) Insert attached pages numbered PART 572-PRE 103 through PRE 107-108 behind page in book numbered
PART 572-PRE 102.
(b) Substitute attached Part 572 for Part 572 in book.
(2) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108
When S5.1.1.11 of Standard 108 was amended in May 1990, the last phrase in the amendment was inadvertently
omitted. This substitute page corrects that omission.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and amendments published In this format are for reference purposes
only. They should not l>e considered as legally binding or be used as a source of authority In matters of litigation.
Tfie United States Code o1 Federal Regulations is the only source of legal authority for the standards.
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies: 9-Month-Qld Child
(Docket No. 89-11; Notice 02)
RIN 2127-AC10
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice establishes specifications for an
anthropomorphic test dummy representing a 9-month-
old child. The agency has adopted a modified version
of the test dummy that was described in the proposal
preceding this rule. The test dummy adopted today has
the geometry and mass of the proposed dummy, but
is not instrumented for measuring inertial forces as had
been proposed. NHTSA believes that standardizing the
dummy used to represent 9-month-old children would
enable NHTSA and the child passenger safety commu-
nity to evaluate those restraints in a fuller and more
uniform manner. Adding the dummy to Part 572 would
be the first step toward using the dummy to test the
compliance of child restraints with Safety Standard
213, Child Restraint Systems. The issue of using the
dummy in FMVSS 213 testing will be explored in
future rulemaking.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective February 15,
1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice amends
Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, to estab-
lish specifications for a dummy representing a 9-month-
old child. Child test dummies enable NHTSA to dynam-
ically test child restraint systems in a manner that is
both measurable and repeatable. The 9-month-old
dummy would encourage testing of child restraint sys-
tems in a standardized manner.
Part 572 currently contains specifications and per-
formance requirements for two child test dummies, a
dummy representing a 6-month-old child and one
representing a 3-year-old child. The two dummies are
used to evaluate the performance of child restraint sys-
tems in dynamic sled tests, and are specifically refer-
enced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213,
Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR § 571.213) as the test
dummies used to test the compliance of restraint
systems with Standard 213 (§ 571.213, S7.1, and S7.2).
The agency has also proposed specifications for a
6-year-old child dummy (54 FR 13901; April 6, 1989)
for use in evaluating child safety seats, and is develop-
ing a proposal for a dummy representing a newborn
child. Although Standard 213 currently specifies only
the use of the 6-month-old and 3-year-old child dum-
mies in compliance tests, NHTSA plans to initiate
rulemaking that would assess the desirability of
amending the standard to use additional dummies as
Standard 213 test instruments after NHTSA adds new
dummies (in addition to the 9-month-old child dummy
adopted today) to Part 572.
The design drawings, a set of master patterns for all
molded and cast parts of the dimimy, and a users manu-
al for the 9-month-old dummy are available for exami-
nation in the general reference section of NHTSA
docket 89-11. Copies of those materials can be obtained
from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K St.,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20002, telephone (202)
628-6667. In addition, patterns for all cast and molded
parts are available on a loan basis from NHTSA's
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards.
Background
In December 1989, the agency published the notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding today's
final rule. 54 FR 52425; December 21, 1989. The
NPRM announced NHTSA's plans to add to Part 572
the design and performance specifications for the
9-month-old child test dummy manufactured by In-
stituut voor Wegtransportmiddelen (TNO), Delft,
Netherlands, and specified in the United Nations
Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) Regulation
No. 44. The NPRM explained that the dummy has been
used in dynamic compliance tests in ECE member
countries since 1981. The notice stated that the dummy
weighs approximately 20 pounds, stands 28 inches tall
(its sitting height is approximately 17.7 inches), could
be instrumented for chest acceleration, is capable of
measuring abdominal intrusion, and has an accelero-
PART 572-PRE 103
mecer mount in the head that is suitable for installa-
tion of acceleration sensors. (The notice also stated that
the dummy's weight can be adjusted from 20 up to 25
pounds, which is incorrect, according to TNO's com-
ment on the NPRM. TNO stated that the dummy's
weight is not adjustable.)
The agency issued the proposal because NHTSA
believed a standardized 9-month-old dummy was neces-
sary to obtain information about the performance of
restraint systems with a previously unexamined child
occupant age/size group. NHTSA had been particularly
concerned about public comments it received in a 1986
rulemaking for Standard 213, in which commenters
expressed concerns about the safety of small children
in certain booster seats. These booster seats are
equipped with a shield for upper torso restraint, and
generally provide adequate safety when tested with the
NHTSA-specified 3-year-old (33 pounds) dummy.
However, the commenters said that children smaller
than the average 3-year-old could "submarine" under
the shields (i.e., slide too far downward and forward
underneath the shield, legs first), and would be com-
pletely unrestrained in a crash. The agency believed
that adding a standardized 9-month-old dummy to Part
572 would facilitate the evaluation of the ability of child
safety seats to protect children of varying sizes in
weight classes recommended for the restraints, and
would be the first step toward using the dummy to test
the compliance of child restraints with Standard 213.
NHTSA believed that the TNO dummy had accepta-
ble biofidelity for use as a test dummy. (Biofidelity is
a measure of how human-like a test dummy would
respond in an impact.) The agency determined that the
dummy has accurate anthropometry and mass distri-
bution, which are needed features to simulate the
inertial and kinematic responses of a child during sled
testing of the seat. NHTSA believed the test dummy
could be used to reliably assess the ability of the child
restraint system to retain its occupants (including the
ability to prevent submarining) and to maintain its
structural integrity during dynamic testing.
Moreover, NHTSA believed that an additional asset
of the TNO dummy was that it could be instrumented
with accelerometers to measure the forces imposed on
the dummy during an impact. The ability of a child res-
traint system to limit the forces experienced by the
dummy could assist in the evaluation of the protection
that would be afforded a child occupant. The agency
believed that the dummy could be properly calibrated
to ensure accurate and repeatable results.
NHTSA also believed that adopting the proposed
durmny would be cost efficient since the cost of develop-
ing a new, alternative test dummy would be substan-
tially reduced or eliminated. In addition, the agency
believed adopting the ECE-specified dummy would be
consistent with NHTSA's goals of promoting interna-
tional harmonization to the extent possible.
Comments on the NPRM
The agency received comments on the proposal
from Chrysler, Ford, General Motors (GM), Volvo, /*
University of Michigan (UM), Transportation Research V
Center of Ohio (TRC), TNO, and the Insurance Insti-
tute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The commenters were
divided in their response to the NPRM.
There was universal agreement about the need for
a dummy representing a 9-month-old child to more fully
evaluate the performance of child restraint systems.
IIHS stated that child occupant fatalities in passenger
vehicles are high despite the increased use of child res-
traint systems. (IIHS said children in the birth to
1-year-old age range comprised 12 percent (183) of the
1,465 deaths of children 1-12 years old in crashes in
1989.) Commenters also agreed that the proposed
dummy had accurate anthropometry and that the dum-
my would produce reliable and realistic kinematics
representative of a 9-month-old child.
However, commenters were sharply divided in their
responses to the proposed instrumentation of the
dummy.
IIHS and UM expressed support for the portions of
the proposal relating to the instrumentation of the
dummy. IIHS supported adopting an instrumented test
dummy because of the information instrumentation
would yield about the safety of child restraints. UM
stated it has been using the TNO dummy for a year
and a half and that the dummy measurements are ^
valuable for assessing and comparing different \
restraint systems.
On the other hand, several commenters were opposed
to or raised concerns about the proposed instrumenta-
tion specifications. Ford believed that the dummy
would not be able to meet the specification proposed
in the NPRM that the mountings to which the acceler-
ation sensors are attached shall have no resonance
frequency within a range of three times the frequency
range of the applicable channel class (Class 1000). UM
raised a question about the proposed calibration proce-
dures for the dummy's thorax, suggesting that the
height of the impact point on the sternum was too low.
GM raised concerns that the NPRM did not show that
the dummy's head and chest impact acceleration
responses are biomechanically based. GM said that
even if the acceleration measurements provided by the
9-month-old dummy are equivalent to responses pro-
vided by the 3-year-old dummy as the NPRM had
stated, "The 3-year-old child dummy's acceleration
responses actually have little biomechanical basis." GM
suggested NHTSA consider developing a 9-month-old
dummy based on "scaling of responses . . . from other
sized dummies (or other siu-rogates) that exhibit an
established degree of biofidelity." Volvo stated that it
does not support adoption of the proposed 9-month-old
dummy because of reproducibility problems Volvo t
encountered with the ECE 3-year-old dummy. Volvo
believed that the 9-month-old dummy would perform
PART 572-PRE 104
simOarly to the ECE 3-year-old dummy because the
dummies share the same basic design.
Final rule
The agency has considered each of the comments and
has decided to adopt the TNO dummy without the
instrumentation that had been proposed. The dummy's
dimensional and mass distribution characteristics are
the same as those proposed. This rule also contains
specifications for adjusting the torque in the dummy's
joints to ensure consistent and repeatable rotational
motions for the dummy. Data show that head excur-
sion measurements for the TNO dummy had a coeffi-
cient of variation of less than 4.5 percent, which is
generally considered to be good for repeatability and
reproducibility. ("Repeatability and Reproducibility of
the TNO P3/4 Dummy in Frontal Impacts," J. Kooi,
Report No. 751861070, May 1989.)
NHTSA believes that the dummy will reliably and
consistently represent the dynamics of a 9-month-old
child during simulated impact tests. The dummy will
be used to assess the ability of child safety seats to
retain a 9-month-old child and maintain their structural
integrity during dynamic testing. The dummy will also
be used to determine the areas of the child seat that
are contactable by the dummy's head or torso during
dynamic testing (i.e., contactable surfaces), which will
provide information on the adequacy of the padding of
contactable surfaces and the protrusions from the
surfaces.
The agency has decided not to adopt the instrumen-
tation aspects of the NPRM because NHTSA wishes
to evaluate further issues related to the dummy's
calibration and head and thorax responses. After
receiving the comments on the NPRM, the agency
undertook a program to obtain information about the
issues raised by the commenters. In this verification
effort, the agency encountered several problems and
difficulties, includiing the reproducibility of acceleration
measurements, and inconsistencies in measurements
in the calibration procedure. Some of these difficulties
were similar to the ones encountered by some of the
commenters (e.g., UM) when they conducted the
calibration procedure. ^
The agency has determined that resolving problems
about the instrumentation and calibration of the
dummy requires time-consuming testing and follow-up
evaluation. Among the topics that the agency wishes
to address is the need for and feasibility of developing
a simplified calibration procedure instead of the head
pendulum procedure described in the NPRM. Further,
TNO indicated since publication of the NPRM that it
would conduct additional testing of the dummy to
evaluate the apparent ambiguities in the calibration
procedure.
NHTSA has decided to proceed with adopting the
dummy without instrumentation instead of delaying
the rulemaking until the instrumentation issues can be
resolved. Adoption of the uninstrumented dummy
would encourage testing of restraint systems in a stan-
dardized manner. The agency will continue to work on
resolving the instrumentation issues (e.g., improving
repeatability and reproducibility, and simplifying the
calibration procedure). To that end, NHTSA plans to
publish a supplemental notice about its findings and
tentative conclusions concerning those issues.
The agency notes that UM and Volvo reported dura-
bility and repairability problems of the TNO dummy.
UM said femurs broke as a result of "inappropriate
materials and/or heat treatment," and the flesh is not
repairable by a heat application. Volvo said poly-
urethane, the material used in the dummy, is prone to
age rapidly if it is not stored in an atmosphere 'Adth
a humidity of about 95 percent. NHTSA has not ex-
perienced any of the problems cited by the commenters
in the agency's extensive testing of the dummy. The
agency believes the reported durability and
repairabilty problems are more directly related to the
maintenance of the test facility and the timely replace-
ment of failed parts, rather than to problems with the
dummy itself. However, if NHTSA learns of durabil-
ity and repairability problems with the dummy, the
agency will take appropriate action to address those
problems.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends
49 CFR Part 572 as follows:
Subpart G, H, and I are added and reserved, and a
new subpart J consisting of §§ 572.80 through § 572.86
would be added to read as follows:
Subpart G [Reserved]
Subpart H [Reserved]
Subpart I [Reserved]
Subpart J 9-month-Old Child
572.80 Incorporated materials.
572.81 General description.
572.82 Head.
572.83 Head-Neck.
572.84 Thorax.
572.85 Lumbar spine and pelvis.
572.86 Test conditions and adjustments.
§ 572.80 Incorporated materials.
The drawings and specifications referred to in this
regulation that are not set forth in full are hereby in-
corporated in this part by reference. These materials
are thereby made part of this regulation. The Director
of the Federal Register approved the materials incor-
porated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of the materials may be
obtained from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc., 1216
K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20002, telephone
(202) 628-6667. Copies are available for inspection in
the general reference section of Docket 89-11,
PART 572-PRE 105
Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C., or at the Office of the Federal
Register. 1100 L Street, N.W., Room 8401, Washing-
ton, D.C.
5572.81 General description.
(a) The dummy consists of: (1) the assembly speci-
fied in drawing LP 1049/A, which is described in its
entirety by means of approximately 54 separate draw-
ings and specifications. 1049/1 through 1049/54., and
(2) a parts list LP 1049/0 (5 sheets); and, (3) a report
entitled, "The TNO P3/4 Child Dummy Users Manual,"
January 1979, published by Instituut voor
Wegtransportmiddelen TNO.
(b) Adjacent dummy segments are joined in a
manner such that throughout the range of motion and
also under simulated crash-impact conditions there is
no contact between metallic elements except for con-
tacts that exist under static conditions.
(c) The structural properties of the dummy are such
that the dummy conforms to this Part in every respect
both before and after being used in dynamic tests such
as that specified in Standard No. 213 of this Chapter
(§ 571.213).
5572.82 Head.
The head consists of the assembly showm in drawing
LP 1049/A and conforms to each of the applicable-
drawings listed under LP 1049/0 through 54.
5572.83 HeadNeclc.
The head-neck assembly shown in drawing 1049/A
consists of parts specified as items 1 through 16 and
in item 56.
5572.84 Thorax.
The thorax consists of the part of the torso shown
in assembly drawing LP 1049/A and conforms to each
of the applicable drawings listed under SP 1049/0
through 54.
5572.85 Lumbar spine flexure.
(a) When subjected to continuously applied force in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the
lumbar spine assembly shall flex by an amount that
permits the thoracic spine to rotate from its initial po-
sition in accordance with Figure No. 18 of § 572.21 (49
CFR Part 572) by 40 degrees at a force level of not
less than 18 pounds and not more than 22 pounds, and
straighten upon removal of the force to within 5
degrees of its initial position.
(b) Test procedure.
(1) The lumbar spine flexure test is conducted on a
dummy assembly as shown in drawing LP 1049/A, but
with the arms (which consist of parts identified as items
17 through 30) and all head-neck parts (identified as
items 1 through 13 and 59 through 633, removed.
(2) With the torso assembled in an upright position,
adjust the lumbar cable by tightening the adjustment
nut for the lumbar vertebrae until the spring is com-
pressed to % of its unloaded length.
(3) Position the dummy in an upright seated position
on a seat as indicated in Figure No. 18 of § 572.21
(lower legs do not need to be removed, but must be
clamped firmly to the seating surface), ensuring that
all dummy component surfaces are clean, dry and un-
treated unless otherwise specified.
(4) Firmly affix the dummy to the seating surface
through the pelvis at the hip joints by suitable clamps
that also prevent any relative motion with respect to
the upper legs during the test in § 572.65(cX3) of this
Part. Install a pull attachment at the neck to torso junc-
ture as shown in Figure 18 of § 572.21.
(5) Flex the thorax forward 50 degrees and then
rearward as necessary to return it to its initial position.
(6) Apply a forward pull force in the midsagittal
plane at the top of the neck adapter so that at 40
degrees of the lumbar spine flexion the applied force
is perpendicular to the thoracic spine box. Apply the
force at any torso deflection rate between 0.5 and 1.5
degrees per second up to 40 degrees of flexion but no
further., maintain 40 degrees of flexion for 10 seconds,
and record the highest applied force during that time.
Release all force as rapidly as possible and measure the
return angle three minutes after release.
S572.86 Test conditions and dummy adjustment.
(a) With the complete torso on its back lying on a
horizontal surface and the neck assembly mounted and
shoulders on the edge of the surface, adjust the neck
such that the head bolt is lowered 0.40 ± 0.05 inches
(10 ± 1 mm) after a vertically applied load of 11.25
pounds (50 N) applied to the head bolt is released.
(b) With the complete torso on its back with the ad-
justed neck assembly as specified in § 572.66(a), and
lying on a horizontal surface with the shoulders on the
edge of the surface, mount the head and tighten the
head bolt and nut firmly, writh the head in horizontal
position. Adjust the head joint at the force between
l-2g, which just supports the head's weight.
(c) Using the procedures described below, limb joints
are set at the force between 1-2 g, which just supports
the limbs' weight when the limbs are extended horizon-
tally forward:
(1) With the complete torso lying with its front dowm
on a horizontal surface, wath the hip joint just over the
edge of the surface, mount the upper leg and tighten
hip joint nut firmly. Adjust the hip joint by releasing
the hip joint nut until the upper leg just starts moving.
PART 572-PRE 106
(2) With the complete torso and upper leg lying with
its front up on a horizontal surface, with the knee joint
just over the edge of the surface, mount the lower leg
and tighten knee joint firmly. Adjust the knee joint by
releasing the knee joint nut until the lower leg just
starts moving.
(3) With the torso in an upright position, mount the
upper arm and tighten firmly the adjustment bolts for
the shoulder joint with the upper arm placed in a
horizontal position. Adjust the shoulder joint by releas-
ing the shoulder joint nut until the upper arm just starts
moving.
(4) With the complete torso in an upright position
and upper arm in a vertical position, mount the fore-
arm in a horizontal position and tighten the elbow hinge
bolt and nut firmly. Adjust the elbow joint nut until
the forearm just starts moving.
(d) With the torso assembled in an upright position,
the adjustment nut for the lumbar vertebrae is tight-
ened until the spring is compressed to % of its unloaded
length.
(e) Performance tests are conducted at any temper-
ature from 66 to 78 degrees F and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent after exposure
of the dummy to these conditions for a period of not
less than four hours.
(f) Performance tests of the same component,
segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummy are
separated in time by a period of not less than 20
minutes unless otherwise specified.
(g) Surfaces of the dummy components are not
painted except as specified in the part or in drawings
incorporated by this part.
Issued on August 6, 1991.
Jerry Ralph Curry
Administrator
56 F.R. 41077
August 19, 1991
PART 572-PRE 107-108
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies— 6- Year Old Child
(Docket No. 8903; Notice 02)
RIN 2127-AC09
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice establishes specifications for
a 6-year-old child test dummy to be used in testing re-
straints (i.e., booster seats) for older children. The
6-year-old dummy is instrumented for measuring in-
ertia! responses due to impact forces. This rule sets per-
formance criteria as calibration checks to assure the
repeatability and reproducibility of the dummy's
dynamic performance. NHTSA believes that stand-
ardizing the dummy used to test booster seats will
enable NHTSA and the child passenger safety commu-
nity to evaluate the restraints in a fuller and more uni-
form manner. Adding the dummy to Part 572 is a
possible first step toward using the dummy to test the
compliance of booster seats and other types of child
restraint systems with Safety Standard 213, Child
Restraint Systems. The issue of using the dummy in
FMVSS 213 testing will be explored in future
rulemaking.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the regulations is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 12,
1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice amends Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test
Diunmies, to establish specifications and performance
criteria for a dummy representing a 6-year-old child.
Child test dummies such as the 6-year-old one enable
NHTSA to dynamically test child restraint systems in
a manner that is both measurable and repeatable. The
6-year-old dummy will help NHTSA and the child pas-
senger safety community test restraints for older chil-
dren in a fuller and more uniform manner.
NHTSA already has two child dummies specified in
Part 572 for testing child restraint systems. The two
dummies, a 6-month-old and a 3-year-old child dummy,
are used to dynamically test restraint systems to the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand-
ard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR §571.213;
SS7.1, 7.2).
Today's final rule is part of NHTSA's effort to add
to the child dummies specified in Part 572. In addition
to proposing specifications for the 6-year-old dummy,
NHTSA has proposed a 9-month-old child dummy (54
FR 52425; December 21, 1989), and intends to propose
a newborn infant dummy. NHTSA plans to initiate
rulemaking on the desirability of amending Standard
213 to specify the use of these additional diunmies in
compliance tests. Whether and how to proceed with
such rulemaking will be decided after NHTSA adds the
new dummies to Part 572.
Summary of the final rule
The specifications for the 6-year-old dummy (com-
mercially known as SA106C) consist of a drawing
package that: shows the component parts, the sub-
assemblies, and the assembly of the complete dummy;
defines materials and material treatment processes of
all the dummy's component parts; and specifies the
dummy's instrumentation and instrument installation
methods. The specifications also include a set of master
patterns for all molded and cast parts of the dummy.
Those patterns make possible the rapid reproduction
of those parts. In addition, there is a user's manual con-
taining disassembly, inspection, and assembly proce-
dures, and a dummy drawing list. These dravdngs and
specifications ensure that the dummies will vary little
from each other in their construction.
The dummy is capable of being instrumented with
accelerometers for measurement of accelerations in the
head and chest during dynamic testing. The rule speci-
fies the manner and location of instrumentation instal-
lation to reduce variability in measurements resulting
from differences in location and mounting. In addition,
the rule has provisions for mounting load cells in the
femurs to measure impact forces transmitted through
the knees.
Impact performance criteria serve as calibration
checks and further assure that the dummy is appropri-
ately assembled, adjusted, and instrumented for repeat-
able impact response. The dummies are equipped with
photographic targets attached to the head and knees to
facilitate the recording of its kinematic motions.
Drawings and specifications for the dimimy are avail-
able for examination in Docket 78-09 in NHTSA's
Docket Section. Copies of those materials and the
user's manual can be obtained from Reprographic
PART 572-PRE 109
Technologies, 1111 14th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20005; (202) 628-6667 or (202) 408-8789. In addi-
tion, patterns for all cast and molded parts are availa-
ble for loan from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards.
Background
NHTSA published a notice of proposed nzJemaking
(NPRM) for the 6-year-old dummy on April 6, 1989 (54
FR 13901). The agency explained in the NPRM that
the proposed test dummy is based on a Humanoid Sys-
tems (now First Technologies, Inc.) 6-year-old child
dummy. The proposed dummy was chosen over other
available test dummies that represent a 6-year-old
child: the Alderson Research Laboratories dummy, the
Sierra Engineering dummy, and the TNO P-6 dummy
used by Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) coun-
tries. These dummies were evaluated by NHTSA and
found unsuitable for the reasons fully discussed in the
NPRM.
The agency determined that the SA106C dummy,
which in general concept is a reduced version of the
50th percentile Hybrid II test dummy (referenced in
49 CFR Part 572, Subpart B), was suitable as produced
by its manufacturer in most, but not all, aspects. For
example, the anthropometric measurements compared
well with a 50th percentile 6-year-old child. However,
NHTSA foimd that the dummy's head, neck, chest and
lumbar spine needed some minor modifications to give
more human-like (biofidelic) responses diuing dynamic
tests. At the request of NHTSA, Humanoid adjusted
the dummy and made some minor modifications to
achieve the sought-after dynamic impact responses.
The agency issued the proposal because NHTSA be-
lieved a standardized 6-year-old dummy is necessary
to obtain better information about the protection af-
forded by child restraints to an under-examined child
age/size group. Having a series of child dummies
representing a fuller range of ages/sizes is important
because the ability of a restraint to protect a child
depends in part on the size of that child. A child
restraint is designated by its manufacturer as being
suitable for use by children of particular specified sizes
and weights. For example, an infant seat may be desig-
nated for newborns to about 20 poimds; a convertible
seat, from birth to about 40 pounds; and a booster seat,
from about 40 to 60 pounds. Booster seats are com-
monly tested with the 3-year-old (33 pounds) test dum-
my, because that dummy is the larger of the two
dummies currently specified in Part 572. While booster
seats are useful for restraining children who have out-
grown a convertible or toddler seat but who cannot be
properly restrained by the vehicle's belts, not enough
is known about the ability of all booster seats and other
designated restraint systems to provide adequate crash
protection to children older and larger than a
3 -year-old.
This rulemaking responds in part to the desire ex-
pressed through the years by the safety commimity for
the agency to explore the issues concerning the pro-
tection of these older children. In a 1986 Standard 213 ^
rulemaking, commenters voiced the concern that the w
shields on shield-type booster seats were too small to V
protect an older child's head and upper body in a crash.
In a final report issued in 1988, the agency reported
results of dynamic tests of short-shield booster seats.
The test data showed that when the seats were tested
with a 6-year-old dummy, some performance measure-
ments exceeded the maximum values permitted by
Standard 213 for restraints tested with the 3-year-old
dummy. ("Evaluation of the Performance of Child Re-
straint Systems," DTNH22-82-A-47046.)
The need for testing child restraints with child sur-
rogates representing lower, middle and upper weight
ranges was a concern echoed in 1988 at two public
meetings on child passenger safety. (See 53 FR 24934,
June 28, 1988, and Docket 88-11.) A number of com-
menters suggested that the surrogates would en-
courage the development of child restraint systems that
safely perform for the largest practical range of
weights. NHTSA issued the April 1989 proposal in the
belief that specifying a 6-year-old dummy is a step in
that direction.
Comments on the NPRM
NHTSA received comments on the proposal from
Chrysler Motors, the Insurance Institute for Highway .
Safety, General Motors Corporation (GM), Ford Motor w
Company, and Volvo Cars of North America. All the
commenters generally supported establishing specifi-
cations for a 6-year-old child test dummy for testing
child seats. However, Ford and GM expressed concerns
about particular aspects of the proposed NHTSA/
Humanoid dummy.
After reviewing the comments on the NPRM,
NHTSA conducted additional sled and component test-
ing of the test dummy to address the issues raised in
the comments. ("Technical Support to the Six- Year-Old
Dummy NPRM, VRTC-80-0161, October 1990.") This
notice refers to these additional tests as the "post-
NPRM" tests. Six sled tests were performed using the
specified dummy restrained in two types of booster
restraint systems. The boosters were designed for use
with either the vehicle's three-point belt system or lap-
belt only. A number of dummy components were also
tested, including necks, lumbar spines and abdominal
inserts. This final rule is based on the data discussed
in the NPRM, data and information submitted in the
comments, and data from the post-NPRM sled and
component test program.
Biofidelity
Ford and GM believed that the NHTSA/Humanoid
dummy lacks biofidelity. (Biofidelity refers to how well \
a test dummy duplicates the responses of a human in ^
PART 572-PRE 110
an impact.) GM said that it obtained two Humanoid
6-year-old dummies in 1987 that had the same basic
design as the NHTSA/Humanoid dummy. GM said
that, based on its tests of one of the dummies in belt
restraint systems and on "the dummy's development
history," the dummy lacks a reasonable and appropri-
ate level of biofidelity. GM believed that the dummies
upon which the NHTSA/Humanoid dummy is based,
the Hybrid-II and the 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part
572, Subparts B and C), lack sufficient biofidelity. GM
also said there were "inherent limitations of the dum-
my design that limited the benefit of the information
the dummy provided in testing." The commenter said
that the dummy's pelvis hindered assessment of a
child's "submarining" out of a child restraint, because
the pelvis design is that of a standing child. (Submarin-
ing refers to a child sliding, feet first, forward and un-
der a restraining belt during a crash.) In addition, GM
said that the dummy is "not sophisticated enough to
permit other important injury assessment (e.g., neck
injury)."
Ford was concerned about the dummy's thorax and
neck. Ford said that the proposed thorax limitation of
60 g's is based on repeatability and reproducibility
studies rather than on biomechanical data from chil-
dren. The commenter said that the dummy's ribs were
not designed to account for the lower stiffness that
child ribs have compared to an adult. Ford believed the
dummy's neck lacks biofidelity because the neck is
scaled from the neck of the Hybrid-II dummy, which.
Ford believes, is not himian-like. The commenter said
that "the lack of child-like biofidelity would result in
incorrect dummy head excursions and overall dummy
kinematics, which could lead to chUd restraint system
designs which met excursion criteria for the dummy,
but were not protective of children."
Based on their belief that the NHTSA/Humanoid
dummy is not sufficiently human-like. Ford and GM
suggested that the dummy should be discarded in favor
of a new 6-year-old child dimimy that is being developed
at Ohio State University (OSU). The OSU dummy is
based on the Hybrid-Ill 50th percentile adult male
dummy, which Ford and GM believed has a better
biomechanical basis for its frontal impact responses
than the Hybrid-II dummy. Ford said that OSU has im-
proved the biofidelity of the child dummy's thorax by
established scaling techniques from the 50th percen-
tile adult male Hybrid-Ill dummy. With respect to the
neck, the commenter said that the response of the
Hybrid-Ill neck is closer to himian neck response than
is the Hybrid-II neck. Ford and GM suggested that
NHTSA should delay adding specifications for a 6-year-
old child dummy until the OSU program is completed
and the Hybrid-Ill child dummy is evaluated.
NHTSA believes that the proposed SA106C dummy
is an appropriate chUd surrogate for establishing the
adequacy of a designated restraint. GM objected to the
dummy because the surrogate's design specifications
and performance requirements are similar in type to
the Part 572 3-year-old dummy. GM expressed a gen-
eral objection to the 3-year-old dummy, stating that
"the history of [that dummy's] development indicates
to us that it also lacked biofidelity...," without elaborat-
ing on the statement. By way of background informa-
tion, the agency notes that Humanoid based the
development of specifications for the SA106C dummy
on those of the 3-year-old dummy, and also integrated
the best available anthropometric, mass distribution
and motion range data appropriate for that age popu-
lation. The impact responses take into account the
larger masses and longer limbs of a 6-year-old, and the
differences in neck and spine stiffness and in the mass
to stiffness ratio of the thorax. The specifications for
the SA106C dummy also adjust the head skin and flesh
relative to the mass of the skull to produce the required
impact response.
The agency believes the 3-year-old child dummy was
an appropriate starting base for the 6-year-old dum-
my. The 3-year-old dimimy has been considered a valid
child surrogate for child restraint testing for over a
decade. GM did not provide any information to support
its claim that the 3-year-old dummy lacks biofidelity
or is otherwise inadequate for the evaluation of chDd
restraint systems.
The accelerometers in the head and chest of the
SA106C are of the same class as in the head and chest
of the 3-year-old. NHTSA does not know of any rea-
son why the injury assessment parameters recorded
by the 3-year-old child surrogate would be inappropri-
ate for the 6-year-old dummy. The design of the
SA106C dummy, by virtue of having correct an-
thropometry, mass distribution and correct motion
ranges between body segments, ensures that the dum-
my will load the system as a 6-year-old child would, with
appropriate inertial forces and in proper kinematic se-
quence. If, in a crash test, the specified injury limits
were exceeded, it would be reasonable to assume that
the 6-year-old dummy loaded the restraint system with
enough severity to injure a real world child occupant.
The accelerometer data provide useful information
on how the restraint system responds to impact load-
ing. In the post-NPRM dynamic tests, the dummy
showed an excellent ability to correlate excessive head
excursions and high Head Injury Criterion (HIC)
values. See Table 13 of VRTC-80-0161, October 1990.
Ford and GM might be correct that the Hybrid-Ill
type 6-year-old dummy (which has yet to be completed
and evaluated) might eventually have potential advan-
tages over the NHTSA/Humanoid dummy in the num-
ber of parameters the dummies can measure. However,
NHTSA does not believe that this nilemaking should
be delayed to further consider the potential advantages
of future dummies. The SA106C dummy's ability to
measure HIC, chest acceleration and femur loads, and
its ability to replicate the impact motions and excur-
PART 572-PRE 111
sions of a child in a crash are sufficient to provide valid
assessment of the injury potential of child restraint sys-
tems in a reliable manner. Since the SA106C dummy
is ready now, and a final rule specifying the dummy
will help improve safety, the agency believes it is
appropriate to proceed with adding the dummy to Part
572. NHTSA intends to evaluate the Hybrid-Ill type
6-year-old dummy after the dummy's design and
development are completed and the dummy is commer-
cially available.
Repeatability
Ford commented that the test report referenced in
the NPRM appeared to show that the NHTSA/
Humanoid dummy provides repeatable results in sled
and calibration tests. (Repeatability refers to the
reproduction of impact responses for the same dum-
my.) However, Ford said that some of the sled test head
and chest data have pulse shapes that are not "unimo-
dal." ("Unimodal" refers to an acceleration-time curve
that has only one prominent peak and a smooth tran-
sition from initiation of acceleration to peak and from
peak to end of acceleration. Sharp, extremely short-
time signal disturbances in the curve are called
"spikes." A unimodal curve suggests a single causa-
tive force acting on the dummy's head, while the
presence of a spike(s) superimposed on a unimodal
curve may suggest the possibility of either multiple
forces acting on the head, or other types of data dis-
tortions. Some of the distortions may be caused by non-
crash events, such as electrical interferences, static dis-
charges, amplifier missettings, overloaded sensors, etc.
They also may be of mechanical origin. These non-crash
spikes, if they occur during the crash event and can-
not be removed by appropriate filtering, may compli-
cate the dummy's ability to provide useful data.)
Ford asked whether the spikes it had noted in the
data were noise, or whether they were caused by a
crash event. NHTSA conducted 12 sled tests in the
post-NPRM program to study the acceleration-time
curves. In impacts of a 3-point belt restrained dummy,
spikes occurred in the head and chest acceleration sig-
nals in the 64 to 68 millisecond range, and were caused
by the dummy's chin impacting the chest. Chin to chest
impacts have also been observed with the Part 572
adult dummies. The spike in the 6-year-old dummy data
raised the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) value only by
about 30 points in an average response of approxi-
mately 500 HIC. The chest response was not affected
by this small impact response distortion.
The agency does not believe that the spikes caused
by the chin to chest impacts negatively affect the dum-
my's usefulness as a child restraint system test device.
The chin-to-chest contacts only occurred with 3-point
belts, and not with booster seats and other child res-
traint systems. Moreover, even with 3-point belt sys-
tems, the spike appears to be of negligible consequence
because it increases what seems to be relatively low
HIC numbers by only a small amount. Of course, the
agency will take appropriate action to address problems
with the data spikes if they occur and are critical in
the resolution of the problem. i
Reproducibility
GM said that it did not conduct performance calibra-
tion tests on its second dummy to evaluate reproduci-
bility. ("Reproducibility" refers to the variation of
dummy responses among different dummies.)
However, GM asked about apparent "larger than
desirable. . .dispersions in some of the dummy-to-
dummy performance measurement comparisons" that
the commenter noted in a report referenced in the
NPRM. ("Establishment of the Repeatability of Per-
formance of the Six-Year Old Child Test Dummies,"
DOT HS 806-741, September 1984.) GM said that the
report shows that some coefficients of variation were
greater than 10 percent.
The data in question were generated when NHTSA
tested four test dummies. The data showed that the
results for five dummy parameters (head acceleration,
chest acceleration, femur load, neck bending, and lum-
bar spine bending) were reproducible within 11.6 per-
cent. As noted in the NPRM, those test results compare
favorably with the performance of the 3-year-old
dummy and adult Part 572 Subpart B dummy. NHTSA
believes the 11.6 percent variability is within the
acceptable bounds of performance of other dummies. .
NH'TSA also expects the variability to improve once r
the dummy is built in volume from production tooling.
Calibration procedures
Head/neck. GM said that the procedure for locating
the test probe relative to the impact point on the
dummy forehead should be clarified, because as writ-
ten, the probe contacts the dummy's nose and not its
forehead.
The agency agrees. GM's comment was confirmed
in NHTSA's post-NPRM testing. The impactor loca-
tion problems were caused by conflicts in definitions
of the "Z" axis (inferior-superior) of the dummy's head.
In one section of the NPRM (§572.52(cX2Xi)), the Z axis
was described as the longitudinal centerline of the skull
anchor, while in another (Figure 6C-1 in the NPRM,
now Figure 40), it was described as the tangent line
between the dummy's back and the buttocks, in the
transverse vertical plane. The head test procedure calls
for the test probe to be adjusted so that its longitudi-
nal centerline is 2.8 ±0.1 inches below the top of the
head measured along the Z axis. When the probe is
positioned according to the first definition of the Z axis,
the probe contacts the bridge of the dummy's nose be-
fore it hits the forehead.
The agency believes the problem will be corrected '
by slight revisions to the procedure. The probe is
PART 572-PRE 112
properly positioned using the Z axis described in Figure
40. Accordingly, NHTSA has removed the words "lon-
gitudinal center line of the skujl anchor" from
S572.72(cX2Xi). (§572.52 of the NPRM.) Further, the
impact location is changed from 2.8 ± 0.1 to 2.7 ± 0.1
inches below the top of the head. Also, §572.52(cX3)
of the NPRM has been removed. That section had speci-
fied that the dummy should be adjusted "so that the
surface area of the forehead immediately adjacent to
the projected longitudinal center line of the test probe
is vertical." If the dummy is not adjusted, the head is
forward about 15 degrees, which, together with the
other changes to the dummy's positioning and the test
procedure, ensures probe contact with the forehead and
not the nose.
As mentioned above, GM said that there was varia-
tion in the pendulum pulse for the head-neck calibra-
tion procedure. GM said that the ability to decelerate
the pendulum on which the head/neck assembly is
mounted appears to depend on the number of alumi-
num hexcel cells. GM believed that the proper deceler-
ation pulse could be obtained most of the time, but not
every time using 27 cells. GM suggested NHTSA
improve the consistency of obtaining the specified
deceleration.
In response to this comment, NHTSA tested six
head-neck assemblies in the post-NPRM program. Ex-
cept for the decaying portion of the acceleration-time
curve (T4-T3), all tests showed the pendulum crush pulse
to be highly repeatable. The agency could not improve
the T4-T3 portion of the curve, because T4-T3 is not con-
trolled by either the type, number of cells or thickness
of the hexcell. However, the agency believes that al-
lowing for more time to get from T4 to T3— from "not
more than 4 milliseconds (ms)" to "not more than 6
ms"— would address the problem of the repeatability
of the deceleration rate. In all of NHTSA's tests, T4-T3
was not more than 6 ms. The agency does not believe
that the change would have any significant effect on
the rotation of the neck because at time T3, nearly all
of the pendulum's forward translational motion has
In its comment, GM said that its dummy did not meet
the proposed peak neck rotation requirement, and sur-
mised that this was because the dummy's neck may
have stiffened with age.
In NHTSA's post-NPRM program, the agency found
that most of the necks rotated less than the amount
that had been specified in the NPRM. However, the
agency does not want to specify more flexibility of the
neck because a more flexible neck would increase the
frequency of the dummy head-to-chest impacts in dy-
namic tests. Instead, the agency has changed the neck
rotation criteria to better reflect the actual perfor-
mance of the dummy's neck. Accordingly, the peak ro-
tation angle is changed from 83 ± 6 to 78 ± 6 degrees,
and the time specified to reach 60 degrees of rotation
is changed from 39 ± 5.1 to 44 ± 5 milliseconds.
Thorax assembly. GM said that its dummy did not
meet the proposed lateral acceleration limit of 5g for
the thorax assembly in pendulum tests. GM believed
that the inability was due to resonances in the thorax
lateral accelerometer. (A resonance is a natural vibra-
tional state of a system or a subsystem (e.g., an ac-
celerometer mount), that can magnify the acceleration
readings of the test dummy and thus prevent accurate
measurement of true accelerations.)
NHTSA found in its post-NPRM testing that there
was evidence of resonance in the lateral accelerometer
signal. However, the resonance was not great enough
to cause the lateral acceleration to exceed 5g, after
being filtered to channel class 180. Nevertheless, the
agency decided to further minimize the effects of
resonance by use of a 0.25 inch thick pad of Ensolite
AL material placed between the dummy's chest flesh
and sternum, which is used routinely in other Part 572
dummies. A specification for the pad has been added
to the drawings for the dummy.
The Ensolite pad reduced the lateral accelerometer
ringing problem to well below the specified 5g response
limit. NHTSA also determined that the pad had the ef-
fect of decreasing the dummy's peak resultant spine
accelerations from an average of 55g to 48g, with a
coefficient of variation of 5.4 percent. In accordance
with that change in performance, the agency has ad-
justed specifications for the peak resultant accelera-
tions from the 50g-60g range, to not less than 43g and
not more than 53g.
Femurs. GM said that its dummy generally met the
proposed femur force calibration performance specifi-
cations. However, GM noted that in one of its initial
tests of a femur, the force recorded was below the mini-
mum proposed in the NPRM. In subsequent tests, the
force recorded was higher, within the proposed cor-
ridor. GM believed that the low impact response value
in the first test was caused by excessive clearance (a
loose fit) between the load cells and the bolts that at-
tach the load cells to the femurs. GM believed that the
first impact that had resulted in the low response value
may have closed up the clearance, which accounted for
the higher values in the subsequent tests. GM sug-
gested that using shoulder bolts, rather than straight
shank bolts with threads cut all the way to the bolt
head, may remove some of the clearance and produce
more consistent results.
The agency has not experienced the "clearance"
effects in its own tests and doesn't believe the rule need
to require the use of special design bolts. If low femur
values are widely recorded in the future, and if correct-
ing those values with a second impact is determined
to be imdesirable or ineffective, NHTSA will consider
the appropriateness of specifying the above noted
shoulder bolts.
PART 572-PRE 113
Lumbar spine and abdomen. Ford believed a com-
plex lumbar spine calibration test is unnecessary to
measure the flexion torque. Ford argued that the spine
can vary considerably in stiffness without having a sig-
nificant effect on the kinematics of the dummy's head
and chest because bending moments imposed by these
components during impact are considerably larger than
those measured in quasi-static testing. Ford recom-
mended that the rule specify a simple bench test of the
spine assembly, in which the assembly is rotated in 90
degree increments and a moment is applied to the as-
sembly by applying a force at the end of an arm. "This
would ensure that the spine has neither internal struc-
tural cracks nor excessive deviations from nominal
characteristics."
The agency believes the proposed lumbar spine stiff-
ness test should be retained in the rule. The importance
of differences in spine stiffness on a dummy's bending
kinematics is probably reduced when the spine is sub-
jected to the considerable forces generated by the head
and chest in a crash test. However, NHTSA has ob-
served that spine stiffness is important to enable the
dummy to sit properly upright during its set-up with
the car seat and also during the instant prior to impact.
The stiffness requirement would make the dummy
easier to use in the laboratory in a uniform manner.
Also, NHTSA has observed that spine stiffness is im-
portant for controlling the rotational kinematics around
the vertical axis of the dummy's upper torso relative
to the lower torso. Thus, a spine stiffness test would
help ensure consistency in rotational kinematics in
dynamic tests, which may have a positive effect on the
dummy's overall repeatability and reproducibility.
The spine stiffness test procedure proposed in the
NPRM is based on the lumbar spine, abdomen and pel-
vis specifications for the already existing 3-year-old
child dummy (49 CFR §572.19). Since NHTSA is not
aware that the test is unduly burdensome or problem-
atic for the 3-year-old, the agency has adopted that test
procedure also for the SA106C dummy.
GM suggested that the abdominal insert should be
softer than the proposed insert to allow the dummy to
bend more. However, GM did not provide, and NHTSA
is not aware of, any information showing the superi-
ority of one level of abdominal softness over another.
The design of the abdominal insert and the material
selection are based on the Hybrid-H dimimy. The in-
sert's purpose is to fill the space between the ribcage
and the pelvic bone vvith a reasonably flexible medium,
that would provide some support for the belt system,
help retain the alignment between upper and lower
halves of the torso, and provide the least resistance to
flexion between the two torso halves around the lum-
bar spine. The proposed abdominal insert meets those
goals.
Foot support. During dummy calibration tests,
NHTSA observed that the 12.7 inches floor plane was
too low to support the feet of the seated dummy as
specified in Figure 44 (Figure 6C-4 in the NPRM). To
assure that the dummy's feet rest on the floor as speci- ^
fied in the calibration procedure, the floor plane ele- v
vation is changed to 11 inches.
Instrumentation. Ford suggested that NHTSA
modify the specifications for the dummy's accelero-
meters to make them "comparable to the specifications
for the Hybrid-H and Hybrid-HI accelerometers." The
proposed specifications call for a two-arm piezoresis-
tive bridge in the accelerometer, which Ford said would
be incompatible with the Ford On-board Data Acquisi-
tion System. Ford suggested that the rule specify a
four-arm bridge, to facilitate compatibility with the
Ford system.
NHTSA declines to make the suggested changes, in
order to avoid further complications of the already very
complex accelerometer and instrumentation specifica-
tions issues. All of the agency's evaluations of the
SA106C dimimy were carried out with the designated
accelerometer system. Further, given that the same
sensors are specified for use in the Part 572 3-year-
old dummy, NHTSA knows that the designated sen-
sors will perform satisfactorily in dynamic tests. It is
unclear why Ford would experience hardship with the
accelerometer system for the 6-year-old when, to the
agency's knowledge, Ford does not have a problem
with the same sensor system specified for the 3-year- /
old child dummy. The agency also points out that a V
manufacturer may use a different sensor system if it
so chooses. K in fact the manufacturer's preferred sys-
tem produces the same test results as the specified sys-
tem, as is the case for the four-arm versus two-arm
bridge systems, there appears to be no compelling need
to specify the manufacturer's preferred systems in the
regulation.
Other Issues
Anthropometry Values. Ford noted that the an-
thropometric values provided in Safety Standard 208,
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) for a
6-year-old child differ slightly from the values provided
in the NPRM for the NHTSA/ Humanoid dummy. Ford
believed the values should be consistent to avoid
confusion.
The commenter is correct that there are small differ-
ences in the hip breadth, hip circumference and waist
circumference measurements provided in the NPRM
and in Standard 208. The NPRM dimensions (hip cir-
cumference smaller by 1.8 inches, waist by 0.7 inches)
generally specify a slightly more slender dummy torso.
NHTSA plans to update the Standar'^ "^08 dimensions
in a separate rulemaking. a
Pelvis. NHTSA concurs wit
NHTSA/Humanoid dummy's pelvif
realistically assess the submarinir
PART 572-PRE 114
belt-^rstem. This is because there is a gap at the pelvis-
femur juncture into which the lap belt can wedge. The
agency does not believe the gap will be a problem for
testing child restraints, because shield-type restraints
and "Y" harnesses do not wedge into the gap. For those
restraint systems that use lap belts or three-point belt
restraints to contain the child dummy, an apron-like
shield covering the gap can be used to prevent the lap
belt from becoming wedged into the pelvis-femur gap.
Air bag and pedestrian safety. Ford believed that
the SA106C dummy should not be used to evaluate the
performance of passenger air bag systems because the
dummy is not sensitive enough to detect forces that
could harm a child. The commenter believed that the
Hybrid-Ill based dummy would also lack specialized in-
strumentation needed to evaluate the performance of
air bag systems. The commenter also expressed con-
cern about the use of the NHTSA/Humanoid dummy
in pedestrian research. According to Ford, the dum-
my's thorax is not biofidelic in frontal or lateral impacts
and the legs lack instrumentation to measure knee and
leg bending moments.
NHTSA anticipates using the dummy for child re-
straint testing purposes only. The next step in the
agency's rulemaking plan for the dummy is to consider
whether to amend Standard 213 to require use of the
dummy in compliance testing. Ford's comments on how
the dummy should or should not be used are prema-
ture and are not germane to today's final rule.
Harmonization. Ford stated that international har-
monization would be furthered by adopting the Hybrid-
Ill type 6-year-old (OSU) dummy. According to the
commenter, while the ECE 6-year-old dummy has
biofidelic limitations, "a common ground for harmoni-
zation could be provided by specifying the Ohio State
6-year-old child dummy."
NHTSA does not understand why Ford believes the
OSU dummy would further harmonization. In any
event, if information becomes available that shows that
the OSU dummy wiU benefit harmonization, the agency
will give this matter further consideration.
Terminology. NHTSA is amending ' 'unimodal ' ' as
defined in §572.4(c) to apply the term to Subpart I, the
specifications for the 6-year-old dummy. "Unimodal"
means an acceleration-time curve that has only one
prominent peak. Subpart I uses the term "unimodal"
in a fashion similar to the way it is used in Subpart C,
the specifications for the 3-year-old child dummy. That
's, both specify that the acceleration-time curve for the
head assembly test is "unimodal at or above the 50g
level," and for the thorax assembly test, "unimodal at
or above the 30g level." However, §572.4(c) applies by
its terms only to Subpart C. This amendment applies
the term to both Subparts C and I.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends
49 CFR Part 572 as follows:
1. Subpart A is amended by revising S572.4(c) to
read as follows:
§572.4 Terminology.
(c) The term "unimodal," when used in Subparts C
and I, refers to an acceleration-time curve which has
only one prominent peak.
2. Subpart I, consisting of §§572.70 through 572.78,
is added to read as follows:
Subpart I— GYearOid Child
572.70 Incorporation by reference.
572.71 General description.
572.72 Head assembly and test procedure.
572.73 Neck assembly and test procedure.
572.74 Thorax assembly and test procedure.
572.75 Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis
assembly and test procedure.
572.76 Limbs assembly and test procedure.
572.77 instrumentation.
572.78 Performance test conditions.
Subpart l-6-YearOld Child
§572.70 Incorporation by reference.
The drawings and specifications referred to in
§§572.71(a) and 572.71(b) are hereby incorporated in
Subpart I by reference. These materials are thereby
made part of this regulation. The Director of the Fed-
eral Register approved the materials incorporated by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR Part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected
at NHTSA's Docket Section, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Room 5109, Washington, D.C., or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 1100 L St., N.W., Room 8401,
Washington, D.C.
The incorporated material is available as follows:
(1) Drawing number SA 106 COOl sheets 1 through
18, and the drawings Usted in the parts lists described
on sheets 8 through 17, are available from Repro-
graphic Technologies, 1111 14th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 628-6667.
(2) A User's Manual entitled, "Six-Year-Old Size
Child Test Dummy SA106C," October 28, 1991, is
available from Reprographic Technologies at the ad-
dress in paragraph (1) of this section.
(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, Instrumen-
tation/or Impact Test, Jime 1988, is available from the
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Common-
wealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.
PART 572-PRE 115
§572.71 General description.
(a) The representative 6-year-olci dummy consists of
a drawings and specifications package that contains the
following materials:
(1) technical drawings and specifications package
SA 106C 001, containing drawing number SA 106C 001
sheets 1 through 18, and the drawings listed in the
parts lists described on sheets 8 through 17; and,
(2) a user's manual entitled, "Six- Year-Old Size
Child Test Dummy SA106C," October 28, 1991.
(b) The dummy is made up of the component assem-
blies set out in the following Table A:
Table A
Drawing Title
SA 106C
SA 106C
SA 106C
SA 106C
SA 106C
picture
SA 106C
SA 106C
picture
SA 106C
SA 106C
picture
010
020
030
041
042 (also includes
of assembled parts)
050
060 (also includes
of assembled parts)
071
072 (also includes
of assembled parts)
Head Assembly
Neck Assembly
Thorax Assembly
Arm Assembly (Right Arm)
Arm Assembly (Left Arm)
Lumbar Spine Assembly
Pelvis Assembly
Leg Assembly (Right Leg)
Leg Assembly (Left Leg)
(c) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such
that except for contacts existing under static condi-
tions, there is no contact between metallic elements
throughout the range of motion or under simulated
crash-impact conditions.
(d) The structural properties of the dummy are such
that the dummy conforms to this Part in every respect
both before and after its use in any test similar to those
specified in Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems.
§572.72 Head assembly and test procedure.
(a) Head assembly. The head consists of the assem-
bly designated as SA 106C 010 on drawing No. SA
106C 001, sheet 2 and conforms to each drawing listed
on SA 106C 001, sheet 8.
(b) Head assembly impact response requirements.
When the head is impacted by a test probe conform-
ing to §572.77(aXl) at 7 feet per second (fps) accord-
ing to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this
section, then the resultant head acceleration measured
at the location of the accelerometer installed in the
headform according to §577.77(b) is not less than 130g
and not more than 160g.
(1) The recorded acceleration-time curve for this
test is unimodal at or above the 50g level, and lies at
or above that level for an interval not less than 1.0 and
not more than 2.0 milHseconds.
(2) The lateral acceleration vector does not exceed
5g.
(c) Head test procedure. The test procedure for the
head is as follows:
(1) Seat and orient the dummy on a seating sur-
face having a back support as specified in §572. 78(c),
and adjust the joints of the limbs at any setting (be-
tween Ig and 2g) which just supports the limbs' weight
when the limbs are extended horizontally and forward.
(2) Adjust the test probe so that its longitudinal
centerline is—
(i) At the forehead at the point of orthogonal in-
tersection of the head midsagittal plane and the trans-
verse plane which is perpendicular to the Z axis of the
head as shown in Figure 40;
(ii) Located 2.7 ±0.1 inches below the top of the
head measured along the Z axis; and
(iii) Coincides within 2 degrees with the line
made by the intersection of the horizontal and midsagit-
tal planes passing through this point.
(3) Impact the head with the test probe so that at
the moment of contact the probe's longitudinal center
line falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in the
dummy's midsagittal plane.
(4) Guide the test probe during impact so that
there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational
movement.
(5) Allow at least 60 minutes between successive
head tests.
§572.73 Neck assembly and test procedure.
(a) Neck assembly. The neck consists of the assem-
bly designated as SA 106C 020 on drawing SA 106C
001, sheet 2, and conforms to each drawing listed on
SA 106C 001, sheet 9.
(b) Neck assembly impact response requirements.
When the head-neck assembly (SA 106C 010 and SA
106C 020) is tested according to the test procedure in
§572.73(c), the head:
(1) Shall rotate, while translating in the direction
of the pendulum preimpact flight, in reference to the
pendulum's longitudinal center line a total of 78 degrees
± 6 degrees about the head's center of gravity; and
(2) Shall rotate to the extent specified in Table B
at each indicated point in time, measured from time
of impact, with the chordal displacement measured at
the head's center of gravity.
(i) Chordal displacement at time "T" is defined
as the straight line distance between the position rela-
tive to the pendulum arm of the head's center of gravity
at time "zero;" and the position relative to the pendu-
lum arm of the head's center of gravity at time T as
illustrated by Figure 3 in §572.11.
PART 572-PRE 116
(ii) The peak resultant acceleration recorded
at the location of the accelerometers mounted in the
headform according to §572. 77(b) shall not exceed
30g.
Table B
Rotation
Time
Chordal displacement
(degrees)
(ms)
(inches)
±(2 + .08T)
±0.8
0
0
0
30
26
2.7
60
44
4.3
Maximum
68
5.8
60
101
4.4
30
121
2.4
0
140
0
(3) The pendulum shall not reverse direction un-
til the head's center of gravity returns to the origi-
nal "zero" time position relative to the pendulum
arm.
(c) Neck test procedure. The test procedure for
the neck is as follows:
(1) Moimt the head and neck assembly on a rigid
pendulum as specified in §572.21, Figure 15, so that
the head's midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides
with the plane of motion of the pendulum's longitu-
dinal center line. Attach the neck directly to the pen-
dulxxm as shown in §572.21, Figure 15.
(2) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall
freely from a height such that the velocity at impact
is 17 ± 1 fps, measured at the center of the ac-
celerometer specified in §572.21, Figure 15.
(3) Decelerate the pendulum to a stop with an
acceleration-time pulse described as follows:
(i) Establish 5g and 20g levels on the a-t
curve.
(ii) Establish ti at the point where the rising
a-t curve first crosses the 5g level; tz at the point
where the rising a-t curve first crosses the 20g level;
ts at the point where the decaying a-t curve last
crosses the 20g level; and t4 at the point where the
decaying a-t curve first crosses the 5g level.
(iii) t2-ti shall not be more than 3 milliseconds.
(iv) ts-ta shall not be more than 22 milli-
seconds, and not less than 19 milliseconds.
(v) t4-t3 shall not be more than 6 milliseconds.
(vi) The average deceleration between ta and
ts shall not be more than 26g, or less than 22g.
(4) Allow the neck to flex without the head or
neck contacting any object other than the pendulum
arm.
(5) Allow at least 60 minutes between succes-
sive tests.
§572.74 Thorax assembly and test procedure.
(a) Thorax assembly. The thorax consists of the
part of the torso assembly designated as SA 106C
030 on drawing SA 106C 001, sheet 2, and conforms
to each applicable drawing on SA 106C 001, sheets
10 and 11.
(b) Thorax assembly requirements. When the
thorax is impacted by a test probe conforming to
§572.77(a) at 20 ± 0.3 fps according to the test
procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, the peak
resultant accelerations at the accelerometers
mounted in the chest cavity according to §572. 77(c)
shall not be less than 43g and not more than 53g.
(1) The recorded acceleration-time curve for this
test shall be unimodal at or above the 30g level, and
shall lie at or above that level for an interval not less
than 4 milliseconds and not more than 6 mil-
liseconds.
(2) The lateral acceleration shall not exceed 5g.
(c) Thorax test procedure. The test procedure for
the thorax is as follows:
(1) Seat and orient the dummy on a seating sur-
face without back support as specified in §572. 78(c),
and adjust the joints of the limbs at any setting (be-
tween Ig and 2g) which just supports the limbs'
weight when the limbs are extended horizontally and
forward, parallel to the midsagittal plane.
(2) Establish the impact point at the chest mid-
sagittal plane so that the impact point is 2.25 inches
below the longitudinal center of the clavicle retainer
screw, and adjust the dimimy so that the longitudi-
nal center line of the No. 3 rib is horizontal.
(3) Place the longitudinal center line of the test
probe so that it coincides with the designated impact
point, and align the test probe so that at impact, the
probe's longitudinal center line coincides (within 2
degrees) with the line formed at the intersection of
the horizontal and midsagittal planes and passes
through the designated impact point.
(4) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that
at the moment of contact the probe's longitudinal
center line falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line
in the dummy's midsagittal plane.
(5) Guide the test probe dimng impact so that
there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational
movement.
(6) Allow at least 30 minutes between succes-
sive tests.
§572.75 Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis
assembly and test procedure.
(a) Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis assembly.
The lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis consist of the
part of the torso assembly designated as SA 106C
050 and 060 on drawing SA 106C 001, sheet 2, and
conform to each applicable drawing listed on SA
106C 001, sheets 12 and 13.
PART 572-PRE 117
(b) Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis o.ssembly
response requirements. When the lumbar spine is
subjected to a force continuously applied according
to the test procedure set out in paragraph (c) of this
section, the lumbar spine assembly shall—
(1) Flex by an amount that permits the rigid
thoracic spine to rotate from the torso's initial posi-
tion, as defined in (cX3), by 40 degrees at a force
level of not less than 46 pounds and not more than
52 pounds, and
(2) Straighten upon removal of the force to
within 5 degrees of its initial position when the force
is removed.
(c) Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis test proce-
dure. The test procedure for the lumbar spine,
abdomen, and pelvis is as follows:
(1) Remove the dummy's head-neck assembly,
arms, and lower legs, clean and dry all component
surfaces, and seat the dummy upright on a seat as
specified in Figure 42.
(2) Adjust the dummy by—
(i) Tightening the femur ballflange screws at
each hip socket joint to 50 inch-pounds torque;
(ii) Attaching the pelvis to the seating surface
by a bolt D/605 as shown in Figure 42;
(iii) Attaching the upper legs at the knee
joints by the attachments shown in Figure 42;
(iv) Tightening the mountings so that the
pelvis-lumbar joining surface is horizontal; and
(v) Removing the head and neck, and install-
ing a cylindrical aluminum adapter (neck adapter)
of 2.0 inches diameter and 2.6 inches length as
shown in Figure 42.
(3) The initial position of the dummy's torso is
defined by the plane formed by the rear surfaces of
the shoulders and buttocks which is three to seven
degrees forward of the transverse vertical plane.
(4) Flex the thorax forward 50 degrees and then
rearward as necessary to return the dummy to its
initial torso position, unsupported by external
means.
(5) Apply a forward pull force in the midsagit-
tal plane at the top of the neck adapter so that when
the lumbar spine flexion is 40 degrees, the applied
force is perpendicular to the thoracic spine box.
(i) Apply the force at any torso deflection rate
between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second, up to 40
degrees of flexion.
(ii) For 10 seconds, continue to apply a force
sufficient to maintain 40 degrees of flexion, and
record the highest applied force during the 10 second
period.
(iii) Release all force as rapidly as possible,
and measure the return angle 3 minutes after the
release.
§572.76 Limbs assembly and test procedure.
(a) Limbs assembly. The limbs consist of the as-
semblies designated as SA 106C 041, SA 106C 042, I
SA 106C 071, and SA 106C 072, on drawing No. SA '
106C 001, sheet 2, and conform to each applicable
drawing listed on SA 106C 001, sheets 14 through
17.
(b) Limbs assembly impact response requirement.
When each knee is impacted at 7 ± 0.1 fps,
according to paragraph (c) of this section, the maxi-
mum force on the femur shall not be more than 1060
pounds and not less than 780 pounds, with a duration
above 400 pounds of not less than 0.8 milliseconds.
(c) Limbs test procedure. The test procedure for
the limbs is as follows:
(1) Seat and orient the dummy without back
support on a seating surface that is 11 + 0.2 inches
above a horizontal (floor) surface as specified in
§572.78(c).
(i) Orient the dummy as specified in Figure
43 with the hip joint adjustment at any setting be-
tween Ig and 2g.
(ii) Place the dummy's legs in a plane parallel
to the dummy's midsagittal plane with the knee
pivot center line perpendicular to the dummy's mid-
sagittal plane, and with the feet flat on the horizon-
tal (floor) surface. /
(iii) Adjust the feet and lower legs imtil the ^
line between the midpoint of each knee pivot and
each ankle pivot is within 2 degrees of the vertical.
(2) If necessary, reposition the dummy so that
at the level one inch below the seating surface, the
rearmost point of the dummy's lower legs remains
not less than 3 inches and not more than 6 inches
forward of the forward edge of the seat.
(3) Align the test probe specified in §572.77(a)
with the longitudinal center line of the femur force
gauge, so that at impact, the probe's longitudinal
center line coincides with the sensor's longitudinal
center line within ± 2 degrees.
(4) Impact the knee with the test probe moving
horizontally and parallel to the midsagittal plane at
the specified velocity.
(5) Guide the test probe during impact so that
there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational
movement.
§572.77 Instrumentation.
(aXl) Test probe. For the head, thorax, and knee
impact test, use a test probe that is rigid, of uniform
density, and weighs 10 pounds and 6 ounces, with f
a diameter of 3 inches; a length of 13.8 inches; and
an impacting end that has a rigid flat right face and
edge radius of 0.5 inches.
PART 572-PRE 118
a-t curve last crosses the 20g level, and t, at the
point where the decaying a-t curve first crosses
the 5g level.
(iii) ^ - 1, shall be not more than 3 milliseconds.
(iv) tj -^ shall be not less than 25 milliseconds
and not more than 30 milliseconds.
(v) ^ -t, shall be not more than 10 milliseconds.
(vi) The average deceleration between 1, and t,
shall be not less than 20g and not more than 24g.
(4) Allow the neck to flex without impact of the
head or neck with any object other than the pen-
dulum arm.
§ 572.8 Thorax.
(a) The thorax consists of the assembly shown as
number SA 150 M030 in Figure 1, and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150
M030.
(b) The thorax contains enough unobstructed
interior space behind the rib cage to permit the
midpoint of the sternum to be depressed 2 inches
without contact between the rib cage and other
parts of the dummy or its instrumentation, except
for instruments specified in subparagraph (d) (7) of
this section.
(c) When impacted by a test probe conforming to
§ 572.11(a) at 14 fps and at 22 fps in accordance
with paragraph (d) of this section, the thorax shall
resist with forces measured by the test probe of not
more than 1450 pounds and 2250 pounds, respec-
tively, and shall deflect by amounts not greater
than 1.1 inches and 1.7 inches, respectively. The in-
ternal hysteresis in each impact shall not be less
than 50 percent and not more than 70 percent.
(d) Test Procedure:
(1) With the dummy seated without back
support on a surface as specified in § 572.11(i) and
in the orientation specified in § 572.11(i), adjust
the dummy arms and legs until they are extended
horizontally forward parallel to the midsagittal
plane.
(2) Place the longitudinal center line of the test
probe so that it is 17.7 ±0.1 inches above the
seating surface at impact.
(3) Align the test probe specified in § 572.11 (a)
so that at impact its longitudinal centerline
coincides within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in
the dummy's midsagittal plane.
(4) Adjust the dummy so that the surface area
on the thorax immediately adjacent to the pro-
jected longitudinal center line of the test probe is
vertical. Limb support, as needed to achieve and
maintain this orientation, may be provided by
placement of a steel rod of any diameter not less
than one-quarter of an inch and not more than
three-eighths of an inch, with hemispherical ends,
vertically under the limb at its projected geometric
center.
(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that
its longitudinal centerline falls within 2 degrees of
a horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal plane
at the moment of impact.
(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or
rotational movement.
(7) Measure the horizontal deflection of the
sternum relative to the thoracic spine along the
line established by the longitudinal centerline of
the probe at the moment of impact, using a poten-
tiometer mounted inside the sternum.
(8) Measure hysteresis by determining the ratio
of the area between the loading and unloading
portions of the force deflection curve to the area
under the loading portion of the curve.
§ 572.9 Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis.
(a) The lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis
consist of the assemblies designated as numbers
SA 150 M050 and SA 150 M060 in Figure 1 and
conform to the drawings subtended by these
numbers.
(b) When subjected to continuously applied force
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section,
the lumbar spine assembly shall flex by an amount
that permits the rigid thoracic spine to rotate from
its initial position in accordance with Figure 11 by
the number of degrees shown below at each
specified force level, and straighten upon removal
of the force to within 12 degrees of its initial posi-
tion in accordance with Figure 11.
Flexion Force (±6
(degrees) pounds)
0 0
20 28
30 40
40 52
PART 572-
(c) Test procedure:
(1) Assemble the thorax, lumbar spine, pelvic,
and upper leg assemblies (above the femur force
transducers), ensuring that all component surfaces
are clean, dry, and untreated unless otherwise
specified, and attach them to the horizontal fixture
shown in Figure 5 at the two link rod pins and with
the mounting brackets for the lumbar test fixtures
illustrated in Figure 6 to 9.
(2) Attach the rear mounting of the pelvis to the
pelvic instrument cavity rear face at the four V4"
cap screw holes and attach the front mounting at
the femur axial rotation joint. Tighten the moun-
tings so that the pelvic-lumbar adapter is horizon-
tal and adjust the femur friction plungers at each
hip socket joint to 240 inch-pounds torque.
(3) Flex the thorax forward 50° and then
rearward as necessary to return it to its initial
position in accordance with Figure 11 unsupported
by external means.
(4) Apply a forward force perpendicular to the
thorax instrument cavity rear face in the midsagit-
tal plane 15 inches above the top surface of the
pelvic-lumbar adapter. Apply the force at any torso
deflection rate between .5 and 1.5 degrees per se-
cond up to 40° of flexion but no further, continue
to apply for 10 seconds that force necessary to
maintain 40° of flexion, and record the force with
an instrument mounted to the thorax as shown in
Figure 5. Release all force as rapidly as possible
and measure the return angle 3 minutes after the
release.
(d) When the abdomen is subjected to con-
tinuously applied force in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section, the abdominal
forcedeflection curve shall be within the two
curves plotted in Figure 10.
(e) Test procedure:
(1) Place the assembled thorax, lumbar spine,
and pelvic assemblies in a supine position on a flat,
rigid, smooth, dry, clean horizontal surface, ensur-
ing that all component surfaces are clean, dry, and
untreated unless otherwise specified.
(2) Place a rigid cylinder 6 inches in diameter
and 18 inches long transversely across the
abdomen, so that the cylinder is symmetrical about
the midsagittal plane, with its longitudinal centerline
horizontal and perpendicular to the midsagittal
plane at a point 9.2 inches above the bottom line of
the buttocks, measured with the dummy positioned
in accordance with Figure 11.
(3) Establish the zero deflection point as the
point at which a force of 10 pounds has been
reached.
(4) Apply a vertical downward force through
the cylinder at any rate between 0.25 and 0.35
inches per second.
(5) Guide the cylinder so that it moves without
significant lateral or rotational movement.
§ 572.10 Limbs.
(a) The limbs consist of the assemblies shown as
numbers SA 150 M070, SA 150 M071, SA 150
M080, and SA 150 M081 in Figure 1 and conform
to the drawings subtended by these numbers.
(b) When each knee is impacted at 6.9 ft/ sec. in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the
maximum force on the femur shall be not more
than 2500 pounds and not less than 1850 pounds,
with a duration above 1000 pounds of not less than
1.7 milliseconds.
(c) Test procedure:
(1) Seat the dummy without back support on a
surface as specified in § 572.11(i) that is 17.3 ±0.2
inches above a horizontal surface, oriented as
specified in § 572.11(i), and with the hip joint ad-
justment at any setting between Ig and 2g. Place
the dummy legs in planes parallel to its midsagittal
plane (knee pivot centerline perpendicular to the
midsagittal plane) and with the feet flat on the
horizontal surface. Adjust the feet and lower legs
until the lines between the midpoints of the knee
pivots and the ankle pivots are at any angle not
less than 2 degrees and not more than 4 degrees
rear of the vertical, measured at the centerline of
the knee pivots.
(2) Reposition the dummy if necessary so that
the rearmost point of the lower legs at the level
one inch below the seating surface remains at any
distance not less than 5 inches and not more than 6
inches forward of the forward edge of the seat.
PART 572-4
PART 572-ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES
Subpart A— General
§572.1 Scope. This part describes the
anthropomorphic test dummies that are to be used
for compHance testing of motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment with motor vehicle safety
standards.
§572.2 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 vehicle or item, of
motor vehicle equipment, with respect to human
occupants.
§572.3 Application. This part does not in itself
impose duties or liabilities on any person. It is a
I 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 stan-
dards such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection.
§572.4 Terminology.
(a) The term "dummy," when used in this
Subpart A, refers to any test device described by
this part. The term "dummy," when used in any
other subpart of this part, refers to the particular
dummy described in that part.
(b) Terms describing parts of the dummy, such
as "head," are the same as names for correspond-
ing parts of the human body.
(c) The term "unimodal," when used in (Subpart
C and I|, refers to an acceleration-time curve
which has only one prominent peak. (56 F.R.
57830— November 14, 1991. Effective: May 12, 1992)
Subpart B— 50th Percentile Male
§572.5 General description.
(a) The dummy consists of the component
assemblies specified in Figure 1, which are described
in their entiretj' by means of approximately 250
drawings and specifications that are grouped by
component assemblies under the following nine
headings:
SA 150 M070 Right arm assembly
SA 150 M071 Left arm assembly
SA 150 M050 Lumbar spine assembly
SA 150 M060 Pelvis and abdomen assembly
SA 150 M080 Right leg assembly
SA 150 M081 Left leg assembly
SA 150 MOlO Head assembly
SA 150 M020 Neck assembly
SA 150 M030 Shoulder- thorax assembly
(b) 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.
(c) The materials incorporated by reference are
available for examination in Docket 73-08, Docket
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Copies may be
obtained from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc.,
1216 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)
628-6667). The drawings and specifications are
also on file in the reference library of the Office of
the Federal Register, National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, D.C.
(Rev. 11/14/91)
PART 572-1
(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner
such that throughout the range of motion and also
under crash-impact conditions there is no contact
between metallic elements except for contacts that
exist under static conditions.
(e) The structural properties of the dummy are
such that the dummy conforms to this part in every
respect both before and after being used in vehicle
tests specified in Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208).
(f) A specimen of the dummy is available for sur-
face measurements, and access can be arranged
through: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
§ 572.6 Head.
(a) The head consists of the assembly shown as
number SA 150 MO 10 in Figure 1 and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150
MOIO.
(b) When the head is dropped from a height of 10
inches in accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section, the peak resultant accelerations at the
location of the accelerometers mounted in the head
form in accordance with § 572.11(b) shall be not
less than 210g, and not more than 260g. The
acceleration/time curve for the test shall be
unimodal and shall lie at or above the lOOg level for
an interval not less than 0.9 milliseconds and not
more than 1.5 milliseconds. The lateral accelera-
tion vector shall not exceed lOg.
(c) Test procedure:
(1) Suspend the head as shown in Figure 2, so
that the lowest point on the forehead is 0.5 inches
below the lowest point on the dummy's nose when
the midsagittal plane is vertical.
(2) Drop the head from the specified height by a
means that ensures instant release onto a rigidly
supported flat horizontal steel plate, 2 inches thick
and 2 feet square, which has a clean, dry surface and
any microfmish of not less than 8 microinches (rms)
and not more than 80 microinches (rms).
(3) Allow a time period of at least 2 hours
between successive tests on the same head.
§ 572.7 Neck.
(a) The neck consists of the assembly shown as
number SA 150 M020 in Figure 1 and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150
M020.
(b) When the neck is tested with the head in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the
head shall rotate in reference to the pendulum's
longitudinal centerline a total of 68° ±5° about its
center of gravity, rotating to the extent specified
in the following table at each indicated point in
time, measured from impact, with a chordal
displacement measured at its center of gravity that
is within the limits specified. The chordal displace-
ment at time T is defined as the straight line
distance between (1) the position relative to the
pendulum arm of the head center of gravity at time
zero, and (2) the position relative to the pendulum
arm of the head center of gravity at time T as il-
lustrated by Figure 3. The peak resultant accelera-
tion recorded at the location of the accelerometers
mounted in the head form in accordance with
§ 572.11(b) shall not exceed 26g. The pendulum
shall not reverse direction until the head's center
of gravity returns to the original zero time position
relative to the pendulum arm.
Chordal
Time (ms)
Displacement
Rotation (degrees)
± (2 + .08T)
(inches ± 0.5)
0
0
0.0
30
30
2.6
60
46
4.8
Maximum
60
5.5
60
75
4.8
30
95
2.6
0
112
0.0
(c) Test procedure:
(1) Mount the head and neck on a rigid pendulum
as specified in Figure 4, so that the head's mid-
sagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the
plane of motion of the pendulum's longitudinal
centerline. Mount the neck directly to the pen-
dulum as shown in Figure 4.
(2) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall
freely from a height such that the velocity at
impact is 23.5 ± 2.0 feet per second (fps), measured
at the center of the accelerometer specified in
Figure 4.
(3) Decelerate the pendulum to a stop with an
acceleration-time pulse described as follows:
(i) Establish 5g and 20g levels on the a-t
curve.
(ii) Establish t^ at the point where the rising
a-t curve first crosses the 5g level, 1^ at the
point where the rising a-t curve first crosses the
20g level, t^ at the point where the decaying
(Rev. 6(19/85)
PART 572-2
a-t curve last crosses the 20g level, and ^ at the
point where the decajing a-t curve first crosses
the 5g level.
(iii) \-t^ shall be not more than 3 milliseconds.
(iv) \-\ shall be not less than 25 milliseconds
and not more than 30 milliseconds.
(v) \-\ shaU be not more than 10 milliseconds.
(vi) The average deceleration between ^ and 1^
shall be not less than 20g and not more than 24g.
(4) Allow the neck to flex without impact of the
head or neck with any object other than the pen-
dulum arm.
§ 572.8 Thorax.
(a) The thorax consists of the assembly shown as
number SA 150 M030 in Figure 1, and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150
M030.
(b) The thorajc contains enough unobstructed
interior space behind the rib cage to permit the
midpoint of the sternum to be depressed 2 inches
without contact between the rib cage and other
parts of the dummy or its instrumentation, except
for instruments specified in subparagraph (d) (7) of
this section.
(c) When impacted by a test probe conforming to
§ 572.11(a) at 14 fps and at 22 fps in accordance
with paragraph (d) of this section, the thorax shall
resist with forces measured by the test probe of not
more than 1450 pounds and 2250 pounds, respec-
tively, and shall deflect by amounts not greater
than 1.1 inches and 1.7 inches, respectively. The in-
ternal hysteresis in each impact shall not be less
than 50 percent and not more than 70 percent.
(d) Test Procedure:
(1) With the dummy seated without back
support on a surface as specified in § 572.11(1) and
in the orientation specified in § 572.11(i), adjust
the dummy arms and legs until they are extended
horizontally forward parallel to the midsagittal
plane.
(2) Place the longitudinal center line of the test
probe so that it is 17.7 ±0.1 inches above the
seating surface at impact.
(3) Align the test probe specified in § 572.11 (a)
so that at impact its longitudinal centerline
coincides within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in
the dummy's midsagittal plane.
(4) Adjust the dummy so that the surface area
on the thorax immediately adjacent to the pro-
jected longitudinal center line of the test probe is
vertical. Limb support, as needed to achieve and
maintain this orientation, may be provided by
placement of a steel rod of any diameter not less
than one-quarter of an inch and not more than
three-eighths of an inch, with hemispherical ends,
vertically under the limb at its projected geometric
center.
(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that
its longitudinal centerline falls within 2 degrees of
a horizontal line in the dummy's midsagittal plane
at the moment of impact.
(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or
rotational movement.
(7) Measure the horizontal deflection of the
sternum relative to the thoracic spine along the
line established by the longitudinal centerline of
the probe at the moment of impact, using a poten-
tiometer mounted inside the sternum.
(8) Measure hysteresis by determining the ratio
of the area between the loading and unloading
portions of the force deflection curve to the area
under the loading portion of the curve.
§ 572.9 Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis.
(a) The lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis
consist of the assemblies designated as numbers
SA 150 M050 and SA 150 M060 in Figure 1 and
conform to the drawings subtended by these
numbers.
(b) When subjected to continuously applied force
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section,
the lumbar spine assembly shall flex by an amount
that permits the rigid thoracic spine to rotate from
its initial position in accordance with Figure 11 by
the number of degrees shown below at each
specified force level, and straighten upon removal
of the force to within 12 degrees of its initial posi-
tion in accordance with Figure 11.
Flexion Force (±6
(degrees) pounds)
0 0
20 28
30 40
40 52
PART 572-
(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner
such that throughout the range of motion and also
under crash-impact conditions there is no contact
between metallic elements except for contacts that
exist under static conditions.
(e) The structural properties of the dummy are
such that the dummy conforms to this part in every
respect both before and after being used in vehicle
tests specified in Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208).
(f) A specimen of the dummy is available for sur-
face measurements, and access can be arranged
through: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
§ 572.6 Head.
(a) The head consists of the assembly shown as
number SA 150 MOlO in Figure 1 and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150
MOIO.
(b) When the head is dropped from a height of 10
inches in accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section, the peak resultant accelerations at the
location of the accelerometers mounted in the head
form in accordance with § 572.11(b) shall be not
less than 210g, and not more than 260g. The
acceleration/time curve for the test shall be
unimodal and shall lie at or above the lOOg level for
an interval not less than 0.9 milliseconds and not
more than 1.5 milliseconds. The lateral accelera-
tion vector shall not exceed lOg.
(c) Test procedure:
(1) Suspend the head as shown in Figure 2, so
that the lowest point on the forehead is 0.5 inches
below the lowest point on the dummy's nose when
the midsagittal plane is vertical.
(2) Drop the head from the specified height by a
means that ensures instant release onto a rigidly
supported flat horizontal steel plate, 2 inches thick
and 2 feet square, which has a clean, dry surface and
any microfinish of not less than 8 microinches (rms)
and not more than 80 microinches (rms).
(3) Allow a time period of at least 2 hours
between successive tests on the same head.
§ 572.7 Neck.
(a) The neck consists of the assembly shown as
number SA 150 M020 in Figure 1 and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150
M020.
(b) When the neck is tested with the head in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the
head shall rotate in reference to the pendulum's
longitudinal centerline a total of 68° ±5° about its
center of gravity, rotating to the extent specified
in the following table at each indicated point in
time, measured from impact, with a chordal
displacement measured at its center of gravity that
is within the limits specified. The chordal displace-
ment at time T is defined as the straight line
distance between (1) the position relative to the
pendulum arm of the head center of gravity at time
zero, and (2) the position relative to the pendulum
arm of the head center of gravity at time T as il-
lustrated by Figure 3. The peak resultant accelera-
tion recorded at the location of the accelerometers
mounted in the head form in accordance with
§ 572.11(b) shall not exceed 26g. The pendulum
shall not reverse direction until the head's center
of gravity returns to the original zero time position
relative to the pendulum arm.
Chordal
Time (ms)
Displacement
Rotation (degrees) ±
(2 + .08T)
(inches + 0.5)
0
0
0.0
30
30
2.6
60
46
4.8
Maximum
60
5.5
60
75
4.8
30
95
2.6
0
112
0.0
(c) Test procedure:
(1) Mount the head and neck on a rigid pendulum
as specified in Figure 4, so that the head's mid-
sagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the
plane of motion of the pendulum's longitudinal
centerline. Mount the neck directly to the pen-
dulum as shown in Figure 4.
(2) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall
freely from a height such that the velocity at
impact is 23.5 ± 2.0 feet per second (fps), measured
at the center of the accelerometer specified in
Figure 4.
(3) Decelerate the pendulum to a stop with an
acceleration-time pulse described as follows:
(i) Establish 5g and 20g levels on the a-t
curve.
(ii) Establish t, at the point where the rising
a-t curve first crosses the 5g level, 1, at the
point where the rising a-t curve first crosses the
20g level, ^ at the point where the decaying
(Rev. 6/19/8S)
PART 572-2
(3) Align the test probe specified in
§ 572.11(a) so that at impact its longitudinal
centerline coincides within ±2° with the
longitudinal centerline of the femur.
(4) Impact the knee with the test probe moving
horizontally and parallel to the midsagittal plane at
the specified velocity.
(5) Guide the probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or rota-
tional movement.
§ 572.11 Test conditions and instrumentation.
(a) The test probe used for thoracic and knee
impact tests is a cylinder 6 inches in diameter that
weighs 51.5 pounds inclv.ding instrumentation. Its
impacting end has a flat right f;.c,e that is rigid and
that has an edge radius of 0.5 inches.
(Ij) Acceierometers are mounted "i the head on
the bcrizoiital transverse bulkhead shown in the
dravdng; subreferenced unc^-ir assembly No. SA
150 MO 10 in Figure 1 , so that their sensitive axes
inters<^ct at a point in the midsagittal plane 0.5
inches above the horizontal bulkhead and 1.9
inches ventral of the vertical mating surface of the
skull with the skull cover. One acceierometer is
aligned with its sensitive axis perpendicular to the
horizonal bulkhead in the midsagittal plane and
with its seismic mass center at an> distance up to
0.3 inches superior to the axial intersection
point. Another acceierometer is aligned ^ith its
sensitive axis parallel to the horizontal bulkhead
and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane, and
with its seismic mass center at any distance up to
1.3 inches to the left of the axidi intersection point
(left side of dum'ny is the same as that of m.an). A
third acceierometer is aligned with its sensitive
axis parallel to the f.orizontal bulkhe^^d in the mid-
sagittal plane, and with its seismic mass center at
any distance up to 1.3 inches dorsal to the axial
intersection point.
(c) Acceierometers are mounted in the th'-rax by
means of a bracket atta/'hed to the rear vertical
surface (hereafter "attachment surface") of the
thoracic spine so that their sensitive axes intersect
at a point in the midsagittal plane 0.8 inches below
the upper surface of the plate to which the neck
mountin; , racket is attached .ind ".': inches
Perpendicularly forward of the; surfact. to whirh
the acceierometer bracket is attached. One
acceierometer has its sensitive axis oriented
parallel to the attachment surface in the midsagit-
tal plane, with its seismic mass center at any
distance up to 1.3 inches inferior to the inter-
section of the sensitive axes specified above.
Another acceierometer has its sensitive axis
oriented parallel to the attachment surface and
perpendicular to the midsagittal plane, with its
seismic mass center at any distance up to 0.2
inches to the right of the intersection of the sen-
sitive axes specified above. A third acceierometer
has its sensitive axis oriented perpendicular to the
attachment surface in the midsagittal plane, with
its seismic mass center at any distance up to 1.3
inches dorsal to the intersection of the sensitive
axes specified above. Acceierometers are oriented
with the dummy in the position specified in
§ 572.11(i).
(d) A force-sensing device is mounted axially in
each femur shaft so that the transverse centerline
of the sensing element is 4.25 inches from the
knee's center of rotation.
(e) The outputs of acceleration and forcestmsing
devices installed in the dummy and in the test
apparatus specified by this Part are recorded in
individual data channels that conform to the
requirements of SAE Recommended Practice
J211a, December 1971, with channel classes as
follows:
(1) Head acceleration— Class 1000.
(2) Pendulum acceleration— Class 60.
(3) Thorax acceleration -Class 180.
(4) Thorax compresrion— Class 180.
(5) Femur force-Class 600.
(f) The mount! iigs for sensing devices have no
resonance frequency within a range of 3 times the
frequency range of the applicable channel das'?.
(g) Limb joints a'-' set at Ig, bar ;'y restraining
the eight of the limb when it is extended horizon-
tally. The force required to move a limb segment
does not exceed 2g throughout the range of limb
motion.
(h) Performance tests are conducted at any
teiiperature from 66° F to 78° F and at any
relative humidity frorr. 10 percent to 70 percent
after exposure i^f tiie dummy l.o these cr.nditions
for a period of n^.t '.ess than i hours.
P. ART 5'-..
(i) For the performances tests specified in
§§ 572.8, 572.9, and 572.10, the dummy is posi-
tioned in accordance with Figure 11 as follows:
(1) The dummy is placed on a flat, rigid, smooth,
clean, dry, horizontal, steel test surface whose
length and width dimensions are not less than 16
inches, so that the dummy's midsagittal plane is
vertical and centered on the test surface and the
rearmost points on its lower legs at the level of the
test surface are at any distance not less than 5 in-
ches and not more than 6 inches forward of the for-
ward edge of the test surface.
(2) The pelvis is adjusted so that the upper sur-
face of the lumbar-pelvic adapter is horizontal.
(3) The shoulder yokes are adjusted so that they
are at the midpoint of their anterior posterior
travel with their upper surfaces horizontal.
(4) The dummy is adjusted so that the rear sur-
faces of the shoulders and buttocks are tangent to
a transverse vertical plane.
(5) The upper legs are positioned symmetrically
about the midsagittal plane so that the distance
between the knee pivot bolt heads is 11.6 inches.
(6) The lower legs are positioned in planes
parallel to the midsagittal plane so that the lines
between the midpoint of the knee pivots and the
ankle pivots are vertical.
(j) The dummy's dimensions, as specified in
drawing number SA 150 M002, are determined as
follows:
(1) With the dummy seated as specified in
paragraph (i), the head is adjusted and secured so
that its occiput is 1.7 inches forward of the
transverse vertical plane with the vertical mating
surface of the skull with its cover parallel to the
transverse vertical plane.
(2) The thorax is adjusted and secured so that
the rear surface of the chest accelerometer
mounting cavity is inclined 3° forward of vertical.
(3) Chest and waist circumference and chest
depth measurements are taken with the dummy
positioned in accordance with paragraph (i), (1) and
(2) of this section.
(4) The chest skin and abdominal sac are remov-
ed and all following measurements are made
without them.
(5) Seated height is measured from the seating
surface to the uppermost point on the head-skin
surface.
(6) Shoulder pivot height is measured from the
seating surface to the center of the arm elevation
pivot.
(7) H-point locations are measured from the
seating surface to the center of the holes in the
pelvis flesh covering in line with the hip motion
ball.
(8) Knee pivot distance from the backline is
measured to the center of the knee pivot bolt head.
(9) Knee pivot distance from floor is measured
from the center of the knee pivot bolt head to the
bottom of the heel when the foot is horizontal and
pointing forward.
(10) Shoulder width measurement is taken at
arm elevation pivot center height with the
centerlines between the elbow pivots and the
shoulder pivots vertical.
(11) Hip width measurement is taken at widest
point of pelvic section.
(k) Performance tests of the same component,
segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummy are
separated in time by a period of not less than 30
minutes unless otherwise noted.
(1) Surfaces of dummy components are not
painted except as specified in this part or in draw-
ings subtended by this part.
PART 572-6
HEAD ASSY
ARM ASSY ^^^ ^^
-^ SA 160M010
SA1 50 M070 RIGHT ( \-^
SA1S0M071 LEFT . V )
NECK ASS'Y
\ / \
SA 1S0MO20
LUMBAR SPINE N/ ,..^^^^
^ SHOULDER THORAX
> ASSY
PELVIS AND r \ -~^
SA 1 60 M030
ABDOMEN ASSY »\^ |
r
LEG ASSY /
SA1 50 M080 RIGHT
SA 150 MOB 1 LEFT
-^
FIGURE NO. 1
HEAD POSITIONING FOR DROP TESTS
FIPl'RE NO. 2
DISPLACEMENT
NErxr.DMTONENTTEJT
SBIl 572-Sii' . • :: R-ART PA-'-L J.
INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF PENDULUM
WITHOUT TEST SPECIMEN.
WEIGHT 65.2 LBS,
MOMENT OF INERTIA 24.5 LB-FT SEC
ABOUT PIVOT AXIS
CG OF PENDULUM
APPARATUS WITHOUT
TEST SPECIMEN
ACCELEROMETER
STRUCTURAL
TUBE
3Ej^"
ALUMINUM HONEYCOMB
(HEXCELL 1.8LBS/CU. FT.>
REF.
• 3" X 6" X 3/8" PLATE (SHARP EDGES)
'3/4" '^ CG OF TEST SPECIMEN
FIGURE NO. 4
NECK COMPONENT TEST
PART 572-Subpart B-ART PAGE 2
FIGURE NO
FIGURE NO. 6
FIGURE NO. a
(FOUR PLACES!
; ROD (ITEMS F/04 AND G/04
DRAWING NO, SA 1 50M002 SHEET
ATTACHMENT TO BEDPLATE
WITH 3/8-24 BOLTS
FIGURE NO. 5
LUMBAR FLEXION TEST
2 314
2-1/4
U 1-1/4-
r-^-i-
' 1 ^
3/B WIDE SLOT (TWO PLACES)
6X6 STRUCTURAL STL. ANGLE
TOLERANCE » I/32"
PART 572-Subpart B-ART PAGE 3
r
r"
L-l ,,.—
---
L ,
* ,0
- /t /I
h-l 3/16-
7
1 1 1
"^5/16 24 TAP THRU I J HOLESI
FIGURE NO 7
MOUNTING BRACKET-LUMBAR TEST FIXTURE
TOLERANCE t 1/64"
MATERIAL STEEL
WELDED CONSTRUCTION
9/16 DRILL THRU
• 3/8 24 TAP THRU TOP PLATE & I ' f LACES
TOP OF TUBING /
21 1/2-
1= ux
i^ ^E^^^
■ 4
[t5^rrr:::::v.^yjf^
9/16 DRILL HOLE %■
TOLERANCE i. 1/32-
FIGURE NO 8
BEDPLATE LUMBAR TEST FIXTURE
PART 572-Subpart B-ART PAGE 4
rlT
1.00— *H -*
¥t
CONST: ALUMINUM OR STL. WELDMENT
TOLERANCE: t .03 TWO PLACES
t .005 THREE PLACES
.25 R
I PLACES
3.000-
- 3.50—
CLEAR DRILL
FOR 10-32 SCREW
4 PLACES
J .50 -«
.25R 14 PLACES)
90
_
1
i
88
80
-
1
1
1
X
.-^—73
70
'~
>
r y^
60
—
^
A
/^
FORCE 50
(LBS.(
-
^^
^
50
40
-
^^^^
1
30
-
^^^
20
^^
^^ _^
y^
10
^
1
1 1
I
0.25
0.50 a75
DISPLACEMENT INCHES
FIGURE NO. 10
ABDOMEN COMPONENT TEST
1.00
1.30
PART 572-Subpart B-ART PAGE 5
FIGURE No. 11
UPRIGHT SEATED POSITION FOR LINEAR MEASUREMENTS
PART 572-Subpart B-ART PAGE
Space for figures 12 thru 14
reserved for future use.
PART 572-Subpart B-ART PAGE 7
f^
Subpart C-Three Year Old Child
§ 572.15 General description.
(a) The dummy consists of the component
assembhes specified in drawing SA 103C 001,
which are described in their entirety by means of
approximately 122 drawings and specifications and
an Operation and Maintenance Manual, dated May
28, 1976. The drawings and specifications are
grouped by component assemblies under the
following thirteen headings:
SA 103C 010 Head Assembly
SA 103C 020 Neck Assembly
SA 103C 030 Torso Assembly
SA 103C 041 Upper Arm Assembly Left
SA 103C 042 Upper Arm Assembly Right
SA 103C 051 Forearm Hand Assembly Left
SA 103C 052 Forearm Hand Assembly Right
SA 103C 061 Upper Leg Assembly Left
SA 103C 062 Upper Leg Assembly Right
SA 103C 071 Lower Leg Assembly Left
SA 103C 072 Lower Leg Assembly Right
SA 103C 081 Foot Assembly Left
SA 103C 082 Foot Assembly Right
(b) The drawings, specifications, and operation
and maintenance manual referred to in this regula-
tion that are not set forth in full are hearby incor-
porated 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 convenience 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 Regulations.
(c) The materials incorporated by reference are
available for examination in Docket 78-09, Room
5109, Docket Section, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590. Copies may be obtained
from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, ((202)
628-6667). The materials are also on file in the
reference library of the Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Administration, Washington,
D.C.
(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner
such that throughout the range of motion and also
under simulated crash-impact conditions, there
is no contact between metallic elements except
for contacts that exist under static conditions.
(e) The structural properties of the dummy are
such that the dummy conforms to this part in
every respect both before and after being used in
vehicle tests specified by Standard No. 213 of
this chapter (§ 571.213).
(f) The patterns of all cast and molded parts
for reproduction of the molds needed in manufac-
turing of the dummies can be obtained on a loan
basis by manufacturers of the test dummies, or
others if need is shown, from the Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
§ 572.16 Head.
(a) [The head consists of the assembly
designated as SA 103C 010 on drawing no. SA
103C 001, and conforms to either—
(1) each item specified on drawing SA 103C
002(B), sheet 8; or
(2) each item specified on drawing SA 103C
002, sheet 8.
(b) When the head is impacted by a test probe
specified in § 572.21(a)(1) at 7 fps., then the peak
resultant acceleration measured at the location
of the accelerometer mounted in the headform in
according to § 572.21(b) is not less than 95g, and
not more than 118g.
(1) The recorded acceleration-time curve for
this test is unimodal at or above the 50g level,
and lies at or above that level for intervals:
(i) in the case of the head assembly specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, not less than 1.3
milliseconds and not more than 2.0 milliseconds;
(ii) in the case of the head assembly specified
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, not less than
2.0 milliseconds and not more than 3.0
milliseconds.
(2) The lateral acceleration vector shall not ex-
ceed 7g. (55 F.R. 30465-July 26, 1990. Effective:
August 27, 1990)1
(c) Test Procedure:
(1) Seat the dummy on a seating surface having
a back support as specified in § 572.21(h) and
orient the dummy in accordance with § 572.21(h)
and adjust the joints of the limbs at any setting
between Ig and 2g, which just supports the
PART 572-7
limbs' weight when the limbs are extended
horizontally forward.
(2) Adjust the test probe so that its longitudinal
centerline is at the forehead at the point of
orthogonal intersection of the head
midsagittal plane and the transverse plane which is
perpendicular to the "Z" axis of the head
(longitudinal centerline of the skull anchor) and is
located 0.6 +.1 inches above the centers of the
head center of gravity reference pins and coincides
within 2 degrees with the line made by the in-
tersection of horizontal and midsagittal planes
passing through this point.
(3) Adjust the dummy so that the surface area
on the forehead immediately adjacent to the pro-
jected longitudinal centerline of the test probe is
vertical.
(4) Impact the head with the test probe so that at
the moment of impact the probe's longitudinal
centerline falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line
in the dummy's midsagittal plane.
(5) Guide the probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or rota-
tional movement.
(6) Allow a time period of at least 20 minutes
between successive tests of the head.
§ 572.17 Neck.
1(a)(1) The neck for use with the head assembly
described in § 572.16(a)(1) consists of the assembly
designated as SA 103C 020 on drawing No. SA
103C 001, and conforms to each item specified on
drawing No. SA 103C 002(B), sheet 9.
(2) The neck for use with the head assembly
described in § 572.16(a)(2) consists of the assembly
designated as SA 103C 020 on drawing No. SA
103C 001, and conforms to each item specified on
drawing No. SA 103C 002, sheet 9. (55 F.R.
30465— July 26, 1990. Effective: August 27, 1990)]
(b) When the head-neck assembly is tested in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the
Rotation
(degrees)
Time (ms)
±(2 + .08T)
Chorda!
Displacement
(inches ±0.8)
0..
30.
60
0
21
36
62
91
108
123
0
2.2
43
Maximum
60
5.8
43
?0
22
0..
0
head shall rotate in reference to the pendulum's
longitudinal centerline a total of 84 degrees ± 8
degrees about its center of gravity, rotating to the
extent specified in the following table at each
indicated point in time, measured from impact,
with the chordal displacement measured at its
center of gravity. The chordal displacement at
time T is defined as the straight line distance
between (1) the position relative to the pendulum
arm of the head center of gravity at time zero, and
(2) the position relative to the pendulum arm of the
head center of gravity at time T as illustrated by
Figure 3. The peak resultant acceleration recorded
at the location of the accelerometers mounted in
the headform in accordance with § 572.21(b) shall
not exceed 30g. The pendulum shall not reverse
direction until the head's center of gravity returns
to the original zero time position relative to the
pendulum arm.
(c) Test Procedure:
(1) Mount the head and neck on a rigid pendulum
as specified in Figure 4, so that the head's
midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the
plane of motion of the pendulum's longitudinal
centerline. Mount the neck directly to the
pendulum as shown in Figure 15.
(2) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall
freely from a height such that the velocity at im-
pact is 17.00 ± 1.0 feet per second (fps), measured
at the center of the accelerometer specified in
Figure 4.
(3) Decelerate the pendulum to a stop with an
acceleration-time pulse described as follows:
(i) Establish 5g and 20g levels on the a-t curve.
(ii) Establish ti at the point where the a-t
curve first crosses the 5g level, t2 at the point
where the rising a-t curve first crosses the 20g
level, U at the point where the decaying a-t curve
last crosses the 20g level, and t4 at the point
where the decaying a-t curve first crosses the 5g
level.
(iii) t2-ti, shall be not more than 4
milliseconds.
(iv) t3-t2, shall be not less than 18 and not
more than 21 milliseconds.
(v) t4-t3, shall be not more than 5 milliseconds.
(vi) The average deceleration between ta and
U shall be not less than 20g and not more than
34g.
PART 572-8
(4) Allow the neck to flex without contact of the
head or neck with any object other than the
pendulum arm.
(5) Allow a time period of at least 1 hour
between successive tests of the head and neck.
§ 572.18 Thorax.
(a) The thorax consists of the part of the torso
shown in assembly drawing SA 103C 001 by
number SA 103C 030 and conforms to each of the
applicable drawings listed under this number on
drawings SA 108C 002, sheets 10 and 11.
(b) When impacted by a test probe conforming
to § 572.21(a) at 13 fps. in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section, the peak resultant ac-
celerations at the location of the accelerometers
mounted in the chest cavity in accordance with
§ 572.21(c) shall be not less than 50g and not more
than 70g. The acceleration-time curve for the test
shall be unimodal at or above the 30g level and
shall lie at or above the 30g level for an interval not
less than 2.5 milliseconds and not more than 4.0
milliseconds. The lateral acceleration shall not
exceed 5g.
(c) Test Procedure:
(1) With the dummy seated without back sup-
port on a surface as specified in § 572.21(h) and
oriented as specified in § 572.21(h), adjust the
dummy arms and legs until they are extended
horizontally forward parallel to the midsagittal
plane, the joints of the limbs are adjusted at any
setting between Ig and 2g, which just supports the
limbs' weight when the limbs are extended
horizontally forward.
(2) Establish the impact point at the chest mid-
sagittal plane so that it is 1.5 inches below the
longitudinal centerline of the bolt that attaches the
top of the ribcage sternum to the thoracic spine
box.
(3) Adjust the dummy so that the tangent plane
at the surface on the thorax immediately adjacent
to the designated impact point is vertical and
parallel to the face of the test probe.
(4) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test
probe to coincide with the designated impact point
and align the test probe so that at impact its
longitudinal centerline coincides within 2 degrees
with the line formed by intersection of the horizon-
tal and midsagittal planes passing through the
designated impact point.
(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that
at the moment of impact the probe's longitudinal
centerline falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line
in the dummy midsagittal plane.
(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical or rota-
tional movement.
(7) Allow a time period of at least 20 minutes
between successive tests of the chest.
§ 572.19 Lumbar spine, abdomen and pelvis.
(a) The lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis con-
sist of the part of the torso assembly shown by
number SA 103C 030 on drawing SA 103C 001 and
conform to each of the applicable drawings listed
under this number on drawing SA 103C 002,
sheets 10 and 11.
(b) When subjected to continuously applied force
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section,
the lumbar spine assembly shall flex by an amount
that permits the rigid thoracic spine to rotate from
its initial position in accordance with Figure 18 of
this subpart by 40 degrees at a force level of not
less than 34 pounds and not more than 47 pounds,
and straighten upon removal of the force to within
5 degrees of its initial position.
(c) Test Procedure: (1) The dummy with lower
legs removed is positioned in an upright seated
position on a seat as indicated in Figure 18, ensur-
ing that all dummy component surfaces are clean,
dry and untreated unless otherwise specified.
(2) Attach the pelvis to the seating surface by a
bolt C/328, modified as shown in Figure 18, and
the upper legs at the knee axial rotation joints by
the attachments shown in Figure 18. Tighten the
mountings so that the pelvis-lumbar joining sur-
face is horizontal and adjust the femur ball-flange
screws at each hip socket joint to 50 inch pounds
torque. Remove the head and the neck and install a
cylindrical aluminum adapter 2.0 inches in
diameter and 2.80 inches long in place of the neck.
(3) Flex the thorax forward 50 degrees and then
rearward as necessary to return to its initial posi-
tion in accordance with Figure 18 unsupported by
external means.
(4) Apply a forward pull force in the midsagittal
plane at the top of the neck adapter, so that at 40
degrees of the lumbar spine flexion the applied
force is perpendicular to the thoracic spine box.
PART 572-
Apply the force at any torso deflection rate
between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second up to 40
degrees of flexion but no further; continue to apply
for 10 seconds the force necessary to maintain 40
degrees of flexion, and record the highest applied
force at that time. Release all force as rapidly as
possible and measure the return angle 3 minutes
after the release.
§ 572.20 Limbs.
The limbs consist of the assemblies shown on
drawing SA 103C 001 as Nos. SA 103C 041, SA
103C 042, SA 103C 051, SA 103C 052, SA 103C
061, SA 103C 062, SA 103C 071, SA 103C 072, SA
103C 081, SA 103C 082, and conform to each of the
applicable drawings listed under their respective
numbers of the drawing SA 103C 002, sheets 12
through 21.
§ 572.21 Test conditions and instrumentation.
[(a)(1) The test probe used for head and thoracic
impact tests is a cylinder 3 inches in diameter, 13.8
inches long and weighs 10 lbs., 6 ozs. Its impacting
end has a flat right face that is rigid and that has
an edge radius of 0.5 inches.
(2) The head and thorax assembly may be instru-
mented with a Type A or Type C accelerometer.
(i) Type A accelerometer is defined in drawing
SA-572 SI.
(ii) Type C accelerometer is defined in drawing
SA-572 S2.
(b) Head Accelerometer s. Install one of the
triaxial accelerometers specified in § 572.21(a)(2)
on a mounting block located on the horizontal
transverse bulkhead as shown in the drawings
subreferenced under assembly SA 103C 010 so
that the seismic mass centers of each sensing ele-
ment are positioned as specified in this paragraph,
relative to the head accelerometer reference point
located at the intersection of a line connecting the
longitudinal centerlines of the transfer pins in the
side of the dummy head with the midsagittal plane
of the dummy head.
(1) The sensing elements of the Type C triaxial
accelerometer are aligned as follows:
(i) Align one sensitive axis parallel to the ver-
tical bulkhead and coincident with the midsagit-
tal plane, with the seismic mass center located
0.2 inches dorsal to, and 0.1 inches inferior to the
head accelerometer reference point.
(ii) Align the second sensitive axis with the
horizontal plane, perpendicular to the midagittal
plane, with the seismic mass center located 0.1 in-
ches inferior, 0.4 inches to the right of, and 0.9
inches dorsal to the head accelerometer reference
point.
(iii) Align the third sensitive axis so that it is
parallel to the midsagittal and horizontal planes,
with the seismic mass center located 0.1 inches in-
ferior to, 0.6 inches dorsal to, and 0.4 inches to the
right of the head accelerometer reference point.
(iv) All seismic mass centers are positioned with
±0.05 inches of the specified locations.
(2) The sensing elements of the Type A triaxial
accelerometer are aligned as follows:
(i) Align one sensitive axis parallel to the vertical
bulkhead and coincident with midsagittal planes,
with the seismic mass center located from 0.2 to
0.47 inches dorsal to, from 0.01 inches inferior to
0.21 inches superior, and from 0.0 to 0.17 inches
left of the head accelerometer reference point.
(ii) Align the second sensitive axis with the
horizontal plane perpendicular to the medsagittal
plane, with the seismic mass center located 0. 1 to
0.13 inches inferior to, 0.17 to 0.4 inches to the
right of, and 0.47 to 0.9 inches dorsal of the head
accelerometer reference point.
(iii) Align the third sensitive axis so that it is
parallel to the midsagittal and horizontal planes,
with the seismic mass center located 0.1 inches in-
ferior to, 0.6 inches dorsal to, and 0.4 inches to the
right of the head accelerometer reference point.
(c) Th/yrax Accelerometers. Install one of the triax-
ial accelerometers specified in § 572.21 (aX2) on a
mounting plate attached to the vertical transverse
bulkhead shown in the drawing subreferenced under
assembly NO. SA 103C 030 in drawing SA 103 001,
so that the seismic mass centers of each sensing ele-
ment are positioned as specified in this paragraph,
relative to the thorax accelerometer reference point
located in the midsagittal plane 3 inches above the
top surface of the lumbar spine, 0.3 inches doral to
the accelerometer mounting plate surface.
(1) The sensing elements of the Type C triaxial ac-
celerometer are aligned as follows:
(i) Align one sensitive axis parallel to the vertical
bulkhead and midsagittal planes, with seismic mass
center located 0.2 inches to the left of, 0.1 inches
inferior to, and 0.2 inches ventral to the thorax
accelerometer reference point.
(Rev. 7/26/90)
PART 572-10
(ii) Align the second sensitive axis so that it is
in the horizontal transverse plane, and perpen-
dicular to the midsagittal plane, with the seismic
mass center located 0.2 inches to the right of, 0.1
inches inferior to, and 0.2 inches ventral to the
thorax accelerometer reference point.
(iii) Align the third sensitive axis so that it is
parallel to the midsagittal and horizontal planes,
with the seismic mass center located 0.2 inches
superior to, 0.5 inches to the right of, and 0.1 in-
ches ventral to the thorax accelerometer reference
points.
(iv) All seismic mass centers shall be positioned
within ±0.05 inches of the specified locations.
(2) The sensing elements of the Type A triaxial
accelerometer are aligned as follows:
(i) Align one sensitive axis parallel to the ver-
tical bulkhead and midsagittal planes, with the
seismic mass center located from 0.2 inches left
to 0.28 inches right, from 0.5 to 0.15 inches in-
ferior to, and from 0.15 to 0.25 inches ventral of
the thorax accelerometer reference point.
(ii) Align the second sensitive axis so that it is
in the horizontal transverse plane and perpen-
dicular to the midsagittal plane, with the seismic
mass center located from 0.06 inches left to 0.2
inches right of, from 0.1 inches inferior to 0.24
inches superior, and 0.15 to 0.25 inches ventral
to the thorax accelerometer reference point.
(iii) Align the third sensitive axis so that it is
parallel to the midsagittal and horizontal planes,
with the seismic mass center located 0.15 to 0.25
inches superior to, 0.28 to 0.5 inches to the right
of, and from 0.1 inches ventral to 0.19 inches
dorsal to the thorax accelerometer reference
point. (55 F.R. 30465— July 26, 1990. Effective:
August 27, 1990)1
(d) The outputs of accelerometers installed in
the dummy, and of test apparatus specified by this
part, are recorded in individual data channels that
conform to the requirements of SAE Recom-
mended Practice J211a, December 1971, with
channel classes as follows:
(1) Head acceleration-Class 1,000.
(2) Pendulum acceleration— Class 60.
(3) Thorax acceleration-Class 180.
(e) The mountings for accelerometers have no
resonance frequency less than 3 times the cut-off
frequency of the applicable channel class.
(f) Limb joints are set at the force between l-2g,
which just supports the limbs' weight when the
limbs are extended horizontally forward. The force
required to move a limb segment does not exceeed
2g throughout the range of limb motion.
(g) Performance tests are conducted at any
temperature from 66° F to 78° F and at any
relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent
after exposure of the dummy to these conditions
for a period of not less than 4 hours.
(h) For the performance tests specified
§§ 572.16, 572.18, and 572.19, the dummy is
positioned in accordance with Figures 16, 17, and
18 as follows:
(1) The dummy is placed on a flat, rigid, clean,
dry, horizontal surface of teflon sheeting with a
smoothness of 40 microinches and whose length
and width dimensions are not less than 16 inches,
so that the dummy's midsagittal plane is vertical
and centered on the test surface. For head tests,
the seat has a vertical back support whose top is
12.4 ±0.2 inches above the seating surface. The
rear surfaces of the dummy's shoulders and but-
tocks are touching the back support as shown in
Figure 16. For thorax and lumbar spine tests, the
seating surface is without the back support as
shown in Figures 17 and 18 respectively.
(2) The shoulder yokes are adjusted so that they
are at the midpoint of their anterior-posterior
travel with their upper surfaces horizontal.
(3) The dummy is adjusted for head impact and
lumbar flexion tests so that the rear surfaces of the
shoulders and buttocks are tangent to a transverse
vertical plane.
(4) The arms and legs are positioned so that
their centerlines are in planes parallel to the
midsagittal plane.
(i) The dummy's dimensions are specified in
drawings No. SA 103C 002, sheets 22 through 26.
(j) Performance tests of the same component,
segment, assembly or fully assembled dummy are
separated in time by a period of not less than 20
minutes unless otherwise specified.
(k) Surfaces of the dummy components are not
painted except as specified in this part or in
drawings subtended by this part.
(Rev. 7/26/90)
PART 572-11
INEHTIAL PROPERTIES OF PENDULUM
WITHOUT TEST SPECIMEN.
WEIGHT 65.2 LBS.
MOMENT OF INERTIA 24.5 LB-FT SEC^
ABOUT PIVOT AXIS
CG OF PENDULUM
ACCELEROMETER
5 11/16" REF
ALUMINUM HONEYCOMB
(HEXCELL1.8LBS/CU. FT.)
REF.
3- X 6" X 3/8" PLATE (SHARP EDGES)
• CG OF TEST SPECIMEN LEADING EDGE OF NECK
MUST BE ALLIGNED WITH
LEADING EDGE OF PENDULUM
FIGURE NO. 15
NECK COMPONENT TEST
PART 572-Subpart C-ART PAGE 1
r
IMPACTOR SUPPORT WIRE
FIGURE NO. 16
HEAD IMPACT TEST
PART 572-Subpart C-ART PAGE 2
IMPACTOR FACE TO BE VERTICAL^ 2°
AT CONTACT OF CHEST
MPACTOR SUPPORT WIRE
FIGURE NO. 17
CHEST IMPACT TEST
PART 572-Subpart C-ART PAGE 3
DRILL .53 THRU
PULL FORCE IN THE MID-SAGITTAL
PLANE PERPENDICULAR TO THE CHEST
INSTRUMENT CAVITY REAR FACE.
'/2-2O SOC. HD. SCR. WELDED
TO C 328 SCR. BOLTED
THROUGH TABLE
Q
UPPER LEGS
SECURED BY
BOLT
THROUGH TABLE
METAL TABLE
FIGURE NO. 18
LUMBAR-SPINE FLEXION TEST
PART 572-Subpart C-ART PAGE 4
Subpart D— Six-Month-Old Infant
§ 572.25 General Description.
(a) The infant dummy is specified in its entirety
by means of 5 drawings (No. SA 1001) and a con-
struction manual, dated July 2, 1974, which
describe in detail the materials and the procedures
involved in the manufacturing of this dummy.
(b) The drawings, specifications, and construc-
tion manual 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 incor-
porated by reference. For materials subject to
change, only the specific version approved by the
Director of the Federal Register and specifed in
the regulation are incorporated. A notice of any
change 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.
(c) The materials incorporated by reference are
available for examination in Docket 78-09, Room
5109, Docket Section, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 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, ((202)
628-6667 or 408-8789). The materials are also on
file in the reference library of the Office of the
Federal Register, National Archives and Records
Administration , Washington, D.C.
(d) The structural properties of the dummy are
such that the dummy conforms to this part in every
respect both before and after being used in vehicle
tests specified in Standard No. 213 of this chapter
(S 571.213).
Subpart E— Hybrid III Test Dummy
Source: 51 FR 26701, July 25, 1986, unless other-
wise noted.
Effective Date Note and Optional Compliance
Prmisions: At 51 FR 26701, July 25, 1986, Subpart
E— Hybrid III Test Dummy was added, effective
October 23, 1986. As of that date, manufacturers
have the option of using either the Part 572 test
dummy (Subpart B) or the Hybrid HI test dummy
until Au,gv^t 31, 1991. As of September 1, 1991, the
Hybrid HI will replace the Part 572 test dummy
(Subpart B) and be used as the exclusive means of
determining a vehicle's conformance with the per-
formance requirements of Standard No. 208
f§ 571.208).
§ 572.30 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. The
Director of the Federal Register has approved the
materials incorporated by reference. For materials
subject to change, only the specific version ap-
proved 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 convenience 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 Regulations.
(b) The materials incorporated in this part by
reference are available for examination in the
general reference section of Docket 79-04, Docket
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Copies may be ob-
tained from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc.,
1216 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005,
( (202) 628-6667). The drawings and specifications
are also on file in the reference library of the Office
of the Federal Register, National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, D.C.
§ 572.31 General Description.
(a) The Hybrid III 50th percentile size dummy
consists of components and assemblies specified in
the Anthropomorphic Test Dummy drawings and
specifications package which consists of the follow-
ing six items:
(1) The Anthropomorphic Test Dummy Parts
List, dated [December 15, 1987], and containing
13 pages, and Parts list Index, dated [December
15, 19871, containing [81 pages,
(2) A listing of Optional Hybrid HI Dummy Trans-
ducers, dated April 22, 1986, contain 4 pages.
(3) A General Motors Drawing package iden-
tified by GM drawing No. 78051-218 revision [Rl
and subordinate drawings.
(4) Disassembly, Inspection, Assembly and
Limbs Adjustment Procedures for the Hybrid III
Dummy, dated July 15, 1986,
(5) Sign Convention for the signal outputs of
Hybrid III Dummy Transducers, dated July 15, 1986,
(Rev. 3/17/88)
PART 572-13
(6) Exterior Dimensions of the Hybrid III
Dummy, dated July 15, 1986.
(b) The dummy is made up of the following com-
ponent assemblies:
Drauring Number Revision
78051-61 Head Assembly-Complete- (T)
78051-90 Neck Assembly-Complete- (A)
78051-89 Upper Torso Assembly-Complete- |(K)1
78051-70 Lower Torso Assembly-Without
Pelvic Instrumentation Assembly,
Drawing Number 78051-59 I(D)I
86-5001-001 Leg Assembly-Complete (LH)- [(E)l
86-5001-002 Leg Assembly-Complete (RH)- I(E)1
78051-123 Arm Assembly-Complete (LH)- (D)
78051-124 Arm Assembly-Complete (RH)- (D)
(c) Any specifications and requirements set forth
in this part supercede those contained in General
Motors Drawing No. 78051-218, revision P.
(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner
such that throughout the range of motion and also
under crash-impact conditions, there is no contact
between metallic elements except for contacts that
exist under static conditions.
(e) The weights, inertial properties and centers
of gravity location of component assemblies shall
conform to those listed in drawing 78051-338,
revision S.
(f) The structural properties of the dummy are
such that the dummy conforms to this part in every
respect both before and after being used in vehicle
test specified in Standard No. 208 of this Chapter
(S 571.208). (53 F.R. 8755-March 17, 1988. Effec-
tive: March 17, 1988)1
§ 572.32 Head.
(a) The head consists of the assembly shown in
the drawing 78051-61, revision T, and shall con-
form to each of the drawings subtended therein.
(b) When the head (drawing 78051-61, revision
T) with neck transducer structural replacement
(drawing 78051-383, revision F) is dropped from a
height of 14.8 inches in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section, the peak resultant accelerations
at the location of the accelerometers mounted in
the head in accordance with 572.36(c) shall not be
less than 225g, and not more than 275g. The ac-
celeration/time curve for the test shall be unimodal
to the extent that oscillations occurring after the
main acceleration pulse are less than ten percent
(zero to peak) of the main pulse. The lateral
acceleration vector shall not exceed 15g (zero to
peak).
(c) Test Procedure. (1) Soak the head assembly
in a test environment at any temperature between
66 degrees F to 78 degrees F and at a relative
humidity from 10% to 70% for a period of at least
four hours prior to its application in a test.
(2) Clean the head's skin surface and the surface
of the impact plate with 1,1,1 Trichlore thane or
equivalent.
(3) Suspend the head, as shown in Figure 19, so
that the lowest point on the forehead is 0.5 inches
below the lowest point on the dummy's nose when
the midsagittal plane is vertical.
(4) Drop the head from the specified height by
means that ensure instant release onto a rigidly
supported flat horizontal steel plate, which is 2
inches thick and 2 feet square. The plate shall have
a clean, dry surface and any microfinish of not less
than 8 microinches (rms) and not more than 80
microinches (rms).
(5) Allow at least 2 hours between successive
tests on the same head.
§ 572.33 Neck.
(a) The neck consists of the assembly shown in
drawing 78051-90, revision A and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended therein.
(b) When the neck and head assembly (con-
sisting of the parts 78051-61, revision T; -84;
-90, revision A; -96; -98; -303, revision E;
-305; -306; -307, revision X, which has a neck
transducer (drawing 83-5001-008) installed in con-
formance with 572.36(d), is tested in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section, it shall have the
following characteristics:
(1) Flexion, (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure
20, shall rotate between 64 degrees and 78
degrees, which shall occur between 57
milliseconds (ms) and 64 ms from time zero. In
first rebound, the rotation of plane D shall cross
0 degrees between 113 ms and 128 ms.
(ii) The moment measured by the neck
transducer (drawing 83-5001-008) about the
occipital condyles, referenced in Figure 20, shall
be calculated by the following formula: Moment
(Ibs-ft) = My -(- 0.02875 x Fx' where My is the
moment measured in Ibs-ft by the moment sen-
sor of the neck transducer and Fy is the force
PART 572-14
measured in lbs by the x axis force sensor of the
neck transducer. The moment shall have a max-
imum value between 65 Ibs-ft occurring between
47 ms and 58 ms, and the positive moment shall
decay for the first time to 0 Ib-ft between 97 ms
and 107 ms.
(2) Extension, (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure
21, shall rotate between 81 degrees and 106
degrees, which shall occur between 72 and 82 ms
from time zero. In first rebound, the rotation of
plane D shall cross 0 degree between 147 and
174 ms.
(ii) The moment measured by the neck
transducer (drawing 83-5001-008) about the
occipital condyles, referenced in Figure 21, shall
be calculated by the following formula: Moment
(Ibs-ft) = My + 0.02875 x Fx' where My is the
moment measured in Ibs-ft by the moment sensor
of the neck transducer and F^ is the force
measure measured in lbs by the x axis force
sensor of the neck transducer. The moment shall
have a minimum value between -39 Ibs-ft and
- 59 Ibs-ft, which shall occur between 65 ms and
79 ms, and the negative moment shall decay for
the first time to 0 Ib-ft between 120 ms and
148 ms.
(3) Time zero is defined as the time of contact
between the pendulum striker plate and the
aluminum honeycomb material.
(c) Test Procedure. (1) Soak the test material in
a test environment at any temperature between 69
degrees F to 72 degrees F and at a relative
humidity from 10% to 70% for a period of at least
four hours prior to its application in a test.
(2) Torque the jamnut (78051-64) on the neck
cable (78051-301, revision E) to 1.0 Ibs-ft ±. Ibs-ft.
(3) Mount the head-neck assembly, defined in
paragraph (b) of this section, on a rigid pendulum
as shown in Figure 22 so that the head's midsagit-
tal plane is vertical and coincides with the plane of
motion of the pendulum's longitudinal axis.
(4) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall
freely from a height such that the tangential veloc-
ity at the pendulum accelerometer centerline at the
instance of contact with the honeycomb is 23.0
ft/sec ± 0.4 ft/sec. for flexion testing and 19.9
ft/sec ± 0.4 ft/sec. for extension testing. The pen-
dulum deceleration vs. time pulse for flexion
testing shall conform to the characteristics shown
in Table A and the decaying deceleration-time curve
shall first cross 5g between 34 ms and 42 ms. The
pendulum deceleration vs. time pulse for extension
testing shall conform to the characteristics shown
in Table B and the decaying deceleration-time
curve shall cross 5g between 38 ms and 46 ms.
Table A
Flexion Pendulum Deceleration vs. Time Pulse
Time (ms)
Flesion
deceleration
level (g)
10 . . .
22.50—27.50
20
17.60-22.60
30
12.50-18.50
Any other time above 30 ms
29 maximum
Table B
Extension Pendulum Deceleration vs. Time Pulse
Time (ms)
Extension
deceleration
level (g)
10
17.20—21.00
20
14.00-19.00
30 . .
11.00-16.00
Any other time above 30 ms
22 maximum
(5) Allow the neck to flex without impact of the
head or neck with any object during the test.
§ 572.34 Thorax.
(a) The thorax consists of the upper torso
assembly in drawing 78051-89, revision IKl and shall
conform to each of the drawings subtended therein.
(b) [When impacted by a test probe conforming
to S 572.36(a) at 22 fps ± .40 fps in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section, the thorax of a com-
plete dummy assembly (78051-218, revision R) with
left and right shoes (78051-294 and -295) removed,
shall resist with a force of 1242.5 pounds ± 82.5
pounds measured by the test probe and shall have a
sternum displacement measured relative to spine of
2.68 inches ±0.18 inches. The internal hysteresis in
each impact shall be more than 69% but less than
85%. The force measured is the product of pen-
dulum mass and deceleration.) (53 F.R. 8755— March
17, 1988. Effective: March 17, 1988)
(Rev. 3/17/88)
PART 572-15
(c) Test procedure. (1) Soak the test dummy in
an environment with a relative humidity from 10%
to 70% until the temperature of the ribs of the test
dummy have stabilized at a temperature between
69 degrees F and 72 degrees F.
(2) [Seat the dummy without back and arm sup-
ports on a surface as shown in Figure 23, and set
the angle of the pelvic bone at 13 degrees plus or
minus 2 degrees, using the procedure described in
S 11.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 (S 571.208 of this
chapter).! (53 F.R. 8755— March 17, 1988. Effective:
March 17, 1988).
(3) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test
probe so that it is .5 in ± .04 in. below the horizon-
tal centerline of the No. 3 Rib (reference drawing
number 79051-64, revision A-M) as shown in
Figure 23.
(4) Align the test probe specified in S572.36(a)
so that at impact it longitudinal centerline coin-
cides within .5 degree of a horizontal line in the
dummy's midsagittal plane.
(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that
the longitudinal centerline of the test probe falls
within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in the
dummy's midsagittal plane at the moment of
impact.
(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or rota-
tional movement.
(7) Measure the horizontal deflection of the ster-
num relative to the thoracic spine along the line
established by the longitudinal centerline of the
probe at the moment of impact, using a poten-
tiometer (ref. drawing 78051-317, revision A)
mounted inside the sternum as shown in drawing
78051-89, revision I.
(8) Measure hysteresis by determining the ratio
of the area between the loading and unloading por-
tions of the force deflection curve to the area under
the loading portion of the curve.
§ 572.35 Limbs.
(a) The limbs consist of the following assemblies:
leg assemblies 86-5001-001 and -002 and arm
assemblies 78051-123, revision D, and -124,
revision D, and shall conform to the drawings
subtended therein.
(b) [When each knee of the leg assemblies is
impacted, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section, at 6.9 ft/sec ±0.10 ft/sec, by the pendulum
defined in S 572.36(b), the peak knee impact force,
which is a product of pendulum mass and accelera-
tion, shall have a minimum value of not less than /
1060 pounds and a maximum value of not more
than 1300 pounds.) (53 F.R. 8755— March 17, 1988.
Effective: March 17, 1988)
(c) Test Procedure, (c) The test material con-
sists of leg assemblies (86-5001-001) left and
(-002) right with upper leg assemblies (78051-46)
left and (78051-47) right removed. The load cell
simulator (78051-319, revision A) is used to secure
the knee cap assemblies (79051-16, revision B) as
shown in Figure 24.
(2) Soak the test material in a test environment
at any temperature between 66 degrees F to 78
degrees F and at a relative humidity from 10% to
70% for a period of at least four hours prior to its
application in a test.
(3) Mount the test material with the leg
assembly secured through the load cell simulator to
a rigid surface as shown in Figure 24. No contact is
permitted between the foot and any other exterior
surfaces.
(4) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test
probe so that at contact with the knee it is colinear
within 2 degrees with the longitudinal centerline of ,
the femur load cell simulator. f
(5) Guide the pendulum so that there is no
significant lateral, vertical or rotational movement
at time zero.
(6) Impact the knee with the test probe so that
the longitudinal centerline of the test probe at the
instant of impact falls within .5 degrees of a
horizontal line parallel to the femur load cell
simulator at time zero.
(7) Time zero is defined as the time of contact
between the test probe and the knee.
§ 572.36 Test Conditions and Instrumentation.
(a) The test probe used for thoracic impact tests
is a 6 inch diameter cylinder that weighs 51.5
pounds including instrumentation. Its impacting
end has a flat right angle face that is rigid and has
an edge radius of 0.5 inches. The test probe has an
accelerometer mounted on the end opposite from
impact with its sensitive axis colinear to the
longitudinal centerline of the cylinder.
PART 572-16
Drop height
376nnm
(14.8 in.)
Chrome-plated steel block
50.8 X 610 X 610 mm (2 x 24 x 24
8 to 80 rms microinch/inch finish
tWI
"A"
"B"
Centerline of 1.6 mm
(0.062 in.) diameter
holes in skull
Distance "A'— Distance "B" = 0.0 mm
I
Note: Tolerance on test setup dimensions ±1 mm (0.04 in.
Figure 19. Test Set-up Specifications
PART 572-Subpart E-ART PAGE 1
Pendulum Centerline
Bracket Ass'y— Neck
Adjusting, Upper
(P/N 78051-307)
BIB Simulator
(P/N 78051-84)
Neck Ass'y
(P/N 78051-90)
Plane W
(Ref. dwg. 78051-77)
perpendicular to
pendulum centerline
± 1°
13.5mm ± .5
(.53 inches ± .02)
^
Centerline
Mounting Screw
(Ref. dwg. 78051-96)
Bracket— Neck
Adjusting, Lower
(P/N 78051-303)
Occipital Condyles
Head Ass'y
(P/N 78051-61)
Note: Pendulum shown at Time Zero position
Figure 20. Flexion— Test Setup Specifications
PART 572-Subpart E-ART PAGE 2
37.3 mm ± .5
(1.47 inches ± .02)
Centerline
Mounting Screw
(Ref. dwg. 78051-96)
Bracket— Neck
Adjusting, Lower
(P/N 78051-303)
Occipital Condyles
Head Ass'y
(P/N 78051-61)
Pendulum Centerline
Bracket Ass'y— Neck
Adjusting, Upper
(P/N 78051-307)
BIB Simulator
(P/N 78051-84)
Neck Ass'y
(P/N 78051-90)
Plane LdJ
(Ref. dwg. 78051-77)
perpendicular to
pendulum centerline
+ 1°
Note: Pendulum shown at Time Zero position
Figure 21. Flexion— Test Setup Specifications
PART 572-Subpart E-ART PAGE
Structural steel tube
4.8 mm (0.1875 in.)
Pivot 50.8 mm (2 in.) Dia
inertia! properties of pendulum.
Mounting plate and mounting
hardware without test specimen
Weight 29.57 kg (65.21 lbs).
Moment of inertia 33.2 kg-m^
(294 in.-lb-sec2) about pivot axis
CG of pendulum
apparatus without
test specimen
Accelerometer
Mounting Plate
Accelerometer
38.1 mm Ref.
(1.5 in.)
Aluminum honeycomb
hexcel 28.8 kg/m^
(1.8 Ib/ft3) Ref.
Before testing, precrush the
honeycomb material with the pendulum
to assure that 90% to 100% of the
honeycomb surface is contacting the
pendulum striker plate.
Pendulum Striker Plate (sharp edges)
76.2 X 152.4 X 9.5 mm
(3 X 6 X 3/8 in.)
Figure 22. Pendulum Specifications
PART 572-Subpart E-ART PAGE 4
Pendulum accelerometer
(ENDEVCO Model 7231C or equivalent)
mounted with sensitive axis parallel
to pendulum longitudinal centerline.
Centerline of arms horizontal ±2"»
(Ret dwg 78051-123 and dwg 78051-124)
Pendulum Centerline
Horizontal ±0.5°
^ Seating Surface
Horizontal ±0.5°
NOTE:
A) No external support is required on the dummy to meet setup specifications.
B) The midsagittal plane of the dummy is vertical (±1°) and within 2°
of the centerline of the pendulum.
C) The midsagittal plane of the dummy is centered on the centerline of
the pendulum within 3 mm (0.12 in.).
Figure 23. Test Set-up Specifications
PART 572-Subpart E-ART PAGE 5
Torque two femur load cell simulator
mounting bolts (P/N 78051-99 and
P/N 78051-100) to 41 Newton Meters
(30 ft-lbs).
Pendulum accelerometer
(ENDEVCO Model 7231C or equivalent)
mounted with sensitive axis
parallel to pendulum
longitundinal centerline.
Adjust knee joint
torque to 1-2 range
before each test.
Ankle Pivot
Pendulum Centerline
Horizontal ±0.5°
Rigid Pendulum Impactor
Figure 24. Test Set-up Specifications
PART 572-Subpart E-ART PAGE
(b) The test probe used for the knee impact tests
is a S inch diamenter cylinder that weighs 11
pounds including instrumentation. Its impacting
end has a flat right angle face that is rigid and has
an edge radius of 0.2 inches. The test probe has an
accelerometer mounted on the end opposite from
impact with its sensitive axis colinear to the
longitudinal centerline of the cylinder.
(c) Head accelerometers shall have dimensions,
response characteristics and sensitive mass loca-
tions specified in drawing 78051-136, revision A or
its equivalent and be mounted in the head as shown
in drawing 78051-61, revision T, and in the as-
sembly shown in drawing 78051-218, revision R.
(d) The neck transducer shall have the dimen-
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis
locations specified in drawing 83-5001-008 or its
equivalent and be mounted for testing as shown in
drawing 79051-63, revision W, and in the as-
sembly shown in drawing 78051-218, revision R.
(e) The chest accelerometers shall have the
dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive
mass locations specified in drawing 78051-136,
revision A or its equivalent and be mounted as
shown with adaptor assembly 78051-116, revision
D for assembly into 78051-218, revision R.
(f) The chest deflection transducer shall have the
dimensions and response characteristics specified
in drawing 78051-342, revision A or equivalent
and be mounted in the chest deflection transducer
assembly 87051-317, revision A for assembly into
78051-218, revision R.
(g) The thorax and knee impactor acceler-
ometers shall have the dimensions and character-
istics of Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent. Each
accelerometer shall be mounted with its sensitive
axis colinear with the pendulum's longitudinal
centerline.
(h) The femur load cell shall have the dimen-
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis
locations specified in drawing 78051-265 or its
equivalent and be mounted in assemblies 78051-46
and -47 for assembly into 78051-218, revision R.
(i) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing
devices installed in the dummy and in the test ap-
paratus specified by this part are recorded in in-
dividual data channels that conform to the re-
quirements of SAE Recommended Practice J211,
JUN 1980, "Instrumentation for Impact Tests,"
with channel classes as follows:
(1) Head acceleration-Class 1000
(2) Neck force-Class 60
(3) Neck pendulum acceleration-Class 60
(4) Thorax and thorax pendulum
acceleration— Class 180
(5) Thorax deflection-Class 180
(6) Knee pendulum acceleration— Class 600
(7) Femur force-Class 600
(j) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity
conform to the sign convention shown in the docu-
ment incorporated by S572.31(aX5).
(k) The mountings for sensing devices shall have
no resonance frequency within range of 3 times the
frequency range of the applicable channel class.
(1) Limb joints are set at Ig, barely restraining
the weight of the limb when it is extended horizon-
tally. The force required to move a limb segment
shall not exceed 2g throughout the range of limb
motion.
(m) Performance tests of the same component,
segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummy are
separated in time by a period of not less than 30
minutes unless otherwise noted.
(n) Surfaces of dummy components are not
painted except as specified in this part or in draw-
ings subtended by this part.
Subpart F— Side impact Dummy 50th
Percentlie IVIaie
[§ 572.40 Incorporated Materials.
(a) The drawings, specifications, and computer
program referred to in this regulation that are not
set forth in full are hereby incorporated in this part
by reference. These materials are there by 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
Regulations.
(b) The materials incorporated in this part by
reference are available for examination in the
(Rev. 10/30/90)
PART 572-17
general reference section of Docket 79-04, Docket
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W. Washington, D.C. Copies may be obtained
from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc., 1111 14th
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, telephone
(202) 628-6667 or 408-8789.
[§ 572.41 General Description.
(a) The dummy consists of component parts and
component assemblies (SA-SID-MOOl and SA-SID-
MOOIA) which are described in approximately 250
drawings and specifications that are set forth in
Part 572.5(a) of this Chapter with the following
changes and additions which are described in ap-
proximately 85 drawings and specifications:
(1) The head assembly consists of the assembly
specified in Subpart B (§ 572.6(a)) and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended under drawing SA
150 M 010 and drawings specified in SA-SID-MOIO
of this subpart.
(2) The neck assembly consists of the assembly
specified in Subpart B (§ 572.7(a)) and conforms to
each of the drawings subtended under drawing SA-
150-M020 and drawings shown in SA-SID-MOIO.
(3) The thorax assembly consists of the assembly
shown as number SID-053 and conforms to each
applicable drawing subtended by number SA-SID-
M030.
(4) The lumbar spine consists of the assembly
specified in Subpart B (§ 572.9(a)) and conforms to
drawing SA-150-M050 and drawings subtended by
SA-SID-M050 specified by this part.
(5) The abdomen and pelvis consist of the
assembly specified in Subpart B (§ 572.9) and con-
form to the drawings subtended by SA-150-M060
and drawings subtended by SA-SID-M060
specified by this Subpart.
(6) The lower limbs consist of the assemblies
specified in Subpart B (§ 572.10) shown as SA-150-
M080 and SA-150-M081 in Figure 1 and SA-SID-
M080 and SA-SID-M081 and conform to the draw-
ings subtended by those numbers.
(b) The structural properties of the dummy are
such that the dummy conforms to the re-
quirements of this subpart in every respect both
before and after being used in vehicle tests
specified in Standard No. 214 (Part 571.214 of this
Chapter).
(c) Disassembly, inspection, and assembly pro-
cedures; external dimensions and weight; and a
dummy drawing list are set forth in the Side
Impact Dummy (SID) User's Manual, dated July
1990.
|§ 572.42 Thorax.
(a) When the thorax of a completely assembled
dummy (SA-SID-MOOIA), appropriately assembled
for right or left side impact, is impacted by a test
probe conforming to § 572.44(a) at 14 fps in accor-
dance with paragraph (b) of this section, the peak
accelerations at the location of the accelerometers
mounted on the thorax in accordance with
§ 572.44(b) shall be:
(1) for the accelerometer at the top of the Rib
Bar on the struck side (LUR or RUR) not less than
37 g's and not more than 46 g's.
(2) for the accelerometer at the bottom of the
Rib Bar on the struck side (LLR or RLR) not less
than 37 g's and not more than 46 g's.
(3) for the lower thoracic spine (T12)not less
than 15 g's and not more than 22 g's.
(b) Test Procedure (1) Adjust the dummy legs
as specified in §572. 44(f). Seat the dummy on a
seating surface as specified in § 572.44(h) with the
limbs extended horizontally forward.
(2) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test
probe at the lateral side of the chest at the intersec-
tion of the centerlines of the third rib and the Rib
Bar on the desired side of impact. This is the left
side if the dummy is to be used on the driver's side
of the vehicle and the right side if the dummy is to
be used on the passenger side of the vehicle. The
probe's centerline is perpendicular to the thorax's
midsagittal plane.
(3) Align the test probe so that its longitudinal
centerline coincides with the line formed by the in-
tersection of the transverse and frontal planes
perpendicular to the chest's midsagittal plane
passing through the designated impact point.
(4) Position the dummy as specified in
§ 572.44(h), so that the thorax's midsagittal plane
and tangential plane to the Hinge Mounting Block
(Drawing SID-034) are vertical.
(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that
at the moment of impact at the designated impact
point, the probe's longitudinal centerline falls
within 2 degrees of a horizontal line perpendicular
(Rev. 10/30/90)
PART 572-18
to the dummy's midsagittal plane and passing
through the designated impact point.
(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical or rota-
tional movement.
(7) Allow a time period of at least 20 minutes
between successive tests of the chest.
[§ 572.43 Lumbar spine and pelvis.
(a) When the pelvis of a fully assembled dummy
(SA-SID-MOOIA) is impacted laterally by a test
probe conforming to § 572.44(a) at 14 fps in accor-
dance with paragraph (b) of this section, the peak
accleration at the location of the accelerometer
mounted in the pelvis cavity in accordance with
§ 572.44(c) shall be not less than 40g and not more
han 60g. The acceleration-time curve for the test
shall be unimodal and shall lie at or above the ± 20g
level for interval not less than 3 milliseconds and
not more than 7 milliseconds.
(b) Test Procedure. (1) Adjust the dummy legs
as specified in § 572.44(f). Seat the dummy on a
seating surface as specified in § 572.44(h) with the
limbs extended horizontally forward.
(2) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test
probe at the lateral side of the pelvis at a point 3.9
inches vertical from the seating surface and 4.8 in-
^ ches ventral to a transverse vertical plane which is
P tangent to the back of the dummy's buttocks.
(3) Align the test probe so that at impact its
longitudinal centerline coincides with the line
formed by intersection of the horizontal and ver-
tical planes perpendicular to the midsagittal plane
passing through the designated impact point.
(4) Adjust the dummy so that its midsagittal
plane is vertical and the rear surfaces of the throax
and buttocks are tangent to a transverse vertical
plane.
(5) Impact the pelvis with the test probe so that
at the moment of imact the probe's longitudinal
centerline falls within 2 degrees of the line
specified in (3) above.
(6) Guide the test probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical or rota-
tional movement.
(7) Allow a time period of at least 2 hours bet-
ween successive tests of the pelvis.
|§ 572.44 Instrumentation and test conditions.
(a) The test probe used for lateral thoracic and
pelvis impact tests is a 6 inch diameter cylinder
that weighs 51.5 pounds including instrumenta-
tion. Its impacting end has a flat right angle face
that is rigid hand has an edge radius of 0.5 inches.
(b) Three accelerometers are mounted in the
thrax for measurement of lateral accelerations
with each accelerometer's sensitive axis aligned to
be closely perpendicular to the thorax's midsagittal
plane. The accelerometers are mounted in the
following locations:
(1) One accelerometer is mounted on the Thorax
to Lumbar Adaptor (SID-005) by means of a T12
Accelerometer Mounting Platform (SID-009) and
T12 Accelerometer Mount (SID-038) with its
seismic mass center at any distance up to 0.4 in-
ches from a surface point on the Thorax to Lumbar
Adaptor where two perpendicular planes aligned
with the adaptor's vertical and horizontal center
lines intersect.
(2) Two accelerometers are mounted, one on the
top and the other at the bottom part of the Rib Bar
(SID-024) on the struck side. Their seismic mass
centers are at any distance up to .4 inches from a
point on the Rib Bar surface located on its
longitudinal center line .75 inches from the top for
the top acceleromiter and .75 inches from the
bottom, for the bottom accelerometer.
(c) One accelerometer is mounted in the pelvis
for measurement of the lateral acceleration with
its sensitive axis perpendicular to the pelvic mid-
sagittal plane. The accelerometer is mounted on
the rear wall of the instrument cavity (Drawing
SID-087), with its seismic mass center located from
a point 0.9 inches upward and 0.5 inches to the left
of the mounting bolt centerline and 0.4 to 0.5 in-
ches rearward of the rear wall of the instrument
cavity.
(d) Instrumention and sensors used must conform
to the SAE J-211 (1980) recommended practice re-
quirements. The outputs of the accelerometers in-
stalled in the dummy are them processed with the
software for the Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter
(FIR 100 software). The FORTRAN program for this
FIR 100 software (FIRIOO Filter Program, Version
1.0, July 16, 1990) is incorporated by reference in this
Part. The data are processed in the following
manner:
(1) Analog data recorded in accordance with
SAE J-211 (1980) recommended practice channel
class 1000 specification.
PART 572-19
(2) Filter the data with a 300 Hz, SAE Class 180
filter;
(3) Subsample the data to a 1600 Hz sampling
rate;
(4) Remove the bias from the subsampled data,
and;
(5) Filter the data with the FIRIOO Filter Pro-
gram (Version 1.0, July 16, 1990), which has the
following characteristics—
(A) Passband frequency, 100 Hz.
(B) Stopband frequency, 189 Hz.
(C) Stopband gain, - 50 db.
(D) Passband ripple, 0.0225 db.
(e) The mountings for the spine, rib and pelvis
accelerometers shall have no resonance frequency
within a range of 3 times the frequency range of
the applicable channel class.
(f) Limb joints of the test dummy are set at the
force between 1-2 g's, which just supports the
limbs' weight when the limbs are extended
horizontally forward. The force required to move a
limb segment does not exceed 2 g's throughout the
range of limb motion.
(g) Performance tests are conducted at any
temperature from 66° F to 78° F and at any
relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent
after exposure of the dummy to these conditions
for a period of not less than 4 hours.
(h) For the performance of tests specified in
§§ 572.42 and 572.43, the dummy is positioned as
follows:
(1) The dummy is placed on a flat, rigid, clean,
dry, horizontal smooth aluminum surface whose
length and width dimensions are not less than 16
inches, so that the dummy's midsagittal plane is
vertical and centered on the test surface. The
dummy's torso is positioned to meet the re-
quirements of § 572.42 and § 572.43. The seating
surface is without the back support and the test
dummy is positioned so that the dummy's mid-
sagittal plane is vertical and centered on the seat
surface.
(2) The legs are positioned so that their
centerlines are in planes parallel to the midsagittal
plane.
(3) Performance pre-tests of the assembled
dummy are separated in time by a period of not
less than 20 minutes unless otherwise specified.
(4) Surfaces of the dummy components are not
painted except as specified in this part or in draw-
ings subtended by this part. (55 F.R. 45757— October
30, 1990. Effective: November 29, 1990)]
PART 572-20
Subpart G [Reserved]
Subpart H [Reserved]
Subpart I— 6-Year-Old Child
§572.70 Incorportation by reference.
The drawings and specifications referred to in
§§572.71(a) and 572.71(b) are hereby incorporated
in Subpart I by reference. These materials are there-
by made part of this regulation. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the materials incorpor-
ated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of the materials may be
inspected at NHTSA's Docket Section, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Room 5109, Washington, D.C. or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L St., N.W.,
Room 8401, Washington, D.C.
The incorporated material is available as follows:
(1) Drawing number SA 106C 001, sheets 1
through 18, and the drawings listed in the parts
lists described on sheets 8 through 17, are availa-
ble from Reprographic Technologies, 1111 14th
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202)
628-6667.
(2) A User's Manual entitled, "Six- Year-Old
Size Child Test Dummy SA106C," October 28,
1991, is available from Reprographic Technologies
at the address in paragraph (1) of this section.
(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, In-
strumentation for Impact Test, June 1988, is avail-
able from the Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
15096-0001.
§572.71 General description.
(a) The representative 6-year-old dummy consists
of a drawings and specifications package that con-
tains the following materials:
(1) Technical drawings and specifications pack-
age SA 106C 001, containing drawing number SA
106 COOl sheets 1 through 18, and the drawings
listed in the parts lists described on sheets 8
through 17; and,
(2) A user's manual entitled, "Six- Year-Old Size
Child Test Dummy SA 106C," October 28, 1991.
(b) The dummy is made up of the component
assemblies set out in the following Table A:
Table A
Drawing Title
SA 106C 010
SA 106C 020
SA 106C 030
SA 106C 041
SA 106C 042 (also includes
picture of assembled parts)
SA 106C 050
SA 106C 060 (also includes
picture of assembled parts)
SA 106C 071
SA 106C 072 (also includes
picture of assembled parts)
Head Assembly
Neck Assembly
Thorax Assembly
Arm Assembly (Right Arm)
Arm Assembly (Left Arm)
Lumbar Spine Assembly
Pelvis Assembly
Leg Assembly (Right Leg)
Leg Assembly (Left Leg)
(c) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such
that except for contacts existing under static con-
ditions, there is no contact between metallic ele-
ments throughout the range of motion or under
simulated crash-impact conditions.
(d) The structural properties of the dummy are
such that the dummy conforms to this Part in every
respect both before and after its use in any test simi-
lar to those specified in Standard 213. Child
Restraint Systems.
§572.72 Head assembly and test procedure.
(a) Head assembly. The head consists of the as-
sembly designated as SA 106C 010 on drawing No.
SA 106C 001, sheet 2, and conforms to each draw-
ing listed on SA 106C 001, sheet 8.
(b) Head assembly impact response requirements.
When the head is impacted by a test probe conform-
ing to §572.77(aXl) at 7 feet per second (fps) accord-
ing to the test procedure in paragraph (c) of this
section, then the resultant head acceleration meas-
ured at the location of the accelerometer installed
in the headform according to §577. 77(b) is not less
than 130g and not more than 160g.
(1) The recorded acceleration-time curve for this
test is unimodal at or above the 50g level, and lies
at or above that level for an interval not less than
1.0 and not more than 2.0 milliseconds.
(2) The lateral acceleration vector does not ex-
ceed 5g.
(c) Head test procedure. The test procedure for
the head is as follows:
(1) Seat and orient the dimimy on a seating sur-
face having a back support as specified in
§572.78(c), and adjust the joints of the limbs at any
setting (between Ig and 2g) which just supports
the limbs' weight when the limbs are extended
horizontally and forward.
PART 572-21
(2) Adjust the test probe so that its longitudi-
nal centerline is—
(i) At the forehead at the point of orthogonal
intersection of the head midsagittal plane and
the transverse plane which is perpendicular to
the Z axis of the head as shown in Figure 40;
(ii) Located 2.7 ± 0.1 inches below the top of
the head measured along the Z axis; and
(iii) Coincides within 2 degrees with the line
made by the intersection of the horizontal and
midsagittal planes passing through this point.
(3) Impact the head with the test probe so that
at the moment of contact the probe's longitudinal
center line falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal
line in the dummy's midsagittal plane.
(4) Guide the test probe during impact so that
there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rota-
tional movement.
(5) Allow at least 60 minutes between succes-
sive head tests.
§572.73 Neck assembly and test procedure.
(a) Neck assembly. The neck consists of the as-
sembly designated as SA 106C 020 on drawing SA
106C 001, sheet 2, and conforms to each drawing
listed on SA 106C 001, sheet 9.
(b) Neck assembly impact response require-
Tnents. When the head-neck assembly (SA 106C
010 and SA 106C 020) is tested according to the test
procedure in §572.73(c), the head:
(1) Shall rotate, while translating in the direc-
tion of the pendulum preimpact flight, in reference
to the pendulum's longitudinal center line a total
of 78 degrees ± 6 degrees about the head's center
of gravity; and
(2) Shall rotate to the extent specified in Table
B at each indicated point in time, measured from
time of impact, with the chordal displacement
measured at the head's center of gravity.
(i) Chordal displacement at time "T" is de-
fined as the straight line distance between the
position relative to the pendulum arm of the
head's center of gravity at time "zero;" and the
position relative to the pendulum arm of the
head's center of gravity at time T as illustrated
by Figure 3 in §572.11.
(ii) The peak resultant acceleration recorded
at the location of the accelerometers mounted
in the headform according to §572. 77(b) shall not
exceed 30g.
Table B
Rotation
(degrees)
Time
(ms)
± (2 + .08T)
Chordal displacement
(inches)
± 0.8
0
0
0
30
26
2.7
60
44
4.3
Maximum
68
5.8
60
101
4.4
30
121
2.4
0
140
0
(3) The pendulum shall not reverse direction un-
til the head's center of gravity returns to the origi-
nal "zero" time position relative to the pendulum
(c) Neck test procedure. The test procedure for
the neck is as follows:
(1) Mount the head and neck assembly on a rigid
pendulum as specified in §572.21, Figure 15, so
that the head's midsagittal plane is vertical and
coincides with the plane of motion of the pendu-
lum's longitudinal center line. Attach the neck
directly to the pendulum as shown in §572.21,
Figure 15.
(2) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall
freely from a height such that the velocity at im-
pact is 17 ± 1 fps, measured at the center of the
accelerometer specified in §572.21, Figure 15.
(3) Decelerate the pendulum to a stop with an
acceleration-time pulse described as follows:
(i) Establish 5g and 20g levels on the a-t
curve.
(ii) Establish ti at the point where the rising
a-t curve first crosses the 5g level, U at the point
where the rising a-t curve first crosses the 20g
level, ta at the point where the decaying a-t
curve last crosses the 20g level, and t4 at the
point where the decaying a-t curve first crosses
the 5g level.
(iii) tz-ti shall not be more than 3 milliseconds.
(iv) t3-t2 shall not be more than 22 milli-
seconds, and not less than 19 milliseconds.
(v) t4-t3 shall not be more than 6 milliseconds.
(vi) The average deceleration between tg and
ts shall not be more than 26g, or less than 22g.
(4) Allow the neck to flex without the head or
neck contacting any object other than the pendu-
lum arm.
(5) Allow at least 60 minutes between succes-
sive tests.
PART 572-22
§572.74 Thorax assembly and tsat procedurs.
(a) Thorax assembly. The thorax consists of the
part of the torso assembly designated as SA 106C
030 on drawing SA 106C 001, sheet 2, and conforms
to each appHcable drawing on SA 106C 001, sheets
10 and 11.
(b) Thorax assembly requirements. When the
thorax is impacted by a test probe conforming to
§572. 77(a) at 20 ± 0.3 fps according to the test
procedure in paragraph (c) of this section, the peak
resultant accelerations at the accelerometers
mounted in the chest cavity according to $572.77(c)
shall not be less than 43g and not more than 53g.
(1) The recorded acceleration-time curve for this
test shall be unimodal at or above the 30g level,
and shall lie at or above that level for an interval
not less than 4 milliseconds and not more than 6
milliseconds.
(2) The lateral acceleration shall not exceed 5g.
(c) Thorax test procedure. The test procedure for
the thorax is as follows:
(1) Seat and orient the dummy on a seating sur-
face without back support as specified in
§572. 78(c), and adjust the joints of the limbs at any
setting (between Ig and 2g) which just supports
the limbs' weight when the limbs are extended
horizontally and forward, parallel to the midsagit-
tal plane.
(2) Establish the impact point at the chest mid-
sagittal plane so that the impact point is 2.25
inches below the longitudinal center of the clavi-
cle retainer screw, and adjust the dummy so that
the longitudinal center line of the No. 3 rib is
horizontal.
(3) Place the longitudinal center line of the test
probe so that it coincides with the designated im-
pact point, and align the test probe so that at im-
pact, the probe's longitudinal center line coincides
(within 2 degrees) with the line formed at the in-
tersection of the horizontal and midsagittal planes
and passes through the designated impact point.
(4) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that
at the moment of contact the probe's longitudinal
center line falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal
line in the dummy's midsagittal plane.
(5) Guide the test orobe during impact so that
there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rota-
tional movement.
(6) Allow at least 30 minutes between succes-
sive tests.
{572.76 Lumbar spina, abdomen, and palvis
asaembly and test procedure.
(a) Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis assem-
bly. The lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis consist
of the part of the torso assembly designated as SA
106C 050 and 060 on drawing SA 106C 001, sheet
2, and conform to each applicable drawing listed on
SA 106C 001, sheets 12 and 13.
(b) Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis assembly
response requirements. When the lumbar spine is
subjected to a force continuously applied according
to the test procedure set out in paragraph (c) of this
section, the lumbar spine assembly shall—
(1) Flex by an amount that permits the rigid
thoracic spine to rotate from the torso's initial
position, as defined in (cX3), by 40 degrees at a
force level of not less than 46 pounds and not more
than 52 pounds, and
(2) Straighten upon removal of the force to
within 5 degrees of its initial position when the
force is removed.
(c) Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis test proce-
dure. The test procedure for the lumbar spine,
abdomen, and pelvis is as follows:
(1) Remove the dummy's head-neck assembly,
arms, and lower legs, clean and dry all component
surfaces, and seat the dummy upright on a seat
as specified in Figure 42.
(2) Adjust the dummy by—
(i) Tightening the femur ballflange screws at
each hip socket joint to 50 inch-pounds torque;
(ii) Attaching the pelvis to the seating surface
bv a bolt D/605 as shown in Figure 42;
(iii) Attaching the upper legs at the knee
joints by the attachments shown in drawing
Figure 42;
(iv) Tightening the mountings so that the
pelvis-lumbar joining surface is horizontal; and
(v) Removing the head and neck, and install-
ing a cylindrical aluminum adapter (neck adap-
ter) of 2 inches diameter and 2.6 inches length
as shown in Figure 42.
(3) The initial position of the dummy's torso is
defined by the plane formed by the rear surfaces
of the shoulders and buttocks which is 3 to 7
degrees forward of the transverse vertical plane.
(4) Flex the thorax forward 50 degrees and then
rearward as necessary to return the dummy to its
initial torso position, unsupported by external
PART 572-23
(5) Apply a forward pull force in the midsagit-
tal plane at the top of the neck adapter so that
when the lumbar spine flexion is 40 degrees, the
applied force is perpendicular to the thoracic spine
box.
(i) Apply the force at any torso deflection rate
between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second, up to
40 degrees of flexion,
(ii) For 10 seconds, continue to apply a force
sufficient to maintain 40 degrees of flexion, and
record the highest applied force during the 10
second period,
(iii) Release all force as rapidly as possible,
and measure the return angle 3 minutes after
the release.
§572.76 Limbs assembly and test procedure.
(a) Limbs assembly. The limbs consist of the as-
semblies designated as SA 106C 041, SA 106C 042,
SA 106C 071, and SA 106C 072, on drawing No. SA
106C 001, sheet 2, and conform to each applicable
drawing listed on SA 106C 001, sheets 14 through
17.
(b) Limbs assembly impact response requirement.
When each knee is impacted at 7 ± 0.1 fps, ac-
cording to paragraph (c) of this section, the maxi-
mum force on the femur shall not be more than 1060
pounds and not less than 780 pounds, with a
duration above 400 pounds of not less than 0.8
milliseconds.
(c) Limbs test procedure. The test procedure for
the limbs is as follows:
(1) Seat and orient the dummy without back
support on a seating surface that is 11 ± 0.2 inches
above a horizontal (floor) surface as specified in
§572.78(c).
(i) Orient the dummy as specified in Figure
43 with the hip joint adjustment at any setting
between Ig and 2g.
(ii) Place the dummy's legs in a plane parallel
to the dummy's midsagittal plane with the knee
pivot center line perpendicular to the dummy's
midsagittal plane, and with the feet flat on the
horizontal (floor) surface.
(iii) Adjust the feet and lower legs until the
line between the midpoint of each knee pivot and
each ankle pivot is within 2 degrees of the
vertical.
(2) If necessary, reposition the dummy so that
at the level 1 inch below the seating surface, the
rearmost point of the dummy's lower legs remains
not less than 3 inches and not more than 6 inches
forward of the forward edge of the seat.
(3) Align the test probe specified in §572.77(a)
with the longitudinal center line of the femur force
gauge, so that at impact, the probe's longitudinal
center line coincides with the sensor's longitudi-
nal center line within ± 2 degrees.
(4) Impact the knee with the test probe moving
horizontally and parallel to the midsagittal plane
at the specified velocity.
(5) Guide the test probe during impact so that
there is no significant lateral, vertical, or rota-
tional movement.
§572.77 Instrumentation.
(aXl) Test probe. For the head, thorax, and knee
impact test, use a test probe that is rigid, of uniform
density, and weighs 10 pounds and 6 ounces, with
a diameter of 3 inches; a length of 13.8 inches; and
an impacting end that has a rigid flat right face and
edge radius of 0.5 inches.
(2) The head and thorax assembly may be
instrumented either with a Type A or Type B
accelerometer.
(i) Type A accelerometer is defined in draw-
ing SA 572 SI.
(ii) Type B accelerometer is defined in draw-
ing SA 572 S2.
(b) Head accelerometers. Install accelerometers
in the head as shown in drawing SA 106C 001, sheet
1, using suitable spacers or adaptors as needed to
affix them to the horizontal transverse bulkhead so
that the sensitive axes of the three accelerometers
intersect at the point in the midsagittal plane located
0.4 inches below the intersection of a line connect-
ing the longitudinal center lines of the roll pins in
either side of the dummy's head with the head's mid-
sagittal plane.
(1) The head has three orthogonally mounted
accelerometers aligned as follows:
(i) Align one accelerometer so that its sensi-
tive axis is perpendicular to the horizontal bulk-
head in the midsagittal plane.
(ii) Align the second accelerometer so that its
sensitive axis is parallel to the horizontal bulk-
head, and perpendicular to the midsagittal
plane.
(iii) Align the third accelerometer so that its
sensitive axis is parallel to the horizontal bulk-
head in the midsagittal plane.
PART 572-24
(iv) The seismic mass center for any of these
accelerometers may be at any distance up to 0.4
inches from the axial intersection point.
(c) Thoracic accelerometers. Install accelerome-
ters in the thoracic assembly as shown in drawing
SA 106C 001, sheet 1, using suitable spacers and
adaptors to affix them to the frontal surface of the
spine assembly so that the sensitive axes of the three
accelerometers intersect at a point in the midsagit-
tal plane located 0.95 inches posterior of the spine
mounting surface, and 0.55 inches below the horizon-
tal centerline of the two upper accelerometer mount
attachment hole centers.
(1) The sternum-thoracic assembly has three
orthogonally mounted accelerometers aligned as
follows:
(i) Align one accelerometer so that its sensi-
tive axis is parallel to the attachment surface in
the midsagittal plane.
(ii) Align the second accelerometer so that its
sensitive axis is parallel to the attachment sur-
face, and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane.
(iii) Align the third accelerometer so that its
sensitive axis is perpendicular to the attachment
surface in the midsagittal plane.
(iv) The seismic mass center for any of these
accelerometers may be at any distance up to 0.4
inches of the axial intersection point.
(d) Femur-sensing device. Install a force-sensing
device SA 572 SlO axially in each femur shaft as
shown in drawing SA 106C 072 and secure it to the
femur assembly so that the distance measured be-
tween the center lines of two attachment bolts is
3 inches.
(e) Limb joints. Set the limb joints at Ig, barely
restraining the limb's weight when the limb is
extended horizontally, and ensure that the force
required to move the limb segment does not exceed
2g throughout the limb's range of motion.
(f) Recording outputs. Record the outputs of ac-
celeration and force-sensing devices installed in the
dummy and in the test apparatus specified in this
Part, in individual channels that conform to the
requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J211,
October 1988, with channel classes as set out in the
following Table C.
Table C
Device
Channel
Head acceleration
Pendulum acceleration
Thorax acceleration
Femur-force
Class 180
Class 600
The mountings for sensing devices shall have no
resonance frequency within a range of 3 times the
frequency range of the applicable channel class.
§572.78 Performance test conditions.
(a) Conduct performance tests at any temperature
from 66° F to 78° F, and at any relative humidity
from 10 percent to 70 percent, but only after hav-
ing first exposed the dummy to these conditions for
a period of not less than 4 hours.
(b) For the performance tests specified in §572.72
(head), §572.74 (thorax), §572.75 flumbar spine, ab-
domen, and pelvis), and §572.76 (limbs), position the
dummy as set out in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Place the dummy on a horizontal seating sur-
face covered by teflon sheeting so that the dummy's
midsagittal plane is vertical and centered on the test
surface.
(1) The seating surface is flat, rigid, clean, and
dry, with a smoothness not exceeding 40
microinches, a length of at least 16 inches, and a
width of at least 16 inches.
(2) For head impact tests, the seating surface
has a vertical back support whose top is 12.4 ±
0.2 inches above the horizontal surface, and the
rear surfaces of the dummy's back and buttocks
touch the back support as shown in Figure 40.
(3) For the thorax, lumbar spine, and knee tests,
the horizontal surface is without a back support as
shown in Figure 41 (for the thorax). Figure 42 (for
the lumbar spine), and Figure 43 (for the knee).
(4) Position the dummy's arms and legs so that
their center lines are in planes parallel to the mid-
sagittal plane.
(5) Adjust each shoulder yoke so that with its
upper surface horizontal, a yoke is at the midpoint
of its anterior-posterior travel.
(6) Adjust the dummy for head and knee impact
tests so that the rear surfaces of the shoulders and
buttocks are tangent to a transverse vertical plane.
(d) The dummy's dimensions are specified in
drawings SA 106C 001, sheets 3 through 6.
(e) Unless otherwise specified in this regulation,
performance tests of the same component, segment,
assembly or fully assembled dummy are separated
in time by a period of not less than 20 minutes.
(f) Unless otherwise specified in this regulation,
the surfaces of the dummy components are not
painted. (56 F.R. 57830— November 14, 1991. Effective:
May 12, 1992)
PART 572-25
IMPACTOR
^O'' IMPACTOR SUPPORT WIRE
NOTES: 1. DUMMY IMPACT SENSORS NOT USED IN THIS TEST MAY BE REPLACED BY
EQUIVALENT DEAD WEIGHTS
2. NO EXTERNAL SUPPORTS ARE REQUIRED ON THE DUMMY TO MEET
SET-UP SPECIFICATIONS.
3. THE MIDSAGITTAL PLANE OF THE DUMMY IS VERTICAL WITHIN +/-1 DEG
4. THE MIDSAGITTAL PLANE OF THE HEAD IS CENTERED WITH RESPECT
TO THE LONGITUDINAL CENTERLINE OF THE PENDULUM WITHIN 0.1 2 IN.
Figure 40— Head Impact Test Set-Up
PART 572-Subpart I-ART PAGE 1
IMPACTOR SUPPORT WIRE
IMPACTOR
(t IMPACTOR
SET UP WITH? OF
#3 RIB HORIZONTAL +'/!
NOTES: 1. DUMMY IMPACT SENSORS NOT USED IN THIS TEST MAY BE REPLACED BY
EQUIVALENT DEAD WEIGHTS
2. NO EXTERNAL SUPPORTS ARE REQUIRED ON THE DUMMY TO MEET
SET-UP SPECIFICATIONS.
3. THE MIDSAGITTAL PLANE OF THE DUMMY IS VERTICAL WITHIN +/-1 DEG
4. THE MIDSAGITTAL PLANE OF THE THORAX IS CENTERED WITH RESPECT
TO THE LONGITUDINAL CENTERLINE OF THE PENDULUM WITHIN 0.1 2 IN.
Figure 41 —Thorax Impact Test Set-Up
PART 572-Subpart I-ART PAGE 2
NECK ADAPTER
')
-1.78-1
.. J DRILL 53 THRU
ANGLE GAGE (OPTIONAL)
SWIVEL CONNECTION
FORCE GAGE (OlOO LBS)
PULL RING
DRIVE MOTOR (OPTIONAL)
(SUGGESTED 5 RPM, 130+
INCH LBS TORQUE 1"
SPINDLE)
'/2-20 SOC.HD. SCREW
WELDED TO D/605 SCREW &
BOLTED THRU TABLE
NOTES: 1. DUMMY IMPACT SENSORS NOT USED IN THIS TEST MAY BE REPLACED BY
EQUIVALENT DEAD WEIGHTS
2. NO EXTERNAL SUPPORTS ARE REQUIRED ON THE DUMMY TO MEET
SET-UP SPECIFICATIONS.
3. THE MIDSAGITTAL PLANE OF THE DUMMY IS VERTICAL WITHIN
+ /-I DEa
4. THE DUMMY IN THE SEATED POSITION IS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE TEST
BENCH AT THE PELVIC BONE AND AT THE KNEES.
5. THE PULL-FLEXION FORCE, APPLIED THROUGH A RIGID NECK ADAPTOR
WHICH IS MOUNTED ON TOP OF THE THORACIC STERNUM ASSEMBLY
(C/601), IS ALIGNED WITH THE MIDSAGITTAL PLANE OF THE
DUMMY WITHIN -h/-1 DEQ
6. THE SWIVEL FOR THE FORCE MEASURING SENSOR MUST NOT BIND OR
BOTTOM OUT THROUGH THE ENTIRE LOADING CYCLE
Figure 42— Lumbar Spine Flexion Test Set-Up
PART 572-Subpart I-ART PAGE 3
HIP PIVOT
CENTERLINE
SEATING SURFACE
HORIZONTAL ± .5°
FEMUR FORCE GAGE IN LINE
IMPACTOR SUPPORT
WIRE
KNEE-ANKLE BOLT CENTER LINE
MINIMUM DISTANCE 3" TO 6
NOTES: 1. DUMMY IMPACT SENSORS NOT USED IN THIS TEST MAY BE REPLACED BY
EQUIVALENT DEAD WEIGHTS
2. NO EXTERNAL SUPPORTS ARE REQUIRED ON THE DUMMY TO MEET
SET-UP SPECIFICATIONS.
3. THE MIDSAGITTAL PLANE OF THE DUMMY IS VERTICAL WITHIN
-I-/-1 DEa
4. CENTERLINE OF THE IMPACTED FEMUR IS ALIGNED WITH THE
CENTERLINE OF THE IMPACTOR AND THE PLANE OF THE IMPACTOR
MOTION WITHIN +/-1 DEG.
Figure 43— Knee Impact Test Set-Up
PART 572-Subpart I-ART PAGE 4
Subpart J-9-Month-Old Child
1672.80 Incorporated materials.
^\ 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 mater-
ials are thereby made part of this regulation. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the
materials incorporated by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 5B2(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of
the materials may be obtained from Rowley-Scher
Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K Street, N.W., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20002, (202) 628-6667. Copies are availa-
ble for inspection in the general reference section
of Docket 89-11, Docket Section, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C, or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L Street, N.W.,
Room 8401, Washington, D.C.
§572.81 General description.
(a) The dummy consists of:
(1) The assembly specified in drawing LP
1049/A, which is described in its entirety by means
of approximately 54 separate drawings and
specifications: 1049/1 through 1049/54;
(2) A parts list LP 1049/0 (5 sheets); and
(3) A report entitied, "The TNO P3/4 Child
^ Dummy Users Manual," January 1979, published
m\ by Instituut voor Wegtransportmiddelen TNO.
(b) Adjacent dummy segments are joined in a
manner such that throughout the range of motion
and also under simulated crash-impact conditions
there is no contact between metallic elements ex-
cept for contacts that exist under static conditions.
(c) The structural properties of the dummy are
such that the dummy conforms to this Part in every
respect both before and after being used in dynamic
tests such as that specified in Standard No. 213 of
this Chapter (§571.213).
§572.82 Head.
The head consists of the assembly shown in draw-
ing LP 1049/A and conforms to each of the appli-
cable drawings listed under LP 1049/0 through 54.
§572.83 Head-Neck.
The head-neck assembly shown in drawing 1049/A
consists of parts specified as items 1 through 16 and
in item 56.
§572.84 Thorax.
The thorax consists cf the part of the torso shown
in assembly drawing LP 1049/A and conforms to
each of the applicable drawings listed under SP
1049/0 through 54.
1672.86 Lumbar spine flexure.
(a) When subjected to continuously applied force
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the
lumbar spine assembly shall flex by an amount that
permits the thoracic spine to rotate from its initial
position in accordance with Figure No. 18 of $572.21
(49 CFR Part 572) by 40 degrees at a force level of
not less than 18 pounds and not more than 22
pounds, and straighten upon removal of the force
to within 5 degrees of its initial position.
(b) Test procedure.
(1) The lumbar spine flexure test is conducted
on a dummy assembly as shown in drawing LP
1049/A, but with the arms (which consist of parts
identified as items 17 through 30) and all head-
neck parts (identified as items 1 through 13 and
59 through 63) removed.
(2) With the torso assembled in an upright
position, adjust the lumbar cable by tightening the
adjustment nut for the lumbar vertebrae until the
spring is compressed to % of its unloaded length.
(3) Position the dummy in an upright seated
position on a seat as indicated in Figure 18 of
§572.21 (lower legs do not need to be removed, but
must be clamped firmly to the seating surface), en-
suring that all dummy component surfaces are
clean, dry, and untreated unless otherwise
specified.
(4) Firmly affix the dummy to the seating sur-
face through the pelvis at the hip joints by suita-
ble clamps that also prevent any relative motion
with respect to the upper legs during the test in
§572.65(cX3) of this Part. Install a pull attachment
at the neck to torso juncture as shown in Figure
18 of §572.21.
(5) Flex the thorax forward 50 degrees and then
rearward as necessary to return it to its initial
position.
(6) Apply a forward pull force in the midsagit-
tal plane at the top of the neck adapter so that at
40 degrees of the lumbar spine flexion the applied
force is perpendicular to the thoracic spine box.
Apply the force at any torso deflection rate be-
tween 0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second up to 40
degrees of flexion but no further; maintain 40
degrees of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the
highest applied force during that time. Release aU
force as rapidly as possible and measure tb" " itum
angle 3 minutes after releasp
PART 572-27
§572.86 Test conditions and dummy adjustment.
(a) With the complete torso on its back lying on
a horizontal surface and the neck assembly mounted
and shoulders on the edge of the surface, adjust the
neck such that the head bolt is lowered 0.40 ± 0.05
inches (10 ± 1 mm) after a vertically applied load
of 11.25 pounds (50 N) applied to the head bolt is
released.
(b) With the complete torso on its back with the
adjusted neck assembly as specified in §572. 66(a),
and lying on a horizontal surface with the shoulders
on the edge of the surface, mount the head and
tighten the head bolt and nut firmly, with the head
in horizontal position. Adjust the head joint at the
force between l-2g, which just supports the head's
weight.
(c) Using the procedures described below, limb
joints are set at the force between l-2g, which just
supports the limbs' weight when the limbs are
extended horizontally forward:
(1) With the complete torso lying with its front
down on a horizontal surface, with the hip joint
just over the edge of the surface, mount the upper
leg and tighten hip joint nut firmly. Adjust the hip
joint by releasing the hip joint nut until the upper
leg just starts moving.
(2) With the complete torso and upper leg lying
with its front up on a horizontal surface, with the
knee joint just over the edge of the surface, mount
the lower leg and tighten knee joint firmly. Ad-
just the knee joint by releasing the knee joint nut
until the lower leg just starts moving.
(3) With the torso in an upright position, mount
the upper arm and tighten firmly the adjustment
bolts for the shoulder joint with the upper arm
placed in a horizontal position. Adjust the shoul-
der joint by releasing the shoulder joint nut until
the upper arm just starts moving.
(4) With the complete torso in an upright posi-
tion and upper arm in a vertical position, mount
the forearm in a horizontal position and tighten
the elbow hinge bolt and nut firmly. Adjust the
elbow joint nut imtil the forearm just starts
moving.
(d) With the torso assembled in an upright posi-
tion, the adjustment nut for the lumbar vertebrae
is tightened until the spring is compressed to % of
its unloaded length.
(e) Performance tests are conducted at any tem-
perature from 66° to 78° F and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent after ex-
posure of the dummy to these conditions for a peri-
od of not less than four hours.
(f) Performance tests of the same component,
segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummy are
separated in time by a period of not less than 20
minutes unless otherwise specified.
(g) Surfaces of the dummy components are not
painted except as specified in the part or in draw-
ings incorporated by this part. (56 F.R.
41077— August 19, 1991. Effective: February 15, 1992)
38 F.R. 20499
August 1, 1973
PART 572-28
3V2 square inches. If multiple compartment lamps
or multiple lamps are used, the effective projected
luminous area of each compartment or lamp shall
be not less than 3V2 square inches; however, the
photometric requirements may be met by a com-
bination of compartments or lamps. Each such
lamp manufactured for use on a multipurpose
passenger vehicle, truck, trailer or bus 80 inches or
more in overall width shall have an effective pro-
jected luminous area not less than 12 square
inches.
[(b) Each turn signal lamp manufactured to
replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal
Lamps, September 1970, may also be designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e. Note 6 of Table 1
of SAE Standard J588e does not apply. A stop
lamp that is not optically combined with a turn
signal lamp shall remain activated when the turn
signal is flashing. (55 F.R. 20158-May 15, 1990.
Effective: December 1, 1990)J
[(c) A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck,
bus, or trailer, whose overall width is 80 inches or
greater, manufactured on or before November 30,
1991, and whose turn signal lamps are located
more than 22 inches apart, may be equipped with
turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE
Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September
1970. (55 F.R. 20158— May 15, 1990. Effective:
December 1, 1990)]
55.1.1.8 For each motor vehicle less than 30 feet
in overall length, the photometric-minimum
candlepower requirements for side marker lamps
specified in SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side
Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, may
be met for all inboard test points at a distance of 15
feet from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle
and located midway between the front and rear
side marker lamps.
55.1.1.9 A boat trailer whose overall width is 80
inches or more need not be equipped with both
front and rear clearance lamps provided an amber
(to front) and red (to rear) clearance lamp is
located at or near the midpoint on each side so as
to indicate its extreme width.
55.1.1.10 Multiple license plate lamps and
backup lamps may be used to fulfill the require-
ments of the SAE Standards applicable to such
lamps referenced in Tables I and III.
S5.1.1.11 [A parking lamp, tail lamp, stop lamp
manufactured to replace a stop lamp designed to
conform to SAE Standard J686c, Stop Lamps,
August 1970, or turn signal lamp manufactured to
replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to
conform to SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal
Lamps, September 1970, shall meet the minium
percentage specified in Figure la of the
corresponding minimum allowable value specified
in Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn
Signal Lamps except that motorcycle turn signal
lamps need meet only one-half of the minimum
photometric values specified in Figure lb. (55 F.R.
20158-May 15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)1
(deg)
Turn
signal
Stop
Park-
ing
Tail
lOU,
lOD ..
.. 5L,
5R
20
20
20
20
20L
,20R
12.5
12.5
10
15
5U,
5D
. . lOL
, lOR
37.5
37.5
20
40
V
87.5
87.5
70
90
lOL
, lOR
50
50
35
40
H ..
. 5L,
5R
100
100
90
100
V
100
100
100
100
Figure la.— Required percentages of minimum candlepower
of Figure lb.
NOTE. -Minimum design candlepower requirements are determined by
multiplying the percentages given in this Figure by the minimum
allowable candlepower values in Figure lb. The resulting values shall be
truncated after one digit to the right of the decimal point.
Lamp
Lighted Sections
2 S
Stop 80/300 95/360 110/420
Tail' 2/18 3.5/20 5.0/25
Parking^ 4.0/125
Red turn signal 80/300 95/360 110/420
Yellow turn signal rear 130/750 150/900 175/1050
Yellow turn signal front 200/ - 240/ - 275/ -
Yellow turn signal front' .... 500/ - 600/ - 685/ -
Figure lb.— Minimum and maximum allowable candlepower
values.
' Maximum at H or above.
' The maximum candlepower value of 125 applies to all test points at H
or above. The maximum allowable candlepower value below H is 250.
' Values apply when the optical axis (filament center) of the front-turn
signal is at a spacing less than 4 inches (10 cm.) from the lighted edge of
the headlamp unit providing the lower beam, or from the lighted edge of
any additional lamp installed as original equipment and which sup-
plements the lower beam.lower beam.
(Rev. 5/15/90)
PART 571; S 108-
S5.1.1.12 [A parking lamp, tail lamp, stop lamp
manufactured to replace a stop lamp designed to
conform to SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps,
August 1970, or turn signal lamp manufactured to
replace a turn signal lamp designated to conform
to the SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps,
September 1970, is not required to meet the
minimum photometric value at each test point
specified in this standard if the sum of the percen-
tages of the minimum candlepower measured at
the test points is not less than that specified for
each group listed in Figure Ic. (55 F.R. 20158— May
15, 1990. Effective: December 1, 1990)1
Groups and test points ^"'^, Stop ^°-'^^' Tail
signal ing
10U-5L, 5U-20L, 5D-20L,
10D-5L 65 65 60 70
5U-10L, H-IOL, 5D-10L . 125 125 75 120
H-5L, 5U-V, H-V, 5D-V,
H-5R 475 475 420 480
5U-10R. H-IOR, 5D-10R . 125 125 75 120
10U-5R, 5U-20R, 5D-20R,
10D-5R 65 65 60 70
Figure Ic— Sum of the percentages of grouped minimum
candlepower.
55.1.1.13 Each passenger car, and each
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus of
less than 80 inches overall width, shall be equipped
with a turn signal operating unit designed to com-
plete a durability test of 100,000 cycles.
55.1.1.14 A trailer that is less than 30 inches in
overall width may be equipped with only one tail
lamp, stop lamp, and rear reflex reflector, which
shall be located at or near its vertical centerHne.
55.1.1.15 A trailer that is less than 6 feet in
overall length, including the tongue, need not be
equipped with front side marker lamps and front
side reflex reflectors.
55.1.1.16 A lamp designed to use a type of bulb
that has not been assigned a mean spherical
candlepower rating by its manufacturer and is not
listed in SAE Standard J 573d, Lamp Bulbs and
Sealed Units, December 1986, shall meet the ap-
plicable requirements of this standard when used
with any bulb of the type specified by the lamp
manufacturer, operated at the bulb's design
voltage. A lamp that contains a sealed-in bulb shall
meet these requirements with the bulb operated at
the bulb's design voltage.
55.1.1.17 Except for a lamp having a sealed-in ^
bulb, a lamp shall meet the applicable requirements
of this standard when tested with a bulb whose fila-
ment is positioned within +.010 inch of the
nominal design position specified in SAE Standard
J573d, Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units, December
1968, or specified by the bulb manufacturer.
55.1.1.18 A backup lamp is not required to meet
the minimum photometric values at each test point
specified in Table I of SAE Standard J593c,
Backup Lamps, February 1968 if the sum of the
candlepower measured at the test points within
each group listed in Figure 2 is not less than the
group totals specified in that figure.
(a) Each headlamp system, other than a
headlamp system designed to conform to
paragraph S7.5, that is designed to use such exter-
nal aiming devices shall not deviate more than 0.30
degree when a downward torque of 201b.-in. (2.25
N-m) is applied to the headlamp in its normal
operating position, through the lamp's mechanical
axis at the plane of the forwardmost aiming pad.
Each headlamp system that is designed to conform
to paragraph S7.5 and that is designed to use such
external aiming devices, and which is manufac- i
tured on or after September 1, 1990, shall comply
with this paragraph.
55.1.1.19 Each variable load turn signal flasher
shall comply with voltage drop and durability re-
quirements of SAE Standard J590b, Turn Signal
Flasher, October 1965 with the maximum design
load connected, and shall comply with starting
time, flash rate, and percent current "on" time re-
quirements of J590b both with the minimum and
with the maximum design load connected.
55.1.1.20 The lowest voltage drop for turn signal
flashers and hazard warning signal flashers
measured between the input and load terminals
shall not exceed 0.8 volt.
55.1.1.21 A motor-driven cycle whose speed at-
tainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be
equipped with turn signal lamps.
55.1.1.22 A motor-driven cycle whose speed at-
tainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less may be equipped
with a stop lamp whose effective projected
(Rev. 5/15/90)
PART 571; S 108-4
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 06313 262 3
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11