MmHv*! SaptMibar 1, 197S
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Release
(Dockst No. 2-10; NoNc* 3)
The purpose of this amendment to § 571.21 of
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is to add
a new motor vehicle safety standard that estab-
lishes minimum requirements for bus window
retention and release to reduce the likelihood of
passenger ejection in accidents and enhance pas-
senger exit in emergencies.
A notice of proposed rulemaking on this sub-
ject was published on August 15, 1970 (35 F.R.
13025). The comments received in response to
the notice have been considered in this issuance
of a final rule.
For reasons of clarification, the requirements
paragraph has been reorganized and the demon-
stration procedures paragraph has been replaced
by a test conditions paragraph. Some of the
specifications of the demonstration procedures
paragraph are incorporated under the require-
ments paragraph, and the remainder are retained
under the test conditions paragraph. With the
exception of the changes discussed below, the
reorganization does not affect the substance of
the standard.
In altering the window retention requirements,
the final rule lowers the force application limit,
provides more precise glazing breakage and
glazing yield limits, and exempts small windows.
With respect to the emergency exit requirements,
the standard permits devices other than push-out
windows to be used for emergency exits, permits
buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to
utilize devices other than emergency exits for
emergency egress, and permits an alternate roof
exit when the bus configuration precludes pro-
vision of a rear emergency exit. It also raises
the force limits for release and extension of
emergency exits, deletes the inertial load require-
ment for the release mechanism, and requires
that emergency exit location markings be lo-
cated within each occupant space adjacent to
an exit.
A few changes have been made in the diagram
accompanying the standard. Figure 1, "Adja-
cent Designated Seating Position, Occupant
Spaces, and Push-Out Window Relationship,"
has been deleted from the final rule because the
relationship is sufficiently described in the text
of the standard. Accordingly, Figures 2 and 3
have been renumbered as Figures 1 and 2, re-
spectively. A new Figure 3, indicating access
regions for emergency exits which do not have
adjacent seats, has been added. For reasons of
clarification. Figures 2a and 2b and Figures 3a
and 3b in the proposed rule have been placed
beside each other to form Figures 1 and 2 re-
spectively.
The torque in Figures 2a and 2b of the pro-
posed rule has been transferred to the text and
has been explained to indicate that the force
used to obtain the torque shall not be more than
20 pounds. In addition, the clearance specifica-
tions in Figures 1 and 2 have been clarified in
the text to require that the lower edge of the
force envelope shall be located 5 inches above
the seat, or 2 inches above the armrest, if any,
whichever is higher. In several instances, minor
changes have been made in the labeling without
altering the substance of the diagrams.
A number of comments sought changes in the
window retention requirements. Two comments
requested an exemption for intra-city buses be-
cause the probability of rollover accidents would
be minimal in slow-speed operation. Urban
transit buses are subjected to risks of rollover
accidents within the city when they travel at
moderate to high speed on intra-urban express-
ways, and should therefore be covered by the
PART 671; S 217— PRE 1
Effactivs: S«pramb*r 1, 1973
standard. Accordingly, the request for this
exemption is denied.
Several comments requested an exemption for
small windows. Since there is little likelihood
of passenger ejection or protrusion from window
openings whose minimum surface dimension
measured through the center of the area is less
than eight inches, an exemption for windows of
this size has been granted.
Two comments asked that the 2,000 pound
force application limit in the window retention
requirement be lowered. The data indicates that
a 1,200-poand limit would be more compatible
with the glazing strength. Accordingly, the
2,000-pound force application limit has been
lowered to 1,200 pounds.
Several manufacturers stated that they en-
countered difficulties in ascertaining when the
proposed head form penetration limit of the
window retention requirement had been reached.
After observation of window retention testing,
the XHTSA has concluded that the penetration
limit as specified in the notice of proposed rule-
making is difficult to determine. For this reason
the head form penetration limit has been re-
phrased in terms of the development of cracks
in the glazing and the amount of depression of
the glazing surface in relation to its original
position.
A number of comments objected to the require-
ment that at least 75% of the glazing be retained
in the window mounting during window reten-
tion testing. The NHTSA has determined that
the intent of this requirement is already accom-
plished by the requirement that each window be
retained during testing by its surrounding struc-
ture in a manner which would prevent passage
of a 4-inch sphere, and the requirement is ac-
cordingly deleted from, the final rule.
With respect to the emergency exit require-
ments, the standard permits devices other than
push-out windows to be used for emergency
exits. Upon review of the requirements, it has
been determined that devices such as panels and
doors which meet the emergency exit require-
ments would be as effective as push-out windows
for emergency egress. Because the Administra-
tion has concluded that passenger egress is en-
hanced when several emergency exits are pro-
vided, the standard requires tliat in computing
whether a bus meets the unobstructed openings
area requirements, no emergency exit, regardless
of its area, shall be credited with more than 520
square inches of the total area requirement.
A number of motor vehicle manufacturers
sought exemption from the emergency exit re-
quirements for smaller vehicles weighing 10,000
pounds or less G\^VR, such as limousines and
station wagons, which are designed to carry
more than 10 persons and are therefore consid-
ered to be buses under XHTSA regulations (49
CFR 571.3). Such vehicles are usually provided
with numerous doors and windows which pro-
vide sufficient unobstructed openings for emer-
gency exit. Therefore the Administration has
concluded that the configuration of these vehicles
satisfies the intent of the standard with respect
to provision of emergency exits, and they are
exempted from the emergency exit openings re-
quirements.
The emergency exit requirements ha\e been
changed to permit installation of an alternate
roof exit when the bus config^aration precludes
provision of a rear exit, provided that the roof
exit meets the release, extension, and identifica-
tion requirements. The XHTSA has established
this alternative in order to allow design flexi-
bility while providing for emergency egress in
rollover situations.
A number of comments expressed concern that
the proposed maximum force level for release
and extension of emergency exits in Figures 2a
and b and 3a and b were too low to inhibit in-
advertent operation by passengers and suggested
that the required maximum force level be raised.
After consideration of the goals of facilitating
emergency egress and preserving the integrity
of the passenger compartment under nonnal
operation, it has been determined that the maxi-
mum force levels should be raised from 10 and
30 pounds to 20 and 60 pounds respectively.
One comment submitted the results of testing
which indicated that the 30g inertial load re-
quirement for the release mechanism was un-
necessarily high. The testing also revealed that
the engineering concepts upon which the inertial
load requirement is based are not generally ap-
plied in the industry and that the requirement
PART 571; S 217— PRE 2
EllKtlv*: S«pl*mb*r 1, 1973
would be impracticable. Moreover, an increase
in maximum force levels for emergency exit op-
eration in the rule should improve latch integ-
rity. For these reasons, the requirement has
been deleted.
The standard requires emergency exit location
markings to be placed in certain occupant spaces
because of a possible contradiction under the
proposed standard between the requirement that
the identification markings' be located within 6
inches of the point of operation and the require-
ment that the markings be visible to a seated
occupant. The NHTSA has concluded that
emergency egress could be hindered if the pas-
senger has difficulty in finding the marking, and
that location of the marking outside of an occu-
pant space containing an adjacent seat, which
would be permitted under the proposed standard,
could create this problem. At the same time it
is desirable for the identification and instructions
to be located near the point of release. There-
fore the final rule requires that when a release
mechanism is not located within an occupant
space containing an adjacent seat, a label indi-
cating the location of the nearest release mech-
anism shall be placed within that occupant space.
The temperature condition has been reworded
to make it clear, in light of the explanation of
usage in § 571.4, that the vehicle must be capable
of meeting the performance requirements at any
temperature from 70° F. to 85° F.
Effective date: September 1, 1973. After
evaluation of the comments and other informa-
tion, it has been determined that the structural
changes required by the standard will be such
that many manufacturers will require an effec-
tive date of at least fifteen months after issuance.
It is therefore found, for good cause shown, that
an effective date more than one year from the
date of issuance is in the public interest.
In consideration of the above. Standard No.
217, Bus Window Retention and Release, is
added to § 571.21 of Title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below.
This rule is issued under the authority of
sections 103, 112, and 119 of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392,
1401, 1407, and the delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.51.
Issued on May 3, 1972.
Douglas TV. Toms
Administrator
37 F.R. 9394
Mgy 10, 1972
PART 571; S 217— PRE 3-4
I
EffKtIv*: $«ptomb«r 1, 1973
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Release
(Docket 2-10; Notic* 4)
The purpose of this notice is to respond to
petitions for reconsideration of Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Reten-
tion and Release, in § 571.217 of Title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations. The standard was is-
sued on May 10, 1972 (37 F.R. 9394).
International Harvester stated that it manu-
factures an 18-passenger airport limousine, the
"Stageway Coach Conversion", weighing 10,700
pounds GVWR and requested that it be ex-
empted from the requirements of S5.2.1, "Buses
with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds."
They emphasized that the 18-passenger model is
equipped with 10 side doors, two more than is
provided by a 15-passenger, 10,000-poimd, ver-
sion of a similar airport limousine vehicle which
they manufacture. The NHTSA has concluded
that vehicles which provide at least one door for
each three passenger seating positions afford
sufficient means of emergency egress regardless
of their weight. S5.2.1 has accordingly been
amended to provide that buses with a GVWR of
more than 10,000 pounds may alternatively meet
the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2
by providing at least one door for each three
passenger spaces in the vehicle. The "Stageway
Coach Conversion" falls into the category of
vehicles covered by this amendment and thus
International Harvester's request is granted.
International Harvester, Greneral Motors, and
Chrysler all requested a clarification of the S5.1
window retention requirements because thsy felt
it was possible to interpret the paragraph as
prohibiting the use of tempered glass for window
glazing. Ford also submitted a request for ex-
emption from the window retention requirements
for buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR based on
its interpretation of S5.1 as precluding the use
of tempered glass. The petitioners stated that
tempered glass would shatter under the applica-
tion of pressure required, and were not certain
whether S5.1(b), describing the development of
cracks in the glazing, would cover this occur-
ence. The NHTSA did not intend to prohibit
the use of tempered glass, and in order to correct
this possible ambiguity, S5.1(b) has been
amended to include shattering of the window
glazing.
Greneral Motors also requested an interpreta-
tion of the method of measuring whether 80
percent of the glazing thickness has developed
cracks as described in S5.1(b). The paragraph
refers to a measurement through the thickness
of glass and not a measurement of the glazing
surface area, as GM suggests it could mean. GM
also doubted that the percentage of glazing thick-
ness which develops cracks could be measured.
The NHTSA has determined that the intent of
the language is clear and that performance of
this measurement is within the state of the art,
so that no change in the language is necessary.
The request is therefore denied.
General Motors requested a clarification of the
term "minimum surface dimension" in paragraph
S5.1(c). The NHTSA agrees that a clarification
is necessary to prevent interpretations which may
not meet the intent of this standard, and the
paragraph has been accordingly amended to
specify that the dimension is to be measured
through the center of the area of the sheet of
glazing.
General Motors stated that it interpreted the
head form travel rate specified in S5.1.1 of two
inches per minute as a "nominal value" require-
ment, since no tolerances are given in the stand-
ard. The test conditions in a safety standard
PART 571; S 217— PRE 5
KNcMv*! S«plMnb«r 1, 1973
represent the performance levels that the product
must be capable of meeting. They are not in-
structions either to the manufacturers' or the
government's test laboratories, or a i-equirement
that the product should be tested at "exactly"
those levels. The manufacturers' testa in this
case should be designed to demonstrate that the
vehicle would meet the stated requirements if
tested at two inches per minute. If that is what
Greneral Motors means by a "nominal value", its
interpretation is correct.
In consideration of the foregoing, Motor Ve-
hicle Safety Standard No, 217, Bus Window
Retention and Release, 49 CFR 671.217, is
amended
Effective date : September 1, 1973.
This notice is issued under the authority of
sections 103, 112, and 119 of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 16 U.S.C. 1392,
1401, 1407, and the delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.61.
Issued on August 30, 1972.
Douglas W. Toms
Administrator
37 F.R. 18034
S«ptamb*r 6, 1972
I
PART 871; S 217— PRE 9
I
MmHv*! Saptombar I, If 73
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Release
(Docket No. 2-10; NoNc* 51
The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window
Retention and Release, 49 CFR § 571.217, in re-
sponse to petitions received. Several minor
amendments for purposes of clarification have
also been made. The standard was published
initially on May 10, 1972, (37 F.R. 9394), and
amended September 6, 1972 (37 F.R. 18034).
Wayne Corporation has petitioned that the
torque limit of 20 inch-pounds for the actuation
of rotary emergency exit releases in S5.3.2(a) (3)
of the standard is impractical. The Blue Bird
Body Company also objected to the requirement,
requesting that the limit be raised to 225 inch-
pounds in order to avoid inadvertent openings.
The NHTSA has decided, based on these peti-
tions, that a maximum torque requirement is
redudant, since the force magnitude generally is
limited in S5.3.2 to not more than twenty pounds.
Accordingly the torque requirement is deleted
from the rule.
Blue Bird also requested that Figure 3A,
which depicts access region for roof and side
emergency exits without adjacent seats in both
an upright and overturned bus, be made more
explicit.
In response to this request. Figure 3A is being
replaced by two figures, one of which depicts
a side emergency exit (Figure 3A), and the other
n roof emergency exit (Figure 3B). Existing
Figure 3B, depicting access regions for a rear
exit with a rear shelf or other obstruction behind
the rearmost seat, becomes Figure 3C. A new
Figure 3D is added to depict rear seat access
regions in buses not having a rear shelf or other
obstruction behind the rearmost seat, a config-
uration common to school buses. Paragraph
S5.2.1, regarding provision of emergency exits,
is amended to make it clear that a required rear
exit must meet the requirements of S5.3 through
S5.5 when the bust is overturned on either side,
with the occupant standing facing the exit, as
well as when the bus is upright.
In consideration of the above, Standard No.
217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR
571.217, is amended ....
Elective date: September 1, 1973.
(Sec. 103, 112, 119, P.L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718,
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) and the delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.
Issued on February 28, 1973.
Douglas W. Toms
Administrator
38 F.R. 6070
March 6, 1973
PART 571; S 217— PRE 7-8
i
l«hcHv«! Jwn« 3, If 74
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Release
(Docket No. 2-10; NoHco 7)
This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Reten-
tion and Release" (49 CFR § 571.217), to exempt
from the standard buses manufactured for the
purpose of transporting persons under physical
restraint. The amendment is based on a notice
of proposed rulemaking published October 1,
1973 (38 F.R. 27227), following petitions re-
ceived from the Bureau of Prisons, United States
Department of Justice.
The comments received in response to the pro-
posal agreed that buses manufactured for the
specified purpose should not be provided with
the emergency exits required by Standard No.
217. The standard specifies that buses contain
emergency exits operable by bus occupants, re-
quirements which the NHTSA considers ob-
viously incompatible with the need to transport
prison inmates. The National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) commented, however, that
compensatory measures should be taken to mini-
mize the likelihood of fire in prison buses, since
the probability of safely evacuating a prison bus
is less than that of any other type of bus. The
NTSB urged that the exemption be limited to
diesel-fueled buses, since diesel fuel is lees likely
to ignite than gasoline.
The NHTSA recognizes the desirability of
minimizing the likelihood of fire in buses. How-
ever, at the present time it is not practical to
expect that all newly manufactured prison buses
be equipped with diesel engines, given the ap-
parent immediate need for the exemption. Ap-
propriate rulemaking action can be taken in the
future if it appears necessary to mitigate from
a safety standpoint the loss of emergency exits
in prison buses.
In light of the above, paragraph S3 of section
571.217, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations
(Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217), is
amended. . . .
Effective date : June 3, 1974. This amendment
imposes no additional burdens on any person and
relieves restrictions found to be unwarranted.
Accordingly, good cause exists and is hereby
found for an effective date less than 180 days
from the day of issuance.
(Sees. 103, 112, and 119, Pub. L. 89-563; 80
Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1491, 1407; delegations
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on April 26, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 15274
May 2, 1974
PART 571; S 217— PRE 9-10
I
Effective: October 16, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Release
(Docket No. 75-6; Notice 2)
This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 217, Bv^ Window Reten-
tion and Release^ 49 CFR 571.217, to clarify the
marking requirements for emergency exits on
buses. The amendment requires certain mark-
ings on all bus emergency exits except manually-
operated windows of sufficient size and doors in
buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.
The amendment was proposed in a notice
published April 18, 1975 (40 FR 17266). Com-
ments were received from Chrysler Corporation
and General Motors. Chrysler concurred with
the proposal. GM, while also concurring, sug-
gested that the wording of the amendment be
modified somewhat. The amendment has been
reworded to reflect more clearly the intent of
this amendment, distinguishing between emer-
gency exits that require markings and those that
do not. The NHTSA has determined that special
emergency exit markings are unnecessary for
doors and manually-operated windows in buses
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. This
amendment does not exempt buses with a GVWR
of 10,000 pounds or less from complying with
the unobstructed openings requirements of S5.2.
It only provides that the openings do not have
to be marked as emergency exits. However,
specially-installed emergency exits in such buses,
such as push-out windows, are not exempted
from the marking requirements,
The amendment also allows bus manufacturers
the option of designating an emergency door as
"Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit." This
will bring Standard No. 217 into conformity
with current NHTSA interpretations of the
emergency exit marking requirements. How-
ever, any emergency exit other than a door must
have the designation "Emergency Exit."
Accordingly, S5.5.1 of 49 CFR 571.217, Bus
Window Retention and Release, is amended ....
Effective date: October 16, 1975.
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat.
718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) ; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.51).
Issued on October 8, 1975.
Gene G. Mannella
Acting Administrator
40 F.R. 48512
October 16, 1975
PART 571; S 217— PRE 11-12
I
i
Effective: October 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Release
(Docket NO. 75-3; Notice 2)
This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Reten-
tion and Release, 49 CFR 571.217, to specify
requirements for emergency doors for school
buses pursuant to the provisions of section 202
of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety
Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-492, 88
Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392). It responds to the
congressional mandate to establish standards
concerning school bus emergency exits (15 U.S.C.
§1392(i) (1) (A) (i)).
Section 202 requires that certain school bus
safety standards be published within 15 months
of the passage of the 1974 amendments on
October 27, 1974. In addition, these statutory
provisions remove the otherwise discretionary
authority of the NHTSA to establish lead times
for compliance under the general rulemaking
provisions of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act by specifying an effective
date for the amendment of 9 months from the
date of publication of this notice (15 U.S.C.
§ 1392(i) (1) (B)). The proposed amendments
upon which this notice is based were published
on February 28, 1975 (40 F.R. 8569).
Many comments were received in response to
the proposal to require either one rear emergency
door or two side emergency doors in the rear
half of the bus passenger compartment. Many
objected that the proposal provided for too few
emergency doors, and requested requirements for
additional side doors and roof exits. Some com-
menters suggested that push-out windows and
the "California" rear exit be required. The
agency does not discourage the inclusion of ad-
ditional emergency exits in school buses so long
as they comply with the requirements applicable
to non-school bus emergency exits. The NHTSA
believes that "California" rear window emer-
gency exits may be preferable in certain circum-
stances and proposes in this issue of the Federal
Register to amend this rule to permit the use of
the "California" rear window along with a side
door emergency exit in place of the rear door
emergency exit. In the alternative, it is pro-
posed to allow this option only on rear-engine-
powered school buses. Under either proposal
the requirements of the standard would not be
met by providing two sidedoor emergency exits.
In addition, the subject of roof exits is being
considered and could be the subject of future
rulemaking. However, roof exit requirements
cannot be included in this rulemaking action
because of the statutorily imposed deadline on
promulgation of these amendments.
A number of comments were received opposing
the proposed interlock requirement on the ground
that it would prevent restarting the engine after
the school bus stalls in a dangerous intersection
or a railroad crossing and panicky passengers
jam the release mechinism. The intent of this
requirement is to prevent the initial starting of
the bus engine until the doors have been un-
locked, by a key, combination, or the operation
of a remote switch at the beginning of the day.
The deletion of the phrase "or otherwise inoper-
able" excludes inadvertent jamming of the door
release mechanism from the requirement. The
word "locked" has been defined for this purpose
as not releasable at the door except by a key or
combination. It would include doors openable
by a remote switch.
PART 571; S 217— PRE 13
EffacMv*: Octebar 26, 1976
Six comments supported the proposal to re-
qiure an audible alarm when the ignition is on
and the release mechanism of any emergency
door is not closed. Five of these, however, ob-
jected that an alarm at each door in addition to
one in the driver's compartment would be un-
necessary and unduly costly. The NHTSA does
not agree. The purpose of audible alarms at
each door is to indicate which release mechanism
is not closed. This is especially critical while
the vehicle is in motion, as it will serve to warn
the passengers in the area of the possibility that
an emergency door could open. In addition, it
will serve as a deterrent to tampering by children
with the emergency door release mechanisms.
Therefore, the requirement that an audible alarm
be positioned at each emergency door and at the
driver's position has been retained.
Objectives were received to the requirement
that the magnitude of force required to activate
the emergency door release mechanism be not
more than 40 pounds. The NHTSA does not
consider that the 40 pound force limit is too
high in light of the location and access require-
ments of this standard. If the maximum force
level were substantially lowered, there would be
a significant likelihood that emergency door re-
lease mechanisms would be inadvertently acti-
vated by a passenger.
In addition, the NHTSA has noted the possi-
bility of ambiguity with respect to the wording
of paragraph S5.4 of the old standard and
85.4.2 of the proposal. The intent of these para-
graphs is to specify conditions applicable to the
opening of the exit after the release mechanism
has been activated. Accordingly, the wording
of the two paragraphs has been modified to
clearly reflect this intent.
Many school districts and manufacturers ob-
jected to the parallelepiped clearance require-
ment for the emergency doors because of the
number of seats that would be eliminated and
the costs of redesigning van-type school buses to
meet the clearance requirements. In addition,
many commenters pointed out that the 12-inch
aisle in most school buses precludes effective use
of a large exit meeting the proposed require-
ments.
The NHTSA has determined that these argu-
ments have merit. As a result, the proposed
paralellepiped requirements have been modified
by reducing the height from 48 inches to 45
inches, reducing the depth from 24 to 12 inches
for rear exits in buses over 10,000 lbs GVWK,
and to 6 inches for rear exits in buses under
10,000 lbs GVWR. For side exits the depth has
been eliminated altogether. Additionally, the
forward edge of the side door now coincides
with a vertical transverse plane tangent to the
rearmost point of the adjacent seat, thus permit-
ting simultaneous exiting of two occupants, be-
tween the seat backs and over the seat cushion.
In light of the above, 49 CFR § 571.217, Bus
Window Retention and Release^ is amended ....
Effective date: October 26, 1976.
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat.
718; Sec. 202, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484 (15
U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) ; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on January 22, 1976.
Howard J. Dugoff
Acting Administrator
41 F.R. 3871
January 27, 1976
PART 571; S 217— PRE 14
Effectiva: October 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Release
(Docket No. 75-3; Notice 4)
This notice amends Standard No. 217, Bus
Window Retention and Release, to modify the
emergency exit requirements of the standard in
response to a petition for reconsideration of re-
cent amendments and after consideration of
comments on the agency's proposal to specify
new performance options and labeling for emer-
gency exits.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF NOTICE 2
The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration (NHTSA) recently amended Standard
No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) to provide emergency
exit requirements for school buses (41 FR 3871,
January 27, 1976 (Notice 2)). Section S5.2.3.1
of the standard (as it becomes effective for school
buses on October 26, 1976) specifies that a rear
emergency door shall be hinged on the right side.
Chrysler Corporation has petitioned for recon-
sideration of this provision, asking that a manu-
facturer option be provided so that the rear
emergency door or doors on van-type school buses
may be hinged on the right or left.
The purpose of specifying that the rear emer-
gency door hinge to the right is based on the
NHTSA finding that school buses often operate
on rural highways that are bordered by drainage
ditches, and that a school bus that leaves the
highway and rolls over is likely to come to rest
in the right-hand ditch on its right side. When
a bus comes to a rest on its side, the emergency
door on the rear of the bus is easier to operate,
particularly by small children, if it is hinged so
that its operation is assisted by gravity.
Chrysler pointed out that the rear emergency
door on van-type school buses is often used rou-
tinely for loading and unloading passengers.
For this reason, Chrysler offers a single rear
door that hinges at the left side, so that the door
swings out of the way to safely accommodate
curb-side loading. In the case of larger buses,
routine loading and unloading does not occur
through the rear emergency door.
The NHTSA agrees with Chrysler that the
common practice of curb-side loading through
the rear door of van-type school buses justifies a
manufacturer option in selecting the side of the
door which should be hinged. On balance, the
agency considers that the increase in safety for
routine curb-side loading through a left-hinged
door would outweight any potential loss of safety
benefit for emergency evacuation from a van-type
bus that comes to rest on its right side. Accord-
ingly, S5.2.3.1 of the standard is appropriately
amended. The agency also takes the opportunity
to correct an inadvertent reference to emergency
"exit" in S5. 2.3.2 when the requirements are
actually intended to apply only to an emergency
"door."
In a matter unrelated to the Chrysler petition,
some uncertainty has arisen over the form of
S5.4 as it was revised in Notice 2 to become effec-
tive October 26, 1976. Also, the division between
buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and
those with a greater GVWR was imperfectly
stated in amending S5.4. For this reason, the
amendment of S5.4 is republished in the correct
form in this notice. No substantive changes are
made in this republication of S5.4.
EMERGENCY EXIT AND LABELING
PROPOSAI^NOTICE 3
At the time the amendments just discussed
were published, the NHTSA published a pro-
posal to clarify certain emergency exit labeling
for all buses, and to replace the established op-
tion for school bus emergency exits with a new
PART 571; S 217— PRE 15
Effective: Ocrober 26, 1976
option (41 FR 3878, January 27, 1976; Notice
3). Comments were received from the Lanai
Road Elementary School Parent -Teachers Asso-
ciation, Gillig Brothers (Gillig), Chrysler Cor-
poration. Mr. Allen Braslow. Crown Coach
Corporation (Crown), and International Har-
vester (IH). No connnent was received from
manufactui-ers of transit or intercity buses, or
from the manufacturers of body-on-chassis school
buses. The National Motor Vehicle Safety
Council did not comment on this proposal.
With regard to emergency exit labeling, Mr.
Braslow suggested two labeling changes intended
to assist bus occupants, as well as a requirement
for regular testing of emergency exits in buses
in highway service. ^\liile the latter suggestion
lies beyond the authority of the agency under
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act (1.5 U.S.C. §1391, et seq.), the agency will
consider for future action the suggestion to label
all bus exits in the same manner as school bus
exits, as well as the suggestion to develop a uni-
versal emergency exit insignia with diagramatic
instructions. For the moment, the agency is
limited by the extent of its proposal, and accord-
ingly, makes final the changes as proposed.
Standard No. 217 requires (effective October
26, 1976) school buses to provide either a rear
emergency door or two side emergency doors in
satisfaction of the emergency exit requirements.
In Notice 3, the agency proposed to modify this
option to require either provision of a rear emer-
gency door or, at the option of the manufacturer,
provision of a left-side emergency door and a
"California rear window'' exit at the rear of the
bus. This type of rear window exit provides a
large (16 by 48 inch) opening which is more
easily utilized than a side emergency door if a
bus has rolled onto its side. In the alternative,
the agency proposed that the option to use a
rear window exit only be allowed in rear-engine
buses.
The two manufacturers of transit-type school
buses supported the new option, but objected to
the alternative jiroposal that would limit use of
the option to rear-engine buses. Both Gillig and
Ci'own build mid-engine school buses with essen-
tially the same configuration as rear-engine buses
and considei' the lear window exit e(jually useful
in tliese buses. Tiie agency has considered the
mid-engine design and agrees with the argument
made by Crown and Gillig. Accordingly, the
agency amends the standard as proposed to apply
the option to all school buses. Crown Coach
pointed out that the NHTSA proposal to limit
rear-window-exit release mechanisms to a single
release would necessitate a change in existing
hardware. The NHTSA has investigated the
available hardware (consisting in all cases of two
release mechanisms that are located within 36
inches of each other) and concludes that the only
significant safety hazard in some of the designs
is that some require simultaneous operation for
release. For this reason, the agency will allow
not more than two release mechanisms, provided
that the two mechanisms do not have to operate
sinudtaneously to effect release. If new designs
present a problem of any nature, further rule-
making will be undertaken.
In accordance with recently enunciated De-
partment of Transportation policy encouraging
adequate analysis of the consequences of regula-
tory action (41 FR 16201, April 16, 1976), the
agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of the
economic and other consequences of this proposal
on the public and private sectors, including pos-
sible loss of safety benefits. The option to hinge
some rear emergency doors on the right or left,
and the option to use a "California rear window"
do not involve additional expenditures. The
agency estimates that these additional exit ar-
rangements will not significantly reduce the level
of safety provided in the affected bus categories.
The new requirements for more specific operating
instructions for school bus emergency exits are
calculated to involve annual costs of about
$67,000. Although the agency is unable to quan-
tify tlie benefit of clearer exit labeling, it is esti-
mated that better instructions will serve to reduce
the possibility of death and injury involved in
an attempt to use the emergency exits. There-
fore, the agency concludes that the amentlments
should issue as set fortli in this notice.
For the benefit of interested persons, it is noted
that Docket 7.5-6 concerning labeling of bus
emergency exits is related to this rulemaking.
In consideration of the foregoing, Standard
No. 217 (49 (^FR .571.217) as it is amended to
become efFective for school buses on October 26,
1976, is revised. . . .
PART 571; S 217— PRE 16
^
Effective: October 26, 1976
Effective date; October 2Q,W7Q. The eflfective (Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
date of the amendments numbered 1, 2, 3 and 5 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 202, Pub. L. 93-492,
is established as 9 months after the date of issu- 88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392) ; delegation of
ance of the amendments on which they are based, authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
as required by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus -, , a/t op; iq7r
Safety Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-492, Issued on May 25, 197b.
section 202 (15 U.S.C. 1397(i) (1) (A) ). The j^^^^ ^
effective date of the amendment numbered 4 is Arl ' ' t f ■
also established as October 26, 1976, although a
manufacturer can meet the requirements at an 41 F.R. 22356
earlier date if the manufacturer so chooses. June 3, 1976
I
»
PART 571; S 217— PRE 17-18
i
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Reiease
(Docket No. 75-03; Notice 7)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMIMARY: This notice makes permanent an
interim final rule that modified the agency's
school bus emergency exit standard. The interim
final rule, which was issued in February 1979, was
implemented immediately to increase the
availability of passenger vans for use as small
school buses at reasonable costs. The interim rule
slightly altered several emergency exit
requirements in a manner that made it easier to
mass produce small buses without significantly
affecting the level of safety achieved by those
vehicles. Concurrent with the issuance of the
interim final rule, the agency solicited comments
on the amendments to the standard. This notice
responds to the comments and makes the interim
rule permanent.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Since this notice makes
permanent an existing interim final rule, it is
effective immediately.
SUPPLEIVIENTARY INFORMATION: On February
8, 1979, the agency published an interim final rule
and a proposal (44 F.R. 7961) to modify the school
bus emergency exit safety standard, Standard
No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In
that notice, the agency made effective immediately
some modifications to the school bus emergency
exit standard to increase the supply of reasonably
priced vehicles suitable for school bus conversion.
Among the changes implemented by the interim
final rule were a slight decrease in the size of rear
emergency exits for vehicles (typically passenger
vans) with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR)
less than 10,000 pounds, and increased flexibility
in the location requirements for release
mechanisms on the emergency exits of small school
buses. The agency concluded at the time the
interim rule was issued that the level of safety
achieved by small buses would not be diminished
by these changes and that the changes would
allow more small buses to be mass produced,
thereby lowering their prices. The agency also
asked in the interim final rule for comments on
the advisability of these changes.
In response to the agency's request. Ford,
Chrysler, the Center for Auto Safety, and the
California Highway Patrol (CHP) submitted
comments. The two manufacturers, Ford and
Chrysler, both supported the agency's action. The
Center and the CHP both opposed the action.
The Center and the CHP both argued that the
rear emergency exit in small school buses
(passenger vans which have GVWR's less than
10,000 pounds and are used as school buses)
should not be reduced in size. The Center stated
that the exit should be broad enough for two
students to exit simultaneously in case of an
emergency. The CHP stressed that reducing the
size of the exit would make it too small to permit
the exiting of children in wheelchairs.
With respect to the argument that the size of
the rear exit should allow room to exit students
two abreast, the agency stated in the proposal
that this argument, while valid for larger school
buses, is not meritorious for school vehicles with
GVWR's less than 10,000 pounds. Larger school
buses frequently transport 60 or more school
children. Accordingly, rapid evacuation of those
vehicles in an emergency requires that the
students be able to exit two abreast. In order to
accomplish this, the agency has required that
some space be provided behind the rearmost seat
in these buses so that students exiting through
the narrow center aisles will have room at the
exits to get out two abreast.
PART 571; S217- PRE 19
In small school buses where the number of
students carried frequently is 16 or less, the need
for exiting two abreast to achieve rapid evacuation
is significantly reduced. In recognition of this
factor, the agency has never required bus
manufacturers to provide space behind the rear
seat of small buses that would allow students to
exit two abreast. As a result, the rear seats of
small buses are frequently quite near or are against
the rear bus wall. Students exiting down a bus
aisle, which is normally around 12 inches in width,
reach an exit where no space is provided to exit
two abreast. Accordingly, any requirement that
an exit in small buses be large enough to facilitate
exiting two abreast would not accomplish that
goal. Small bus manufacturers would need to
redesign their bus seat plans in some fashion to
provide space behind the rear seat in order to
allow exiting two abreast. Such a redesign would
significantly decrease the available seating in
small buses. Given the fact that evacuating small
buses has not been a safety problem, the agency
concludes that the cost resulting from the
reduced vehicle seating that would be required to
accomplish the Center's objectives would far
outweigh the benefits. Accordingly, the agency
concludes that a broader rear exit is not needed
in small school buses.
The CHP objected to the same requirement
stating that the new exit door would be too
narrow for wheelchairs. The CHP further stated
that California has always required wider exits so
that wheelchairs can be used in the vehicles.
The agency's new exit requirement is a minimum
size requirement for standard school buses. In
special instances in which larger exits are desired,
such as in buses for carrying the handicapped, the
States may require that their buses have such exits.
The agency deems that approach to be preferable
to its requiring larger exits in all vehicles. The
situation with respect to rear door size is
analogous to that involving seat back height. The
agency requires a minimum seat back height.
New York mandates a seat back height greater
than the Federal specification. The NHTSA has
no objection to the New York requirement and
will not object to requirements by other States
for wider rear emergency exits. The agency also
notes that buses designed for the handicapped
constitute a small portion of all buses and usually
are equipped with special doors and larger aisles.
The Center also objected to the agency's
interpretation that the parallelipiped device used
for measuring rear door size could be lifted up to
1-inch to overcome small protrusions near the
floor. The agency issued an interpretation
permitting this at the time of the implementation
of the standard. This interpretation simply
reflects real-world conditions. Many doors in
vehicles have small door sills or other minor
protrusions that sometimes serve necessary
functions in the proper operation of the door.
These minor protrusions play no significant role
in the ability of students to exit from a vehicle in
an emergency. Therefore, the agency will not
reconsider its interpretation.
The Center objected to the agency's removal of
exit release mechanism location and force
application requirements for small school buses.
The Center agreed that the existing requirements
are more appropriate for larger buses, but it
insisted that the agency should develop another
set of location requirements for smaller buses
instead of abandoning the requirements entirely.
The agency is sympathetic to the Center's
concerns about this issue. The location of the
release mechanism for small school buses in an
easily accessible location is important for the
rapid evacuation of these vehicles in an emergency.
However, the mere setting of location requirements
would not ensure that the release mechanisms
would be accessible. Due to the limited space in
the rear of small buses and the variability of
design in those areas, the agency could not readily
specify a location which would provide the
necessary accessibility. The agency believes that
allowing manufacturers the option of locating the
release mechanism in any easily accessible
location on or near the exit will be more beneficial
to achieving the intended safety results than any
rigid inflexible location requirement. NHTSA
anticipates that product liability concerns and the
agency's authority to declare inaccessible release
mechanisms to be safety-related defects will
suffice to induce the manufacturers to select
accessible locations. The agency will closely
monitor the location and accessibility of the
release mechanisms and, if necessary, use both its
defects and rulemaking authority to take
corrective action.
Finally, the Center objected to the fact that the
agency permitted pull-type release mechanisms.
PART 571: S217-PRE 20
The Center stated that release mechanism
standardization is helpful in assuring the safe
evacuation of vehicles.
While the agency agrees that standardization
has value in this instance, there are competing
ways for achieving standardization in the case of
small school buses. One way is to require that
small school buses have releases that operate with
an upward motion as in larger school buses.
Another way is to permit small school buses
(which, as noted before, are passenger vans) to
have the same pull-type releases that are found in
other vans and some cars. The agency doesn't
believe that either basis for standardization is
clearly superior from a safety standpoint to the
other. Further, permitting the use of the pull-
type releases will enable the manufacturers to
achieve cost savings. Accordingly, the agency
declines to adopt the Center's recommendation.
Since this notice makes permanent an existing
amendment, it is effective immediately. The
agency has reviewed the amendment in
accordance with E.O. 12291 and concludes that
the rule is not significant under the Department
of Transportation's regulatory procedures. In
fact, by permitting these changes, more buses can
be mass produced, which may result in a small
decrease in the cost of complying with the
standard. Since the economic impact of this rule is
minimal, a regulatory evaluation is not required
for this amendment.
The agency has also considered the effect of this
rule in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and certifies that it would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The only economic impact might be a
reduction in bus prices. There would similarly be
no significant impact on a substantial number of
small government jurisdictions and small
organizations.
Finally the agency has analyzed this rule for
purposes of the National Environmental Policy
Act and has determined that it would have no
significant impact on the human environment.
Issued on February 10, 1982.
Diane K. Steed
Acting Administrator
47 F.R. 7255
February 18, 1982
PART 571; S217-PRE 21-22
i
<i
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217
Bus Window Retention and Reiease
51. Scope. This standard establishes require-
ments for the retention of windows other than
windshields in buses, and establishes operating
forces, opening dimensions, and markings for
push-out bus windows and other emergency exits.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to minimize the likelihood of occupants being
thrown from the bus and to provide a means of
readily accessible emergency egress.
53. Application. This standard applies to
buses, except buses manufactured for the purpose
of transporting persons under physical restraint.
54. Definitions.
"Push-out window" means a vehicle window
designed to open outward to provide for emer-
gency egress.
"Adjacent seat" means a designated seating
position located so that some portion of its occu-
pant space is not more than 10 inches from an
emergency exit, for a distance of at least 15
inches measured horizontally and parallel to the
exit.
"Occupant space" means the space directly
above the seat and footwell, bounded vertically
by the ceiling and horizontally by the normally
positioned seat back and the nearest obstruction
of occupant motion in the direction the seat
faces.
55. Requirements.
S5.1 Window Retention. Except as provided
in S5.1.2, each piece of window glazing and each
surrounding window frame, when tested in ac-
cordance with the procedure in S5.1.1 under the
conditions of S6.1 through S6.3, shall be re-
tained by its surrounding structure in a manner
that prevents the formation of any opening large
enough to admit the passage of a 4-inch diameter
sphere under a force, including the weight of
the sphere, of 5 pounds until any one of the
following events occurs:
(a) A force of 1200 pounds is reached.
(b) At least 80% of the glazing thickness has
developed cracks running from the load contact
region to the periphery at two or more points, or
shattering of the glazing occurs.
(c) The inner surface of the glazing at the
center of force application has moved relative to
the window frame, along a line perpendicular to
the undisturbed inner surface, a distance equal
to one-half of the square root of the minimum
surface dimension measured through the center
of the area of the entire sheet of window glazing.
55.1.1 An increasing force shall be applied
to the window glazing through the head form
specified in Figure 4, outward and perpendicular
to the undisturbed inside surface at the center
of the area of each sheet of window glazing, with
a head form travel of 2 inches per minute.
55.1.2 The requirements of this standard do
not apply to a window whose minimum surface
dimension measured through the center of its
area is less than 8 inches.
S5.2 Provision of Emergency Exits. Buses
other than school buses shall provide unob-
structed openings for emergency exit which col-
lectively amount, in total square inches, to at
least 67 times the number of designated seating
positions on the bus. At least 40 percent of the
total required area of unobstructed openings,
computed in the above manner, shall be provided
on each side of a bus. However, in determining
the total unobstructed openings provided by a
bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area,
shall be credited with more than 536 square
inches of the total area requirement. School
PART 571; S 217-1
buses shall provide openings for emergency exits
that conform to S5.2.3.
55.2.1 Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000
pounds. Except as provided in S5.2.1.1, buses
with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds shall
meet the unobstructed openings requirements by
providing side exits and at least one rear exit that
conforms to S5.3 through S5.5. The rear exit shall
meet the requirements when the bus is upright and
when the bus is overturned on either side, with the
occupant standing facing the exit. When the bus
configuration precludes installation of an accessi-
ble rear exit, a roof exit that meets the re-
quirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is
overturned on either side, with the occupant stand-
ing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear
half of the bus.
S5.2.1 .1 A bus with GVWR of more than 10,000
pounds may satisfy the unobstructed openings
requirement by providing at least one side door
for each three passenger seating positions in the
vehicle.
55.2.2 Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less. Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less
may meet the unobstructed openings requirement
by providing:
(a) Devices that meet the requirements of S5.3
through S5.5 without using remote controls or cen-
tral power systems;
(b) Windows that can be opened manually to a
position that provides an opening large enough to
admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis
horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by
rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a
major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13
inches; or
(c) Doors.
55.2.3 School buses.
S5.2.3.1 Each school bus shall comply with
either one of the following minimum emergency
exit provisions, chosen at the option of the
manufacturer:
(a) One rear emergency door that opens out-
ward and is hinged on the right side (either side in
the case of a bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less); or
(b) One emergency door on the vehicle's left side
that is in the rear half of the bus passenger com-
partment and is hinged on its forward side, and a
push-out rear window that provides a minimum
opening clearance 16 inches high and 48 inches
wide. This window shall be releasable by operation
of not more than two mechanisms which are
located in the high force access region as shown in
Figure 3C, and which do not have to be operated
simultaneously. Release and opening of the win-
dow shall require force applications, not to exceed
40 pounds, in the directions specified in S5.3.2.
S5.2.3.2 The engine starting system of a school
bus shall not operate if any emergency door is
locked from either inside or outside the bus. For
purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that
the release mechanism cannot be activated by a
person at the door without a special device such as
a key or special information such as a combination.
S5.3 Emergency exit release.
55.3.1 Each push-out window or other
emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall be
releasable by operating one or two mechanisms
located within the regions specified in Figure 1,
Figure 2, or Figure 3. The lower edge of the region
in Figure 1, and Region B in Figure 2, shall be
located 5 inches above the adjacent seat, or 2
inches above the armrest, if any, whichever is
higher.
55.3.2 When tested under the conditions of S6,
both before and after the window retention test re-
quired by S5.1, each emergency exit not required
by S5.2.3 shall allow manual release of the exit by a
single occupant using force applications each of
which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer,
either to (a) or (b). The release mechanism or
mechanisms shall require for release one or two
force applications, at least one of which differs by
90 to 180° from the direction of the initial push-out
motion of the emergency exit (outward and
perpendicular to the exit surface).
(a) Low-force application.
Location: As shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3.
Type of Motion: Rotary or straight.
Magnitude: Nor more than 20 pounds.
PART 571; S 217-2
(b) High force application.
Location: As shown in Figure 2 or Figure 3.
Type of Motion: Straight, perpendicular to the
undisturbed exit surface.
Magnitude: Not more than 60 pounds.
S5.3.3 When tested under the conditions of S6.,
both before and after the window retention test re-
quired by S5.1, each school bus emergency door
shall allow manual release of the door by a single
person, from both inside and outside the bus
passenger compartment, using a force application
that conforms to paragraphs (a) through (c) [ex-
cept a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less does not have to conform to paragraph (a). (47
F.R. 7255-February 18, 1982. Effective:
February 18, 1982).] Each release mechanism shall
operate without the use of remote controls or tools,
and notwithstanding any failure of the vehicle's
power system. When the release mechanism is not
in the closed position and the vehicle ignition is in
the "on" position, a continuous warning sound
shall be audible at the driver's seating position and
in the vicinity of the emergency door having the
unclosed mechanism.
(a) Location: Within the high force access region
shown in Figure 3A for a side emergency door, and
in Figure 3D for a rear emergency door.
(b) Type of motion: Upward from inside the bus;
at the discretion of the manufacturer from outside
the bus. (Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less shall provide interior release mechanisms that
operate by either an upward or pull-type motion.
The pull-type motion shall be used only when the
release mechanism is recessed in such a manner
that the handle, lever, or other activating device
does not protrude beyond the rim of the recessed
receptacle. (47 F.R. 7255-February 18, 1982. Ef-
fective: February 18, 1982)1
(c) Magnitude of force: Not more than 40
pounds.
The present S5.4 is renumbered S5.4.1, and the
phrase "Each push-out window or other emer-
gency exit shall, after the release mechanism has
been operated," is replaced by the phrase "After
the release mechanism has been operated, each
push-out window or other emergency exit not re-
quired by S5.2.3," at the beginning of the
paragraph.
S5.4 Emergency exit extension.
S5.4.1 After the release mechanism has been
operated, each push-out window or other emer-
gency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall, under the
conditions of S6, before and after the window
retention test required by S5.1, using the reach
distances and corresponding force levels specified
in S5.3.2, be manually extendable by a single occu-
pant to a position that provides an opening large
enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a
major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid
generated by rotating about its minor axis an
ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor
axis of 13 inches.
S5.4.2 School bus emergency exit extension.
S5.4.2.1 School bus with a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds. After the release mechanism has
been operated, the emergency door of a school bus
with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds shall,
under the conditions of S6, before and after the
window retention test required by S5.1, using the
force levels specified in S5.3.3, be manually
extendable by a single person to a position that
permits—
(a) In the case of rear emergency door, an open-
ing large enough to permit unobstructed passage
of a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24
inches wide, and 12 inches deep, keeping the
45-inch dimension vertical, the 24-inch dimension
parallel to the opening, and the lower surface in
contact with the floor of the bus at all times; and
(b) In the case of a side emergency door, an
opening at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide.
A vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-
most point of a seat back shall pass through the
forward edge of a side emergency door.
S5.4.2.1 School Buses Less Than 10,000 Pounds
or Less. A school bus with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less shall conform to all the provisions of
S5.4.2 except that the parallelepiped dimension for
the opening of the rear emergency door or doors
shall be 45 inches high, 22 inches wide, and 6 inches
deep.
S5.5 Emergency exit identification.
S5.5.1 In buses other than school buses, except
for windows serving as emergency exits in accord-
ance with S5.2.2(b) and doors in buses with a
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, each emergency
door shall have the designation "Emergency
Door" or "Emergency Exit" and each push-out
window or other emergency exit shall have the
designation "Emergency Exit" followed by con-
cise operating instructions describing each motion
necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located
within 6 inches of the release mechanism.
(Rev. 2/18/82)
PART 571; S 217-3
POINT OF
DIMENSION
W«^ 2 INCHES' - / . '■■/.\
1 '// ..' ■■ / / . . '/A
5 INCHES I
ADJACENT SEAT
71 INCHES
FLOOH BENEATH EMERGENCV EXIT
VIEW PARALLEL TO SEAT BACK
■CLEARANCE AREA AROUND
SEAT BACK. ARM RESTS.
AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS
FLOOR BENEATH EMERGENCY EXIT
VIEW PERPENDICULAR TO SEAT BACK
ACCESS REGION IS THE SPATIAL VOLUME CREATED
BY THE INTERSECTION OF THE PROJECTIONS OF THE
AREAS SHOWN IN THE TWO VIEWS
FIGURE 1 LOW-FORCE ACCESS REGION FOR EMERGENCY EXITS HAVING ADJACENT SEATS
POINT OF
DIMENSION
2 INCHES
s I
ADJACENT SEAT
Y''l HEGION A
|-» 23 INCHES fc-j
\2INCHES' ^^X^^'^.N
lSMj
^
,^
POSSIBLE
ARM REST
T
ADJACENT SEAT
FLOOR BENEATH EMERGENCY EXIT
VIEW PARALLEL TO SEAT BACK
FLOOR BENEATH EMERGENCY EXIT
VIEW PERPENDICULAR TO SEAT BACK
■CLEARANCE AREA AROUND
SEAT BACK ARM RESTS
AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS
FIGURE 2 HIGH FORCE ACCESS REGIONS FOR EMERGENCY EXITS HAVING ADJACENT SEATS
PART 571; S 217-4
^ LOW AND HIGH-FORCE ACCESS REGIONS FOR EMERGENCY EXITS WITHOUT
ADJACENT SEATS
NSIOE CEILIMC
INSIDE WALL
i±ll
INSIDE fLOOR-
3A. SIDE EMERGENCY EXIT
INSIDE WALI.
ACCESS REGION
FOR HIGH f ORCES
INSIDE CEILING
3B. ROOF EMERGENCY EXIT
PART 571; S 217-5
INSIDE WALL
23 IMCH RAOItit
ACCCGt MCOIOM
FOR LOM PORCCS
ACCESS
■ CGIOM
f Oft HIGH 62 INCHES
FORCES
INSIDE FLOOR OF UPRIGHT BUS
•TYPICAL CLEARANCE AROL>N0 OASTRUCTIONS
3C. REAR EMERGENCY EXIT WITH REAR OBSTRUCTION
ACCESS REGION
FOR LOW FORCES
ACCESS REGION
FOR HIGH FORCES
INSIDE FLOOR
INSIDE WALL
3D. REAR EMERGENCY EXIT WITHOUT REAR OBSTRUCTION
PART 571; S 217-6
'-^
1/
V~ "/^ fORCE ' ~ ~^
\
ISO" 0» SYNTHETIC UNOEBLAV
no! 15 tm TENSILE STUENCTH
So! lOK ELONGATION
NAPA COAT SKIN WET CHAMOIS OH
OaO* 003 SYNTHETIC SKIN
1000' SO Bf TENSILE STRENGTH
loo! S% ELONGATION
FIGURE 4 HEAD FORM
Examples: (1) Lift to Unlatch
Push to Open
(2) Lift Handle and
Push out to Open
When a release mechanism is not located within
an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label
meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates
the location of the nearest release mechanism
shall be placed within the occupant space.
Example: Emergency exit instructions located
next to seat ahead.
S5.5.2 In buses other than school buses, ex-
cept as provided in S5.5.2.1, each marking shall
be legible, when the only source of light is the
normal night-time illumination of the bus in-
terior, to occupants having corrected visual
acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) seated in the
adjacent seat, seated in the seat directly ad-
joining the adjacent seat, and standing in the
aisle location that is closest to that adjacent seat.
The marking shall be legible from each of these
locations when the other two corresponding lo-
cations are occupied.
S5.5.2.1 If the exit has no adjacent seat, the
marking must meet the legibility requirements
of S5.5.2 for occupants standing in the aisle
location nearest to the emergency exit, except
for a roof exit, which must meet the legibility
requirements for occupants positioned with their
backs against the floor opposite the roof exit.
S5.5.3 School Bus. Each school bus emer-
gency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1
shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or
"Emergency Exit," as appropriate, in letters at
least 2 inches high, of a color that contrasts with
its background, located at the top of or directly
above the emergency exit on both the inside and
outside surfaces of the bus. Concise operating
instructions describing the motions necessary to
unlatch and open the emergency exit, in letters
at least three-eights of an inch high, of a color
that contrasts with its background, shall be lo-
cated within 6 inches of the release mechanism
on the inside surface of the bus.
Example: (1) Lift to Unlatch
Push to Open
(2) Lift Handle
Push Out to Open.
S6. Test conditions.
56.1 The vehicle is on a flat, horizontal sur-
face.
56.2 The inside of the vehicle and the outside
environment are kept at any temperature from
70° to 85° Fahrenheit for 4 hours immediately
preceding the tests, and during the tests.
56.3 For the window retention test, windows
are installed, closed, and latched (where latches
are provided) in the condition intended for
normal bus operation.
56.4 For the emergency exit release and ex-
tension tests, windows are installed as in S6.3,
seats, armrests, and interior objects near the
windows are installed as for normal use, and
seats are in the upright position.
37 F.R. 9394
May 10, 1972
PART 571; S 217-7-8
Effacliva: March I, 1974
PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 218
Motorcycle Helmets
(Docket No. 72-6; Notice 2)
The purpose of this amendment to Part 571
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is to
add a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
218, Motorcycle Helmets, 49 CFR § 571.218, that
establishes minimum performance requirements
for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by
motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.
A notice of proposed rulemaking on this sub-
ject was published on May 19, 1972 (37 F.R.
10097). The comments received in response to'
the notice have been carefully considered in this
issuance of a final rule.
In the previous notice, the NHTSA proposed
that, effective September 1, 1974, the perform-
ance levels for the impact attenuation require-
ments be upgraded to that of the Head Injury
Criterion (HIC) required by Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 208. A number of com-
ments on this subject sought to defer a final
determination until further research and addi-
tional tests could be conducted. The agency has
carefully reviewed the issues raised by these
comments and has determined that technical data
presently being generated on this matter by
several investigations should be considered in up-
grading the impact attenuation requirements.
Accordingly, a decision on the upgrading will
be deferred until after this research has been
completed and the results evaluated, and after
any appropriate data have been reviewed.
Comments to the docket on the initial impact
attenuation requirement ranged from abolishing
the time duration criteria of 2.0 milliseconds and
4.0 milliseconds at the 200g and 150g levels, re-
spectively, to increasing these criteria to 2.8
milliseconds at the 200g level and 5.6 milliseconds
at the 150g level. One approach taken in regard
to this requirement contends that the available
test data are insufficient for quantifying time
limits for the relatively short duration accelera-
tions which are involved in helmet testing. Sev-
eral comments questioned the validity of the
proposed time duration limits, since these limits
were based on the optional swing-away (as op-
posed to fixed anvil) test of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard
Z90. 1-1966, which was omitted from the most
recent issues of the Z90.1 Standard (1971 and
1973) and was not contained in the proposed
motorcycle helmet standard. An additional com-
ment points out that helmets designed to meet
higher energy impacts than the initial impact
attenuation requirement occasionally have diffi-
culty meeting a 2.0 millisecond requirement at
the 200g level.
A review of available biomechanical data indi-
cates that the head impact exposure allowed by
the 2.0 and 4.0 millisecond limits at the 200g
and 150g levels, respectively, is greater than that
allowed by other measures of head injury po-
tential. It is the agency's view, moreover, that
the best evidence indicates that an increase in
the time duration criteria would permit a sub-
stantial reduction in the protection provided to
the helmet wearer. Since the comments to the
docket did not provide any new data or suf-
ficiently compelling arguments which would
justify relaxing the proposed limits for tolerable
liead impact exposure, the 2.0 and 4.0 millisecond
criteria are retained as part of the initial im-
pact attenuation criteria.
In response to comments recommending that
the allowable weight of the supporting assembly
for the impact attenuation drOp test be changed
to 20% instead of the proposed 10% of the
weight of the drop assembly, the NHTSA has
determined that such a change would enable
more durable testing equipment to be used with-
PART 571; S 218— PRE 1
Effective: Morch 1, 1974
out any significant effect on test results. Accord-
ingly, this ^^ eight limitation has been raised to
20%.
Se\eral comments expressed concern that the
proposed 0.04-inch indentation limit included
under the penetration test would create problems
of measurement. The agency has determined
that the intent of this 0.04-inch indentation limit
is sufficiently accomplislied by the requirement
that the striiier not contact the surface of the
test headform, and the 0.04-inch indentation
limit is therefore deleted from the tinal rule.
Further, in consideration of the need to readily
detect any contact by the striker, the agency has
determined that the contactable surfaces of the
penetration test head forms should be constructed
of a metal or metallic alloy which will insure
detection. Several minor changes in the test
conditions for the penetration test have also been
made, without altering the substance of those
conditions.
A number of comments recommended that
where the retention system consists of components
which can be independently fastened without
securing the complete assembly, such compo-
nents should not have to individually meet the
retention test requirements. Since helmets have
a tendency to be thrown off by a crash and
motorcyclists sometimes only partially fasten the
retention system where such an option exists, the
agency has concluded that retention components
as well as the entire assembly should meet the
test requirements in every fastening mode as
specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
A number of comments requested that the 105°
minimum peripheral vision clearance to each side
of the midsagittal plane be increased to 120°.
The 105° minimum requirement was proposed
because it satisfies a demand by the public for
the availability of some helmets which provide
added protection to the temporal areas in ex-
change for a minimal reduction in peripheral
vision capability witliout compromising the safe
limits of peripheral vision clearance. A review
of available field-of-vision studies and the lack
of any evidence to the contrary indicate that 105°
minimum clearance to each side of tie midsagittal
plane provides ample periphera. vision capa-
bility. Since the requests for increasing the
minimum clearance to 120° were not accompanied
by any supporting data or arguments, the
agency has concluded that the standard should
allow the additional protection which the 105°
minimum clearance would permit and, accord-
ingly, this requirement is retained.
With respect to providing important safety
information in the form of labeling, one com-
ment recommended that, due to possible label
deterioration, both the manufacturer's identifica-
tion and the helmet model designation should be
permanently marked by etching, branding,
stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior
of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached
component so as to be visible when the helmet
is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the
practical effect of this recommendation is accom-
plished by requiring each helmet to be perma-
nently and legibly labeled. The method to be
used to permanently and legibly affix a label for
each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of
the manufacturer. However, in order that there
may be some external, visual evidence of con-
formity to the standard, the labeling requirement
has been further modified to require manufac-
turer certification in the form of the DOT
symbo' to appear in permanent form on the
exterior of the helmet shell.
One comment recommended that the prelimi-
nary test procedures include the application of a
10-pound static test load to the apex of a helmet
after it is placed on the reference headform and
before the "test line" is drawn to insure that the
reference marking will be relatively uniform,
thus reducing variances in test results of identical
helmets. The agency concurs in this recom-
mendation and it has been included in the
standard.
A number of comments objected to the loca-
tion of the test line. With respect to the pro-
posed requirement that the test line on the
anterior portion of a helmet coincide with the
reference plane of its corresponding reference
headform, it was pointed out that the helmet's
brow area would have to be excessively thick in
order to meet the impact attenuation criteria at
any point less than approximately 1 inch from
the brow opening. The data indicate that this
objection is valid, and the location of the anterior
FART 571; S 218— PRE 2
Effectiv*: March 1, 1974
test line has been modified by placing it 1 inch
above and parallel to the reference plane.
A number of comments objected to the pro-
posed requirement that the test line on the
posterior portion of a helmet coincide with the
basic plane of its corresponding reference head-
form. The principal objection expressed con-
cern that, by extending the posterior test line to
the basic plane, the resulting increase in the
posterior surface of a helmet could cause the
helmet to impact the wearer's neck whera
rearward rotation of the head occurs, thereby
increasing the potential for injury in certain
cases. After further consideration of this
aspect of helmet safety, the agency has deter-
mined that the location of the test line on the
posterior portion of a helmet should be modified
by placing it 1 inch below and parallel to the
reference plane.
Several comments questioned the sufficiency of
the anatomical dimensions and diagrams pro-
vided for the reference headforms in the Ap-
pendix of the notice of proposed rulemaking. Of
these comments, two proposed adopting the
dimensional specifications of the existing ANSI
Z90.1 headform, while a third recommended the
inclusion of an additional reference headform
to accommodate their smallest child helmet. The
agency has concluded that, in order to promote
greater uniformity in testing and more repeatable
results, one of the reference headforms should
have the dimensional specifications of the readily
available Z90.1 headform, the others being scaled
proportionally, and that a reference headform
for smaller child helmets should be added. Ac-
cordingly, the Appendix has been revised to
reflect these changes.
Effective date: March 1, 1974.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle
Helmets, is added as § 571.218 of Title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Public Law 89-563, 80
Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on August 9, 1973.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
38 F.R. 22390
August 20, 1973
PART 571; S 218— PRE 3^
^
EffKliva: March ], 1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 218
Motorcycle Helmets
(Docket No. 72-6; Notice 3)
The purpose of this notice is to respond to
petitions for reconsideration and petitions for
rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR
571.218).
Standard No. 218, published on August 20,
1973, (38 F.R. 22390), established minimum
performance requirements for helmets manufac-
tured for use by motorcyclists and other motor
vehicle users. Pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35, peti-
tions for reconsideration were filed by the Safety
Helmet Council of America (SHCA) and Lear-
Siegler, Inc., Bon-Aire Division. Additionally,
pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31, petitions to amend
the standard were filed by the Z-90 Committee
of the American National Standards Institute,
Midwest Plastics Corp., Approved Engineering
Test Laboratories, Bell-Toptex, Inc., Premier
Seat and Accessory Co., Safetech Co., Sterling
Products Co., Inc., Lanco Division of Roper
Corp., American Safety Equipment Corp., and
Electofilm, Inc.
In response to information contained in both
the petitions for reconsideration and the peti-
tions for rulemaking, the standard is being
amended in some minor respects, and its effec-
tiveness is temporarily suspended for helmets
that must be tested on headform sizes A, B, and
D. Requested changes in other requirements of
the standard are denied.
1. Effective date. The NHTSA received com-
ments from Royal Industries/Grant Division,
Jefferson Helmets, Inc., and Rebcor, Inc., urging
that the March 1, 1974, effective date be reaf-
firmed and stating that they either have already
produced or could produce helmets by that date
which meet the standard's requirements. The
NHTSA commends these manufacturers for
their outstanding efforts and their positive atti-
tude toward producing safer products.
The parties who submitted petitions, however,
all requested some postponement of the stand-
ard's effective date. The postponement requests
ranged from an indefinite extension to a delay
until the manufacturers are able to test helmets
to the required headforms, and were sought on
the following three grounds: (1) additional time
in order to obtain headforms required for refer-
ence marking and testing; (2) alleged inade-
quacy of the headform diagrams provided in the
final rule; and (3) inability to find a supplier
or forge for the K-IA magnesium alloy required
for the impact attenuation test headforms.
As explained in the preamble to the standard,
the headforms provided in the Appendix of the
notice of proposed rulemaking (May 19, 1972,
37 F.R. 10097), were changed by the agency in
order to utilize the readily available Z90.1 head-
form and to promote greater uniformity in test-
ing and more repeatable results. In view of the
fact that the size C headform of the final rule is
identical to the Z90.1 headform, is readily avail-
able in test laboratories, is used for several on-
going certification programs, and that the other
headforms are scaled proportionally, the NHTSA
anticipated that competition would motivate
both the manufacturers and the test laboratories
to take the initiative cither to obtain or to pro-
duce the other required headforms. It now ap-
pears that the problem of finding a supplier or
forge for the K-lA magnesium alloy required
for the A, B, and D impact attentuation test
headforms is substantial enough to justify the
requests for a postponement of the standard's
effective date for helmets that must be tested on
headform sizes A, B, and D.
PART 571; S 218— PRE 5
EfFacllve: March 1, 1974
Because the NHTSA determined that the size
C headform would be identical to the Z90.1 head-
form, the low resonance magnesium alloy
(K-lA) specified for making the Z90.1 head-
form also was specified for headforms required
by the standard. Statements that it might be
difficult to find suppliers or forges for the ma-
terial were first made in the petitions on the
standard. The NHTSA has determined that
other low-resonance magnesium alloys can be
substituted for the K-IA type without causing
significant variances in the results of any of the
helmet tests, so tliat manufacturers can determine
compliance without undue cost penalties even
where the K-lA alloy is in short supply. Ac-
cordingly, the K-lA alloy is retained as the
basic headform material for the standard.
In view of the foregoing considerations with
particular emphasis on the fact that testing
services through commercial testing laboratories
have been readily available for several years for
the ANSI Z90.1 Standard headform, which is
the size C headform of the standard, the requests
for postponing the standard's effective date are
denied with respect to helmets that fit headform
C.
The petitions for a postponement of the effec-
tive date are granted, however, witii respect to
helmets that must be tested on headforms A, B,
and D. A sentence is being added to the Appli-
cation section of the standard, excepting from
its coverage helmets that must be tested on these
headform sizes. The second sentence in S6.1.1
of the standard relating to the selection of a
reference iieadform to be used for reference
marking should be disregarded until the stand-
ard is made effective for helmets that must be
tested on headform sizes A, B, and D. To fa-
cilitate both the production and availability of
headforms, the NHTSA has contracted with the
Snell Memorial Foundation to monitor the prep-
aration of detail drawings and model headforms
consistent with the requirements of the standard.
The drawings and headforms will be included
in the docket for public examination upon their
completion. A review of the leadtime informa-
tion provided by the comments to the docket
indicates that approximately 8 months of manu-
facturer leadtime will be needed after the detail
dimensional drawings of the A, B, and D head-
forms become available. AVhen the drawings are
available, notice to that etTect will be published
in the Federal Register. The planned effective
date for the A, B, and D-size helmets is 8 months
from the date of the publication of that notice.
2. Time duration criteria for impact attenua-
tion test. Petitions on the impact attenuation
test time duration criteria of paragraphs 85.1 (b)
ranged from eliminating the time duration cri-
teria of 2.0 milliseconds and 4.0 milliseconds at
the 200g and 150g levels, respectively, to increas-
ing these criteria to 3.0 milliseconds at the 200g
level and 6.0 milliseconds at the 150g level.
None of these petitions raised any issues or sub-
mitted any data different from those already
considered by the NHTSA. The available bio-
mechanical data indicate that the head impact
protection provided to the helmet user by the
standard's time duration criteria is greater than
that which would result from the proposed
changes, and the 2.0 and 4.0 millisecond criteria
are retained.
3. Conditioning period. One petitioner re-
quested that the 24-hour conditioning require-
ment for each of the four impact tests in
paragraph S6.3 be modified to "4 to 24 hours,"
consistent with the requirements of ANSI Z90.1,
arguing that 4 hours is sufficient to condition a
helmet to the various environmental conditions
required for the respective tests without compro-
mising the intent of the standard. Upon further
study of this matter, the NHTSA has concluded
that, although 4 hours would not be sufficient as
a general condition, changing the conditioning
period to 12 hours would facilitate product test-
ing without compromising the intent of the
standard. Accordingly, paragraph S6.3, "Con-
ditioning," is revised by changing the "24-hour"
conditioning requirement to "12 hours" in each
place the 24-hour requirement appears.
4. Low temperature conditioning requirement.
Three petitioners objected to the —20° F. low
temperature conditioning requirement in para-
graph S6.3(b) on the basis that the requirement
is overly severe. On review of a\ailable infor-
mation, this agency has determined that precise
data on the best low temperature requirements
for testing are not available. Pending receipt
of more specific information, therefore, the cold
PART 571; S 218— PRE 6
Effacliv*: March 1, 1974
temperature requirement of 14° F. that has been
used up to now by the American National Stand-
ards Institute appears to be the most appropriate.
Accordingly, paragraph S6.3(b), "Low tempera-
ture," is revised by changing the " — 20° F."
conditioning requirement to "14° F.".
5. Projections. One petitioner requested that
paragraph S5.5, "Projections,"' be changed to
permit a maximum rigid projection inside the
helmet shell of 0.080 in. with a minimum diam-
eter of 0.150 in. The basis for this request is to
allow for the use of eyelets and rivets for attach-
ment of snaps for face shields and retention
systems. The NHTSA is concerned that due
care be exercised with regard to minimizing the
injury producing potential of such fasteners.
Eyelets and rivets for the attachment of snaps
should be designed to form a portion of the
continuous surface of the inside of the helmet
shell. Where they are so designed, such attach-
ments would not be "rigid projections." Ac-
cordingly, no revision to this requirement is
necessary.
6. Labeling. One petitioner recommended that
the labeling requirements in paragraph S5.6 be
clarified with the help of manufacturers and
other interested parties. Since the petitioner did
not specify the points requiring clarification and
because no other comments were received on this
subject, the NHTSA has determined that no
sufficient reasons have been given to change the
labeling requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFll
571.218, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218,
Motorcycle Helmets^ is amended. . . .
E-ffective date : March 1, 1974.
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Public Law 89-563, 80
Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on January 23, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 3554
January 28, 1974
PART 571; S 218— PRE 7-8
^
^
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
STANDARD NO. 218
Motorcycle Helmets
(Docket No. 72-6; Notice 06)
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to amend
Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, to
extend application of the current requirements to
all helmets that can be placed on the size "C"
headform. The amendment is an interim rule
requiring the certification of all large-size and
many small-size helmets, and will be in effect until
test headform sizes "A" and "D" have been
developed and incorporated in the standard. This
extended application of the standard will establish
a minimum level of performance for a large
number of helmets that are currently not being
tested and certified by manufacturers, but which
are suitable for testing on the size "C" headform.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1980.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration
should refer to the docket number and notice
number and be submitted to: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. William J. J. Liu, Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-
426-2264)
INFORMATION: For reasons
on September 27, 1979, the
SUPPLEMENTARY
discussed below,
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
to require, as an interim measure, the testing and
certification of all motorcycle helmets that can be
placed on the size "C" headform as described in
Safety Standard No. 218 (44 FR 55612). Only one
comment was received in response to that notice,
supporting the proposal.
Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49
CFR 571.218), specifies minimum performance
requirements for helmets designed for use by
motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.
Currently, the standard is only applicable to a
portion of the annual helmet production.
Paragraph S3 of the standard provides:
* • * The requirements of this standard
apply to helmets that fit headform size C,
manufactured on or after March 1, 1974.
Helmets that do not fit headform size C will not
be covered by this standard until it is extended
to those sizes by further amendments.
"Fitting" is intended to mean something that is
neither too small nor too large. It excludes not only
helmets that are too small to be placed on the size
"C" headform, but also helmets so large that they
could be placed on the size "D" headform were it
available. As explained below, that headform size
is not currently available.
The standard references and describes in its
appendix four test headform sizes ("A", "B", "C",
and "D"). Currently only test headform size "C"
has been developed, and it is identical to the
American National Standard specifications for
Protective Headgear for Vehicular Users, ANSI
Z90. 1-1971. The other test headforms are to be
scaled proportionately from the ANSI Z90 (size
"C") headform. The performance requirements of
the standard for helmets fitting other than size C
headforms were held in abeyance until these
additional headform sizes could be developed (39
FR 3554, January 28, 1974). Because of problems
with prototype headforms supplied to NHTSA
under contract (the headforms did not meet
PART 571; S 218-PRE-9
dimensional tolerances considered acceptable),
development of these additional headforms has
been delayed over the past years. However, the
agency now anticipates that the standard will
include requirements for headform sizes "A" and
"D" effective April 1, 1982 (size "B" will be
deleted from the standard).
Last year, the Safety Helmet Council of America
(SHCA) recommended that the agency require
certification of all adult-size helmets on the size
"C" headform. The SHCA stated that the delay in
development of the additional headform sizes has
led to confusion and unfair practices since many
helmets are reportedly being improperly certified
and many other helmets are not being certified
that are required to comply with the standard. The
agency has stated in the past that only helmets
that are subject to compliance with Standard No.
218 should be certified and labeled with the "DOT"
symbol. Apparently, some manufacturers have
used the "DOT" label on untested helmets for
competitive purposes. The SHCA stated that these
practices have placed considerable burdens on the
integrity of manufacturers of high quality helmets.
The organization pointed out that under the ANSI
standard only one headform (size "C") was used to
test all helmets except child-size helmets, and that
approximately 95 percent of current helmet
production could and should be tested on the size
"C" headform and certified for compliance with
Standard No. 218.
The NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards
has investigated the current labeling and
certification practices of helmet manufacturers. It
was found that most manufacturers currently test
only "medium" size helmets on the size "C"
headform, yet there is considerable variation
among manufacturers as to which helmets are
considered medium. Further, the agency found
that the percentage of helmets subject to
certification under the current applicability of the
standard is substantially greater than the 40
percent that manufacturers are now testing on the
size "C" headform. (Data from the investigation
have been placed in the NHTSA docket under the
docket number of this notice.)
As stated earlier, under the existing applicability
requirements of the standard, only helmets that
"fit" headform size "C" must be certified.
Apparently, interpretation of the term "fit" by
manufacturers has led to some mislabelings and
failures to certify. Under the existing
requirements, "helmets that fit headform size C"
should be all helmets other than those that must be
tested on the other headform sizes. To determine
which helmets must be tested on a particular
headform size, one follows the procedures of
paragraph S6.1.1 of the standard. That paragraph
provides in part:
* * * Place the complete helmet to be tested
on the reference headform of the largest size
specified in the Appendix whose circumference
is not greater than the internal circumference
of the headband when adjusted to its largest
setting, or if no headband is provided to the
corresponding interior surface of the helmet.
Using the procedure of paragraph S6.1.1,
manufacturers currently need only concern
themselves with headform sizes "C" and "D",
since small, child-size helmets that could not
physically be placed on the size "C" headform
would not have to be tested. As to the other helmet
sizes, helmets that "fit headform size C" means
any helmet that can be placed on the size "C"
headform, except those helmets which the
manufacturer can demonstrate could be placed on
a size "D" headform. To make that demonstration,
the manufacturers would have to show that the
internal circumference of the helmet headband or
the corresponding interior surface of the helmet is
larger than the circumference of the size "D"
headform. Even though the size "D" headform is
not currently available, the dimensions of the
headform are specified in the appendix of the
standard, from which the manufacturer can make
its determination. Regarding small, child-size
helmets, the determination whether or not a
particular helmet can be placed on the size "C"
headform should be based on normal fitting
procedures. This means, for example, that undue
force should not be applied to forcibly push the
headform into the helmet. However, efforts
necessary for the ordinary wearing of the helmet
should be employed, such as expanding the lower
portions of a flexible-shell, full-face helmet.
Apparently, many manufacturers have failed to
use these procedures for determining which of
their helmets "fit" headform size "C" and must be
certified.
In light of the improper certification and the
noncertification, the unavailability of the
additional headform sizes at the present time, the
PART 571; S 218-PRE-lO
need to ensure the safe performance of the large
helmets and the apparent sufficiency of the size
"C" headform for testing large helmets, the
agency has concluded that the recommendations of
the Safety Helmet Council of America have merit.
Therefore, this notice amends Safety Standard No.
218 to require all motorcycle helmets that can be
placed on the size "C" headform to be certified in
accordance with the requirements of the standard.
"Placed" is a broader term than "fit" primarily in
that the former term does not imply any upper
limit on helmet size.
Under these interim requirements, more than 90
percent of current helmet production will be tested
on the size "C" headform. Only small, child-size
helmets (size "A") will be excluded since they
cannot physically be placed on the size "C"
headform. As noted in the procedures discussed
above, normal fitting procedures are used to
determine if a particular helmet can be placed on
the size "C" headform, without the use of undue
force.
During its investigation, the NHTSA contacted
manufacturers whose collective market share
exceeds 80 percent of current annual helmet
production. All of these manufacturers indicated
that 90 percent or more of their helmet production
could be placed and tested on the size "C"
headform. Many of the manufacturers indicated
that they are already testing the majority of their
helmets on the size "C" headform for quality-
control purposes, even though not required by the
standard. Also, it was found that helmet shells and
performance characteristics of a particular
manufacturer's helmets do not generally vary
significantly over the various size ranges of
helmets produced.
This amendment is only an interim measure to
establish a minimum level of performance for the
large number of helmets that are currently not
being certified for compliance with Standard No.
218. Testing extra-large helmets on the size "D"
headform would require a higher level of
performance for those helmets, since the weight of
the size "D" headform is greater than that of the
size "C" headform. Therefore, development of the
size "A" and size "D" headforms has continued,
and incorporation of requirements in the standard
for these headforms will occur after development
is completed. However, until this is accomplished.
the agency believes that the performance level that
will be required by testing on the size "C"
headform is preferable to an absence of any
requirements whatsoever. As stated earlier, the
ANSI standard for helmets specifies only one
headform size ("C") for testing all helmets. The
additional headform sizes were originally specified
in Standard No. 218 in response to suggestions
from some manufacturers that requirements be
more "fine-tuned" for the various helmet sizes.
The agency has concluded that the new
requirements will preclude the great majority of
unsafe helmets currently on the road. Further,
with all adult helmets certified, retailers and
consumers will no longer be confused or misled
concerning the DOT certification labels found in
their helmets, and NHTSA's enforcement
activities will become more effective and uniform.
Under these new requirements, extra-large
helmets should be tested on the size "C" headform
without the use of "shims" or other devices to
obtain a secure fit of the helmet on the headform.
Agency tests involving extra-large helmets on the
size "C" headform show results that correlate well
with tests of medium-size helmets on the size "C"
headform. (Data from these tests have been placed
in the NHTSA docket). Therefore, the agency has
concluded that repeatable results can be obtained
under the existing procedures with the size "C"
headform.
The effective date for extending the applicability
of Standard No. 218 to all helmets that can be
placed on the size "C" headform is May 1, 1980.
The agency's past position has been that it would
be "false and misleading," within the meaning of
the statute (15 U.S.C. 1397(C)), for a "DOT"
symbol to appear without qualification on helmets
manufactured before the effective date of the
standard. However, since the standard is currently
effective for helmets that fit size "C" headforms,
and since there is such a widespread variation
among manufacturers as to which helmets they
consider to fit the size "C" headform, the agency
will allow voluntary certification and labeling of
helmets prior to May 1, 1980. This, of course,
would only apply to helmets that can be placed on
the size "C" headform. Small helmets that could
not be placed on the headform could not be
certified with the "DOT" symbol until after the
PART 571; S 218-PRE-ll
standard has been amended tx) include specifications
for the size "A" headform. Also, helmets certified
and labeled with the "DOT" symbol prior to the May
1, 1980, effective date will be subject to the general
enforcement provisions of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Therefore, manufacturers
will have to exercise "due care" to assure that any
helmet they certify in fact complies with the
performance requirements of Standard No. 218.
The agency has determined that this amendment
does not qualify as a significant regulation under
Executive Order 12044, "Improving Government
Regulations." A final regulatory evaluation of this
amendment has been placed in the docket for the
benefit of all interested persons.
The engineer and lawyer primarily responsible
for the development of this notice are William J. J.
Liu and Hugh Oates, respectively.
In consideration of the above, paragraph S3 of
Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49
CFR 571.218), is amended to read as follows:
§ 571.218 Standard No. 218; motorcycle helmets.
S3. Application. This standard applies to
helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and
other motor vehicle users. The requirements of this
standard apply to all helmets that can be placed on
the size C headform using normal fitting
procedures. Helmets that cannot be placed on the
size C headform will not be covered by this
standard until it is extended to those sizes by
further amendment.
* * * « *
(The second sentence in S6.1.1 of the standard
relating to the selection of a reference headform
should be disregarded until the standard is made
effective for helmets that must be tested on
headform sizes A and D.)
Issued on February 29, 1980.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 F.R. 15179
March 10, 1980
PART 571; S 218-PRE-12
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 218
Motorcycle Helmets
(Docket No. 85-1 1 ; Notice 2)
ACTION: Final Rule
SUMMARY: This rule announces changes to Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, Motorcycle Hel-
mets. On September 27, 1985, the agency proposed to
extend its performance requirements for the first time
to all helmet sizes and to improve its test procedures
and conditions. In addition, the agency requested com-
ments on several cost-related questions and issues
related to possible future motorcycle helmet rule-
makings. This final rule responds to the public com-
ments and amends the motorcycle helmet safety
standard. This improved standard will benefit motor-
cyclists, moped and other motor vehicle users who
wear motorcyle helmets.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1988.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehi-
cle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392) requires the
establishment of Federal safety standards for motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These stand-
ards are amended by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) as appropriate, such
as when new safety data become available or techno-
logical developments warrant.
The agency's first Federal motor vehicle safety
standard for motorcycle helmets (FMVSS 218) became
effective in 1974. Although this standard has been
demonstrated to be a significant factor in the reduc-
tion of critical and fatal injuries involving motor-
cyclists in motorcycle accidents, the standard has thus
far not applied to all motorcycle helmets sold in the
United States. Because of limited availability of head-
forms on which to test motorcycle helmets, FMVSS
218 previously applied only to motorcycle helmets
that could be "placed on" the available size C head-
form. As a practical matter, this has limited the
application of the standard to medium and large
motorcycle helmets, since small motorcycle helmets
could not be placed on the size C headform. Small
helmets constitute approximately 10 percent of the
motorcycle helmet market.
A manufacturer of a motorcycle helmet subject to
FMVSS 218 must certify that the helmet meets all
of the standard's requirements. Those requirements
include performance requirements for helmets for
impact attenuation (shock absorption), penetration
resistance (a sharp object striking the helmet), and
retention (chin strap strength). Tests to determine
compliance with these requirements are conducted
under prescribed conditions, with the helmet secured
to a metal test headform. In addition, FMVSS 218
establishes requirements dealing with peripheral
vision, labeling, and internal and external projections.
Current FMVSS 218
The first of the three principle performance require-
ments in FMVSS 218 is that a motorcycle helmet
must exhibit a minimum level of shock absorbency
upon impact with a fixed, hard object. Compliance is
determined by a two-part impact attenuation test.
This test involves placing motorcycle helmet on the
test headform and dropping the headform and helmet
(known as the headform assembly) in a guided free
fall first onto a flat steel anvil and then, in a sepa-
rate test, onto a hemispherical steel anvil. Each hel-
met is impacted at four sites with two successive,
identical impacts at each site, at any point on the area
above a prescribed test line. Two of these sites are
impacted upon the flat anvil by dropping the head-
form assembly from a height of 72 inches (182.9 cen-
timeters), and two sites are impacted upon the hem-
ispherical anvil from a height of 54.5 inches (138.4
centimeters).
The impact attenuation requirement is expressed
as limits on the acceleration levels of the headform
and is quantified in g's, the gravitational accelera-
tion, and used as the unit of acceleration. The accel-
eration level relates directly to the impact on the
brain. The greater the number of g's, the greater the
force or impact energy that is applied to the brain.
A number of test studies (including the 1980 study
by the Japanese Automobile Research Institute, dis-
cussed later in this preamble) express the threshold
of injury to the human brain in g's. Standard 218
limits acceleration to a peak level of 400g and re-
quires that no helmet exceed 200g for a cumulative
PART 571; S218-PRE 13
duration of more than 2.0 milliseconds and 150g for
a cumulative duration of more than 4.0 milliseconds.
Four impact attenuation tests must be conducted
within a specified time limit (discussed later in this
preamble) and each must be conducted after the hel-
met has been conditioned in one of four conditioning
environments for 12 hours. These conditioning envi-
ronments are:
(a) Ambient conditions: exposure to 70 °F (21 °C)
and relative humidity of 50 percent.
(b) Low temperature: exposure to 14 °F (-10°C).
(c) High temperature: exposure to 122 °F (50 °C).
(d) Water immersion: with water at 77 °F (25 °C).
The second performance requirement is a penetra-
tion test, in which a metal striker is dropped 118.1
inches (3.0 meters) in a guided free fall onto a sta-
tionary helmet. Two penetration blows are applied at
least 3 inches (7.6 centimeters) apart from each other
and at least three inches from the centers of the im-
pact attenuation blows. To meet the performance re-
quirement, the striker may only come in contact with
the helmet and may not come in contact with the siu*-
face of the headform. The penetration test, like the
impact attenuation test, is conducted within certain
time constraints and with the helmet conditioned in
the four previously mentioned environments.
The third performance requirement of Standard 218
tests chin strap strength. It requires that the reten-
tion system or any component of the retention system
of a motorcycle helmet be able to withstand a prelim-
inary load of 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms) of tensile
force (for 30 seconds) and then a test load of an addi-
tional 250 pounds (113.4 kilograms) (for 120 seconds).
To meet the performance requirement, the helmet
retention system may not break during the times
loads are applied and the adjustable portion of the
retention system device may not move more than one
inch between preliminary and test load conditions.
If a retention system consists of components, each
component must meet these requirements. As with
the impact attenuation and penetration tests, the
motorcycle helmet must be exposed to the four condi-
tioning environments before being tested for the re-
tention requirements.
Standard 218 also prescribes requirements for
labeling, projections, and peripheral vision re-
quirements. A manufacturer must permanently af-
fix to each helmet labeling which includes the man-
ufacturer's name or identification, precise model
designation, size, month and year of manufacture,
and, as a certification of compliance with the stand-
ard, the DOT symbol. The labeling requirements also
provide that the manufacturer must supply to the pur-
chaser information concerning shell and liner com-
position, cleaning instructions, and warnings to make
no modifications, and to have the helmet checked by
the manufacturer or destroyed if it experiences a
severe blow. This additional information may be con-
veyed on a tag attached to the helmet, or by other
appropriate means.
Standard 218 does not allow any rigid projections
inside the shell and limits those outside the shell to
those needed to operate essential accessories. An ex-
ternal protrusion may not be more than .20 inch (the
new provision adopted in this rulemaking is .20 inch;
the currently effective limit is .19 inch). Finally,
Standard 218 requires that the helmet provide a
minimum of 105° peripheral vision to either side of
the mid-sagittal plane (the middle of the face).
Each manufacturer must certify that its helmets
meet the performance requirements of the standard
before the helmets are offered for sale. The test
procedures in Standard 218 specify the manner in
which procedures will be conducted by any laboratory
under contract with NHTSA to test helmet compli-
ance. Additional details on how the tests are to be
conducted are contained in NHTSA Laboratory Pro-
cedure for Motorcycle Helmet Testing (TP-2 18-02;
October 18, 1984).
The Proposed Rule and Public Comment
The agency proposed changes to FMVSS 218 on
September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39144). In addition to
specific changes in the Standard, the agency sought
public comment on eight cost-related questions and
six issues for possible future rulemaking. In response,
the agency received public comments for four motor-
cycle helmet manufacturers (Bell Helmets, Inc., Flor-
ida Safety Products, Inc., Javelin, Inc., and Marushin
Kogyo Co., Ltd) and from one company that manufac-
tures test equipment and tests motorcycle helmets
(United States Testing Company, Inc.). The proposed
changes, the issues raised by the agency for possible
future rulemaking, as well as public comment sub-
mitted on these, are discussed below.
Applicability of Standard to All Helmets (S3.). The
principal change in FMVSS 218 is the extension of
the standard to all motorcycle helmet sizes. It has
been the agency's intention since it promulgated its
first motorcycle helmet safety standard to extend this
standard to all helmets as soon as practicable. The
principal cause of the delay in doing this has been the
lack of availability of headforms other than the size
C headform. This situation resulted in limited appli-
cation of the standard, since small motorcycle helmets
were not able to be placed on the size C headform to
be tested and thus were not required to be certified
as complying with FMVSS 218.
This impediment no longer exists, because the
agency has developed three new test headforms,
small, medium, and large, which will replace the
single size C headform. The September 27, 1985, pro-
posed rule contained a lengthy description of the proc-
ess used to develop these headforms. The basic steps
PART 571; S218-PRE 14
included the development of a numerical table des-
cribing the exterior geometry of old size C headform
and the creation of a new medium headform based
on the table. The table then was used to derive the
measurements for a small headform and a large
headform, using a scaling factor of 0.8941 for the
small headform and a scaling factor of 1.069 for the
large headform. Detailed specifications for the head
forms are contained in the Appendix to the final rule;
these specifications should ensure that each headform
can be accurately cast and/or machined.
As the result of testing, the agency believes that
helmets previously tested on the size C headform will
achieve comparable results on the new medium head-
form. In addition, the three new headforms will pro-
vide a more reliable fit for all helmets being tested,
thereby increasing the repeatability of the testing.
For the first time, the agency proposed details on
the interior geometry of the headform. While the pro-
posal would allow the agency to retain some flexibility
on the details of the interior of the headform (to allow
for differently designed support assemblies and still
retain the ability to meet the standard's test head-
form and support assembly weight requirement for
the impact attenuation test), the level of specificity
would be sufficient to establish a fixed center of grav-
ity for the test headform— the center of the ball socket
joint. Being able to fix the center of gravity (and, thus,
fix the location of the accelerometer as well, since the
accelerometer is located at the headform's center of
gravity) also enhances the test's repeatability.
No specific comments were received on the develop-
ment of the new headforms, although United States
Testing Company, Inc., (U.S. Testing) stated that it
generally supported the proposed changes in the pro-
posed rule. In addition. Javelin, Inc., (Javelin) stated
that it did not oppose the proposed test headform sys-
tem. The final rule adopts the new small, medium,
and large headforms as proposed.
Since the proposed dimensions of the exterior and
interior of the headforms were published, the agency
has noted in the FMVSS 218 rulemaking docket
that the manufacturer of the headforms used for the
agency's testing has made minor modifications to
the interior of the headform. The manufacturer has
changed the size of the four holes inside the headform
for the tie-down screws from V4 inch-20 helical coil
insert to %^ inch-18 helical coil insert. These changes
have been made to all headform sizes to increase the
holding power of the screws to the headform. These
changes also may reduce the frequency of adjustments
to the monorail test equipment, especially when the
large test headform is used. These changes are re-
flected in Figures 6, 7, and 8 in the Appendix to the
Standard.
Impact Attenuation Test(S5.1). The current impact
attenuation performance test limits the acceleration
levels of the test headform. Expressed in g's, a test
headform acceleration level is limited to a maximum
of 400g. In addition, acceleration in excess of 200g is
limited to a cumulative duration of 2.0 milliseconds
and acceleration in excess of 150g to a cumulative
duration of 4.0 milliseconds. Recent confirmation of
the appropriateness of these requirements is found
in the 1980 study of the Japan Automobile Research
Institute, Inc., "Human Head Tolerance to Sagittal
Impact: Reliable Estimation Deduced from Experi-
mental Head Injury Using Subhuman Primates and
Human Cadaver Skulls," K. Ono, A. Kikuchi, M.
Nakamura, H. Kobayashi, and N. Nakamura, Pro-
ceedings from the 24th Stapp Car Crash Conference,
SAE 801303, 1980 (JARI study). The JARI study de-
veloped a human head impact tolerance threshold
curve, which indicates that the threshold of human
concussion is about 200g at 2.3 milliseconds. Stand-
ard 218's limitation of 200g at 2.0 milliseconds pro-
vides the necessary margin of safety. The agency's
compliance testing shows that, in general, modern
helmet technology has no problem meeting these
requirements.
Although the impact attenuation test's acceleration
levels were not proposed for change, the agency so-
licited comments on the issue. Both Javelin and Bell
Helmets, Inc., (Bell) submitted comments and both
recommended that the peak g be lowered (currently
400g)— Javelin recommending that it be lowered to
250g and Bell that it be lowered to 300g. Javelin
stated that most brain injuries start below 400g and
that there are no brain injuries at 250g. Neither Jave-
lin nor Bell submitted data to support its position.
With regard to the dwell time requirements (limit-
ing acceleration of 200g to 2.0 milliseconds and ac-
celeration of 150g to 4.0 milliseconds). Bell stated that
the original dwell times were established when the
compliance test system was a swing-away test rig.
Thus, when the standard changed to a drop test ap-
proach, the time duration increased on all of the hel-
mets. Bell's contention is that this was due to the
change in the system, and not because of any change
in the helmets.
Bell tried to discount the agency's use of the dwell
time requirements by hypothesizing that what
NHTSA really is regulating is a change in velocity,
since NHTSA establishes maximum g levels for cer-
tain periods of time and the product of acceleration
and time duration is velocity. Using this premise. Bell
contends that NHTSA would fail a change in veloc-
ity greater than 3.923 meters per second at 200g for
2 milliseconds duration or more, yet would allow a
change in velocity of 7.8 meters per second at 199g
for 4 milliseconds duration or less. Bell commented
that the standard implies that "more is less," because
NHTSA would say a change in velocity of 3.923
meters per second at 200g is life threatening, but a
change in velocity of 7.8 meters per second at 199g
is within human tolerance.
PART 571; S218-PRE 15
Bell misunderstands the role of change of velocity
in relation to the dwell time requirements of FMVSS
218, and bases all of its calculations on a limited and
erroneous assumption. Bell assumes that, since both
acceleration and time are elements of the perfor-
mance requirement, the agency is regulating change
in velocity (maximum acceleration multiplied by time
duration, in the case of rectangular g-t curves). In ad-
dition, Bell developed its "more is less" theory solely
on the basis of calculating change of velocity from a
single rectangular acceleration-time response curve.
Calculating change of velocity from a rectangular
g-t curve can result in many different impacts
generating the same change of velocity. For example,
a change of velocity of 9.82 m/sec is the measure of
a rectangular response curve of 500g-2t (t = milli-
seconds, which would represent an impact on a hard
surface with a high acceleration level and short stop-
ping time), as well as the measure of a rectangular
response curve of 2g-500t (which would represent an
impact on a soft surface, with low acceleration and
long stopping time). While these two examples have
the same change of velocity measure, clearly the
500g-2t response is highly injurious while the
2g-500t is not. The sameness in the change of veloc-
ity in these very different examples demonstrates that
change of velocity alone is insufficient to determine
injury.
As previously stated, the agency is not regulating
change in velocity because it alone is not sufficient
to relate impact and injury. Rather, researchers be-
lieve that peak acceleration and time duration at a
certain level of acceleration are accurate determina-
tives of human brain injury potential. Limiting peak
g and time duration for the acceleration-time response
curve, although defining limits for the elements
which also constitute change of velocity, is not
limiting change in velocity. In summary, the agency
believes the basic premise of Bell's comment is
grounded in a misunderstanding of the role that
change of velocity plays in applying time duration
requirements to performance levels of motorcycle
helmets. Further, Bell's reliance only on rectangular
response curves is inappropriate.
In response to the other commenters recommend-
ing a lower maximum g level, the agency appreciates
that there is difference of opinion in the helmet man-
ufacturing industry. We encourage any commenter
wishing that the agency consider a change in the re-
quirement to submit biomechanical data in support
of its position. To date, the commenters have not
submitted data which supports or contradicts ir
any way the 1980 JARI study. The current require-
ments in FMVSS 218 are consistent with the JARI
study. Accordingly, the agency believes that they are
appropriate.
Retention Test-(a) Dynamic Testing (S5.3). The
agency asked whether the retention test should be
changed to require dynamic testing to prevent the
helmet from rotating on the head and perhaps com-
ing off the head in an accident. Bell responded that
they have done considerable research and develop-
ment on this, and that retention testing should in-
clude a dynamic test to check roll-off as well as strap
strength.
Retention Test-(b) Chin Guard Area. The agency
asked if the standard should include procedures for
the chin guard area or full facial coverage of the
helmet. Bell answered affirmatively, stating that a
test for face bars should be developed.
With respect to the retention test responses, for both
the dynamic testing question and the chin guard area
question, no substantive or quantitative data were
submitted. The agency will consider changes with
regard to the helmet's retention system, but only if
it receives appropriate data. The agency requests data
to be submitted as they become available.
Projections (S5.5). Although the agency did not pro-
pose any change to the prohibition against rigid in-
terior projections, Marushin submitted a comment re-
questing that the agency define "rigid." Marushin
stated that it is not realistic to prohibit all rigid pro-
jections inside the shell, because any fastening system
for essential accessories would have some kind of in-
side projection. The agency will consider a clarifying
amendment on rigid projections as an issue for possi-
ble future rulemaking.
Selection of Applicable Test Headform (New S6. 1).
The proposed rule contained a new S6.1, Selection of
appropriate headform, specifying designated size
ranges of helmets to be tested on the small, medium,
and large test headforms. The premise of the proposal
was that each helmet should be tested on the head-
form that correlated most closely with the heads of
persons likely to purchase the helmet. The agency
believed that the manufacturer's size designation was
the best method for determining the likely size of
those heads. The proposal called for a helmet with a
manufacturer's designated helmet size or size range
of 6 5/8 (European size 53) or smaller to be tested only
on the small headform; a helmet with a manufac-
turer's designated helmet size or size range between
6 3/4 and 7 1/2 (between European size 54 and size
60) to be tested on the medium headform; and a
helmet with a manufacturer's designated size or size
range of 7 5/8 (European size 61) or lai-ger to be tested
on the large headform. Paragraph S6.1.2 further pro-
vided that any helmet having a designated size range
that overlaps all or a portion of two or more of the
three specified ranges must be tested on all headforms
included within the helmet's size range.
Bell recommended that the upper end of the small
headform size be changed from 6 5/8 to 6 3/4, because
Bell's helmets sized at 6 3/4 cannot be placed on the
PART 571; S218-PRE 16
medium headform. The intention of the proposed
changes is to ensure that all motorcycle helmets are
subject to compliance testing. Accordingly, the final
rule reflects Bell's requested change in sizing.
Marushin Kogyo Co. (Marushin) requested that the
agency define the measuring method of each helmet
size, including the contour to be measured and the
measuring device. Marushin also requested that the
metric unit of the helmet size be added to the stand-
ard. The agency declines to specify how a manufac-
turer should measure its helmets for sizing, because
this reflects design considerations which are most ap-
propriately determined by the manufacturers. Also,
the designation method used in the proposed rule pro-
vides adequate size information, since it is adopted
from long-established industry procedures. The
American designation, for example, 6 3/4, indicates
6 3/4 inches, the diameter of an equivalent circle; the
European equivalent in parentheses, for example 54,
indicates 54 centimeters, the circumference of the
equivalent circle. No change has been made in the
final rule.
Bell opposed the requirement that a helmet be
tested on more than one headform if its sizing extends
beyond the limits of a single size range. As an alter-
native, Bell suggested that any helmet falling within
the size ranges of two or more headforms be tested
on the largest of those headforms, noting that approx-
imately 5 percent of its helmets would have to be dou-
ble tested under the proposed rule.
The agency has reviewed test results of the same
helmet being tested on two different size headforms,
and has found that the results are not consistent.
Some smaller helmets tested better on larger test
headforms and some larger helmets tested better on
smaller test headforms. This is an indication to the
agency that testing only on the larger headform as
Bell suggests would not ensure that a given helmet
also would pass the performance requirements when
tested on a small headform. The agency therefore
believes the multiple testing rule is needed to ensure
that any helmet falling within the size range for any
particular headform size meets the performance re-
quirements when tested on that headform. No change
has been made in the final rule.
Headform Test Line (New S6.2.3). Paragraph S6.2.3
describes how to determine the test line of a helmet
and Figure 2 in FMVSS 218 graphically shows the
test line on a headform. All strikes or impacts must
be above the designated test line. The area above the
test line represents the more vulnerable area of the
skull and the required test area on a motorcycle
helmet. In the proposed rule, the agency asked three
questions related to the helmet test line:
1. Should the test line marking the limit of the test
surface in Figure 2 of the Standard be lowered or
should the test be revised in other ways to provide
more protection in accidents for the lower part of the
back of the head or the front of the head in the
forehead area, or to improve the performance of the
helmet from the side?
2. What requirements would represent the optimal
trade-off between helmet weight, visibility, hearing
and other helmet design criteria?
3. Do current requirements represent a reasonable
trade-off?
Bell was the only commenter to respond to these
questions. While Bell stated that FMVSS 218 has
proven to offer good protection within the existing
trade-offs scheme. Bell did recommend that the test
line be lowered in the back of the head area. Bell or
any other manxifacturer desiring that NHTSA con-
sider revising the test line in a future rulemaking
should submit support data.
Temperature Conditioning (New S6.4) The agency
asked whether the low temperature conditioning
requirements should be changed so that the interior
surface of the helmet, or the headform, is at body
temperature for the impact attenuation and penetra-
tion tests.
Bell stated that it believes the agency should con-
sider the inner and outer temperatures of the test
helmets. Florida Safety Products, Inc., (Florida)
believes that any tests on a helmet subjected to low
temperature conditions is unrelated to real life con-
ditions, unless the helmet has a simulated human
head in it. Florida has tested helmets conditioned to
10°F containing a bladder conditioned to 98°F to
simulate a human head. Although it did not
elaborate, Florida indicated that these test conditions
produced a "startling difference in test results" from
those for helmets tested under current FMVSS 218
procedures.
Florida also attached a U.S. Army Aeromedical
Reseeirch Laboratory study on this subject, which con-
cluded that the current FMVSS 218 requirements do
not simulate potential, real world, cold climate con-
ditions, particularly because the headform is deemed
too cold, and therefore are inappropriate for the deter-
mination of cold temperature dynamic response of a
helmet system. The study recommended that testing
be done under conditions that simulate potential, real
world conditions as closely as possible. Florida con-
cluded its comments by recommending a change in
the standard which would require that the test head-
form be conditioned to body temperature for the im-
pact attenuation and penetration tests.
The agency acknowledges that temperature gra-
dients exist, and that the temperature of the test
headform (or other substance on which the helmet is
placed) may affect the temperature of the helmet.
However, what the agency lacks, and what the com-
menters did not submit, are any data indicating any
link between differences in impact attenuation and
penetration test results and changes in temperature.
NHTSA requests any data, including specific test
PART 571: S218-PRE 17
results, which the agency may use to evaluate future
rulemaking decisions.
Bell also commented on the procedure used to wet
the motorcycle helmet for the water immersion con-
ditioning requirement (new S6.4.1(d)), recommending
that the wet test be a "spray" type test as opposed
to the current soak test. Bell further stated that they
have indications that some of the liners have been
moved out of position because of excess water in the
helmet. As with other "new" information received
from commenters, the agency will consider this
recommendation in the context of a possible future
rulemaking and requests the submission of specific
data.
Second Impact. The impact attenuation test (S7.1.2)
states that each helmet is impacted with two suc-
cessive, identical blows at each site, from a drop
height of 72 inches onto the flat anvil and from a drop
height of 54.5 inches onto the hemispherical anvil.
Javelin recommended that the agency change the
impact attenuation test conditions. Their recommen-
dation was that the agency eliminate the requirement
for the second impact at each site and, in the alter-
native, specify 120J impact energy for the first (and
only) impact on the flat anvil and 95J impact energy
for the first (and only) impact on the hemispherical
anvil (J = joules, a measure of energy).
Translating J's into drop heights. Javelin's recom-
mendation for the medium test headform assembly
would be approximately 97.2 inches, as opposed to
FMVSS 218's drop height of 72 inches onto the flat
anvil. The equivalent drop height for 95J is about 76
inches, as opposed to FMVSS 218's drop height of 54.5
inches onto the hemispherical anvil. If adopted, ex-
pressing the impact requirements in terms of energy
units means that the drop heights would be depen-
dent upon the mass of the test headform used and
would be different for each size test headform.
Conversely, Javelin's recommendation would re-
quire that the same amount of energy be used for each
size headform. However, Javelin did not provide any
supporting data for their proposed test procedure
change. The current FMVSS requires that the dif-
ferent size test headform and motorcyle helmet
assembly be dropped from the same height, which
results in different amounts of energy being imparted,
since impact energy changes with mass, and the dif-
ferent headform assemblies have different amounts
of mass. The agency adopted the single height re-
quirement to simulate crash conditions. NHTSA
believes that a consistent drop height more accurately
simulates reality than a consistent measure of energy.
With regard to eliminating the second impact, the
agency believes that current FMVSS 218 establishes
minimum performance requirements. The purpose of
requiring the second impact at each test site is to
establish a minimum level of helmet residual impact
absorbing capability. In real world accidents, a second
impact may occur quickly after the first, perhaps
within one or two seconds and perhaps at a different
place. While there is no existing test method for con-
ducting second impacts within such a short time
frame, it is known that the human head's tolerance
is lowered when subjected to repeated blows.
While the agency's second impact test does not
reproduce potential, multiple impacts in a single ac-
cident, it does establish that the material has suffi-
cient ability to recover its protective capabilities in
the particular location where it has been impacted.
For these reasons, the agency believes that retaining
a second impact test is important.
While various manufacturers have recommended
that the agency eliminate the second impact require-
ment, no one has submitted data to demonstrate that
the second impact is not appropriate or provided a ra-
tionale for eliminating the requirement. In fact, all
other known standards which have been established
by private standards organizations or by foreign coun-
tries require equal or higher impact levels than
FMVSS 218 for both the first and second impacts. Ab-
sent contradictory data, the agency believes that it
is appropriate to retain the standard's current
requirements.
Test Conditions: Time Limitations for the Impact
Attenuation Test and Penetration Test The NPRM
proposed that the impact attenuation test (new 87. 1.3)
and the penetration test (new S7.2.3) start at exactly
two minutes following removal of the helmet from the
conditioning environment and that the two successive
impacts for each test site be completed within four
minutes. If either time requirement is not met, the
helmet must be returned to the conditioning environ-
ment and the test series begun again. Under the cur-
rent standard, there is no minimum starting time but
the impacts must be conducted within five minutes.
The reduction in test time limits will reduce the
temperature variations from test to test with the
same helmet and will provide more repeatable test
results.
The agency also requested comments from manufac-
turers and test laboratories about whether a helmet's
performance during the retention test (chin strap) is
also temperature sensitive.
The agency did not receive any comments on its pro-
posed time limitation changes to the standard or on
its request concerning the time sensitivity of the
retention system test. The proposed rule provisions
are adopted in the final rule without change.
Resonant Frequency of the Test Headform (New
S7.1.5). The NPRM provided that a test headform
may not exhibit resonant frequencies below 2,000 Hz
(cycles/seconds) (new S7.1.5), lowered from the cur-
rently specified 3,000 Hz (old S7.1.4). The purpose of
this requirement is to ensure that headform frequen-
cies do not distort helmet response measurement. The
fundamental helmet frequency is estimated to be
PART 571; S218-PRE 18
below 1,000 Hz and the tested resonant frequencies
for the new small, medium, and large headforms ex-
hibit frequencies well above 2,000 Hz. Setting a
minimum resonant frequency of 2,000 Hz for the
headform will eliminate any risk of interference with
test results, while allowing some flexibility in the
design and machining of headform interiors (for ex-
ample, there can be variations in wall thickness).
Since the agency did not receive any comments on
this provision, it adopts the requirement as proposed.
Use of the Monorail Drop Test Equipment (New
S7.1.6). The agency specified in the proposed standard
that it would use the monorail drop test equipment
in the conduct of the impact attenuation test (new
S7.1.6). The agency has been using the monorail drop
test equipment, but it has not specified its use in the
standard before. The agency uses the monorail drop
test equipment because the impact point on the
helmet can be fixed. The other frequently used
system, the twin wire system, allows the headform
assembly to rotate downward, making it hard to
predict successive impact points. Added friction due
to this downward rotation can cause speed variations,
which in turn may produce response variations.
The agency received several comments on its use
of the monorail drop test equipment. Javelin sug-
gested that test equipment be optional to the
manufacturer, contending that if the twin- wire equip-
ment is adjusted, it can match the performance of the
monorail drop test equipment. Bell, while not objec-
ting to the monorail drop test equipment itself, ques-
tioned the agency's statement that the monorail drop
test equipment is more consistent, contending that
two NHTSA contract laboratories, Dayton T. Brown
and Southwest Research, had different test results
with the monorail drop test equipment. Finally,
Marushin specifically requested that the twin-wire
system be authorized, since it is Marushin's belief
that the reliance on the monorail drop test equipment
is premature and that the twin-wire testing system
is the most common system in place throughout the
world. As a practical matter, Marushin does not know
of a reliable source from which to get the monorail
drop test equipment.
The agency does not consider the different test
results experienced by Dayton T. Brown and South-
west Research as being comparable. Certain test
differences were due to differences in instrument con-
trol practice. However, according to a worst case
analysis report provided by each laboratory, variance
due to instrumentation differences alone is less than
five percent, well within the tolerance range. As men-
tioned earlier, NHTSA's Laboratory Procedure for
Motorcycle Helmet Testing (TP-218-02, October 1984)
includes procedures for the calibration of measure-
ment and test equipment as well as provisions to
record all test data. The procedures used in this
manual are in accord with established industry prac-
tice and test laboratories should ensure that these pro-
cedures are used in the conduct of all compliance
testing.
The testing done by these laboratories was not
designed to be a comparison of like test procedures
and like helmets, and should not be viewed as such.
The testing labs arrived at different results for some
tests, and like results for other tests. Tested helmets
must meet performance requirements for any impact
within the prescribed test area. Further, a manufac-
turer must certify that all areas within the test area
meet the performance level. When laboratories test
helmets, however, there could be a wide difference in
the actual location on the helmet which is impacted.
These different orientations of the helmets may result
in different test results. The results should not be so
disparate, however, that in one lab's test a particular
helmet model passes and in another lab's test the
same helmet model fails. In the 3,008 drops of the dif-
ferent laboratories reviewed by the agency, only three
indicated different pass/fail results. (One of these was
a failure due to the helmet liner splitting, not a failure
based on actual helmet performance.) The agency con-
siders these few disparities inconsequential.
The agency does not intend to impose an additional
burden y identifying the monorail drop test equip-
ment as the method by which it tests compliance. As
stated in previous rulemakings and interpretations,
a manufacturer is not required to follow specifically
the test procedures identified in a particular standard.
The manufacturer must, however, ascertain that the
product will conform to the standard's requirements
when it is tested by the specified method. In assur-
ing itself that its product, if tested, will conform to
the standard's requirements, the manufacturer must
exercise due care and utilize sound engineering judg-
ment. As a practical matter, the manufacturer may
continue to use the twin wire system, so long as the
manufacturer uses "due care" to ensure that perform-
ance is comparable to those tested with the monorail
drop test equipment. "Due care" is determined on a
case-by-case basis and whether a manufacturer's ac-
tion constitutes "due care" will depend, in part, upon
the availability of test equipment, the limitations of
available technology, and, above all, the diligence
evidenced by the manufacturer.
Information available to the agency concerning the
one known manufacturer and seller of the monorail
drop test equipment is filed in the Standard 218 Rule-
making Docket, including an estimated cost of $17,000
for the testing equipment and instrumentation.
Penetration Test(S7.2). The agency asked whether
the geometric configuration of the pointed penetra-
tion test striker should be modified to resemble the
narrow surface in the 1985 Snell standard. The Snell
standard includes a penetration test which involves
a non-pointed object designed to represent a common
roadway obstruction.
PART 571; S218-PRE 19
Both Bell and Marushin indicated that they pre-
ferred the non-pointed object used in the Snell
standard.
Javelin recommended that the penetration test be
modified to coincide with a recommendation by Pro-
fessor H.H. Hurt in his 1981 study ("Motorcycle Ac-
cident Cause Factors and Identification of Counter-
measures," H.H. Hurt, J.V. Ouellet, D.R. Thom, Traf-
fic Safety Center, University of Southern California,
DOT HS-805 862, January 1981): " . . .[I]n actual ac-
cident conditions, a 90° metal edge was the much
more common threat than the pointed surface of the
FMVSS 218 standard penetrator The conical
point penetrator of the current test should be replaced
with a hardened steel edge approximately 1/8 inch
thick and 1 inch long, in order to be representative
of accident impact." (at page 325).
Javelin's comment indicated that Javelin believes
that a thermoplastic helmet with thick and less dense
liner and a matching shell of marginal penetration
performance (according to current FMVSS 218) is a
safer helmet than one with a denser liner designed
to resist penetration by a pointed steel marker. The
agency does not agree, since the biomechanical data
available to NHTSA indicate that too thick a liner
results in sustained g levels beyond the 2.0 and 4.0
milliseconds allowed by the standard. These responses
would result in injuries.
Further, while the Hurt report does recommend
that NHTSA adopt the Snell non-pointed object for
its impact attenuation test, its general recommenda-
tions state that FMVSS 218 "... provides a high level
of protection for the typical traffic accident, and ap-
pears to need only minor modifications." (Hurt
Report, at p. 422) All of the Hurt recommendations,
along with the specific comments of Bell, Javelin and
Marushin will be evaluated in the context of a possi-
ble future rulemaking. The agency requests specific
data in support of this change.
Metric Equivalents. The proposed rule contained
metric equivalents for all inch and pound measure-
ments, except for the headform dimensions in the Ap-
pendix. The metric equivalents in centimeters for the
inch dimensions in Table 2 and Figures 6, 7, and 8
can be obtained by multiplying 2.54 to all dimensions.
There were no comments on this issue, and the final
rule includes metric equivalents as appropriate.
Other standards. The proposed rule asked if NHTSA
should consider adopting additional requirements
which are contained in other motor vehicle safety
standards, for example, the Snell Memorial Founda-
tion Standard, the American National Standards In-
stitute (ANSI) Standard or European standards, such
as the ECE standard.
Bell responded, in the affirmative. In considering
the adoption of other standards' requirements in
future rulemaking, the agency will need data related
to performance of motorcycle helmets. The agency re-
quests that anyone having this data submit it to
NHTSA for consideration.
Other changes to final rule. In addition to the
changes in response to comment, this final rule also
contains certain technical, nonsubstantive changes,
as described below:
General. The final rule places all of the tables and
figvu-es of the standard into one Appendix and the old
Appendix is removed. This regrouping has required
changes to several of the cross-references in the Stand-
ard. For example, in the definition of "Test head-
form," the previous reference to the old Appendix is
removed and replaced with a reference to Table 2 and
Figures 5 through 8.
53 Application. The final rule adds the word "all"
before the word "helmets," to clarify the Standard
now applies to all helmets offered for sale in the
United States, regardless of size.
54 Definitions. The changes include placing the
definitions in alphabetical order and making a cross-
reference amendment of the kind described above
under General changes.
S5.6 Labeling. This section is renumbered to pro-
vide consistency in the numbering scheme and to pro-
vide for numbering for the first time to undesignated
paragraphs. For example, old S5.6.1(l) is now
S5.6.1(a). Previously undesignated paragraphs con-
taining instructions to the purchasers of helmets have
become numbered paragraphs (1) through (4) under
S5.6.1(f), Instructions to the purchasers.
Helmet position. In S6.3.1, as well as in other places
where it appears, the term "prior to" has been re-
placed by the word "before."
S6.4 Conditioning. An additional numerical
breakdown has been provided for these provisions, so
that a newly designated S6.4.1 contains the condition-
ing requirements before testing and S6.4.2 contains
conditioning requirements during testing.
S7. Test conditions.
In S7.1.4, one paragraph has been broken down into
two designated paragraphs: S7. 1.4(a) contains the im-
pact attenuation free fall requirements onto the hem-
ispherical anvil and S7. 1.4(b) contains the impact at-
tenuation free fall requirements onto the flat anvil.
In S7.1.9, the Standard requires that the accelera-
tion data channel comply with SAE Recommended
Practice J211 requirements for channel class 1,000.
The proposed rule inadvertently omitted the date of
the Standard. The agency intends the incorporation
by reference of SAE Recommended Practice J211, In-
strumentation for Impact Tests, to be to the June 1980
edition, which is substantively the same as the pre-
viously incorporated by reference 1970 edition. Ac-
cordingly, S7.1.9 has been amended to include a ref-
erence to the 1980 edition.
PART 571; S218-PRE 20
Costs and Benefits ofFMVSS 218
In an attempt to determine the costs associated with
complying with FMVSS 218, the agency posed the
following questions in the NPRM. When there was
a response, it immediately follows the question.
l.(a) How many helmet manufacturers have, or do
not have, their own testing equipment?
Bell and Marushin indicated that they have their
own testing equipment. Marushin's is twin-wire
equipment.
(b) Of the manufacturers with equipment, what
percentage of helmet testing is done by outside
laboratories?
Marushin stated that they have an outside
laboratory test helmets for calibration and com-
parison purposes once a year.
2.(a) How many test headforms would helmet
manufacturers, who conduct their own testing, need
to purchase to meet the requirements of the rule?
Bell indicated that even though they have had a
complete set of headforms for several years, they have
ordered a new set to ensure that they are using the
same headforms as the NHTSA compliance test con-
tractors. Marushin indicated that they already have
a set, but that they will need to perform precise
dimensional checks of the headforms against the re-
quirements of the Standard to ensure continued
compliance.
(b) How many manufacturers would do their own
machining of the headform?
Marushin indicated that they would use a subcon-
tractor and Bell stated their doubt that any manufac-
turer would do its own, even though Bell has done
it in the past.
3. What are the testing costs for helmet manufac-
turers conducting their own testing?
Marushin estimated about $200 a helmet, while
Bell stated that it was difficult to compute costs for
in-house testing, since they have two full-time techni-
cians who conduct quality control, new product
research and development and competitors' model
testing on a daily basis.
4. What is the cost of redesigning a motorcycle
helmet shell and its liner?
Marushin estimates $50,000 and Bell indicated that
the cost of redesigning a shell and liner system for
a helmet varies by thousands of dollars depending on
the changes made. Generally, it takes six months to
a year to develop a new model and complete on-road
technical testing.
5. What percent of current helmet production can
be placed on the size C headform (now the medium
headform)?
Marushin estimated roughly 90 percent and Bell
estimated 99 percent.
6. What percent of helmet production would be
tested on each of the small, medium and large
headforms?
Small headform: Marushin, 10 percent; Bell, 1 per-
cent (as the Standard is amended in this final rule.).
Medium headform: Marushin, 70 percent; Bell, 85
percent.
Large headform: Marushin, 20 percent; Bell, 14
percent.
7. What percent of helmets would need to be tested
on more than one size headform?
Bell: 5 percent. (See previous discussion about re-
quired multiple testing.)
8. Is there any data comparing effectiveness of com-
plying versus non-complying helmets?
Marushin replied that they had no data. Bell stated
that "there is considerable data to indicate that
helmets passing a more rigid standard in some ways,
but that do not pass the DOT standard have saved
many lives without any negative side effects." Bell
indicated that it was referring to the time duration
requirement, and that the maximum g rule is much
more important than the time duration requirement,
and helmets that can pass a more stringent (lower)
maximum g level than FMVSS 218 may not comply
with FMVSS 218 because it cannot meet the time
duration requirement. The agency assumes that Bell
is speaking of high-performance helmets that are
designed for off -road uses, such as automobile racing,
or possibly standards in existence in other countries.
Also in an attempt to estimate the costs associated
with complying with FMVSS 218, the agency con-
tracted with HH Aerospace Design Company to per-
form a cost/benefit study of the effects of using several
headform sizes in testing motorcycle helmets.
("Cost/Benefit Study of Effects of Using Several Head-
form Sizes in Testing Motorcycle Helmets Under
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218," Con-
tract No. DTNH 22-80-C-0736, Final Report,
September 1980.) This report, the data submitted in
response to the questions in the proposed rule, and
data requested orally from companies and noted in
the rulemaking docket (Docket No. 85-11) were
sources used by the agency in developing a thorough
analysis of this rulemaking. This analysis is part of
the final regulatory evaluation prepared by the
agency and can be found in the rulemaking docket
of this rule (See, Final Regulatory Evaluation:
Amendment Extending FMVSS 218, Motorcycle
Helmets, to All Helmet Sizes, NHTSA, Plans and
Policy, Office of Regulatory Analysis, July 1987.) A
summary of the findings follows.
The agency has determined that there are some
costs associated with this rule, since small motorcy-
cle helmets (and any other size helmet that could not
be "placed on" the size C headform) now will have
to be certified as complying with FMVSS 218. The
possible new costs will be in the areas of capital costs
(purchase three or more new headforms, if the
manufacturer does its own testing), design costs
(possible redesign of liner for the small helmets, and
PART 571; S218-PRE 21
possibly, though considered unlikely, redesign of a
motorcycle shell), testing costs (10 percent of helmet
production, i.e., small helmets, which could not be
placed on the size C headform and previously were
not subject to FMVSS 218 now will have to be tested
and certified. In addition, some helmets will have to
be tested on multiple test headforms if their sizing
encompasses more than one headform size), and label-
ing costs (10 percent of helmet production will have
to be labeled for the first time).
Thus, a manufacturer that intends to test its own
motorcycle helmets for compliance with FMVSS 218
may have to purchase additional headforms, at a max-
imum estimated cost of about $4,670. In addition, a
manufacturer who performs in-house compliance tests
may wish to purchase the monorail drop test equip-
ment, at an estimated cost of $17,000 (including in-
strumentation). Other one-time costs for manufac-
turers, whether or not they do in-house compliance
testing, may include the redesign of noncomplying
helmets. The agency anticipates that any necessary
redesign will focus on liner redesign, at an estimated
cost to the industry as a whole of approximately
$60,000-$72,000. Although considered unlikely, there
may be an instance of a manufacturer having to
redesign a helmet shell. These potential costs could
vary widely, with a possible cost of between $12,000
and $36,000 per shell for a redesign of a fiberglass shell
and a possible cost of between $150,000 and $182,000
per shell for a redesign of a polycarbonate shell.
The other costs associated with complying with
amended FMVSS 218 will be recurring costs— affect-
ing the cost of production. Certifying the additional
10 percent of the helmets now subject to the standard
will cost about $.05 per helmet; multiple testing will
add approximately $.03 per helmet; and the addi-
tional labeling costs will add about $.01 per helmet.
Costs to the Consumer. The accumulated estimate
of these increases is estimated to be not more than
$.10 per helmet. Since helmets can range in price
from $33 to $300, the agency considers this increase
inconsequential.
Benefits. The agency considers there to be clear
benefits to this standard. The primary benefit— the
extension of test requirements to all helmet sizes— is
the principal reason for undertaking the rulemaking.
FMVSS 218 will now apply to all helmets, and each
helmet manufacturer will have to certify each helmet
model is complying with the Standard before the
helmet is offered for sale in the United States. In ad-
dition, to the extent there was consumer concern
about the efficacy of any helmet on the market due
to a lack of universal certification, applicability of the
Standard to all helmets will eliminate this concern.
Consideration of Future Action
In the NPRM, the agency asked a series of questions
concerning motorcycle helmet issues that may be con-
sidered in future rulemaking proceedings. These
questions elicited information on potential new areas
of motorcycle helmet performance, as well as data con-
cerning performance requirements contained in other
motorcycle helmet standards, such as in the American
National Standards Institute and ECE standards. The
solicited information covered such issues as a dif-
ferent configuration for the pointed penetration test
striker, enlargement of the test area of the helmet,
inclusion of a chin guard performance test for full
facial coverage helmets, as well as test procedure
changes for the temperature conditioning re-
quirements and dynamic testing for the retention test.
To the extent the agency received responses to these
questions, they have been discussed previously, in the
context of the specific issues of this rulemaking.
However, the agency would like to reaffirm its
interest in receiving specific data in these areas for
possible future rulemaking actions. Commenters with
information on these issues should refer back to the
proposed rule for the specific questions on which the
agency is seeking information. (See the September 27,
1985, issue of the Federal Register, at page 39147.)
To be helpful to the agency in considering each topic,
submissions must be specific, contain actual data on
which the conclusions are based, and lay out test pro-
cedure specifications. If any submission is based on
assumptions, please describe and justify the basis for
each assumption.
Semiannual Agenda. This document appears as
item number 1939 in the Department's Semiannual
Regulatory Agenda, published in the Federal Reg-
ister on April 27, 1987 (52 FR 14548, 14653; RIN
#2127-AA40).
In consideration of the foregoing, Standard No. 218
is amended as follows:
S3, is revised to read as follows:
53. Application. This standard applies to all helmets
designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor
vehicle users.
(3) S4. is amended by placing all existing defini-
tions in alphabetical order and by revising the defini-
tions for "Reference headform," "Reference plane,"
and "Test headform" to read as follows:
54. Definitions.
*****
"Reference headform" means a measuring device
contoured to the dimensions of one of the three head-
forms described in Table 2 and Figures 5 through 8
with surface markings indicating the locations of the
basic, mid-sagittal, and reference planes, and the
centers of the external ear openings.
"Reference plane" means a plane above and paral-
lel to the basic plane on a reference headform or test
headform (Figure 2) at the distance indicated in
Table 2.
*****
"Test headform" means a test device contoured to
the dimensions of one of the three headforms de-
PART 571; S218-PRE 22
scribed in Table 2 and Figures 5 through 8 with sur-
face markings indicating the locations of the basic,
mid-sagittal, and reference planes.
(4) S5. is revised to read as follows:
S5. Requirements. Each helmet shall meet the re-
quirements of S5.1, 35.2, and S5.3 when subjected to
any conditioning procedure specified in S6.4, and
tested in accordance with S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3.
(5) Paragraph S5.3.1(b) is revised to read as follows:
(b) The adjustable portion of the retention system
test device shall not move more than 1 inch (2.5
cm) measured between preliminary and test load
positions.
(6) S5.4 is revised to read as follows:
55.4 Configuration Each helmet shall have a protec-
tive surface of continuous contour at all points on or
above the test line described in S6.2.3. The helmet shall
provide peripheral vision clearance of at least 105 ° to
each side of the mid-sagittal plane, when the helmet
is adjusted as specified in S6.3. The vertex of these
angles, shown in Figure 3, shall be at the point on the
anterior surface of the reference headform at the in-
tersection of the mid-sagittal and basic planes. The brow
opening of the helmet shall be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm)
above all points in the basic plane that are within the
angles of peripheral vision (see Figure 3).
(7) S5.5 is revised to read as follows:
55.5 Projections. A helmet shall not have any rigid
projections inside its shell. Rigid projections outside
any helmet's shell shall be limited to those required
for operation of essential accessories, and shall not
protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm).
(8) S5.6 is revised to read as follows:
55.6 Labeling.
S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled permanently
and legibly, in a manner such that the label(s) can
be read easily without removing padding or any other
permanent part, with the following:
(a) Manufacturer's name or identification.
(b) Precise model designation.
(c) Size.
(d) Month and year of manufacture. This may be
spelled out (for example, June 1988), or expressed in
numerals (for example, 6/88).
(e) The symbol DOT, constituting the manufac-
turer's certification that the helmet conforms to the
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
This symbol shall appear on the outer surface, in a
color that contrasts with the background, in letters
at least % inch (1 cm) high, centered laterally with the
horizontal centerline of the symbol located a mini-
mum of V/g inches (2.9 cm) and a maximum of 1%
inches (3.5 cm) from the bottom edge of the posterior
portion of the helmet.
(f) Instructions to the purchaser as follows:
(1) "Shell and liner constructed of (identify type(s)
of materials)."
(2) "Helmet can be seriously damaged by some com-
mon substances without damage being visible to the
user. Apply only the following: (Recommended clean-
ing agents, paints, adhesives, etc., as appropriate)."
(3) "Make no modifications. Fasten helmet se-
curely. If helmet experiences a severe blow, return
it to the manufacturer for inspection, or destroy it and
replace it."
(4) Any additional relevant safety information
should be supplied at the time of purchase by means
of an attached tag, brochure, or other suitable means.
(9) S6. is revised to read as follows:
S6. Preliminary test procedures. Before subjecting a
helmet to the testing sequence specified in S7., prepare
it according to the procedures in S6.1, S6.2, and S6.3.
(10) A new S6.1 is added to read as follows:
56.1 Selection of appropriate headform.
56.1.1 A helmet with a manufacturer's designated
discrete size or size range which does not exceed 6%
(European size: 54) is tested on the small headform.
A helmet with a manufacturer's designated discrete
size or size range which exceeds 6%, but does not ex-
ceed 7'/2 (European size: 60) is tested on the medium
headform. A helmet with a manufacturer's desig-
nated discrete size or size range which exceeds 7^2 is
tested on the large headform.
86. 1.2 A helmet with a manufacturer's designated
size range which includes sizes falling into two or all
three size ranges described in S6. 1.1 is tested on each
headform specified for each size range.
(11) Old S6.1 is redesignated as S6.2 and is revised
to read as follows:
56.2 Reference marking.
56.2.1 Use a reference headform that is firmly
seated with the basic and reference planes horizon-
tal. Place the complete helmet to be tested on the
appropriate reference headform, as specified in S6.1.1
and S6.1.2.
56.2.2 Apply a 10-pound (4.5 kg) static vertical load
through the helmet's apex. Center the helmet later-
ally and seat it firmly on the reference headform ac-
cording to its helmet positioning index.
56.2.3 Maintaining the load and position described
in S6.2.2, draw a line (hereinafter referred to as "test
line") on the outer surface of the helmet coinciding
with portions of the intersection of that surface with
the following planes, as shown in Figure 2:
(a) A plane 1 inch (2.5 cm) above and parallel to
the reference plane in the anterior portion of the
reference headform;
(b) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm)
behind the point on the anterior surface of the refer-
ence headform at the intersection of the mid-sagittal
and reference planes;
(c) The reference plane of the reference headform;
(d) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm)
behind the center of the external ear opening in a side
view; and
PART 571; S218-PRE 23
(e) A plane 1 inch (2.5 cm) below and parallel to the
reference plane in the posterior portion of the refer-
ence headform.
(12) Old S6.2 is redesignated as S6.3 and is revised
as set forth below:
56.3 Helmet positioning.
56.3.1 Before each test, fix the helmet on a test
headform in the position that conforms to its helmet
positioning index. Secure the helmet so that it does
not shift position before impact or before application
of force during testing.
56.3.2 In testing as specified in S7.1 and S7.2, place
the retention system in a position such that it does
not interfere with free fall, impact, or penetration.
(13) Old S6.3 is redesignated as 6.4 and is revised
to read as follows:
56.4 Conditioning.
56.4.1 Immediately before conducting the testing
sequence specified in S7, condition each test hel-
met in accordance with any one of the following
procedures:
(a) Ambient conditions. Expose to a temperature of
70 °F (21 °C) and a relative humidity of 50 percent for
12 hours.
(b) Low temperature. Expose to a temperature of
14°F(-10°C)for 12 hours.
(c) High temperature. Expose to a temperature of
122°F(50°C)for 12 hours.
(d) Water immersion. Immerse in water at a
temperature of 77 °F (25 °C) for 12 hours.
56.4.2 If during testing, as specified in S7.1.3 and
S7.2.3, a helmet is returned to the conditioning envi-
ronment before the time out of that environment
exceeds 4 minutes, the helmet is kept in the envi-
ronment for a minimum of 3 minutes before resump-
tion of testing with that helmet. If the time out of the
environment exceeds 4 minutes, the helmet is re-
turned to the environment for a minimum of 3 min-
utes for each minute or portion of a minute that the
helmet remained out of the environment in excess of
4 minutes or for a maximum of 12 hours, whichever
is less, before the resumption of testing with that
helmet.
(14) S7.1 is revised to read as follows:
S7.1 Impact attenuation test.
57.1.1 Impact attenuation is measured by deter-
mining acceleration imparted to an instrumented test
headform on which a complete helmet is mounted as
specified in S6.3, when it is dropped in guided free
fall upon a fixed hemispherical anvil and a fixed flat
steel anvil.
57.1.2 Each helmet is impacted at four sites with
two successive identical impacts at each site. Two of
these sites are impacted upon a flat steel anvil and
two upon a hemispherical steel anvil as specified in
S7.1.10 and S7.1.11. The impact sites are at any point
on the area above the test line described in paragraph
S6.2.3, and separated by a distance not less than one-
sixth of the maximum circumference of the helmet
in the test area.
57.1.3 Impact testing at each of the four sites, as
specified in S7.1.2, shall start at 2 minutes, and be
completed by 4 minutes, after removal of the helmet
from the conditioning environment.
57.1.4 (a) The guided free fall drop height for the
helmet and test headform combination onto the hem-
ispherical anvil shall be such that the minimum im-
pact speed is 17.1 feet/second (5.2 m/sec). The mini-
mum drop height is 54.5 inches (138.4 cm). The drop
height is adjusted upward from the minimum to the
extent necessary to compensate for friction losses.
(b) The guided free fall drop height for the helmet
and test headform combination onto the flat anvil
shall be such that the minimum impact speed is
19.7 ft./sec (6.0 m/sec). The minimum drop height is
72 inches (182.9 cm). The drop height is adjusted up-
ward from the minimum to the extent necessary to
compensate for friction losses.
57.1.5 Test headforms for impact attenuation test-
ing are constructed of magnesium alloy (K-IA), and
exhibit no resonant frequencies below 2,000 Hz.
57.1.6 The monorail drop test system is used for im-
pact attenuation testing.
57.1.7 The weight of the drop assembly, as specified
in Table 1, is the combined weight of the test head-
form and the supporting assembly for the drop test.
The weight of the supporting assembly is not less than
2.0 lbs. and not more than 2.4 lbs. (0.9 to 1.1 kg). The
supporting assembly weight for the monorail system
is the drop assembly weight minus the combined
weight of the test headform, the headform's clamp
down ring, and its tie down screws.
57.1.8 The center of gravity of the test headform
is located at the center of the mounting ball on the
supporting assembly and lies within a cone with its
axis vertical and forming a 10° included angle with
the vertex at the point of impact. The center of grav-
ity of the drop assembly lies within the rectangular
volume bounded by x = -0.25 inch (-0.64 cm),
X = 0.85 inch (2.16 cm), y = 0.25 inch (0.64 cm), and
y = -0.25 inch (-0.64 cm) with the origin located at
the center of gravity of the test headform. The rec-
tangular volume has no boundary along the z-axis.
The x-y-z axes are mutually perpendicular and have
positive or negative designations in accordance with
the right-hand rule (See Figure 5). The origin of the
coordinate axes also is located at the center of the
mounting ball on the supporting assembly (See Fig-
ures 6, 7, and 8). The x-y-z axes of the test headform
assembly on a monorail drop test equipment are ori-
ented as follows: From the origin, the x-axis is hori-
zontal with its positive direction going toward and
passing through the vertical centerline of the mono-
rail. The positive z-axis is downward. The y-axis also
is horizontal and its direction can be decided by the
z- and x-axes, using the right-hand rule.
PART 571; S218-PRE 24
57.1.9 The acceleration transducer is mounted at
the center of gravity of the test headform with the
sensitive axis aligned to within 5 ° of vertical when
the test headform assembly is in the impact position.
The acceleration data channel complies with SAE
Recommended Practice J211 JUN 80, Instrumenta-
tion for Impact Tests, requirements for channel class
1,000.
57.1.10 The flat anvil is constructed of steel with
a 5-inch (12.7 cm) minimum diameter impact face,
and the hemispherical anvil is constructed of steel
with a 1.9 inch (4.8 cm) radius impact face.
57 . 1 . 1 1 The rigid mount for both of the anvils con-
sists of a solid mass of at least 300 pounds (136.1 kg),
the outer surface of which consists of a steel plate with
minimum thickness of 1 inch (2.5 cm) and minimum
surface area of 1 ft' (929 cm').
57.1.12 The drop system restricts side movement
during the impact attenuation test so that the sum
of the areas bounded by the acceleration-time re-
sponse curves for both the x- and y-axes (horizontal
axes) is less than five percent of the area bounded by
the acceleration-time response curve for the vertical
axis.
(15) S7.2 is revised as set forth below:
S7.2 Penetration test.
57.2.1 The penetration test is conducted by drop-
ping the penetration test striker in guided free fall,
with its axis aligned vertically, onto the outer sur-
face of the complete helmet, when mounted as speci-
fied in S6.3, at any point above the test line, de-
scribed in S6.2.3, except on a fastener or other rigid
projection.
57.2.2 Two penetration blows are applied at least
3 inches (7.6 cm) apart, and at least 3 inches (7.6 cm)
from the centers of any impacts applied during the
impact attenuation test.
57.2.3 The application of the 2 penetration blows,
specified in S7.2.2, starts at 2 minutes and is com-
pleted by 4 minutes, after removal of the helmet from
the conditioning environment.
57.2.4 The height of the guided free fall is 118.1
inches (3 m), as measured from the striker point to
the impact point on the outer surface of the test
helmet.
57.2.5 The contactable surface of the penetration
test headform is constructed of a metal or metallic
alloy having a Brinell hardness number no greater
than 55, which will permit ready detection should
contact by the striker occur. The surface is refinished
if necessary before each penetration test blow to per-
mit detection of contact by the striker.
57.2.6 The weight of the penetration striker is 6
pounds, 10 ounces (3 kg).
57.2.7 The point of the striker has an included
angle of 60°, a cone height of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm), a
tip radj/Us of 0.02 inch (standard 0.5 millimeter radius)
and a/minimum hardness of 60 Rockwell, C-scale.
S7.2.8 The rigid mount for the penetration test
headform is as described in S7.1.11.
(16) S7.3 is revised to read as follows:
S7.3 Retention system test.
57.3.1 The retention system test is conducted by
applying a static tensile load to the retention assem-
bly of a complete helmet, which is mounted, as de-
scribed in S6.3, on a stationary test headform as
shown in Figure 4, and by measuring the movement
of the adjustable portion of the retention system test
device under tension.
57.3.2 The retention system test device consists of
both an adjustable loading mechanism by which a
static tensile load is applied to the helmet retention
assembly and a means for holding the test headform
and helmet stationary. The retention assembly is
fastened around two freely moving rollers, both of
which have a 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) diameter and a 3-inch
(7.6 cm) center-to-center separation, and which are
mounted on the adjustable portion of the tensile load-
ing device (Figure 4). The helmet is fixed on the test
headform as necessary to ensure that it does not move
during the application of the test loads to the reten-
tion assembly.
57.3.3 A 50-pound (22.7 kg) preliminary test load
is applied to the retention assembly, normal to the
basic plane of the test headform and symmetrical with
respect to the center of the retention assembly for
30 seconds, and the maximum distance from the
extremity of adjustable portion of the retention system
test device to the apex of the helmet is measured.
57.3.4 An additional 250-pound (113.4 kg) test load
is applied to the retention assembly, in the same man-
ner and at the same location as described in S7.3.3,
for 120 seconds, and the maximum distance from
the extremity of adjustable portion of the retention
system test device to the apex of the helmet is measured.
(17) The old Appendix to §571.218 is removed,
existing Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Table 1 of Stand-
ard 218 are moved so that they are contained within
a new Appendix to §571.218, and Figure 2 and
Table 1 are revised, and new Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and
Table 2 are added as set forth below:
Table 1.— Weights for Impact Attenuation
Test Drop Assembly
Test headform size
Weight^-lb (kg)
Small
Medium
Large
7.8 lb (3.5 kg)
11.0 lb (5.0 kg)
13.4 lb (6.1 kg)
1 Combined weight of instrumented test headform and supporting
and assembly for drop test.
Issued on March 31, 1988.
PART 571; S218-PRE 25-26
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
53 F.R. 11280
April 6, 1988
Appendix
Table 1.
Weights for Impact Attenuation Test Drop Assembly
Test Headform Size
Weight^ - 1 Ib(kg)
Small
Medium
Large
7.8 (3.5 kg)
11.0 (5.0 kg)
13.4 (6.1 kg)
^Combined weight of instrumented test headform and supporting assembly for drop test.
)
I
PART 571; S 218-PRE 27
Basic Plane
Center of External
Ear Opening
Lower Edge of
Eye Socket
Figure 1 .
Vertical Transverse
Plane as Determined
by S6.2.3(d)
Test Line 1 Inch (2.5 cm)
Below Reference
Plane
Basic Plane
Note; Solid lines would correspond to
the test line on a test helmet.
2.5 inches
(6.4 cm)
Test Line 1 Inch (2.5 cm)
Above Reference
Plane
Reference Plane
Vertical Transverse
Plane as Determined
by S6.2.3.(b)
Center of External
Ear Opening
(See Table 2)
Test Surface
Figure 2.
PART 571; S 218-PRE 28
Section Through the Basic Plane
^
Top View
Helmet
Reference
Headform
Minimum
Peripheral Vision
Clearance
Figure 3.
>
Stationary Test
Headform
Freely Moving Rollers
Mounted on Adjustable
Portion of Retention
System Test Device with
Diameters 0.5 inch (1.3cm);
and Center-to-Center
Separation 3 inches
(7.6cm).
Test Helmet
Retention Assembly
Application of Static
Tensile Load
i
Retention System Test Device
Figure 4.
PART 571; S 218-PRE 29
Front
Mid-Sagittal Plane (Symmetrical Plane)
Apex
Rear
Bottom Opening
Headform Coordinate Systems
(Right-hand Rule)
0 = 0°
M
0
Front \
(Slot Area) \
^p.
K.
(X, Y, Z) ^V,
or (R, 0, Z)
^—
Y
Z = 0
Reference Plane
Figure 5. Headform Sections
PART 571; S 218-PRE 30
Table 2
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions
e
Bottom Opening Z= -
-3.02
Level -5 Z= -2.900
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
4.292
4.292
0
4.293
4.293
0
10
4.266
4.201
0.741
4.270
4.205
0.742
20
4.159
3.908
1.423
4.172
3.920
1.427
30
3.967
3.436
1.984
3.961
3.430
1.981
40
3.660
2.804
2.353
3.670
2.811
2.359
50
3.332
2.142
2.553
3.352
2.155
2.568
60
3.039
1.520
2.632
3.067
1.534
2.656
70
2.839
0.971
2.668
2.869
0.981
2.696
80
2.720
0.472
2.679
2.772
0.481
2.730
90
2.675
0
2.675
2.709
0
2.709
100
2.703
-0.469
2.662
2.724
-0.473
2.683
110
2.764
-0.945
2.597
2.794
-0.956
2.626
120
2.888
1.444
2.501
2.917
-1.459
2.526
130
2.985
-1.919
2.287
3.040
-1.954
2.329
140
3.100
-2.375
1.993
3.175
-2.432
2.041
150
3.175
-2.750
1.588
3.232
-2.799
1.616
160
3.186
-2.994
1.090
3.246
-3.050
1.110
170
3.177
-3.129
0.552
3.237
-3.188
0.562
180
3.187
-3.187
0
3.246
-3.246
0
©
Basic Plane Z= -2.360
Level -4 Z= -2.000
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
4.272
4.272
0
4.247
4.247
0
10
4.248
4.184
0.738
4.223
4.159
0.733
20
4.147
3.897
1.418
4.120
3.872
1.409
30
3.961
3.430
1.981
3.940
3.412
1.970
40
3.687
2.824
2.370
3.683
2.821
2.367
50
3.384
2.175
2.592
3.392
2.180
2.598
60
3.111
1.556
2.694
3.132
1.566
2.712
70
2.927
1.001
2.751
2.960
1.012
2.782
80
2.815
0.489
2.772
2.860
0.497
2.817
90
2.779
0
2.779
2.838
0
2.838
100
2.802
-0.487
2.759
2.861
-0.497
2.818
110
2.887
-0.987
2.713
2.958
-1.012
2.780
120
3.019
-1.510
2.615
3.098
-1.549
2.683
130
3.180
-2.044
2.436
3.260
-2.096
2.497
140
3.306
-2.533
2.125
3.405
-2.608
2.189
150
3.398
-2.943
1.699
3.516
-3.045
1.758
160
3.458
-3.250
1.183
3.585
-3.369
1.226
170
3.475
-3.422
0.603
3.612
-3.557
0.627
180
3.472
-3.472
0
3.609
-3.609
0
PART 571; S 218-PRE 31
Table 2
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued)
e
Level -3 Z= -1.500
Level-2 Z= -1.000
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
4.208
4.208
0
4.148
4.148
0
10
4.179
4.116
0.726
4.112
4.050
0.714
20
4.075
3.829
1.394
4.013
3.771
1.373
30
3.902
3.379
1.951
3.844
3.329
1.922
40
3.654
2.799
2.349
3.609
2.765
2.320
50
3.377
2.171
2.587
3.352
2.155
2.568
60
3.094
1.547
2.680
3.137
1.569
2.717
70
2.982
1.020
2.802
2.989
1.022
2.809
80
2.891
0.502
2.847
2.902
0.504
2.858
90
2.876
0
2.876
2.884
0
2.884
100
2.918
-0.507
2.874
2.943
-0.511
2.898
110
3.021
-1.033
2.839
3.052
-1.044
2.868
120
3.170
-1.585
2.745
3.225
-1.613
2.793
130
3.337
-2.145
2.556
3.397
-2.184
2.602
140
3.483
-2.668
2.239
3.536
-2.709
2.273
150
3.604
-3.121
1.802
3.657
-3.167
1.829
160
3.682
-3.460
1.259
3.751
-3.525
1.283
170
3.725
-3.668
0.647
3.807
-3.749
0.661
180
3.741
-3.741
0
3.R??
-3.822
0
0
Level -1 Z= -0.500
Reference Plane Z=
D.O
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
4.067
4.067
0
3.971
3.971
0
10
4.033
3.972
0.700
3.935
3.875
0.683
20
3.944
3.706
1.349
3.853
3.621
1.318
30
3.777
3.271
1.889
3.701
3.205
1.851
40
3.552
2.721
2.283
3.491
2.674
2.244
50
3.323
2.136
2.546
3.279
2.108
2.512
60
3.126
1.563
2.707
3.101
1.551
2.686
70
2.987
1.022
2.807
2.979
1.019
2.799
80
2.912
0.506
2.868
2.910
0.505
2.866
90
2.893
0
2.893
2.890
0
2.890
100
2.895
-0.503
2.851
2.945
-0.511
2.900
110
3.064
-1.048
2.879
3.062
-1.047
2.877
120
3.231
-1.616
2.798
3.228
-1.614
2.796
130
3.411
-2.193
2.613
3.413
-2.194
2.615
140
3.560
-2.727
2.288
3.563
-2.729
2.290
150
3.682
-3.189
1.841
3.681
-3.188
1.841
160
3.783
-3.555
1.294
3.773
-3.546
1.290
170
3.885
-3.826
0.675
3.832
-3.774
0.665
180
3.857
-3.857
0
3.844
-3.844
0
PART 571; S 218-PRE 32
Table 2
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued)
e
Level+1 Z= 0.500
Level +2 Z= 1.000
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
3.830
3.830
0
3.665
3.665
0
10
3.801
3.743
0.660
3.613
3.558
0.627
20
3.725
3.500
1.274
3.554
3.340
1.216
30
3.587
3.106
1.794
3.436
2.976
1.718
40
3.399
2.604
2.185
3.271
2.506
2.103
50
3.205
2.060
2.455
3.102
1.994
2.376
60
3.044
1.522
2.636
2.959
1.480
2.563
70
2.927
1.001
2.751
2.854
0.976
2.682
80
2.861
0.497
2.818
2.792
0.485
2.750
90
2.855
0
2.855
2.783
0
2.783
100
2.897
-0.503
2.853
2.832
-0.492
2.789
110
3.007
-1.029
2.826
2.938
-1.005
2.761
120
3.176
-1.588
2.751
3.102
-1.551
2.686
130
3.372
-2.168
2.583
3.294
-2.117
2.523
140
3.520
-2.697
2.263
3.450
-2.643
2.218
150
3.643
-3.155
1.822
3.564
-3.087
1.782
160
3.728
-3.503
1.275
3.637
-3.418
1.244
170
3.777
-3.720
0.656
3.675
-3.619
0.638
180
3.782
-3.782
0
3.670
-3.670
0
0
Level +3 Z= 1.450
Level +4 Z= 1.860
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
3.419
3.419
0
3.061
3.061
0
10
3.382
3.331
0.587
3.035
2.989
0.527
20
3.299
3.100
1.128
2.966
2.787
1.014
30
3.197
2.769
1.599
2.872
2.487
1.436
40
3.052
2.338
1.962
2.754
2.110
1.770
50
2.911
1.871
2.230
2.642
1.698
2.024
60
2.786
1.393
2.413
2.522
1.261
2.184
70
2.700
0.924
2.537
2.477
0.847
2.328
80
2.647
0.460
2.607
2.442
0.424
2.405
90
2.636
0
2.636
2.442
0
2.442
100
2.691
-0.467
2.650
2.492
-0.433
2.454
110
2.796
-0.956
2.627
2.599
-0.889
2.442
120
2.961
-1.481
2.564
2.758
-1.379
2.389
130
3.147
-2.023
2.411
2.936
-1.887
2.249
140
3.301
-2.529
2.122
3.081
-2.360
1.980
150
3.408
-2.951
1.704
3.176
-2.751
1.588
160
3.479
-3.269
1.190
3.230
-3.035
1.105
170
3.514
-3.461
0.610
3.270
-3.220
0.568
180
3.502
-3.502
0
3.271
-3.271
•0
PART 571; S 218-PRE 33
Table 2
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued)
0
Level +5 Z=2.250
Level +6 Z=2.560
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
2.526
2.526
0
1.798
1.798
0
10
2.521
2.483
0.483
1.798
1.771
0.312
20
2.464
2.315
0.843
1.757
1.651
0.601
30
2.387
2.067
1.194
1.719
1.489
0.860
40
2.305
1.766
1.482
1.678
1.285
1.079
50
2.232
1.435
1.710
1.652
1.062
1.266
60
2.174
1.087
1.883
1.641
0.821
1.421
70
2.144
0.733
2.015
1.645
0.563
1.546
80
2.132
0.370
2.100
1.673
0.291
1.648
90
2.147
0
2.147
1.712
0
1.712
100
2.213
-0.384
2.179
1.809
-0.314
1.782
110
2.316
-0.792
2.176
1.925
-0.658
1.809
120
2.463
-1.232
2.133
2.066
-1.033
1.789
130
2.624
-1.687
2.010
2.213
-1.423
1.695
140
2.763
-2.117
1.776
2.358
-1.806
1.516
150
2.863
-2.479
1.432
2.469
-2.138
1.235
160
2.919
-2.743
0.988
2.536
-2.383
0.867
170
2.954
-2.909
0.513
2.561
-2.522
0.445
180
2.958
-2.958
0
2.556
-2.556
0
0
Level +7 Z=2.750
Notes:
1. Apex is located at (-0.75. 0, 3.02)
for (X,Y,Z) or (0.75, 180,3.02)
for (R,0, Z).
2. Center of ear opening is located at
(0.40, 2.78, -2.36) for (X,Y,Z) or
(2.80, 81.8, -2.36) for (R,0,Z).
3. Scale all dimensions by 0.8941 for
small headform.
4. Scale all dimensions by 1.069 for large
headform.
5. Headform is symmetrical about the
mid-sagittal plane.
6. Units:
R,X,Y,Z - inches.
0— degrees.
7. To obtain metric equivalents in centimeters,
multiply each figure by 2.54.
R
X
Y
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
1.081
1.088
1.055
1.039
1.039
1.052
1.068
1.106
1.171
1.242
1.422
1.489
1.683
1.801
1.954
2.083
2.138
2.175
2.175
1.081
1.072
0.991
0.900
0.796
0.676
0.534
0.378
0.203
0
-0.247
-0.509
-0.842
-1.158
-1.497
-1.804
-2.009
-2.142
-2.175
0
0.189
0.361
0.520
0.668
0.806
0.925
1.039
1.153
1.242
1.400
1.399
1.458
1.380
1.256
1.042
0.731
0.378
0
PART 571; S 218-PRE 34
3.250 B.C
5/16-18 Helical Coll Insert ty
1/2 Length
1.086
2 13/64
Constant Width i
throughout 230°"*]
1/2
3/4
1.375 RAD
.005 Loose Fit
with Mounting Ball
Smooth Finish
Section A-A
Note:
To obtain metric equivalents in
centimeters, multiply each
figure by 2.54.
Figure 6. Small Headform — Interior Design
PART 571; S 218-PRE 35
7.479
■2.230'
5/16-18 Helical Coil Insert
1/2 Length
2 13/64
1/2
3/4
Constant Width
throughout 54°
ir
-1 r
1.375 RAD
.005 Loose Fit
with Mounting Ba
Smooth Finish
Note:
To obtain metric equivalents in
centimeters, multiply each
figure by 2.54.
Section B-B
Figure 7. Medium Headform — Interior Design
PART 571; S 218-PRE 36
1.970 RAD TYP
QOA 5.720 4
—' , '> 1 13/3
I
2.860
qo° I
5/16-18 Helical Coil Insert j K2.369*-
1/2 Length
7/16
—^ f-« 4.690
Constant Width I I
throughtout 56°*1^,2
il
X
4.500
1.375 RAD
.005 Loose Fit
with Mounting Ball
Smooth Finish
Section C-C
2 13/64
Note:
To obtain metric equivalents In
centimeters, multiply each
figure by 2.54.
Figure 8. Large Headform — Interior Design
PART 571; S 218-PRE 37-38
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 218
Motorcycle Helmets
(Docket No. 72-6; Notice 2)
S1. Scope.
This standard establishes minimum performance
requirements for helmets designed for use by
motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.
S2. Purpose.
The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths
and injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehi-
cle users resulting from head impacts.
S3. Application.
This standard applies to [all] helmets designed
for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle
users.
S4. Definitions.
"Basic plane" means a plane through the centers
of the right and left external ear openings and the
lower edge of the eye sockets (Figure 1) of a
reference headform (Figure 2) or test headform.
"Helmet positioning index" means the distance
in inches, as specified by the manufacturer, from
the lowest point of the brow opening at the
lateral midpoint of the helmet to the basic plane
of a reference headform, when the helmet is
firmly and properly positioned on the reference
headform.
"Midsagittal plane" means a longitudinal plane
through the apex of a reference headform or test
headform that is perpendicular to the basic plane
(Figure 3).
("Reference headform" means a measuring
device contoured to the dimensions of one of the
three headforms described in Table 2 and Figures 5
through 8 with surface markings indicating the
locations of the basic, mid-sagittal, and reference
planes, and the centers of the external ear open-
ings.) (53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: Octo-
ber 3, 1988)
["Reference plane" means a plane above and
parallel to the basic plane on a reference headform
or test headform (Figure 2) at the distance in-
dicated in Table 2] (53 F.R. 11280— April 6. 1988.
Effective: October 3, 1988)
"Retention system" means the complete
assembly by which the helmet is retained in posi-
tion on the head during use.
["Test headform" means a test device contoured
to the dimensions of one of the three headforms
described in Table 2 and Figures 5 through 8 with
surface markings indicating the locations of the
basic, mid-sagittal, and reference planes.] (53
F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988)
S5. Requirements.
[Each helmet shall meet the requirements of
S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 when subjected to any condi-
tioning procedure specified in S6.4, and tested in
accordance with S7.1, S7.2, and 87.3.] (53 F.R.
11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988)
S5.1 Impact attenuation. When an impact at-
tenuation test is conducted in accordance with
S7.1, all of the following requirements shall be
met:
(a) Peak accelerations shall not exceed 400g;
(b) [Accelerations in excess of 200g shall not ex-
ceed a cumulative duration of 2.0 milliseconds;
and|
(c) Accelerations in excess of 150g shall not
exceed a cumulative duration of 4.0 milliseconds.
(Rev. 4/6/88)
PART 571; S 218-1
55.2 Penetration. When a penetration test is
conducted in accordance with S7.2, the striker
shall not contact the surface of the test headform.
55.3 Retention system.
55.3.1 When tested in accordance with S7.3:
(a) The retention system or its components
shall attain the loads specified without separa-
tion; and
(b) The adjustable portion of the retention
system test device shall not move more than 1
inch (2.5 cm) measured between preliminary and
test load positions.
55.3.2 Where the retention system consists of
components which can be independently fastened
without securing the complete assembly, each
such component shall independently meet the
requirements of S5.3.1.
55.4 Configuration. Each helmet shall have a
protective surface of continuous contour at all
points on or above the test line described in
[S6.2.3.J The helmet shall provide peripheral
vision clearance of at least 105° to each side of
the mid-sagittal plane, when the helmet is ad-
justed as specified in IS6.3.1 The vertex of these
angles, shown in Figure 3, shall be at the point
on the anterior surface of the reference headform
at the intersection of the mid-sagittal and basic
planes. The brow opening of the helmet shall
be at least 1 inch I(2.5cm)l above all points in the
basic plane that are within the angles of peripheral
vision (see Figure 3).
55.5 Projections. A helmet shall not have any
rigid projections inside its shell. Rigid projections
outside any helmet's shell shall be limited to those
required for operation of essential accessories, and
shall not protrude more than [0.20 inch (5mm)l.
55.6 Labeling.
S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled permanently
and legibly, in a manner such that the label(s) can
be read easily without removing padding or any
other permanent part, with the following:
(a) Manufacturer's name or identification.
(b) Precise model designation.
(c) Size.
(d) Month and year of manufacture. This may
be spelled out (for example, June 1988), or ex-
pressed in numerals (for example, 6/88).
(e) The symbol DOT, constituting the manufac-
turer's certification that the helmet conforms to
the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand-
ards. This symbol shall appear on the outer sur-
face, in a color that contrasts with the background,
in letters at least % inch ((1 cm) high, centered
laterally with the horizontal centerline of the sym-
bol located a minimum of 1^^ inches (2.9 cm) and a
maximum of 1% inches (3.5 cm) from the bottom
edge of the posterior portion of the helmet.] (53
F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988)
[(f) Instructions to the purchaser as follows:
(1) "Shell and liner constructed of (identify
type(s) of materials)."
(2) "Helmet can be seriously damaged by some
common substances without damage being visible
to the user. Apply only the following: (Recom-
mended cleaning agents, paints, adhesives, etc., as
appropriate)."
(3) "Make no modifications. Fasten helmet
securely. If helmet experiences a severe blow,
return it to the manufacturer for inspection, or
destroy it and replace it."
(4) Any additional relevant safety information
should be supplied at the time of purchase by
means of an attached tag, brochure, or other
suitable means.] (53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988.
Effective: October 3, 1988)
S5.7 Helmet positioning index. Each manu-
facturer of helmets shall establish a positioning
index for each helmet he manufactures. This
index shall be furnished immediately to any per-
son who requests the information, with respect
to a helmet identified by manufacturer, model
designation, and size.
S6. Preliminary test procedures. Before sub-
jecting a helmet to the testing sequence specified
in S7., prepare it according to the following
procedures [S6.1, S6.2, and S6.31.
[S6.1 Selection of appropriate headform.
S6.1.1 A helmet with a manufacturer's
designated discrete size or size range which does
(Rev. 4/6/88)
PART 571; S 218-2
not exceed 6 % (European size: 54) is tested on the
small headform. A helmet with a manufacturer's
designated discrete size or size range which ex-
ceeds 6 %, but does not exceed 7 V2 (European size:
60) is tested on the medium headform. A helmet
with a manufacturer's designated discrete size or
size range which exceeds 7 V2 is tested on the large
headform.
S6.1.2 A helmet with a manufacturer's
designated size range which includes sizes falling
into two or all three size ranges described in S6.1.1
is tested on each headform specified for each size
range. 1 (53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective:
October 3, 1988)
{S6.2 Reference marking.
56.2.1 Use a reference headform that is firmly
seated with the basic and reference planes horizon-
tal. Place the complete helmet to be tested on the
appropriate reference headform, as specified in
S6.1.1 and S6.1.2.
56.2.2 Apply a 10-pound (4.5 kg) static vertical
load through the helmet's apex. Center the helmet
laterally and seat it firmly on the reference head-
form according to its helmet positioning index.
56.2.3 Maintaining the load and position
described in S6.2.2, draw a line (hereinafter refer-
red to as "test line") on the outer surface of the
helmet coinciding with portions of the intersection
of that surface with the following planes, as shown
in Figure 2:
(a) A plane 1 inch (2.5 cm) above and parallel to
the reference plane in the anterior portion of the
reference headform;
(b) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm)
behind the point on the anterior surface of the
reference headform at the intersection of the mid-
sagittal and reference planes;
(c) The reference plane of the reference head-
form;
(d) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm)
behind the center of the external ear opening in a
side view; and
(e) A plane 1 (2.5 cm) inch below and parallel to
the reference plane in the posterior portion of the
reference headform.] (53 F.R. 11280— April 6,
1988. Effective: October 3, 1988)
56.3 Helmet positioning.
S6.3.1 Before each test, fix the helmet on a test
headform in the position that conforms to its
helmet positioning index. Secure the helmet so
that it does not shift position before impact or
before application of force during testing.
[S6.3.21 In testing as specified in S7.1 and S7.2,
place the retention system in a position such that it
does not interfere with free fall, impact, or
penetration.
56.4 Conditioning.
56.4.1 Immediately before conducting the
testing sequence specified in S7., condition each
test helmet in accordance with any one of the
following procedures:
(a) Ambient conditions. Expose to a temper-
ature of 70° F. I(21°C)1 and a relative humidity of
50% for 12 hours.
(b) Low temperature. Expose to a tempera-
ture of 14° F. [(-10°C)1 for 12 hours.
(c) High temperature. Expose to a tempera-
ture of 122° F. [(50° Olfor 12 hours.
(d) Water immersion. Immerse in water at a
temperature of 77° F. [(25° C)l for 12 hours.
56.4.2 If during testing, as specified in S7.1.3
and S7.2.3, a helmet is returned to the condition-
ing environment before the time out of that en-
vironment exceeds 4 minutes, the helmet is kept in
the environment for a minimum of 3 minutes
before resumption of testing with that helmet. If
the time out of the environment exceeds 4 minutes,
the helmet is returned to the environment for a
minimum of 3 minutes for each minute or portion
of a minute that the helmet remained out of the en-
vironment in excess of 4 minutes or for a maximum
of 12 hours, whichever is less, before the resump-
tion of testing with than helmet.J (53 F.R.
11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988)
S7. Test conditions.
S7.1 Impact attenuation test.
S7.1.1 Impact attenuation is measured by de-
termining acceleration imparted to an instru-
mented test headform on which a complete helmet
is mounted as specified in [86.3], when it is
dropped in guided free fall upon a fixed
hemispherical anvil and a fixed flat steel anvil.
(Rev. 4/6/88)
PART 571; S 218-3
57.1.2 Each helmet is impacted at four sites
with two successive, identical impacts at each site.
Two of these sites are impacted upon a flat steel
anvil and two upon a hemispherical steel anvil as
specified in [ST.I.IOJ and [ST.l.llJ. The impact
sites are at any point on the area above the test line
described in [S6.2.31, and separated by a distance
not less than one-sixth of the maximum cir-
cumference of the helmet [in the test area].
57.1.3 {Impact testing at each of the four sites,
as specified in S7.1.2, shall start at two minutes,
and be completed by four minutes, after removal of
the helmet from the conditioning environment.
57.1.4 (a) The guided free fall drop height for the
helmet and test headform combination onto the
hemispherical anvil shall be such that the minimum
impact speed is 17.1 feet/second (5.2 m/sec). The
minimum drop height is 54.5 inches (138.4 cm). The
drop height is adjusted upward from the minimum to
the extent necessary to compensate for friction
losses.
(b) The guided free fall drop height for the
helmet and test headform combination onto the
flat anvil shall be such that the minimum impact
speed is 19.7 ft/sec. (6.0 m/sec). The minimum drop
height is 72 inches (182.9 cm). The drop height is
adjusted upward from the minimum to the extent
necessary to compensate for friction losses.
57.1.5 Test headforms for impact attenuation
testing are constructed of magnesium alloy (K-IA),
and exhibit no resonant frequencies below 2,000 Hz.
57.1 .6 The monorail drop test system is used for
impact attenuation testing.
57.1.7 The weight of the drop assembly, as
specified in Table 1, is the combined weight of the
test headform and the supporting assembly for the
drop test. The weight of the supporting assembly is
not less than 2.0 lbs. and not more than 2.4 lbs. (0.9 to
1.1 kg). The supporting assembly weight for the
monoraO system is the drop assembly weight minus
the combined weight of the test headform, the head-
form's clamp down ring, and its tie down screws.
57.1.8 The center of gravity of the test head-
form is located at the center of the mounting ball
on the supporting assembly and lies within a cone
with its axis vertical and forming and 10° included
angle with the vertex at the point of impact. The
center of gravity of the drop assembly lies with the
rectangular volume bounded by x = -0.25 inch
(-0.64 cm), X = 0.85 inch (2.16 cm), y = 0.25 inch
(0.64 cm), and y = -0.25 inch (-0.64 cm) with the
origin located at the center of gravity of the test
headform. The rectangular volume has no boun-
dary along the z-axis. The x-y-z axes are mutually
perpendicular and have positive or negative
designations in accordance with the right-hand
rule (See Figure 5). The origin of the coordinate
axes also is located at the center of the mounting
ball on the supporting assembly (See Figures 6, 7,
and 8). The x-y-z axes of the test headform
assembly on a monorail drop test equipment are
oriented as follows: From the origin, the x-axis is
horizontal with its positive direction going toward
and passing through the vertical centerline of the
monorail. The positive z-axis is downward. The
y-axis also is horizontal and its direction can be
decided by the z- and x-axes, using the right-hand
rule.
57.1.9 The acceleration transducer is mounted
at the center of gravity of the test headform with
the sensitive axis aligned to within 5° of vertical
when the test headform assembly is in the impact
position. The acceleration data channel complies
with SAE Recommended Practice J211 JUN 80, In-
strumentation for Impact Tests, requirements for
channel class 1,000.
57.1.10 The flat anvil is constructed of steel
with a 5-inch (12.7 cm) minimum diameter impact
face, and the hemispherical anvil is constructed of
steel with a 1.9 inch (4.8 cm) radius impact face.
57.1 .1 1 The rigid mount for both of the anvils
consists of a soHd mass of at least 300 pounds
(136.1 kg), the outer surface of which consists of a
steel plate with minimum thickness of 1 inch (2.5
cm) and minimum surface area of 1 ft^ (929 cm^).
57.1.12 The drop system restricts side move-
ment during the impact attenuation test so that
the sum of the areas bounded by the acceleration-
time response curves for both the x- and y-axes
(horizontal axes) is less than five percent of the
(Rev. 4/6/B8)
PART 571; S 218-4
area bounded by the acceleration-time response
curve for the vertical axis.) (53 F.R. 11280— April
6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988)
S7.2 Penetration test.
S7.2.1. The penetration test is conducted by
dropping the penetration test striker in guided free
fall, with its axis aligned vertically, onto the outer
surface of the complete helmet, when mounted as
specified in [S6.31, at any point above the test line,
described in [S6.2.31, except on a fastener or other
rigid projection.
S7.2.2 Two penetration blows are applied at
least 3 inches 1(7.6 cm)] apart, and at least 3 inches
1(7.6 cm)l from the centers of any impacts applied
during the impact attenuation test.
[S7.2.3 The application of the two penetration
blows, specified in S7.2.2, starts at two minutes
and is completed by four minutes, after removal of
the helmet from the conditioning environment.]
(53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3,
1988)
[S7.2.41 The height of the guided free fall is
118.1 inches, [(3 m),] as measured from the striker
point to the impact point on the outer surface of
the test helmet.
[S7.2.5] The contactable surface of the penetra-
tion test headform is constructed of a metal
or metallic alloy having a Brinell hardness num-
ber no greater than 55, which will permit ready
detection should contact by the striker occur.
The surface is refinished if necessary before
each penetration test blow to permit detection
of contact by the striker.
[S7.2.6] The weight of the penetration striker
is 6 pounds, 10 ounces [(3 kg)].
[S7.2.71 The point of the striker has an included
angle of 60°, a cone height of 1.5 inches [(3.8 cm)],
a tip radius of 0.019 inch (standard 0.5 miUimeter
radius) and a minimum hardness of 60 Rockwell,
C-scale.
S7.2.8 The rigid mount for the penetration
test headform is as described in IS7.1.111.
S7.3 Retention system test.
57.3.1 The retention system test is conducted
by applying a static tensile load to the retention
assembly of a complete helmet, which is mounted,
as described in [S6.31, on a stationary test head-
form as shown in Figure 4, and by measuring the
movement of the adjustable portion of the reten-
tion system test device under tension.
57.3.2 The retention system test device consists
of both an adjustable loading mechanism by which
a static tensile load is applied to the helmet reten-
tion assembly and a means for holding the test
headform and helmet stationary. The retention
assembly is fastened around two freely moving
rollers, both of which have 0.5 inch 1(1.3 cm)l
diameter and a 3-inch [(7.6 cm)) center-to-center
separation, and which are mounted on the ad-
justable portion of the tensile loading device
(Figure 4). The helmet is fixed on the test head-
form as necessary to ensure that it does not move
during the application of the test loads to the
-retention assembly.
57.3.3 A 50-pound [(22.7 kg)) preliminary test
load is applied to the retention assembly, normal to
the basic plane of the test headform and sym-
metrical with respect to the center of the retention
assembly for 30 seconds, and the maximum
distance from the extremity of the adjustable por-
tion of the retention system test device to the apex
of the helmet is measured.
S7.3.4 An additional 250-pound [(113.4 kg)l test
load is applied to the retention assembly, in the
same manner and at the same location as described
in S7.3.3, for 120 seconds, and the maximum
distance from the extremity of the adjustable por-
tion of the retention system test device to the apex
of the helmet is measured.
38 F.R. 22390
August 20, 1973
(Rev. 4/6/88)
PART 571; S 218-5-6
Appendix
Table 1.
Weights for Impact Attenuation Test Drop Assembly
Test Headform Size
Weight^ - 1 Ib(kg)
Small
Medium
Large
7.8 (3.5 kg)
11.0 (5.0 kg)
13.4 (6.1 kg)
^Combined weight of instrumented test headforhn and supporting assembly for drop test.
PART 571; S 218- Appendix Page 1
Basic Plane
Lower Edge of
Eye Socket
Center of External
Ear Opening
Figure 1 .
Vertical Transverse
Plane as Determined
by S6.2.3(d)
2.5 inches
(6.4 cm)
Test Line 1 Inch (2.5 cm)
Below Reference
Plane
Basic Plane
Note: Solid lines would correspond to
the test line on a test helmet.
Test Line 1 Inch (2.5 cm)
Above Reference
Plane
Reference Plane
Vertical Transverse
Plane as Determined
by S6.2.3.(b)
Center of External
Ear Opening
(See Table 2)
Test Surface
Figure 2.
PART 571; S 218-Appendix Page 2
Section Through the Basic Plane
Top View
Helmet
Reference
Headform
Minimum
lo Peripheral Vision
Clearance
Figure 3.
Stationary Test
Headform
Freely Moving Rollers
Mounted on Adjustable
Portion of Retention
System Test Device with
Diameters 0.5 inch (1.3 cm);
and Center-to-Center
Separation 3 Inches
(7.6cm).
Test Helmet
Retention Assembly
Application of Static
Tensile Load
Retention System Test Device
Figure 4.
PART 571; S 218- Appendix Page 3
Front
Mid-Sagittal Plane (Symmetrical Plane)
Apex
Rear
Bottom Opening
Front
(Slot Area)
(X, Y, Z
or (R, 0, Z)
Headfofm Coordinate Systems
(Right-hand Rule)
Reference Plane
Figure 5. Headform Sections
PART 571; S 218-Appendix Page 4
Table 2
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions
e
Bottom Opening Z= -
-3.02
Level -5 Z= -2.900
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
4.292
4.292
0
4.293
4.293
0
10
4.266
4.201
0.741
4.270
4.205
0.742
20
4.159
3.908
1.423
4.172
3.920
1.427
30
3.967
3.436
1.984
3.961
3.430
1.981
40
3.660
2.804
2.353
3.670
2.811
2.359
50
3.332
2.142
2.553
3.352
2.155
2.568
60
3.039
1.520
2.632
3.067
1.534
2.656
70
2.839
0.971
2.668
2.869
0.981
2.696
80
2.720
0.472
2.679
2.772
0.481
2.730
90
2.675
0
2.675
2.709
0
2.709
100
2.703
-0.469
2.662
2.724
-0.473
2.683
110
2.764
-0.945
2.597
2.794
-0.956
2.626
120
2.888
1.444
2.501
2.917
-1.459
2.526
130
2.985
-1.919
2.287
3.040
-1.954
2.329
140
3.100
-2.375
1.993
3.175
-2.432
2.041
150
3.175
-2.750
1.588
3.232
-2.799
1.616
160
3.186
-2.994
1.090
3.246
-3.050
1.110
170
3.177
-3.129
0.552
3.237
-3.188
0.562
180
3.187
-3.187
0
3.246
-3.246
0
0
Ba£
jjc Plane Z= -2.360
Level -4 Z= -2.000
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
4.272
4.272
0
4.247
4.247
0
10
4.248
4.184
0.738
4.223
4.159
0.733
20
4.147
3.897
1.418
4.120
3.872
1.409
30
3.961
3.430
1.981
3.940
3.412
1.970
40
3.687
2.824
2.370
3.683
2.821
2.367
50
3.384
2.175
2.592
3.392
2.180
2.598
60
3.111
1.556
2.694
3.132
1.566
2.712
70
2.927
1.001
2.751
2.960
1.012
2.782
80
2.815
0.489
2.772
2.860
0.497
2.817
90
2.779
0
2.779
2.838
0
2.838
100
2.802
-0.487
2.759
2.861
-0.497
2.818
110
2.887
-0.987
2.713
2.958
-1.012
2.780
120
3.019
-1.510
2.615
3.098
-1.549
2.683
130
3.180
-2.044
2.436
3.260
-2.096
2.497
140
3.306
-2.533
2.125
3.405
-2.608
2.189
150
3.398
-2.943
1.699
3.516
-3.045
1.758
160
3.458
-3.250
1.183
3.585
-3.369
1.226
170
3.475
-3.422
0.603
3.612
-3.557
0.627
180
3.472
-3.472
0
3.609
-3.609
0
PART 571; S 218-Appendix Page 5
Table 2
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued)
0
Level -3 Z= -1.500
Level-2 Z= -1.000
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
4.208
4.208
0
4.148
4.148
0
10
4.179
4.116
0.726
4.112
4.050
0.714
20
4.075
3.829
1.394
4.013
3.771
1.373
30
3.902
3.379
1.951
3.844
3.329
1.922
40
3.654
2.799
2.349
3.609
2.765
2.320
50
3.377
2.171
2.587
3.352
2.155
2.568
60
3.094
1.547
2.680
3.137
1.569
2.717
70
2.982
1.020
2.802
2.989
1.022
2.809
80
2.891
0.502
2.847
2.902
0.504
2.858
90
2.876
0
2.876
2.884
0
2.884
100
2.918
-0.507
2.874
2.943
-0.511
2.898
110
3.021
-1.033
2.839
3.052
-1.044
2.868
120
3.170
-1.585
2.745
3.225
-1.613
2.793
130
3.337
-2.145
2.556
3.397
-2.t84
2.602
140
3.483
-2.668
2.239
3.536
-2.709
2.273
150
3.604
-3.121
1.802
3.657
-3.167
1.829
160
3.682
-3.460
1.259
3.751
-3.525
1.283
170
3.725
-3.668
0.647
3.807
-3.749
0.661
180
3.741
-3.741
0
3.8??
-3.R??
0
0
Level -1 Z= -0.500
Reference Plane Z=
D.O
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
4.067
4.067
0
3.971
3.971
0
10
4.033
3.972
0.700
3.935
3.875
0.683
20
3.944
3.706
1.349
3.853
3.621
1.318
30
3.777
3.271
1.889
3.701
3.205
1.851
40
3.552
2.721
2.283
3.491
2.674
2.244
50
3.323
2.136
2.546
3.279
2.108
2.512
60
3.126
1.563
2.707
3.101
1.551
2.686
70
2.987
1.022
2.807
2.979
1.019
2.799
80
2.912
0.506
2.868
2.910
0.505
2.866
90
2.893
0
2.893
2.890
0
2.890
100
2.895
-0.503
2.851
2.945
-0.511
2.900
110
3.064
-1.048
2.879
3.062
-1.047
2.877
120
3.231
-1.616
2.798
3.228
-1.614
2.796
130
3.411
-2.193
2.613
3.413
-2.194
2.615
140
3.560
-2.727
2.288
3.563
-2.729
2.290
150
3.682
-3.189
1.841
3.681
-3.188
1.841
160
3,783
-3.555
1.294
3.773
-3.546
1.290
170
3.885
-3.826
0.675
3.832
-3.774
0.665
180
3.857
-3.857
0
3.844
-3.844
0
PART 571; S 2 18- Appendix Page 6
Table 2
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued)
0
Level+1 Z= 0.500
Level +2 Z= 1.000
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
3.830
3.830
0
3.665
3.665
0
10
3.801
3.743
0.660
3.613
3.558
0.627
20
3.725
3.500
1.274
3.554
3.340
1.216
30
3.587
3.106
1.794
3.436
2.976
1.718
40
3.399
2.604
2.185
3.271
2.506
2.103
50
3.205
2.060
2.455
3.102
1.994
2.376
60
3.044
1.522
2.636
2.959
1.480
2.563
70
2.927
1.001
2.751
2.854
0.976
2.682
80
2.861
0.497
2.818
2.792
0.485
2.750
90
2.855
0
2.855
2.783
0
2.783
100
2.897
-0.503
2.853
2.832
-0.492
2.789
110
3.007
-1.029
2.826
2.938
-1.005
2.761
120
3.176
-1.588
2.751
3.102
-1.551
2.686
130
3.372
-2.168
2.583
3.294
-2.117
2.523
140
3.520
-2.697
2.263
3.450
-2.643
2.218
150
3.643
-3.155
1.822
3.564
-3.087
1.782
160
3.728
-3.503
1.275
3.637
-3.418
1.244
170
3.777
-3.720
0.656
3.675
-3.619
0.638
180
3.782
-3.782
0
3.670
-3.670
0
G
Level +3 Z= 1.450
Level +4 Z= 1.860
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
3.419
3.419
0
3.061
3.061
0
10
3.382
3.331
0.587
3.035
2.989
0.527
20
3.299
3.100
1.128
2.966
2.787
1.014
30
3.197
2.769
1.599
2.872
2.487
1.436
40
3.052
2.338
1.962
2.754
2.110
1.770
50
2.911
1.871
2.230
2.642
1.698
2.024
60
2.786
1.393
2.413
2.522
1.261
2.184
70
2.700
0.924
2.537
2.477
0.847
2.328
80
2.647
0.460
2.607
2.442
0.424
2.405
90
2.636
0
2.636
2.442
0
2.442
100
2.691
-0.467
2.650
2.492
-0.433
2.454
110
2.796
-0.956
2.627
2.599
-0.889
2.442
120
2.961
-1.481
2.564
2.758
-1.379
2.389
130
3.147
-2.023
2.411
2.936
-1.887
2.249
140
3.301
-2.529
2.122
3.061
-2.360
1.980
150
3.408
-2.951
1.704
3.176
-2.751
1.588
160
3.479
-3.269
1.190
3.230
-3.035
1.105
170
3.514
-3.461
0.610
3.270
-3.220
0.568
180
3.502
-3.502
0
3.271
-3.271
•0
PART 571; S 218-Appendix Page 7
Table 2
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued)
e
Level +5 Z=2.250
Level +6 Z=2.560
R
X
Y
R
X
Y
0
2.526
2.526
0
1.798
1.798
0
10
2.521
2.483
0.483
1.798
1.771
0.312
20
2.464
2.315
0.843
1.757
1.651
0.601
30
2.387
2.067
1.194
1.719
1.489
0.860
40
2.305
1.766
1.482
1.678
1.285
1.079
50
2.232
1.435
1.710
1.652
1.062
1.266
60
2.174
1.087
1.883
1.641
0.821
1.421
70
2.144
0.733
2.015
1.645
0.563
1.546
80
2.132
0.370
2.100
1.673
0.291
1.648
90
2.147
0
2.147
1.712
0
1.712
100
2.213
-0.384
2.179
1.809
-0.314
1.782
110
2.316
-0.792
2.176
1.925
-0.658
1.809
120
2.463
-1.232
2.133
2.066
-1.033
1.789
130
2.624
-1.687
2.010
2.213
-1.423
1.695
140
2.763
-2.117
1.776
2.358
-1.806
1.516
150
2.863
-2.479
1.432
2.469
-2.138
1.235
160
2.919
-2.743
0.988
2.536
-2.383
0.867
170
2.954
-2.909
0.513
2.561
-2.522
0.445
180
2.958
-2.958
0
2.556
-2.556
0
0
Level +7 Z=2.750
Notes:
1. Apex is located at (-0.75, 0, 3.02)
for (X,Y,Z) or (0.75, 180,3.02)
for(R,e, Z).
2. Center of ear opening is located at
(0.40, 2.78, -2.36) for (X,Y,Z) or
(2.80, 81.8, -2.36) for (R,e,Z).
3. Scale all dimensions by 0.8941 for
small headform.
4. Scale all dimensions by 1.069 for large
headform.
5. Headform is symmetrical about the
mid-sagittal plane.
6. Units:
R,X,Y,Z - inches.
6— degrees.
7. To obtain metric equivalents in centimeters,
multiply each figure by 2.54.
R
X
Y
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
1.081
1.088
1.055
1.039
1.039
1.052
1.068
1.106
1.171
1.242
1.422
1.489
l.HH:^
1.801
1.954
2.083
2.138
2.175
2.175
1.081
1.072
0.991
0.900
0.796
0.676
0.534
0.378
0.203
0
-0.247
-0.509
-0.842
-1.158
-1.497
-1.804
-2.009
-2.142
-2.175
0
0.189
0.361
0.520
0.668
0.806
0.925
1.039
1.153
1.242
1.400
1.399
1.458
1.380
1.256
1.042
0.731
0.378
0
PART 571; S 2 18- Appendix Page 8
3.250 B.C
5/16-18 Helical Coil Insert ty
1/2 Length
T
2.392
l^
1.95 RAD
1.086
■45/64 RAD
2 13/64
Constant Width i
throughout 230 °"*^
1/2
3/4
1.375 RAD
.005 Loose Fit
with Mounting Ball
Smooth Finish
Section A-A
Note:
To obtain metric equivalents in
centimeters, multiply each
figure by 2.54.
Figure 6. Small Headform — Interior Design
PART 571; S 218- Appendix Page 9
•2.230'
5/16-18 Helical Coil Insert
1/2 Length
2 13/64
1/2
3/4
Constant Width
throughout 54°
ir
-1 r
1.375 RAD
.005 Loose Fit
with Mounting Ball
Smooth Finish
Note:
To obtain metric equivalents In
centimeters, multiply each
figure by 2.54.
Section B-B
Figure 7. Medium Headform — Interior Design
PART 571; S 218-Appenciix Page 10
1.970 RAD TYP
5/16-18 Helical Coil
1/2 Length
7/16
nsert,,^°° U-2.369*-
Constant Width I
throughtout 56°*^ ^2
4.500
1.375 RAD
.005 Loose Fit
with Mounting Ball
Smooth Finish
Section C-C
2 13/64
Note:
To obtain metric equivalents in
centimeters, multiply each
figure by 2.54.
Figure 8. Large Headform — Interior Design
PART 571; S 218- Appendix Page 11
^
Effactiv*: SepKmbtr 1, 1976
PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 219
Windshield Zone Intrusion
(Docket No. 74-21; Notice 2)
This notice establishes a new Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 219, 49 CFR 571.219, that
regulates the intrusion of vehicle parts from
outside the occupant compartment into a defined
zone in front of the windshield during a frontal
barrier crash test.
The notice of proposed rulemaking on which
this issuance is based was issued on May 20, 1974
(39 F.R. 17768). An earlier notice had been
issued on August 31, 1972 (37 F.R. 17763), pro-
posing a standard that would prohibit penetra-
tion of the protected zone by any part of a
vehicle outside of the occupant compartment
during a 30-mph frontal impact into a fixed
barrier. After further study and an analysis
of comm.ents submitted in response to that no-
tice, the NHTSA determined that the initial
rule was unnecessarily stringent since its near-
total ban on intrusion had the effect of pro-
hibiting entrance into the protected zone or
contact with the windshield by small particles
such as paint chips and glass which do not rep-
resent a danger to the vehicle occupants if they
enter the zone and impact the windshield open-
ing with a limited amount of force.
Consequently, in the notice published on May
20, 1974, the proposed standard on windshield
zone intrusion was amended to permit penetra-
tion by particles, to a depth of no more than
one-quarter inch into a styrofoam template in
the shape of the protected zone and affixed to
the windshield, during a 30-mph frontal barrier
crash.
In addition, the amended proposal published
May 20, 1974, provided that contact by vehicle
parts with the windshield opening in the area
below the protected zone, during a 30-mph bar-
rier crash test, would not be prohibited provided
that the inner surface of that portion of the
windshield is not penetrated. The procedure
for determining the lower edge of the protected
zone was also revised.
Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion,
reflects some minor changes incorporated for
clarification following publication of the pro-
posed rule on May 20, 1974. First, open-body-
type vehicles with fold-down or removable wind-
shields have been added to forward control
vehicles as vehicle types to which the standard
does not apply. A structurally unsupported
windshield, essential to the utility of this ve-
hicle type, typically does not remain in place
during a 30-mph frontal barrier crash test, hence
the test is impracticable for this type of vehicle.
In addition, the standard provides that its
prohibitions against penetration by particles to
a depth of more than one-quarter inch into the
styrofoam template and penetration of the inner
surface of the portion of the windshield below
the protected zone do not apply to windshield
molding and other components designed to be
normally in contact with the windshield. This
provision was contained in the proposed stand-
ard published August 31, 1972 but omitted from
the proposal published May 20, 1974.
The standard as adopted also specifies that
the 6.5-inch-diameter rigid sphere employed to
determine the lower edge of the protected zone
shall weigh 15 pounds, the approximate weight
of the head and neck of an average driver or
passenger.
Comments submitted by Wayne Corporation
and Sheller-Globe Corporation, manufacturers
of funeral coaches and ambulances, urged that
the standard for windshield zone intrusion con-
tain an exception for such vehicles in view of
PART 571; S 219— PRE 1
Effactiva: S*pUmb«r 1, 1976
the low incidence of accidents involving funeral
coaches and ambulances, the low volume of pro-
duction of such vehicles, and the high cost of
barrier crash testing. The NHTSA has deter-
mined that these arguments are without merit.
The manufacturers have presented no evidence
to support the contention that funeral coaches
and ambulances are involved in fewer accidents
in proportion to their numbers than other ve-
hicles. Furthermore, several comments criticiz-
ing the allegedly prohibitive costs of compliance
with the standard appear to have erroneously
assumed that every manufacturer muse conduct
barrier crash tests. The performance require-
ment for windshield zone intrusion is set out in
S5. of the standard. A manufacturer of funeral
coaches and ambulances may, for example, as-
sure itself that the requirement is met by barrier
crashing the conventional chassis which is a com-
ponent of the special vehicle, modified to simu-
late the dynamic characteristics of the funeral
coach or ambulance. Or, the manufacturer may
use the design characteristic of the vehicle tak-
ing into account the modifications it makes, or
information supplied by the chassis manufac-
turer.
Low volume of production is not an appro-
priate basis for an exemption. As the NHTSA
has maintained in past proceedings where the
same argument was advanced, the appropriate
means to avoid application of a standard on
hardship grounds is a temporary exemption
under 49 CFR Part 555.
Finally, the NHTSA is continuing to promote
compatibility and economy in barrier crash test-
ing by adopting vehicle loading and dummy
restraint requirements in Standard No. 219
identical to those set out in proposed amend-
ments to Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integ-
rity, 49 CFR 571.301 (40 F.R. 17036, April 16,
1975). It has therefore required that 50th-
percentile test dummies be placed in the seating
positions whose restraint system is required to
be tested by a dummy under Standard No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, 49 CFR 571.208, and
that they may be restrained only by the means
that are installed in the vehicle at the respective
seating positions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
Part 571 is amended by the addition of a new
Standard No. 219, 49 CFR 571.219, Windshield
Zone Intrusion. . . .
Effective date: September 1, 1976.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority
at 49 C.F.R. 1.51.)
Issued on June 9, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
40 F.R. 25462
June 16, 1975
PART 671; S 219— PRE 2
EfFeclive: September 1, 1976
September 1, 1977
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 219
Windshield Zone Intrusion
(Docket No. 74-21; Notice 3)
This notice responds to four petitions for re-
consideration of the notice published June 16,
1975 (40 FR 25462), which established a new
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, Wind-
shield Zone Intrusion., 49 CFR 571.219, regulat-
ing the intrusion of vehicle parts from outside
the occupant compartment into a defined zone
in front of the windshield during a frontal
barrier crash test. The National Highway
Traffic Safetj' Administration (NHTSA) hereby
amends Standard No. 219 on the basis of the
information and arguments presented by some
of the petitioners.
Petitions for reconsideration were received
from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associa-
tion (MVMA), General Motors, Ford, and Jeep.
MVMA, General Motors, and Ford requested
substitution of the term "daylight opening" for
"windshield opening," and General Motors and
Jeep requested a change in the effective date of
Standard No. 219 from September 1, 1976 to
September 1, 1977. In addition. Jeep requested
that Standard No. 219 not become applicable
until final issuance of Standard No. 212, Wind-
shield Mounting, 49 CFR 571.212.
The NHTSA has detennined that the peti-
tions of MVMA, General Motors, and Ford
requesting substitution of the term "daylight
opening" for "windshield opening" have merit,
and they are therefore granted. These peti-
tioners requested that the term "windshield open-
ing" be replaced by the t«rm "daylight opening",
which is defined in paragraph 2.3.12 of section
E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-
Automotive Drawing Standards, September,
1963. The part of the windshield below the day-
light opening is protected by the cowling and
instrument panel. There is little likelihood that
in a frontal crash any vehicle component will
penetrate the cowling and instrument panel with
sufficient force to pose a threat to the vehicle
occupants. Therefore, the zone intrusion require-
ments of Standard No. 219 should only apply
to the area of the windshield susceptible to
actual penetration by vehicle components in a
crash. Accordingly, the term "windshield open-
ing" as it is used in Standard No. 219, is replaced
by "daylight opening." The SAE definition of
"daylight opening" has been slightly modified to
reflect the particular characteristics of Standard
No. 219.
The NHTSA has concluded that the petitions
of General Motors and Jeep requesting a change
in the effective date of Standard No. 219 should
be granted in part and denied in part. The
economic considerations involved in coordinating
the effective date of Standard No. 219 with that
of Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting,
justify postponement of the effective date to
September 1, 1977, for application of Standard
No. 219 to all vehicles except passenger cai-s.
However, the effective date of September 1, 1976,
will be retained for passenger cars because of
their greater susceptibility to the intrusion of
vehicle parts against which this standard is de-
signed to protect. This postponement of effec-
tive dates also grants in part Jeep's petition
requesting that the applicability of Standard
No. 219 be postponed until final issuance of
Standard No. 212.
In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.219
is amended by revising S4., So., and S6.1(d) of
Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion,
to read as follows :
Effective date: September 1, 1976, for pas-
senger cars; September 1, 1977, for multipurpose
PART 571; S 219— PRE 3
Effective: September 1, 1976
September 1, 1977
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a Issued on November 10, 1975.
GVWK of 10,000 pounds or less. James B. Gregory
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 Administrator
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 40 F.R. 53033
at 49 CFR 1.51.) November 14, 1975
PART 571; S 219— PRE 4
Effective: December 16, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 219
Windshield Zone Intrusion
(Docket No. 74-21; Notice 5)
This notice amends Standard No. 219, Wind-
shield Zone Inti-usion, to exclude walk-in van-
type vehicles from the requirements of the
standard.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration (NHTSA) proposed to exclude walk-in
van-type vehicles from the applicability of
Standard No. 219 (49 CFR 571.219) in a notice
published March 11, 1976 (41 FR 10451). No
opposition was registered in response to the pro-
posed rulemaking. The National Motor Vehicle
Safety Advisory Council did not take a position
on the proposal.
The NHTSA, therefore, amends Standard No.
219 in accordance with the proposal. For the
information of all interested persons, the
NHTSA considers a "walk-in van-type" vehicle
to be only the "step van" city delivery type of
vehicle that permits a person to enter the vehicle
without stooping.
It has been determined that this amendment
will have a negligible economic and environ-
mental impact, since it creates an exemption
from existing requirements that is expected to
affect relatively few vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, paragrapli
S3 of Standard No. 219 (49 CFR 571.219) is
amended ....
Eljfective date: December 16, 1976. Because
this amendment relieves a restriction and does
not create additional obligations for any pei'son
and because it permits the resumption of manu-
facture of a vehicle type not intended to be cov-
ered by the standard, it is found tliat an
immediate effective date is in the public interest.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on December 10, 1976.
Charles E. Duke
Acting Administrator
41 FR 54945
December 16, 1976
PART 571; S 219— PRE 5-6
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
STANDARD NO. 219
Windshield Zone Intrusion
(Docket No. 79-14; Notice 2)
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends two safety
standards, Standard No. 212, Windshield
Mounting, and Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone
Intrusion, to limit the maximum unloaded vehicle
weight at which vehicles must be tested for
compliance with these standards. This action is
being taken in response to petitions from the Truck
Body and Equipment Association and the National
Truck Equipment Association asking the agency to
amend the standards to provide relief from some of
the test requirements for final-stage manufacturers.
Many of these small manufacturers do not have the
sophisticated test devices of major vehicle
manufacturers. The agency concludes that the
weights at which vehicles are tested can be lessened
while providing an adequate level of safety for
vehicles such as light trucks and while ensuring that
compliance with these standards does not increase
their aggressivity with respect to smaller vehicles.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Since this amendment relieves
a restriction by easing the existing test procedure
and will not impose any additional burdens upon
any manufacturer, it is effective (upon
publication).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. William Smith, Crashworthiness Division,
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2242)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On August 2, 1979, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (44 FR 45426) relating to two
safety standards: Standard Nos. 212, Windshield
Mounting, and 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion.
That notice proposed two options for amending the
test procedures of the standards that were designed
to ease the compliance burdens of small final-stage
manufacturers.
The agency issued the proposal after learning that
final-stage manufacturers were frequently unable to
certify certain vehicles in compliance with these two
safety standards. The problem arises because of
weight and center of gravity restrictions imposed
upon the final-stage manufacturer by the incomplete
vehicle manufacturer. (The final-stage manufacturer
typically purchases an incomplete vehicle from an in-
complete vehicle manufacturer, usually Ford,
General Motors or Chrysler.) The incomplete vehicle
usually includes the windshield and mounting but
does not include any body or work-performing equip-
ment. Since the incomplete vehicle manufacturer
installs the windshield, it represents to the final-stage
manufacturer that the windshield will comply with
the two subject safety standards. In making this
representation, however, the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer states that the representation is con-
tingent on the final-stage manufacturer's adherence
to certain restrictions. Any final-stage manufacturer
that does not adhere to the restrictions imposed by
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must recertify
the vehicle based upon its own information, analysis,
or tests. The major restrictions imposed by the
incomplete vehicle manufacturers on the final-stage
manufacturer involve weight and center of gravity
limitation. In many instances, these limitations have
made it impossible for final-stage manufacturers
either to rely on the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer's certification or to complete vehicles
on the same chassis that they were accustomed to
using (prior to the extension of the two safety
standards to these vehicle types). As a result, the
final-stage manufacturer is faced either with buying
PART 571; S 219, PRE-7
the same chassis as before and recertifying them
or with buying more expensive chassis with higher
GVWR's and less stringent weight and center of
gravity Hmitations.
The agency has tried several different ways to
alleviate this problem for the final-stage
manufacturer. The NHTSA has met with
representatives of the major incomplete vehicle
manufacturers to encourage them to respond
voluntarily by strengthening their windshield
structures and reducing the restrictions that they
currently impose upon final-stage manufacturers.
The agency also discussed the possibility of its
mandating these actions by upgrading Standards
Nos. 212 and 219. Ford and General Motors
indicated that the making of any major changes in
these standards could lead to their deciding to
discontinue offering chassis for use in the
manufacturing of multi-stage vehicles. They said
that such chassis were a very small percentage of
their light truck sales and that, therefore, they
would not consider it worth the cost to them to
make any extensive modifications in their vehicles.
NHTSA also asked the incomplete vehicle
manufacturers to be sure that they have properly
certified their existing vehicles and that they are
not imposing unnecessarily restrictive limitations
upon final-stage manufacturers. To this agency's
knowledge, these vehicle manufacturers have
neither undertaken any strengthening of their
vehicles' windshield structures nor lessened any of
their restrictions.
At the same time that the agency was made
aware of the final-stage manufacturers' problems
of certifying to these standards, the agency was
becoming concerned about the possibility that
compliance of some light trucks and vans with
these standards might have made the vehicles
more aggressive with respect to smaller passenger
cars that they might impact. According to agency
information, if these standards require a
substantial strengthening of vehicle frames, the
aggressivity of the vehicles is increased.
Therefore, as a result of the agency's concern
about aggressivity and its desire to address the
certification problems of final-stage manufacturers
in a manner that would not lead to a cessation of a
chassis sales to those manufacturers, the agency
issued the August 1979 proposal. The agency
hoped that the proposal would allow and encourage
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to reduce their
weight and center of gravity restrictions, thereby
easing or eliminating the compliance test burdens
of final-stage manufacturers. The agency believed
that this could occur using either option, because
either would result in vehicles being tested at
lower weights. Currently vehicles are tested under
both standards at their unloaded vehicle weights
plus 300 pounds.
The first option would have required some
vehicles whose unloaded vehicle weights exceeded
4,000 pounds to be tested by being impacted with a
4,000 pound moving barrier. The second option
proposed by the agency would have required
vehicles to be tested at their unloaded vehicle
weight up to a maximum unloaded vehicle weight
of 5,500 pounds. This option was suggested to the
agency by several manufacturers and manufac-
turer representatives.
Comments on Notice
In response to the agency's notice, nine
manufacturers and manufacturer representatives
submitted comments. All of the commenters
supported some action in response to the problems
of final-stage manufacturers. Most of the
commenters also suggested that the agency's
second alternative solution was more likely to
achieve reductions in the restrictions being
imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers. The
first option would have created a new, unproven
test procedure, and manufacturers would have
been cautious in easing center of gravity or weight
restrictions based upon this test procedure.
Accordingly, most commenters were not sure that
the first option would achieve the desired results.
The consensus was, therefore, that the second
option should be adopted.
Some manufacturers recommended that both
options be permitted allowing the manufacturer to
decide how to test its vehicles. The agency does not
agree with this recommendation. Not only would it
be more difficult and expensive to enforce a
standard that has alternative test procedures, but
most manufacturers prefer the 5,500 pound weight
limit option. The NHTSA concludes that as a result
of the comments supporting the 5,500 pound
maximum test weight, that this is an acceptable
procedure for testing compliance with these two
standards. Therefore, the standards are amended
to incorporate this procedure.
PART 571; S 219, PRE-8
The major incomplete vehicle manufacturers
commenting on the notice suggested that testing
vehicles at a maximum weight of 5,500 pounds
might provide some immediate relief. None of the
major incomplete vehicle manufacturers provided
any information concerning how substantial that
relief might be. Ford indicated that any relief
might be limited.
The agency believes that the incomplete vehicle
manufacturers must accept the responsibility for
establishing reasonable restrictions upon their
incomplete vehicles. The NHTSA has not been
provided with sufficient evidence substantiating
the statements of the incomplete vehicle
manufacturers that their existing restrictions are
reasonable. In fact, some evidence indicates that
unnecessarily stringent restrictions are being
imposed because incomplete vehicle manufacturers
do not want to conduct the necessary testing to
establish the appropriate weight and center of
gravity restrictions. Since this amendment should
reduce the severity of the test procedures, the
agency concludes that incomplete vehicle
manufacturers should immediately review their
certification test procedures and reduce the
restrictions being passed on to final-stage
manufacturers.
Due to changes in the light truck market, there is
reason to believe that the incomplete vehicle
manufacturers will be more cooperative than when
the agency spoke to them before beginning this
rulemaking. At that time, light truck sales were
still running well. Now that these sales are down,
these manufacturers may be more solicitous of the
needs of the final-stage manufacturers. If relief is
not provided by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturers, then the agency will consider
taking additional steps, including the upgrading of
Standards Nos. 212 and 219 as they apply to all
light trucks.
General Motors (GM) questioned one of the
agency's rationales for issuing the notice of
proposed rulemaking. GM stated that the agency
concludes that this action will provide a more
appropriate level of safety for the affected vehicles
while the initial extension of these standards to the
affected vehicles provides, in GM's view, only a
slight increase in the level of safety of the vehicles.
GM indicates that since the application of these
standards to the affected vehicles provides only
slight benefits and since this amendment vill
reduce those benefits, the standards should not
apply to light trucks and vans. The agency
disagrees with this suggestion.
The agency is currently reviewing the
applicability of many of its safety standards to
determine whether they ought to be extended to
light trucks and other vehicles. Accident data
clearly indicate the benefits that have resulted
from the implementation of safety standards to
cars. The fatality rate for passenger cars has
decreased substantially since the implementation
of a broad range of safety standards to those
vehicles. On the other hand, light trucks and vans
have not had a corresponding reduction in fatality
rates over the years. The agency attributes much
of this to the fact that many safety standards have
not been applied to those vehicles. Since those
vehicles are becoming increasingly popular as
passenger vehicles, the agency concludes that
safety standards must apply to them.
In response to GM's comment that this reduction
in the test requirements for Standard Nos. 212 and
219 will remove all benefits derived by having the
standards apply to those vehicles, the agency
concludes that GM has misinterpreted the effects
of this amendment. This amendment will reduce
somewhat the compliance test requirements for
those light trucks and vans with unloaded vehicle
weights in excess of 5,500 pounds. It will not affect
light trucks with unloaded vehicle weights below
5,500 pounds. According to agency information,
approximately 25 percent of the light trucks have
unloaded vehicle weights in excess of 5,500 while
the remainder fall below that weight. As a result of
weight reduction to improve fuel economy, it is
likely that even more light trucks will fall below the
5,500 pound maximum test weight in the future.
Therefore, this amendment will have no impact
upon most light trucks and vans. In light of the
small proportion of light trucks and vans affected
by this amendment and considering the potential
benefits of applying these standards to all light
trucks and vans, the agency declines to adopt GM's
suggestion that the standards be made inapplicable
to these vehicles.
With respect to GM's question about the
appropriate level of safety for light trucks, the
agency's statement in the notice of proposed
rulemaking was intended to show that the safety of
light trucks and vans cannot be viewed without
considering the relative safety of lighter vehicles
PART 571; S 219, PRE-9
that they may impact. Accordingly, the level of
safety that the agency seeks to achieve by this and
other safety standards is determined by balancing
the interests of the occupants of passenger cars
and heavier vehicles.
GM also questioned the agency's statement that
vehicle aggressivity may be increased by imposing
too severe requirements on these vehicles. GM
suggested that no evidence exists that vehicle
aggressivity is increased as a result of complying
with these standards.
The agency stated in the proposal that it was
concerned that compliance with the standards as
they now exist might have increased the
aggressivity of the vehicles, thereby harming the
occupants of passenger cars that are impacted by
these larger, more rigid vehicles. The agency is
now beginning to examine the full range of vehicle
aggressivity problems. The docket for this notice
contains a paper recently presented by a member
of our staff to the Society of Automotive
Engineers on this subject. The agency tentatively
concludes, based upon the initial results of our
research and analysis, that vehicle aggressivity
could be a safety problem and that the agency
considers that possibility in issuing its safety
standards. The NHTSA notes that Volkswagen
applauds the agency's recognition of the vehicle
aggressivity factor in safety.
As to GM's argument that compliance with the
standards may not have increased vehicle
aggressivity, our information on this point came
from the manirfacturers. The manufacturers
indicated that compliance with Standards 212 and
219 requires strengthening the vehicle frame. This
makes a vehicle more rigid. Our analysis indicates
that making a vehicle more rigid may also make it
more aggressive. Therefore, the agency concludes
partially on the basis of the manufacturer's
information, that compliance with the safety
standards as they are written may have increased
the aggressivity of the vehicles.
Ford Motor Company suggested that, rather
than change these two particular standards, the
agency should amend the certification regulation
(Part 568) to state that any vehicle that is barrier
tested would be required only to comply to an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less.
Fo^d suggested that this would standardize all of
the tests and provide uniformity.
The agency is unable to accept Ford's
recommendation for several reasons. First, the
certification regulation is an inappropriate place to
put a test requirement applicable to several
standards. The tests' requirements of the
standards should be found in each standard.
Second, the Ford recommendation would result in
a reduction of the level of safety currently imposed
by Standard No. 301, Fitel System Integrity.
As we stated earlier and in several other notices,
the agency is legislatively forbidden to modify
Standard No. 301 in a way that would reduce the
level of safety now required by that standard.
Even without this legislative mandate, the agency
would not be likely to relieve the burdens imposed
by Standard No. 301. That standard is extremely
important for the prevention of fires during
crashes. Compliance of a vehicle with this standard
not only protects the occupants of the vehicle that
is in compliance but also protects the occupants of
vehicles that it impacts. The agency concludes that
the standard now provides a satisfactory level of
safety in vehicles, and NHTSA would not be likely
to amend it to reduce these safety benefits even if
such an amendment were possible.
With respect to fuel system integrity, several
manufacturers suggested that the agency had
underestimated the impact of that standard upon
weight and center of gravity restrictions. These
commenters indicated that compliance with that
standard requires more than merely adding shielding
to the fuel systems of the vehicles. The agency is
aware that compliance with that standard in certain
instances has imposed restrictions upon
manufacturers. Nonetheless, the agency continues to
believe that as a result of this amendment, the
chassis manufacturers will be able to reduce their
weight and center of gravity restrictions while still
maintaining the compliance of their vehicles with
Standard No. 301.
Chrysler commented that the agency should
consider including the new test procedure in
Standard No. 204 and all other standards that
require barrier testing. The agency has issued a
notice on Standard No. 204 (44 FR 68470) stating
that it was considering a similar test provision for
that standard. The agency also is aware that any
barrier test requirement imposed upon vehicles
subject to substantial modifications by final-stage
PART 571; S 219, PRE-10
manufacturers will create problems for the final-
stage manufacturers. Accordingly, the agency will
consider the special problems of these manufacturers
prior to the the issuance of standards that might
affect them and will attempt to make the test
requirements of the various standards consistent
wherever possible.
The agency has reviewed this amendment in
accordance with Executive Order 12044 and
concludes that it will have no significant economic or
other impact. Since the regulation relieves some
testing requirements, it may slightly reduce costs
associated with some vehicles. Accordingly, the
agency concludes that this is not a significant
amendment and a regulatory analysis is not required.
In accordance with the foregoing. Volume 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571 is
amended by adding the following sentence to the
end of paragraph S6.1(b) of Standard No. 212 (49
CFR 571.212) and paragraph S7.7(b) of Standard
No. 219 (49 CFR 571.219).
Vehicles are tested to a maximum unloaded
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds.
The authors of this notice are William Smith of
the Crashworthiness Division and Roger Tilton of
the Office of Chief Counsel.
Issued on March 28, 1980.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 F.R. 22044
April 3, 1980
PART 571; S 219, PRE-11-12
4
(?
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 219
Windshield Zone Intrusion
51. Scope. This standard specifies limits for
the displacement into the windshield area of
motor vehicle components during a crash.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to reduce crash injuries and fatalities that result
from occupants contacting vehicle components
displaced near or through the windshield.
53. Application. This standard applies to
passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses of 10,000 pounds or
less gross vehicle weight rating. However, it
does not apply to forward control vehicles,
walk-in van-type vehicles, or to open body-type
vehicles with fold-down or removable wind-
shields.
54. Definitions.
"Daylight Opening" (DLO) means the maxi-
mum unobstructed opening through the glazing
surface, including reveal or garnish moldings
adjoining the surface, as measured parallel to
the outer surface of the glazing material.
"Windshield opening" means the outer surface
of the windshield glazing material.
55. Requirement. When the vehicle traveling
longitudinally forward at any speed up to and
including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision bar-
rier that is perpendicular to the line of travel
of the vehicle, under the conditions of S7, no
part of the vehicle outside the occupant com-
partment, except windshield molding and other
components designed to be normally in contact
with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected
zone template, affixed according to S6, to a depth
of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part
of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of
that portion of the windshield, within the DLO,
below the protected zone defined in S6.
S6. Protected zone template.
S6.1 The lower edge of the protected zone is
determined by the following procedure (see
Figure 1).
(a) Place a 6.5-inch diameter rigid sphere,
weighing 15 pounds, in a position such that it
simultaneously contacts the inner surface of the
LOWER BOUNDARY OF
WINDSHIELD PROTECTED
ZONE
HORIZONTAL EXTENSION
BEYOND OUTERMOST
CONTACTABLE POINT
CROSS SECTION OF
PROTECTED ZONE IN
TYPICAL VERTICAL
LONGITUDINAL PLANE
POINT OF CONTACT
BETWEEN SPHERE AND
INNER SURFACE OF
WINDSHIELD
FRONT VIEW
SIDE VIEW
WINDSHIELD PROTECTED ZONE
Figure 1
windshield glazing and the surface of the in-
strument panel, including padding. If any
accessories or equipment such as the steering
control system obstruct positioning of the sphere,
remove them for the purposes of this procedure.
(b) Draw the locus of points on the inner
surface of the windshield contactable by the
sphere across the width of the instrument panel.
From the outermost contactable points, extend
PART 571; S 219-1
^
the locus line horizontally to the edges of the
glazing material.
(c) Draw a line on the inner surface of the
windshield below and one-half inch distant from
the locus line.
(d) The lower edge of the protected zone
is the longitudinal projection onto the outer sur-
face of the windshield of the line determined
in S6.1(c).
56.2 The protected zone is the space enclosed
by the following surfaces, as shown in Figure 1:
(a) The outer surface of the windshield in
its precrash configuration.
(b) The locus of points 3 inches outward
along perpendiculars drawn to each point on the
outer surface of the windshield.
(c) The locus of lines forming a 45° angle
with the outer surface of the windshield at each
point along the top and side edges of the outer
surface of the windshield and the lower edge of
the protected zone determined in S6.1, in the
plane perpendicular to the edge at that point.
56.3 A template is cut or formed from Stjrro-
foam, type DB, cut cell, to the dimensions of the
zone as determined in S6.2. The template is
affixed to the windshield so that it delineates the
protected zone and remains affixed throughout
the crash test.
S7. Test conditions. The requirement of S5
shall be met under the following conditions:
57.1 The protected zone template is affixed to
the windshield in the manner described in S6.
57.2 The hood, hood latches, and any other
hood retention components are engaged prior to
the barrier crash.
57.3 Adjustable cowl tops or other adjustable
panels in front of the windshield are in the po-
sition used under normal operating conditions
when windshield wiping systems are not in use.
57.4 The parking brake is disengaged and the
transmission is in neutral.
57.5 Tires are inflated to the vehicle manu-
facturer's specifications.
57.6 The fuel tank is filled to any level from
90 to 95 percent of capacity.
57.7 The vehicle, including test devices and
instrumentation, is loaded as follows:
(a) Except as specified in S7.6, a passenger
car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus
its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, se-
cured in the luggage area, plus a 50th-percentile
test dummy as specified in Part 572 of this chap-
ter at each front outboard designated seating
position and at any other position whose protec-
tion system is required to be tested by a dummy
under the provisions of Standard No. 208. Each
dummy is restrained only by means that are in-
stalled for protection at its seating position.
(b) Except as specified in S7.6, a multipurpose
passenger vehicle, truck or bus is loaded to its
unloaded vehicle weight, plus 300 pounds or its
rated cargo and luggage capacity, whichever is
less, secured to the vehicle, plus a 50th-percentile
test dummy as specified in Part 572 of this chap-
ter at each front outboard designated seating
position and at any other position whose protec-
tion system is required to be tested by a dummy
under the provisions of Standard No. 208. Each
dummy is restrained only by means that are in-
stalled for protection at its seating position. The
load is distributed so that the weight on each
axle as measured at the tire-ground interface is
in proportion to its GAWR. If the weight on
any axle when the vehicle is loaded to its un-
loaded vehicle weight plus dummy weight ex-
ceeds the axle's proportional share of the test
weight, the remaining weight is placed so that
the weight on that axle remains the same. For
the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle
weight does not include the weight of work-
performing accessories.
40 F.R. 25462
June 16, 1975
PART 571; S 219-2
Effective: October 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 220
School Bus Rollover Protection
(Docket No. 75-2; Notice 2)
This notice establishes a new motor vehicle
safety Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover
Protection^ 49 CFR 571.220, specifying perform-
ance requirements for the structural integrity of
the passenger compartment of school buses when
subjected to forces that can be encountered in
rollovers.
The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety
Amendments of 1974 (the Act) mandate the is-
suance of Federal motor vehicle safety standards
for several aspects of school bus performance,
including crashworthiness of the vehicle body
and frame. Pub. L. 93-942, section 202 (15
U.S.C. 1392(i)(l)(A)). Based on tliis iimn-
date and on bus body crashwoi'thiness resoairli
(DOT-HS-046-3-694), the NHTSA proposed
rollover protection requirements for school buses
(^0 F.R. 8570, February 28, 1975). Citing sta-
tistics on the safety record of school bus opera-
tion, several manufacturers questioned whether
any standard for school bus rollover protection
could be justified.
The Act reflects a need, evidenced in corre-
spondence to the NHTSA from the public, to
protect the children who ride in school buses.
They and their parents have little direct control
over the types of vehicles in which they ride to
school, and are not in a position to determine
the safety of the vehicles. It is for this reason
that the school bus standards must be effective
and meaningful.
At the same time, the safety history of school
buses does not demonstrate that radical modifica-
tion of school bus structure would substantially
decrease occupant death and injury. As noted
in tlie "School Bus Safety Improvement Pro-
gram" contract conducted by Ultrasystems. Inc..
(DOT-HS-046-3-694) for the NHTSA :
"School buses are a relatively safe mode of hu-
man transportation. School bus accident rates
and injury/fatality rates on a per- vehicle, per-
vehicle-mile, per-passenger-mile, or per-passen-
ger basis are significantly less than for other
passenger vehicles. Accidents to school children
while enroute to and from school occur primarily
in modes other than as school bus passengers.
However, school bus safety can and should be
improved."
As a practical matter, the amount of struc-
tural modification called for in this standard is
also limited as a result of the 0-month lead time
available to implement the pi'ovisions of oarli
school bus standard after its promulgation. The
various new requirements imposed in response to
the mandate of the Act will recjuire considerable
effort by school bus manufacturers to bring their
products into conformity in the 9-month period.
The Physicians for Automotive Safety, The
National Transportation Safety Board, the Home
Insurance Company and other commenters
suggested that the NHTSA had ignored the
recommendations of the report submitted by
Ultrasystems on school bus improvement. The
report concluded that the improved school bus
design tested by Ultrasystems could withstand a
significantly greater load for the same amount
of roof crush than existing school bus designs.
In fact, the NHTSA evaluated the test re-
suits and Ultrasystem's recommendations care-
fully. While the percentage of reduction of roof
crush would be substantial as a result of the
recommended design change, no relationship of
this decrease in deflection to improved safety
for occupants was established. Ultrasystems re-
ported that increases of $500 in cost and 530
pounds were incurred to achieve several iniprove-
PART 571; S 220— PRE 1
Effective: October 26, 1976
raents. includin<f those of the vertical roof crusli
test.
The recommendations also implied increased
structural rigidity but did not evaluate its eflFect
on the amount of energy absorbed by vehicle
occupants in a crash. Also, Ultras3'stems, did
not consider the problems of lead time and re-
tooling costs in making its recommendations.
The NHTSA continues to consider that its pro-
posal of 5I/8 inches of maximum roof crush under
a load equal to lyo times the vehicle's unloaded
weight provides a satisfactory level of occupant
crash protection. Available data do not support
the conclusion that a 2- or 3-inch reduction of
this crush would significantly improve the level
of passenger safety in school buses. It is the
intention of the NHTSA to continually review
accident statistics relating to school bus safety.
Accordingly, future upgrading of the standard
will be considered should such action be war-
ranted based upon availability of appropriate
data.
In response to inquiries from the Motor Ve-
hicle Manufacturers Association and General
Motors as to the origin of the 514-inch require-
ment, the limit is drawn from the existing School
Bus Manufacturers Institute requirement for
school bus structural integrity (Static Load Test
Code for School Bus Body Structure, issued by
the School Bus Manufacturers Institute).
In adopting the oi/g-inch limit found in the
present industry standard, tlie NHTSA is not
merely preserving the status quo. While a man-
ufacturer may liave designod its products to
meet the industry standard in the past, certain
of its products presumably performed either bet-
ter or worse than the nominal design. Con-
formity to NHTSA standards, in contrast,
i-equiros that every vehicle be capable of meeting
the ."ii/j^-inch limit. This means that the manu-
facturer must design its vehicles to meet a higher
level of i)erformance. to provide a compliance
margin foi' those of its products whicli fall below
the nominal design level. Of course, the manu-
facturer can reduce the compliance-margin
problem without ivdesign by improving the con-
sistency of its manufacturing pi'ocesses.
The standard requires that, upon the applica-
tion of vertical downward force to the bus roof
equal to II/2 times the vehicle's unloaded weight,
the vehicle roof shall not crush more than 51^
inches, and the emergency exits shall be capable
of being opened, with the weight api)lied. and
after its release. The National Transportation
Safety Board, the Vehicle Equipment Safety
Commission (VESC), Mercedes-Benz, and tlie
Action for Child Transportation Safety organiza-
tion suggested other methods for evaluation of
crashworthiness. The NHTSA has considered
these, but concludes that the static test specified
in this standard provides a reasonable means to
determine crashworthiness without unnecessary
testing expense.
Based on submitted comments, the standard
varies in some respects from the proposal. The
sizes of the force application plates used to apply
force and the method of application have been
revised to simplify the test procedures and equip-
ment, and to spread the force over larger areas
of the vehicle roofs of large and small vehicles.
The proposal specified a rigid, rectangular force
application plate 36 inches wide and 20 inches
shorter than the vehicle roof, preventing re-
liance on the roof end structures for rollover
protection in typical body-on-chassis construc-
tion. Commenters pointed out that the end
structures of the roof are almost certain to bear
the weight of a rollover and should be included
in a test of a vehicle's crashworthiness. Several
manufacturers and other commenters recom-
mended an increase in the size of the force ap-
plication plate, in order to permit the foremost
and rearmost roof "bows" of their buses to absorb
a portion of the test load. Ford Motor Compan}'
stated it had performed the test as proposed and
asserted that the roof of its van-type vehicle, as
presently designed could not meet the require-
ment without an increase in the size of the force
application plate to distribute the load over the
entire vehicle roof. Chrysler Corporation stated
it would find it necessary to discontinue produc-
tion of small school buses because of redesign
costs if the requirements were adopted as pro-
posed.
With a view to the safety record of school
buses and the 9-month lead time, the NHTSA
concludes that the force application plate can
be modified so that an additional "bow" or
"bows'' bear part of the applied force. It is the
NHTSA's view that a change to permit both
PART 571 ; S 220— PRE 2
EffecNve: October 26, 1976
roof end structures to fully contribute to support
of the applied force in the case of buses of more
than 10,000 pounds would be a relaxation of
current industry practices. Accordingly, the ex-
tent of change recommended by the industry is
not adopted. The NHTSA concludes that an
8-inch increase in the length of the force applica-
tion plate is sufficient to allow some portion of
the applied force to be absorbed by tlie end bows
of the roof while maintaining adequate crash
protection. Therefore, for these buses the width
of the plate remains as proposed while the length
of the plate is increased 8 inches.
In the case of lighter buses, which are gen-
erally of the van type, the NHTSA has increased
both the width and length of the plate to eji-
compass the entire roof.
The procedure for applying force through tlip
plate has also been modified in some respects.
Many comments objected that the procedure re-
quired an expensive, complex hydraulic mecha-
nism that would increase the costs of compliance
without justification. The proposal specified an
"ev6nly-distributed vertical force in a downward
direction through the force application plate",
starting with the plate horizontal. Commenters
interpreted these specifications to mean that the
vehicle would be required to absorb the energy
in evenly-distributed fashion and that the hori-
zontal attitude of the plate must be maintained.
Actually these specifications were included in
the proposed method to advise manufacturers of
the precise procedures to be employed in com-
pliance testing of their products. Understanding
that some manufacturers may choose to achieve
the required force application by applying
weights evenly over the surface of the plate, the
standard specified an "evenly-distributed force"
to eliminate other methods (such as a concen-
trated force at one end of the plate) that could
unfairly test the vehicle structure. The hori-
zontal attitude of the plate was also intended to
establish a beginning point for testing on Avhich
a manufacturer can rely. While these specifica-
tions establish the exact circumstances under
which vehicles can be tested, a manufacturer can
depart from them as long as it can l)e shown
that the vehicle would comply if tested exactly
as specified. In place of the perfectly rigid plate
called for in the standard, for example, a manu-
facturer could employ a plate of sufficient stiff-
ness to ensure that the test results are not affected
by the lack of rigidity.
Some modification of the test procedures has
been made for simplification and clarity. To
permit placement of the plate on the roof to
begin testing without a suspension mechanism,
the specification for horizontal attitude is mod-
ified to permit the plate to depart from the
horizontal in the fore and aft direction only.
Some manufacturers considered the initial ap-
plication of force as an unnecessary complication.
However, the initial force application of 500
pounds has been retained in order to permit elim-
ination of inconsequential deformation of the roof
structure prior to measurement of the permissible
51/8 inches of deflection. In instances where the
force application plate weighs more than 500
pounds, some type of suspension mechanism
could be used temporarilj' to constrain the load
level to the initial value, if the manufacturer
decides to conduct his testing exactly as specified
in tlie standard's procedures.
The requirement that force be applied "through
the plate" has been changed to "to the plate"
in order to avoid a misunderstanding that the
vehicle must absorb energy evenly over the sur-
face of its roof.
As proposed by several commenters, the rate
of application in pounds per minute has been
changed to inches per second, specifically "at any
rate not more than i/^ inch per second." Manu-
facturers should understand that "any" in this
context is defined by the NHTSA (49 CFR
§ 571.4) to mean that the vehicle roof must satisfy
the requirement at every rate of application
within the stated range. General Motors re-
ports that as a practical matter, the effect of
speed in rare of application for tests of this
nature is not significant in the range of 0.12
inches per second to 1 inch per second.
The reciuirement that movement "at any point"
on the plate not exceed 5% inches has not been
modified despite some objections. The XHTSA
considers it reasonable that excessive crush not
be permitted at the extremities of the plate.
Measurement of movement only at the center of
the plate, for example, would permit total col-
lapse of tlie structure in any direction as long
as one point on the bus maintained its integrity.
PART 571; S 220— PRE 3
Effective: October 26, 1976
The preparation of the vehicle for the applica-
tion of force has been modified to specify re-
placement of non-rigid body mounts with
equivalent rigid mounts. The compression of
deformable body mounts is unrelated to crash-
worthiness of the structure and can therefore be
eliminated to permit testing of the structure
itself.
Accessories or comjwnents which extend up-
ward from the vehicle's roof (such as school bus
lights) are removed for test purposes. It is also
noted tliat the vehicle's transverse frame members
or body sills are supported for test purposes. In
response to a question from Blue Bird Body
Company, a frame simulator may be used along
with any other variations as long as the manu-
facturer assures himself that the vehicle would
conform if tested precisely as specified in the
standard.
The vehicle's emergency exits must also be ca-
pable of opening when the required force is ap-
plied, and following release of the force. As
noted in comments, this requirement simulates
the use of the exits after a rollover, whether or
not the vehicle comes to rest on its roof. The
proposed requirement of ability to close these
exits is eliminated because such a capability is
unnecessary in an emergency evacuation of the
bus. For this reason, the requirement has been
modified so that a particular test specimen (i.e.,
a particular bus) will not be required to meet
requirements for emergency exits which open
following release of force, if the exits have al-
ready been tested wliile the application force is
maintained.
With regard to the requirements as a whole,
Crown Coach and other manufacturers argued
that the application of li/^ times the vehicle's
unloaded weight imfairly discriminates against
buses with a higher vehicle weight-to-passenger
ratio. The XHTSA disagrees, and notes that
the relevant consideration in rollover is the
weight of tlie vehicle itself in determining tlie
energy to be absorbed by the structure. In a
related area, one manufacturer suggested that
the increased weight of the NHTSA's contem-
plated new standards for school buses would in-
crease unloaded vehicle weight to the point where
redesign would be required to meet the rollover
standard. The XHTSA has considered this
issue and estimates that the only significant new
weight would be for improved seating. This
weight increase would not substantially increase
the severity of the rollover standard.
The State of California suggested consolida-
tion of the rollover standard with the joint
strength. While such a consolidation would ap-
pear logical for school buses alone, the XHTSA
prefers the flexibility of separate standards with
a view to their use independently in the futun
for other vehicle types. For example, the appli
cation of vertical force to the vehicle structur''
may be appropriate in a vehicle for vi'hich the
joint strength requirement would not be appro-
priate.
The State of Georgia requested that transit
systems transporting school children be exempted
from Standard Xo. 220. This commenter ap-
parently misunderstood the applicability of the
standard. It only applies to newly-manufactured
vehicles and does not require modification of
existing fleets, whether or not operated by a
transit authority.
Interested persons should note that the
XHTSA has issued a proposal to modify the
definition of "school bus" (40 F.R. 40854, Sep-
tember 1. 1975) and that if that definition is
adopted the requirements of this standard will
apply to all vehicles that fall within the defini-
tion, whether or not they fall within the present
definition.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new motor
vehicle safety standard Xo. 220, School Bus Boll-
over Protection, is added as § 571.220 of Part 571
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. . . .
Effective date: October 26. 1976.
The effective date of this standard is estab-
lished as 9 months after the date of its issuance,
as required by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus
Safety Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-492,
section 202 (15 U.S.C. 1397(i) (1) (A) ).
(Sec. 103, 119. Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15
U.S.C. 1392, 1407); §202, Pub. L. 93-492, 88
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of au-
thority at 49 CFR 1.51)
Issued on January 22, 1976.
Howartl J. Dugoff
Acting Administrator
41 F.R. 3874
January 27, 1976
PART 571; S 220— PRE 4
Effective: August 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 220
School Bus Rollover Protection
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 7)
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 10)
(Docket No. 73-34; Notice 4)
(Docket No. 75-2; Notice 3)
(Docket No. 75-3; Notice 5)
(Docket No. 75-7; Notice 3)
(Docket No. 75-24; Notice 3)
This notice announces that the effective dates
of the redefinition of "school bus" and of six
Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they
apply to school buses are changed to April 1,
1977, from the previously established eflFective
dates. This notice also makes a minor amend-
ment to Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover
Protection, and adds a figure to Standard No. 221,
School Bus Body Joint Strength.
The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety
Amendments of 1974 (the Act) mandated the
issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety stand-
ards for several aspects of school bus perform-
ance, Pub. L. 93^92, §202 (15 U.S.C. §1392
(i)(l)(A)). These amendments included a
definition of school bus that necessitated a revi-
sion of the existing definition used by the
NHTSA in establishing safety requirements. The
Act also specified that the new requirements
"apply to each school bus and item of school bus
equipment which is manufactured ... on or after
the expiration of the 9-month period which begins
on the date of promulgation of such safety stand-
ards." (15 U.S.C. § 1392(i) (1) (B)).
Pursuant to the Act, amendments were made
to the following standards: Standard No. 301-75,
Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75),
effective July 15, 1976, for school buses not
already covered by the standard (40 FR 483521,
October 15, .1975); Standard No. 105-75, Hy-
draulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105-75),
effective October 12, 1976 (41 FR 2391, January
16, 1976) ; and Standard No. 217, Bus Winaow
Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), effec-
tive for school buses on October 26, 1976 (41 FR
3871, January 27, 1976).
In addition, the following new standards were
added to Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, effective October 26, 1976:
Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protec-
tion (41 F.R. 3874, January 27, 1976) ; Standard
No. 221, School Biis Body Joint Strength (41
F.R. 3872, January 26, 1976) ; and Standard No.
222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash
Protection (41 F.R. 4016, January 28, 1976).
Also, the existing definition of "school bus" was
amended, effective October 27, 1976, in line with
the date set by the Act for issuance of the stand-
ards.
The Act was recently amended by Public Law
94-346 (July 8, 1976) to change the effective dat-es
of the school bus standards to April 1, 1977 (15
U.S.C. i§1392(i)(l)(B)). This notice is in-
tended to advise interested persons of these
changes of effective dates. In the case of Stand-
ard No. 301-75, the change of effective date is
reflected in a conforming amendment to S5.4 of
that standard. A similar amendment is made in
S3 of Standard No. 105-75.
The agency concludes that the October 27, 1976,
effective date for the redefinition of "school bus"
should be postponed to April 1, 1977, to conform
to the new effective dates for the upcoming re-
quirements. If this were not done, the new classes
PART 571; S 220— PRE 5
EftacNve: August 26, 1976
of school buses would be required to meet existing
standards that apply to school buses (e.g., Stand-
ard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108)) before being re-
quired to meet the new standards. This would
result in two stages of compliance, and would
complicate the redesign efforts that Congress
sought to relieve.
This notice also amends Standard No. 220 in
response to an interpretation request by Blue
Bird Body Company, and Sheller-Globe Corpora-
tion's petition for reconsideration of the standard.
Both companies request confirmation that the
standard's requirement to operate emergency exits
during the application of force, to the vehicle roof
(S4(b)) does not apply to roof exits which are
covered by the force application plate. The
agency did not intend to require the operation
of roof exits while the force application plate
is in place on the vehicle. Accordingly, an
appropriate amendment has been made to S4(b)
of the standard.
"With regard to Standard No. 220, Sheller-
Globe also requested confirmation that, in testing
its school buses that have a gross veliicle weight
rating (GVWE) of 10,000 pounds or less, it may
test with a force application plate with dimensions
other than those specified in the standard. The
standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from
using a different dimension from that specified,
in view of the NHTSA's expressed position on
the legal effect of its regulations. To certify
compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any
means, in the exercise of due care, to show that a
vehicle (or item of motor vehicle equipment)
would comply if tested by the NHTSA as spec-
ified in the standard. Thus the force application
plate used by the NHTSA need not be duplicated
by each manufacturer or compliance test facility.
Sheller-Globe, or example, is free to use a force
application plate of any width as long as it can
certify its vehicle would comply if tested by the
NHTSA according to the standard.
In a separate area, the agency corrects the
inadvertent omission of an illustration from
Standard No. 221 as it was issued January 26,
1976 (41 F.R. 3872). The figure does not differ
from that proposed and, in that fonn, it received
no adverse comment.
In accordance with recently enunciated De-
partment of Transportation policy encouraging
adequate analysis of the consequences of regu-
latory action (41 F.R. 16200, April 16, 1976),
the agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of
the economic and other consequences of this ac-
tion on the public and private sectors, including
possible loss of safety benefits. The changes in
effective dates for the school bus standards are
not evaluated because they were accomplished by
law and not by regulatory action.
The change of effective date for the redefini-
tion of "school bus" will result in savings to
manufacturers who will not be required to meet
existing school bus standards between October
27, 1976, and April 1, 1977. The agency calcu-
lates that the only standard that would not be
met would be the requirement in Standard No.
108 for school bus marker lamps. In view of
the agency's existing provision for the marking
of light school buses in Pupil Transportation
Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 1204), it is concluded
that the absence of this equipment until April 1,
1977, will not have a significant adverse impact
on safety.
The interpretative amendment of Standard
No. 220 and the addition of a figure to Standard
No. 221 are not expected to affect the manu-
facture or operation of school buses.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 571 of
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended. . . .
Effective dates:
1. Because the listed amendments do not im-
pose additional requirements of any person, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
finds that an immediate effective date of August
26, 1976 is in the public interest.
2. The effective dat« of the redefinition of
"school bus" in 49 CFR Part 571.3 that was pub-
lished in the issue of December 31, 1976 (40 F.R.
60033) is changed to April 1, 1977.
3. The effective dates of Standard Nos. 105-75,
217, 301-75, 220, 221, and 222 (as they apply to
school buses) are April 1, 1977, in accordance
with Public Law 9^346.
PART 571; S 220— PRE 6
I
Effective: August 26, 1976
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 John W. Snow
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Pub. L. 94-346, Stat. (15 Administrator
U.S.C. § 1392(i) (1) (B) ) ; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.) . ' ° ,__.
' August 26, 1976
Issued on August 17, 1976.
I
PART 571; S 220— PRE 7-8
^
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 220
School Bus Rollover Protection
51. Scope. This standard establishes per-
formance requirements for school bus rollover
protection.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to reduce the number of deaths and the severity
of injuries that result from failure of the school
bus body structure to withstand forces encoun-
tered in rollover crashes.
53. Applicability. This standard applies to
school buses.
54. Requirements. When a force equal to IV2
times the unloaded vehicle weight is applied to
the roof of the vehicle's body structure through
a force application plate as specified in S5., Test
procedures—
(a) The downward vertical movement at any
point on the application plate shall not exceed
5^ inches; and
(b) Each emergency exit of the vehicle pro-
vided in accordance with Standard No. 217
(§ 571.217) shall be capable of opening as spec-
ified in that standard during the full application
of the force and after release of the force, ex-
cept that an emergency exit located in the roof
of the vehicle is not required to be capable of
being opened during the application of the force.
A particular vehicle {i.e., test specimen) need not
meet the emergency opening requirement after
release of force if it is subjected to the emergency
exit opening requirements during the full appli-
cation of the force.
55. Test procedures. Each vehicle shall be
capable of meeting the requirements of S4. when
tested in accordance with the procedures set
forth below.
S5.1 With any non-rigid chassis-to-body
mounts replaced with equivalent rigid mounts,
place the vehicle on a rigid horizontal surface
so that the vehicle is entirely supported by
means of the vehicle frame. If the vehicle is
constructed without a frame, place the vehicle
on its body sills. Remove any components which
extend upward from the vehicle roof.
55.2 Use a flat, rigid, rectangular force ap-
plication plate that is measured with respect to
the vehicle roof longitudinal and lateral center-
lines;
(a) In the case of a vehicle with a GVWR of
more than 10,000 pounds, 12 inches shorter than
the vehicle roof and 36 inches wide; and
(b) In the case of a vehicle with a GVWR
of 10,000 pounds or less, 5 inches longer and 5
inches wider than the vehicle roof. For pur-
poses of these measurements, the vehicle roof is
that structure, seen in the top projected view,
that coincides with the passenger and driver com-
partment of the vehicle.
55.3 Position the force application plate on
the vehicle roof so that its rigid surface is per-
pendicular to a vertical longitudinal plane and
it contacts the roof at not less than two points,
and so that, in the top projected view, its lon-
gitudinal centerline coincides with the longitu-
dinal centerline of the vehicle, and its front and
rear edges are an equal distance inside the front
and rear edges of the vehicle roof at the center-
line.
55.4 Apply an evenly-distribux-ea vertical
force in the downward direction to the force
application plate at any rate not more than 0.5
inch per second, until a force of 500 pounds has
been applied.
55.5 Apply additional vertical force in the
downward direction to the force application plate
at a rate of not more than 0.5 inch per second
(Rev. 8/17/76)
PART 571; S 220-1
until the force specified in S4 has been applied,
and maintain this application of force.
55.6 Measure the downward movement of
any point on the force application plate which
occurred during the application of force in ac-
cordance with S5.5.
55.7 To test the capability of the vehicle's
emergency exits to open in accordance with
S4(b)-
(a) In the case of testing under the full ap-
plication of force, open the emergency exits as
specified in S4(b) while maintaining the force
applied in accordance with S5.4 and S5.5; and
(b) In the case of testing after the release of
all force, release all downward force applied to
the force application plate and open the emer-
gency exits as specified in S4(b).
S6. Test conditions. The following conditions
apply to the requirements specified in S4.
56.1 Temperature. The ambient temperature
is any level between 32° F. and 90° F.
56.2 Windows and doors. Vehicle windows,
doors, and emergency exits are in fully-closed
position, and latched but not locked.
41 F.R. 3874
January 27, 1976
(Rev. 8/17/76)
PART 571; S 220-2
EffecHve: October 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 221
School Bus Body Joint Strength
(Docket No. 73-34; Notice 3)
This notice establishes a new motor vehicle
safety standard. No. 221 ; School Biis Body Joint
Strength, 49 CFR 571.221, specifying; a mini-
mum performance ' level for school bus body
panel joints.
The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety
Aniendnipnts of 1974 (Pub. L. 9.3-492, 88 Stat.
1470, heiein, the Act) require the issuance of
niiniiniim requirements for school bus body and
frame crasliwortliiness. This r»ilemakin<r is pur-
suant to authority vested in the Secretary of
Transportation by the Act and delegated to the
Administrator of the XHTSA, and is preceded
by iiotices of proposed rulemakino: issued Jan-
uary 29. 1974 (39 F.R. 2490) and ]\Iarc]i 13.
1975 (40 F.R. 11738).
One of the significant injury-producinfr char-
acteristics of school bus accidents, exposure to
sharp metal edjres, occurs when body panels be-
come separated from the structural components
to which they have been fastened. Tii an acci-
dent severe lacerations may result if the occu-
l)ants of the bus are tossed apainst these edpes.
Moreover, if panel separation is preat the com-
ponent may be ejected from the vehicle, preatly
increasin<r the j)ossibility of serious injury.
This standard is intended to lessen the likeli-
hood of these modes of injury by requiring that
body joints on school buses have a tensile
streufitli equal to 60 percent of the tensile
strenfrth of the weakest joined body panel, as
su<><rested by the Vehicle Equipment Safety
Commission (VESC). The NHTSA has deter-
mined that tliis is an appropriate level of per-
formance for body joints and that its application
to school buses is both reasonable and practicable.
Furthermore, the XHTSA believes that adoption
of this standard will provide an effective and
meaningful solution to the body panel problem.
It is anticipated that this rule will burden
manufacturers only to the extent of requiring
the installation of more rivets than are currently
used. The XHTSA has reviewed the economic
and environmental impact of this proposal and
detei-mined that neither will be significant.
In their response to the two NHTSA pro-
posals on this subject, several of the commenters
suggested that the standard could be met by re-
ducing the strength of the panel rather than
increasing the strength of the joint, and that a
minimum joint strength should be required. For
several reasons the XHTSA does not believe that
a minimun^ absolute joint .strength is desirable
at this time. While this standard will tend to
increase the overall strength of buses, it is not
designed to set minimum body panel strength
requirements. Its purpose is to prevent panels
from separating at the joint in the event of an
accident. In order to deal with the problem of
laceration, this regulation must be applicable to
both exterior and interior joints. An absolute
minimum joint strength i-equirement would be
constrained by tlie level of performance appro-
priate for tiie relatively thin interior panels.
Thus, the overall level of performance could not
be defined in a meaningful fashion without se-
verely and unnecessarily limiting the manufac-
turer's flexibility in designing his product. The
XHTSA School Bus Rollover Protection Stand-
ard (49 CFR r)71.220), which specifies require-
ments for the structural integrity of school bus
bodies, should result in a practical lower limit
on panel strength and tliereby set a practical
absolute inininmm joint strength.
PART 571; S 221— PRE 1
Effective: October 26, 1976
The XIITSA lias no evidence that the mode
of faihnc found in tlie larjjer traditional school
buses also occurs in smaller, van-type school
buses currently manufactured by automobile
nuinufacturers for use as 11- to 17-passenger
school buses. Ford Motor Company commented
tliat the mode of injury sought to be prevented
liy tliis standard does not occur in accidents in-
volvin<r school buses converted from multipur-
pose passenjrer vehicles (vans). Chrysler Cor-
poration sujifrested that the proposed requirement
is inappropriate when applied to vans with
''coach" Joint construction. Based on these com-
ments, the XHTSA has determined that until
information to the contrary appears .or is de-
veloped tiiese vehicles should not be covered by
the requirement. Accordingly, the application
of the standard has been limited to school buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000
pounds.
Several commenters suggested that certain
types of joints might not be susceptible of testing
in the manner specified in this regulation. Up
to this time the NHTSA has not found sufficient
evidence in support of that position to justify
amending the standard. If information is re-
ceived indicating that different test methods are
required for certain applications, appropriate
action will be initiated.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new motor
vehicle safety standard. No. '■22\^chool Bics Body
Joint Strength, is added as § 571.221 of Part 571
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below.
Effective date : October 26, 1976.
The effective date of this standard is 9 months
after the date of issuance, as required by the
Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amend-
ments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-492, section 202 (15
U.S.C. 1397(i)(l)(A)).
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; § 202, Pub. L. 93^92, 88
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on January 22, 1976.
Howard J. Dugoff
Acting Administrator
41 F.R. 3872
January 27, 1976
PART 571; S 221— PRE 2
Effective: August 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 221
School Bus Body Joint Strength
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 7)
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 10)
(Docket No. 73-34; Notice 4)
(Docket No. 75-2; Notice 3)
(Docket No. 75-3; Notice 5)
(Docket No. 75-7; Notice 3)
(Docket No. 75-24; Notice 3)
This notice announces that the effective dates
of the redefinition of "school bus" and of six
Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they
apply to school buses are changed to April 1,
1977, from the previously established effective
dates. This notice also makes a minor amend-
ment to Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover
Protection^ and adds a figure to Standard No.
221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.
The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety
Amendments of 1974 (the Act) mandated the
issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety stand-
ards for several aspects of school bus perform-
ance. Pub. L. 93-492, §202 (15 U.S.C. § 1392(i)
(1)(A)). These amendments included a defini-
tion of school bus that necessitated a revision of
the existing definition used by the NHTSA in
establishing safety requirements. The Act also
specified that the new requirements "apply to
each schoolbus and item of schoolbus equipment
which is manufactured ... on or after the ex-
piration of the 9-month period which begins
on the date of promulgation of such safety stand-
ards." (15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)(B)).
Pursuant to the Act, amendments were made
to the following standards : Standard No. 301-75,
Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75),
effective July 15, 1976, for school buses not al-
ready covered by the standard, (40 F.R. 483521,
October 15, 1975) ; Standard No. 105-75, Hy-
draulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105-75),
effective October 12, 1976 (41 F.R. 2391, Jan-
uary 16, 1976) ; and Standard No. 217, Bus Win-
dow Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217),
effective for school buses on October 26, 1976 (41
F.R. 3871, January 27, 1976).
In addition, the following new standards were
added to i.'art 571 of Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, effective October 26, 1976:
Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protec-
tion (41 F.R. 3874, January 27, 1976) ; Standard
No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (41
F.R. 3872, January 26, 1976) ; and Standard No.
222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash
Protection (41 F.R. 4016, January 28, 1976).
Also, the existing definition of "school bus" was
amended, effective October 27, 1976, in line with
the date set by the Act for issuance of the stand-
ards.
The Act was recently amended by Public Law
94-346 (July 8, 1976) to change the effective
dates of the school bus standards to April 1,
1977 (15 U.S.C. § 1392(i) (1) (B) ). This notice
is intended to advise interested persons of these
changes of effective dates. In the case of Stand-
ard No. 301-75, the change of effective date is
reflected in a conforming amendment to S5.4 of
that standard. A similar amendment is made in
S3 of Standard No. 105-75.
The agency concludes that the October 27, 1976,
effective date for the redefinition of "school bus"
should be postponed to April 1, 1977, to conform
PART 571; S 221— PRE 3
Effective: August 26, 1976
to the new effective dates for the upcoming re-
quirements. If this were not done, the new classes
of school buses would be required to meet exist-
ing standards that apply to school buses (e.g.,
Standard No. 108 (49 CFK 571.108)) before
being required to meet the new standards. This
would result in two stages of compliance, and
would complicate the redesign efforts that Con-
gress sought to relieve.
This notice also amends Standard No. 220 in
response to an interpretation request by Blue
Bird Body Company, and Sheller-Globe Corpora-
tion's petition for reconsideration of the standard.
Both companies request confirmation that the
standard's requirement to operate emergency
exits during the application of force to the ve-
hicle roof (S4(b)) does not apply to roof exits
which are covered by the force application plate.
The agency did not intend to require the opera-
tion of roof exits wliile the force application
plate is in place on the vehicle. Accordingly, an
appropriate amendment has been made to S4(b)
of the standard.
With regard to Standard No. 220, Sheller-
Globe also requested confirmation that, in testing
its school buses that have a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, it may
test with a force application plate with dimen-
sions other than those specified in the standard.
The standard does not prohibit a manufacturer
from using a different dimension from that spec-
ified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed position
on the legal effect of its regulations. To certify
compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any
means, in the exercise of due care, to show that
a vehicle (or item of motor vehicle equipment)
would comply if tested by the NHTSA as spec-
ified in the standard. Thus the force application
plat© used by the NHTSA need not be duplicated
by each manufacturer or compliance test facility.
Sheller-Globe, for example, is free to use a force
application plate of any width as long as it can
certify its vehicle would comply if tested by the
NHTSA according to the standard.
In a separate area, the agency corrects the in-
advertent omission of an illustration from Stand-
ard No. 221 as it was issued Januai-y 26, 1976
(41 F.R. 3872). The figure does not differ from
that proposed and, in that form, it received no
adverse comment.
In accordance with recently enunciated De-
partment of Transportation policy encouraging
adequate analysis of the consequences of regu-
latory action (41 F.R. 16200, April 16, 1976),
the agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of
the economic and other consequences of this ac-
tion on the public and private sectors, including
possible loss of safety benefits. The changes in
effective dates for the school bus standards are
not evaluated because they were accomplished by
law and not by regulatory action.
The change of effective date for the redefinition
of "school bus" will result in savings to manu-
facturers who will not be required to meet exist-
ing school bus standards between October 27,
1976, and April 1, 1977. The agency calculates
that the only standard that would not be met
would be the requirement in Standard No. 108
for school bus marker lamps. In view of the
agency's existing provision for the marking of
light school buses in Pupil Transportation Stand-
ard No. 17 (23 CFR 1204), it is concluded that
the absence of this equipment until April 1, 1977,
will not have a significant adverse impact on
safety.
The interpretative amendment of Standard No.
220 and the addition of a figure to Standard No.
221 are not expected to affect the manufacture
or operation of school buses.
In consideration of the foregoing. Part 571 of
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended. . . .
Effective dates:
1. Because the listed amendments do not impose
additional requirements of any person, the Na-
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration
finds that an immediate effective date of August
26, 1976 is in the public interest.
2. The effective date of the redefinition of
"school bus" in 49 CFR Part 571.3 that was pub-
lished in the issue of December 31, 1976 (40 F.R.
60033) is changed to April 1, 1977.
3. The effective dates of Standard Nos. 105-75,
217, 301-75, 220, 221, and 222, (as they apply to
school buses) are April 1, 1977, in • accordance
with Public Law 94-346.
PART 571; S 221— PRE 4
Effective: August 26, 1976
I
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 John W. Snow
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Pub. L. 94-346, Stat. (15 Administrator
U.S.C. § 1392(i) (1) (B) ) ; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50). 41 F.R. 36027
Issued on August 17, 1976. August 26, 1976
I
I
PART 571; S 221— PRE 5-6
(;
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 221
School Bus Body Joint Strength
51. Scope. This standard establishes require-
ments for the strength of body panel joints in
school bus bodies.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from the
structural collapse of school bus bodies during
crashes.
53. Application. This standard applies to
school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of
more than 10,000 pounds.
54. Definitions.
"Body component" means a part of a bus body
made from a single piece of homogeneous ma-
terial or from a single piece of composite ma-
terial such as plywood.
"Body panel" means a body component used
on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the
bus' occupant space.
"Body panel joint" means the area of contact
or close proximity between the edges of a body
panel and another body component, excluding
spaces designed for ventilation or another func-
tional purpose, and excluding doors, windows,
and maintenance access panels.
"Bus body" means the portion of a bus that
encloses the bus' occupant space, exclusive of the
bumpers, the chassis frame, and any structure
forward of the forwardmost point of the wind-
shield mounting.
55. Requirement. When tested in accordance
with the procedure of S6, each body panel joint
shall be capable of holding the body panel to the
member to which it is joined when subjected to
a force of 60% of the tensile strength of the
weakest joined body panel determined pursuant
to S6.2.
S6. Procedure.
S6.1 Preparation of the test specimen.
56.1.1 If a body panel joint is 8 inches long or
longer, cut a test specimen that consists of any
randomly selected 8-inch segment of the joint,
together with a portion of the bus body whose
dimensions, to the extent permitted by the size
of the joined parts, are those specified in Figure
1, so that the specimen's centerline is perpen-
dicular to the joint at the midpoint of the joint
segment. Where the body panel is not fastened
continuously, select the segment so that it does
not bisect a spot weld or a discrete fastener.
56.1.2 If a joint is less than 8 inches long, cut
a test specimen with enough of the adjacent ma-
terial to permit it to be held in the tension test-
ing machine specified in S6.3.
56.1 .3 Prepare the test specimen in accordance
with the preparation procedures specified in the
1973 edition of the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, published by the American Society
for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
MntMntarlliM
SpvdnMn einiHlIrM
V
XTTXh^
n dtiTMrvleni in inchts
PART 571; S 221-1
S6.2 Determination of minimum allowable
strength. For purposes of determining the mini-
mum allowable joint strength, determine the
tensile strengths of the joined body components
as follows:
(a) If the mechanical properties of a material
are specified by the American Society for Test-
ing and Materials, the relative tensile strength
for such a material is the minimum tensile
strength specified for that material in the 1973
edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
(b) If the mechanical properties of a material
are not specified by the American Society for
Testing and Materials, determine its tensile
strength by cutting a specimen from the bus
body outside the area of the joint and by testing
it in accordance with S6.3.
S6.3 Strength test.
56.3.1 Grip the joint specimen on opposite
sites of the joint in a tension testing machine
calibrated in accordance with Method E4, Veri-
ification of Testing Machines, of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (1973 Annual
Book of ASTM Standards).
56.3.2 Adjust the testing machine grips so that
the joint, under load, will be in stress approxi-
mately perpendicular to the joint.
56.3.3 Apply a tensile force to the specimen
by separating the heads of the testing machine
at any uniform rate not less than % inch and not
more than % inch per minute until the specimen
separates.
41 F.R. 3872
January 27, 1976
PART 571; S 221-2
Effective: October 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222
School Bus Seating and Crash Protection
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 5)
This notice establishes a new laotoi- veliicle
safety Standaid No. 222, School Bus Seating
and Cranh Protection^ that s])pcifies seatinp. re-
strainin<f barrier, and impact zone requirenionts
for school buses.
The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbiis Safety
Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-402, directed
the issuance of a school bus seating systems per-
formance standard (and other standards in seven
areas of vehicle performance). The XHTSA
had already issued two proposals foi' school bus
seatinjr systems prior to enactment of the 1974
Safety Amendments (the Act) (.S8 F.R. 4776,
February 22. 1973) (39 F.E. 27.-)8r). July 30. 1974)
and subsequently' published two additional pro-
posals (40 F.R. 17855, April 23, 1975) (40 F.R.
47141. October 8, 1975). Each aspect of tlie re-
quirements was fully considered in tlie course
of tliis rtileniakinff activity. Coiiunents received
in response to the most recent pi-oposal were
limited to a few aspects of the Standard.
The larpest number of comments were received
on the requirement that scliool bus passen^ei-
seats be equipped with seat belt anchorajjies at
each seatinji' position. Tlie standard relies on
compartmentalization lietweeu well-padded and
well-constructed seats to pi-ovide occu|)ant pro-
tection on school buses (other than \an-type
buses). At the same time, seat belt anchora<ies
were proposed so that a <j.reater measure of pro-
tection could be frained if a particular user chose
to use the anchora<res by installation of seat belts
together with a system to assure that seat belts
would be worn, properly adjusted, and not
misused.
Bus operators stronfj^ly expressed the view that
the presence of seat belt anchorajres would en-
courajre the installation of seat belts bv school
districts without providing;; the necessary super-
\isioii of their use. This association of schofd
bus operators (National School Ti'ansportation
Association) also cpiestioned the benefits that
would be derived from ancKorape installation as
lou<r as their utilization is not I'equired. Tn view
of these factors, and the iTulications that in any
o\ent only a small fraction of school buses would
have belts installed and properly used, the
XHTSA concludes that the proposed seat belt
anchorage re(|uirement should not be included in
this initial school bus seating standard. Further
study of the extent to which belts would be in-
stalled and proi)erly used should permit more
certainty as the basis for any future action.
XHTSA calculations demonstrate that the
strength characteristics of the seat specified by
the standard to pro\ide the correct amount of
compartmentalization also provide the strength
necessary to absorb seat belt loads. This means
that an operator or school district may safely
attach seat belts to the seat frame, even where
anchorages are not installed as original equip-
ment. The seat is stronjr enouph to take the
force of occupants apainst the seat back if no
belts are utilized, or the force of occupants
apainst seat belts if occui)ants are restrained by
belts attached to the seat frame through the
anchorages provided.
The Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS)
I'equested that lap belts be required in addition
to the compartmentalization offered by the seat-
ing systems. The apency concluded earlier in
this rulemakin<!: procedure that compai'tmentali-
zation provides satisfactory protection and that
a requirement for belts without the assurance of
proper supervision of their use would not be an
effective means of providing occupant protection.
PART 571; S 222— PRE 1
Effective: October 26, 1976
PAS has not provided data or ui-^uiiicnts that
would iiiodifv tliis roncliision. and its request is
therefore denied.
PAS. relyinfi: on testinjr undertaken at the
University of California at Los Anjreles in 1067
and 1960, ar<;ued that a vertical seat l)ac'k lieijiJit
of 24 inches above the seatin<r reference point
(SEP) is necessaiy to afford ade(]iiate protec-
tion a<rainst occupant injury. The \HTSA, as
noted in its fourth notice of scliool bus crash
protection, based its 20-inch requirement on
newer data <;enerated in dynamic and static test-
ing by AMF (\)rporation of piototype seats de-
sifrned to meet the proposed requirements of the
standard ("Development of a Unitized School
Bus", DOT-IIS-400960). While the XIITSA
does not dispute that a properly constiuctcd,
hiflher seat back provides more protection than
a lower seat back, the data supi)ort the a<rency*s
determination that the 20-inch seat back provides
a reasonable level of protection. School bus ac-
cident data do not i)rovide substantial evidence
of a whi[)lash injury experience that could justify
a 4-inch increase in seat back height. For this
reason, the seat back height is made final as
])roposed.
Several counnenters objected to applicability
of the standard to school buses with a <iross ve-
hicle weight rating ((IVAVR) of 10,000 pounds
or less (light school buses), asserting that the
special requirements of the standard for those
buses were inappropriate, or unachievable within
the 9-month leadtime for compliance mandated
by the Act.
Chrysler Corporation requested exclusion of
light school buses from this standard for an in-
definite jieriod, and Ford Motor Company le-
quested that essentially the same package of
standards as already are provided in its van-tyi)e
multi-purpose passenger vehicles and school bus
models be required in the future, with no addi-
tional protection. Both companies believe that
the relatively small numbers of their vehicles
sold as school buses would have to be withdi'awn
from the market because of the ex[)ense of tool-
ing new seating that offers more crash protection
than present seating. "Wayne Corporation manu-
factures a light school bus that is not based on
a van-type vehicle, and requested that seats used
in its larger models be permitted in smaller
models, along with seat belts that comply with
Standard \o. 209.
The Congressional direction to issue standards
for school bus seating systems (15 U.S.C.
§ 1392(i) (1) (A) (iv)) implies that existing seat-
ing and occupant crash i)rotection standards are
insufficient for \chicles that carry school children.
The NHTSA has proposed a combination of re-
(juirements for light school buses that differ from
those for heavier buses, because the crash pulse
experienced by smaller vehicles is more severe
than that of larger vehicles in similar collisions.
The standard also si)ecifies adequate numbers of
seat belts for the children that the vehicle would
carry, because such restraints are necessary to
provide adequate crash protection in small ve-
hicles. The requirements applicable to light
school buses are considered reasonable, and are
thcrcfoie included in the final rule as proposed.
In Wayne's case, it is not clear why the seat
it has developed for heavier school buses will not
serve in its smaller school buses. Seat belts may
need to be attached to the floor to support the
force specified by Standard Xo. 210 for anchor-
ages. Also, some interior padding may be
necessary to meet the vehicle impact zone re-
(piirements of Sr).3.1.1(a).
Sheller-Globe Corporation (Sheller) and
Wayne considered unreasonable the standard's
limitation on maxinnun distance between a seat's
SRP and the rear suiface of the seat or restrain-
ing barrier forward of the SEP (Sr).2). The
limitation exists to minimize the distance an oc-
cupant travels before forward motion is arrested
by the padded structure that compartmentalizes
the occupant. The two bus manufacturers con-
tend that they nnist also comply with State re-
rjuiremcnts for a minimum distance between seats
that results in only 1 inch of tolerance in seating
placement.
Section 10:5(d) of the National Traffic and
Motor ^'ehicle Safety Act pro\ ides in part :
(d) AVhenever a Federal motoi- \ehicle safety
standard ... is in effect, no State or political
subdivision of a State shall have any authority
either to establish or continue in eli'ect. with
lespect to any motor vehicle or item of motor
vehicle e([uii)mcnt any safety standard appli-
PART 571; S 222— PRE 2
Effective: October 26, 1976
cable to the same aspect of porfoniuinco of
such vehicle or item of equipment which is not
identical to the Federal standard.
It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any
State requirement relating to seat spacing, other
than one identical to the Federal requirement for
maximum spacing of 20 inches from the SRP, is
preempted under § 103(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d).
Sheller advocated wider seat spacing for ac-
tivity buses, because seats are occupied for longer
periods of time on road trips. The NHTSA,
noting that activity buses are often used on the
open highway at high speeds for long periods of
time, requests comments on the advisability of
specifying a seat belt requirement in place of
the seat spacing requirement in tlie case of these
buses.
Much of Sheller and Wayne's concern over
tolerances may stem from a misunderstanding of
the meaning of "seating reference point" (SRP).
As defined by the NHTSA (49 CFR 571.3), the
SRP is essentially the manufacturer's design
reference point which simulates the pivot center
of the human torso and thigh, located in accord-
ance with the SAE Standard J826. Thus the
manufacturer calculates, on its seat design seen
in side projected view, the pivot center of the
liuman torso and thigh of the potential seat occu-
pant, and then establishes a design reference point
that simulates the location of the actual pivot
center. The NHTSA has interpreted that this
design reference point may be fixed by the manu-
facturer with reference to the seating structure
to simplify calculation of its location in a bus
for purposes of measurement and compliance.
Sheller also requested that the "seat perform-
ance forward" testing be siinplified by elim-
inating the 8-inch range of locations at which
the lower loading bar can be applied against the
seat back. As noted in the preamble to Notice 4
of this docket in response to a similar request
from Blue Bird Body Company, the NHTSA de-
clines to make this restriction, to discourage the
addition of a narrow 2-inch wide structural mem-
ber at this point simply to meet the requirement.
This reasoning remains valid and Sheller's re-
quest is denied.
Sheller also asked that the requirement for
forward-facing seats be eliminated from the
standard, in view of the practice of installing
side-facing seats in some buses for handicapped
students. The XHTSA designed the seating sys-
tem in this standard for protection from fore and
aft crash forces, and ccmsiders it necessary that
the seats be forward-facing to achieve the objec-
tive of occupant protection. Comments are so-
licited on whether the provision of this protection
in special vehicles is impractical.
The Vehicle Equipment and Safety Commis-
.sion (VESC) asked for a minimum seat width
of 13 inches for each designated seating position,
noting that the standard's formula permits seat-
ing of 12.67 inches in width. The agency does
not believe its standard will encourage seats nar-
rower than those presently provided in school
buses, but will watch for any indication that that
is occurring. Action can be taken in the future
if it appears tliat seating is being designed to
be narrower than at present.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new motor
vehicle safety Standard No. 222, School Bus
Seating and Crash Protection, is added as
§ 571.222, of Part 571 of Title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations. . . .
Effective date: October 26, 1976. The effec-
tive date of this standard is established as 9
months after the date of its issuance, as required
by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety
Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-492, section 202
(15 U.S.C. 1397(i)(l)(A)).
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-.563, 80 Stat. 718 (15
U.S.C. 1392, 1407); §202, Pub. L. 93-492, 88
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392) ; delegation of au-
thority at 49 CFR 1.50).
Issued on January 22, 1976.
Howard J. Dugoff
Acting Administrator
41 F.R. 4016
January 28, 1976
PART 571; S 222— PRE 3-4
Effective: October 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222
School Bus Seating and Crash Protection
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 6)
This notice responds to two petitions for re-
consideration of Standard No. 222, School Bus
Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as it
■was issued January 22, 1976.
Standard No. 222 (49 CFE 571.222 was issued
January 22, 1976 (41 F.R. 4016, January 28,
1976), in accordance with §202 of the Motor
Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of
1974, Pub. L. 93-492 (15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l))
and goes into effect on October 26, 1976. The
standard provides for compartmentalization of
bus passengers between well-padded and well-
constructed seats in the event of collision. Peti-
tions for reconsideration of the standard were
received from Sheller-Globe Corporation and
from the Physicians for Automotive Safety
(PAS), which also represented the views of
Action for Child Transportation Safety, several
adult individuals, and several school bus riders.
PAS expressed dissatisfaction with several as-
pects of the standard. The organization objected
most strongly to the agency's decision that seat
belts should not be mandated in school buses.
PAS disagreed with the agency conclusion (39
F.R. 27585, July 30, 1974) that, whatever the
potential benefits of safety belts in motor vehicle
collisions, the possibility of their non-use or
misuse in the hands of children makes them
impractical in school buses without adequate su-
pervision. In support of safety belt installation,
PAS cited statistics indicating that 23 percent
of reported school bus accidents involve a side
impact or rollover of the bus.
While safety belts presumably would be bene-
ficial in these situations, PAS failed io provide
evidence that the belts, if provided, would be
properly utilized by school-age children. The
agency will continue to evaluate the wisdom of
its decision not to mandate belts, based on any
evidence showing that significant numbers of
school districts intend to provide the supervision
that should accompany belt use. In view of the
absence of evidence to date, however, the agency
maintains its position that requiring the installa-
tion of safety belts on school bus passenger seats
is not appropriate and denies the PAS petition
for reconsideration. The agency continues to
consider the reduced hostility of improved seat-
ing to be the best reasonable form of protection
against injury.
PAS asked that a separate standard for seat
belt assembly anchorages be issued. They dis-
agree with the agency's conclusion (41 F.E. 4016)
that seat belt anchorages should not be required
because of indications that only a small fraction
of school buses would have belts installed and
properly used. However, PAS failed to produce
evidence that a substantial number of school
buses would be equipped with safety belts, or
that steps would be taken to assure the proper
use of such belts. In the absence of such in-
formation, the agency maintains its position that
a seat belt anchorage requirement should not be
included in the standard at this time, and denies
the PAS petition for reconsideration.
The NHTSA does find merit in the PAS con-
cern that in the absence of additional guidance,
improper safety belt installation may occur. The
Administration is considering rulemaking to
establish perfonnanc^ requirements for safety
belt anchorages and assemblies when such sys-
tems are installed on school bus passenger seats.
PAS also requested that the seat back height
be raised from the 20-inch level specified by the
standard to a 24-inch level. In support of this
position, the organization set forth a "common
PART 571; S 222— PRE 5
Effective: October 26, 1976
sense" argument that whiplash must be occurring
to school bus passengers in rear impact. How-
ever, the agency has not been able to locate any
quantified evidence that there is a significant
whiplash problem in school buses. The crash
forces imparted to a school bus occupant in rear
impact are typically far lower than those im-
parted in a car-to-car impact because of the
greater weight of the school bus. The new and
higher seating required by the standard specifies
energy absorption characteristics for the seat back
under rear-impact conditions, and the agency
considers that these improvements over earlier
seating designs wil reduce the number of in-
juries that occur in rear impact. For lack of
evidence of a significant whiplash problem, the
PAS petition for a 24-inch seat back is denied.
PAS believed that the States and localities
that specify a 24-inch seat back height would be
precluded from doing so in the future by the
preemptive effect of Standard No. 222 under
§ 103(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Ve-
hicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. § 1392(f)):
§ 103 * * * * *
(d) Wlienever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard under this subchapter is in effect, no
State or political subdivision of a State shall
have any authority either to establish, or to
continue in effect, with respect to any motor
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any
safety standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance of such vehicle or item of
equipment which is not identical to the Fed-
eral standard. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to prevent the Federal Govern-
ment or the government of any State or
political subdivision thereof from establishing
a safety requirement applicable to motor ve-
hicle equipment procured for its own use if
such requirement imposes a higher standard
of performance than that required to comply
with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.
Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seat
back height (S5.1.2) which manufactures may
exceed as long as their product conforms to all
other requirements of the standards applicable
to school buses. It is the NHTSA's opinion that
any State standard of general applicability con-
cerning seat back height of school bus seating
would also have to specify a minimum height
identical to the Federal requirement. Manufac-
turers would not be required to exceed this mini-
mum. Thus, the PAS petition to state seat back
height as a minimum is unnecessary and has
already been satisfied, although it does not have
the effect desired by the PAS.
With regard to the PAS concern that the
States' seat height requirements would be pre-
empted, the second sentence of § 103(d) clarifies
that the limitation on safety regulations of gen-
eral applicability does not prevent governmental
entities from specifying additional safety features
in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, a
State or its political subdivisions could specify a
seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case
of public school buses. The second sentence does
not permit these governmental entities to specify
safety features that prevent the vehicle or equip-
ment from complying with applicable safety
standards.
With regard to which school buses qualify as
"public school buses" that may be fitted with
additional features, it is noted that the agency
includes in this category those buses that are
owned and operated by a private contractor under
contract with a State to provide transportation
for students to and from public schools.
Sheller-Globe Corporation (Sheller) petitioned
for exclusion from the seating requirements for
seating that is designed for handicapped or con-
valescent students who are unable to utilize
conventional forward- facing seats. Typically,
side-facing seats are installed to improve entry
and egress since knee room is limited in forward-
facing seats, or spaces on the bus are specifi-
cally designed to accommodate wheelchairs. The
standard presently requires that bus passenger
seating be forward-facing (S5.1) and conform to
requirements appropriate for forward-facing
seats. Blue Bird Body Company noted in a
March 29, 1976, letter that it also considered the
standard's requirements inappropriate for special
seating.
The agency has considered the limited circum-
stances in which this seating would be offered in
school buses and concludes that the seat-spacing
requirement (S5.2) and the fore-and-aft seat per-
formance requirements (S5.1.3, S5.1.4) are not
PART 571; S 222— PRE 6
EfFeclive: October 26, 1976
appropriate for side-facing seats designee! solely
for handicapped or convalescent students. Occu-
pant crash protection is, of course, as important
for these students as others, and the agency in-
tends to establish requirements suited to these
specialized seating arrangements. At this time,
however, insufficient time remains before the
effective date of this standard to establish differ-
ent requirements for the seating involved. There-
fore, the NHTSA has decided to modify its rule
by the exclusion of side-facing seating installed
to accommodate handicapped or convalescent
passengers.
School bus manufacturers should note that
the limited exclusion does not relieve them from
providing a restraining barrier in front of any
forward-facing seat that has a side-facing seat
or wheelchair position in front of it .
Sheller also petitioned for a modification of the
head protection zone (S5. 3.1.1) that describes
the space in front of a seating position where an
occupant's head would impact in a crash. The
outer edge of this zone is described as a vertical
longitudinal plane 3.25 inches inboard of the out-
board edge of the seat.
Sheller pointed out that van-type school buses
utilize "tumble home" in the side of the vehicle
that brings the bus body side panels and glazing
into the head protection zone. As Sheller noted,
the agency has never intended to include body
side panels and glazing in the protection zone.
The roof structure and overhead projections from
the interior are included in this area of the zone.
To clarify this distinction and account for the
"tumble home," the description of the head impact
zone in S5.3.1.1 is appropriately modified.
In accordance with recently enunciated De-
partment of Transportation policy encouraging
adequate analysis of the consequences of regu-
latory action (41 F.R. 16201; April 16, 1976),
the agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of
the economic and other consequences of this action
on the public and private sectors, including pos-
sible loss of safety benefits. The decision to
withdraw requirements for side-facing seats used
by handicapped or convalescent students will re-
sult in cost savings to manufactui-ere and pur-
chasers. The action may encourage production
of specialized buses that would otherwise not be
built if the seating were subject to the standard.
Because the requirements are not appropriate to
the orientation of this seating, it is estimated that
no significant loss of safety benefits will oc«ur as
a result of the amendment. The exclusion of
sidewall, window or door structure from the head
protection zone is simply a clarification of the
agency's longstanding intent that these compo-
nents not be subject to the requirements. There-
fore no new consequences are anticipated as a re-
sult of this amendment.
In an area unrelated to the petitions for re-
consideration, the Automobile Club of Southern
California petitioned for specification of a van-
dalism resistance specification for the upholstei-y
that is installed in school buses in compliance
with Standard No. 222. Data were submitted on
experience with crash pads installed in school
buses operated in California. Vandalism damage
was experienced, and its cost quantified in the
submitted data.
The Automobile Club made no argument that
the damage to the upholstery presents a sig-
nificant safety problem. While it is conceivable
that removal of all padding from a seat back
could occur and expose the rigid seat frame, the
agency estimates that this would occur rarely and
presumably would result in replacement of the
seat. Because the agency's authority under the
National Traffic and Motor Veliicle Safety Act
is limited to the issuance of standards that meet
the need for motor vehicle safety (15 U.S.C.
§ 1392 (a) ) , the agency concludes that a vandalism
resistance requirement is not appropriate for
inclusion in Standard No. 222.
In light of the foregoing. Standard No. 222
(49 CFR 571.222) is amended. . . .
Elective date: October 26, 1976. Because the
standard becomes effective on October 26, 1976,
it is found to be in the public interest that an
effective date sooner than 180 days is in the public
interest. Changes in the text of the Code of
Federal Regulations should be made immediately.
PART 571; S 222— PRE 7
Effeclive: October 26, 1976
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 James B. Gregory
U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority at Administrator
49 CFK 1.50.) 41 F.R. 28506
Issued on July 7, 1976. July 12, 1976
PART 571; S 222— PRE 8
i
Effective: December 16, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222
School Bus Seating and Crash Protection
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 8)
This notice amends Standard No. 222, School
Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, to
delay the effective date for maximum rearward
deflection of seats from April 1, 1977, to April 1,
1978.
Standard No. 222 (49 CFR 571.222), as pub-
lished January 28, 1976 (41 F.R. 4016), estab-
lished October 27, 1976, as the effective date of
the standard, as mandated by the Motor Vehicle
and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (the
Act) (Pub. L. 93^92). Congress subsequently
amended the Act by Public Law 94-346 (July
8, 1976) to extend the effective date for the im-
plementation of school bus standards to April
1, 1977.
The NHTSA has promulgated regulations on
several aspects of performance mandated by
Congress in the Act. These regulations become
effective on April 1, 1977. The agency concludes,
however, that compliance with one provision of
Standard No. 222 by the April 1, 1977, effective
date would be impracticable, would result in
substantial economic waste, and would not be in
the public interest.
Since publication of Standard No. 222, a mis-
understanding has arisen within the industry
concerning the definition of the term "absorbed"
when used in connection with the requirements
in sections S5.1.3.4 and S5.1.4.2. The NHTSA
explained the term "absorbed" in an interpreta-
tion to Thomas Built Buses (July 30, 1976) to
mean "receive without recoil." This interpreta-
tion requires that returned energy be subtracted
from total energy applied to the seat back to
calculate energy "absorbed" by the seat back.
School bus manufacturers tested their seats in
accordance with the NHTSA definition of "ab-
sorbed" and found that the seats continued to
comply with the requirements of Standard No.
222 when tested for forward performance
(S5.1.3), but these same seats were marginally
below the NHTSA requirements for rearward
seat deflection. Based upon these test data,
petitions have been received from Thomas Built
Buses, Blue Bird Body Company, Carpenter Body
Works, Wayne Corporation, and Ward School
Bus Manufacturing, all requesting a change in
rearward i^erformance requirements.
The NHTSA has examined the data submitted
by the manufacturers and concludes that the
seats upon which the tests were made demonstrate
a high probability of meeting most of the re-
quirements of Standard No. 222. Further, the
agency concludes that to mandate full compliance
with the rearward performance requirements of
Standard No. 222 would require extensive re-
tooling and redesign. This could result in sub-
stantial economic waste of seats now in production
and severe economic hardship for manufacturers.
The NHTSA is particularly concerned that to
require full compliance with the rearward per-
formance requirements at this late date might
mean that manufacturers would be unable to
redesign their seats in time to commence manu-
facture of completed buses on April 1, 1977.
Since single-stage buses produced after April 1,
1977, must meet NHTSA safety requirements in
all other respects, they will be substantially safer
than buses currently in use. Therefore, the
agency finds that it is in the interest of safety
to ensure that these safer buses will be available
on April 1, 1977, to replace older less safe models.
To ensure that safer buses can be marketed with-
out delay, the NHTSA extends the effective date
of requirements for maximum rearward deflec-
tion of seats to April 1, 1978. It is emphasized
PART 671; S 222— PRE 9
Effective: December 16, 1976
that the numerous other requirements for school
bus seating, including all other rearward per-
formance requirements, remain in effect, which
ensures adequate interior protection as of April
1, 1977, as mandated by Congress. A proposal
for minor modification of S 5. 1.4 (to be published
shortly) will permit reinstitution of rearward
deflection requirements following the 1-year delay.
Because of the imminent effective date of the
school bus safety standards and the lead time
required to modify seat design, the NHTSA for
gool cause finds that notice and public procedure
on this amendment are impracticable and con-
trary to the public interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, S5. 1.4(b)
of Standard No. 222 (49 CFK 571.222) is
amended by the addition, at the beginning of the
first sentence, of the following phrase: "In the
case of a school bus manufactured on or after
April 1, 1978,".
Effective date: December 16, 1976. Because
this amendment relieves a restriction and does
not impose requirements on any person, it is
found, for good cause shown, that an immediate
effective date is in the public interest.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 202, Pub. L. 93-492,
88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on December 10, 1976.
Acting Administrator
Charles E. Duke
41 F.R. 54945
December 16, 1976
i
f
PART 571: S 222— PRE 10
<J
EfFecllve: April 1, 1978
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 12)
This notice amends Standard No. 222, School
Bus Pass&nger Seating a/nd Crash Protection^
increasing the allowable rearward deflection of
seats from 8 to 10 inches. The action is taken in
response to petitions that indicated the current
rearward deflection requirement is unnecessarily
restrictive in that it would require costly retool-
ing of school bus seats with no measurable safety
advantage over a somewhat greater deflection
distance that would not entail significant retool-
ing. Additionally, a minor modification of the
standard is made clarifying the meaning of
"absorbed energy" consistent with an agency
interpretation of that term.
Effective Date: April 1, 1978.
For further information contact :
Mr. Timothy Hoyt, Crash worthiness Divi-
sion, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W..
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2264).
Supplementary Information : On November 10,
1977, the NHTSA published a notice proposing
to amend the rearward deflection requirement of
Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating
and Crash Protection. The impetus for that pro-
posal came from several petitions from school bus
manufacturers claiming that the rearward deflec-
tion requirement was unnecessarily restrictive
since it would require significant retooling of
school bus seats which would not be measurably
superior, in terms of safety, to seats designed to
meet a slightly greater deflection distance. They
stated that seats produced in compliance with a
somewhat greater rearward deflection require-
ment, as opposed to the currently specified 8-inch
requirement, would not require retooling. The
NHTSA agreed with the petitioners and, accord-
ingly, proposed to increase the allowable rear-
ward deflection of seats from 8 to 10 inches. By
the same notice, the NHTSA proposed a minor
modification of the standard clarifying the
agency's meaning of absorbed energy.
Only one comment was received in response to
that notice of proposed rulemaking. The "Vehicle
Equipment Safety Commission did not submit
comments.
The only commenter. Blue Bird Body Com-
pany, took issue with the agency's proposed
method for limiting rearward seat deflection. It
asserted that the requirement expressed in S5.1.4
(c) of the standard should be the only limitation
on rearward seat deflection. That section pro-
vides that a seat shall not, when tested, come
within 4 inches of any portion of another pas-
senger seat.
Blue Bird's comment is not persuasive. The
requirement of So.l.4(c) addresses an entirely
separate safety concern than the requirement of
S5.1.4(b). Section S5.1.4(b) limits the rearward
deflection of a seat, by this notice, to a maximum
of 10 inches. That requirement functions as part
of the compartmentalization scheme of Standard
222. Limiting the degree of seat back deflection
helps to contain a child within the seat structures
in the event of an accident. This requirement
should be distinguished from that contained in
S5.1.4(c), which is intended to ensure that a
minimum amount of space remains between seats
following an accident so that a child does not
become trapped. Since both requirements are
necessary to maintain the safety level considered
necessary for school buses, Blue Bird's request is
denied.
Blue Bird stated in its comments a preference
for specifying maximum rearward seat deflection
in terms of inches rather than angle. This com-
ment suggests that Blue Bird misinterpreted the
statements in the notice of proposed rulemaking
as indicating that the NHTSA was contemplat-
PART 571; S 222— PRE 11
Effective: April 1, 1978
ing an amendment that would limit the angle of
seat deflection. The reference in the notice to a
40° seat angle was made only to justify the pro-
posed 10-inch maximum seat deflection. A 40°
seat angle roughly translates to 10 inches of rear-
ward seat deflection. There was no intention to
suggest that an angle limitation was under con-
sideration. In fact, the preamble stated that the
NHTSA had abandoned, in earlier rulemaking,
attempts to adopt an angular measurement owing
to the difficulty of making such a measurement.
The agency concludes that the extension of the
allowable rearward deflection of seats from 8 to
10 inches assures passenger safety while minimiz-
ing the cost impact of compliance with the school
bus regulations. Since this amendment relieves
a restriction, it should result in no increase in
costs.
In consideration of the foregoing. Part 571, of
Title 49, CFR, is amended. . . .
The principal authors of this proposal are
Timothy Hoyt of the Crashwortliiness Division
and Roger Tilton of the Office of Chief Counsel.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 203, Pub. L. 93-492,
88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on March 1, 1978.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 9149
March 6, 1976
PART 571; S 222— PRE 12
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222
School Bus Seating and Crash Protection
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 13)
Action; Final rule.
Summary: This notice makes final an existing
interim amendment to Standard No. 222,
School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, in-
creasing the maximum allowable seat spacing
in school buses from 20 to 21 inches. In issuing
the original standard, the agency intended that
the seats be spaced approximately 20 inches
apart (S5.2). However, because of manufac-
turing tolerances, some school bus manufactur-
ers were spacing their seats at distances less
than 20 inches to ensure that the spacing does
not exceed the prescribed maximum. A seat
spacing specification of 21 inches permits 20-inch
spacing of seats by taking manufacturing toler-
ances into fuller account. This spacing will ac-
commodate large high school students while still
ensuring a safe level of school bus seat perform-
ance.
Effective date: Since this amendment merely
makes final an existing interim rule, it is effective
March 29, 1979.
For further information contact :
Mr. Robert Williams, Crashworthiness Divi-
sion, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
"Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 426-2264.
Sufplementary information.: On December 22,
1977, the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration issued a proposal to increase the
allowable seat spacing in school buses from 20 to
21 inches (42 FR 64136). Concurrently with that
proposal, the NHTSA issued an interim final rule
permitting buses to be constructed immediately
with the increased seat spacing (42 FR 64119).
This action was taken to provide the amount of
seat spacing in school buses originally intended
by the agency and to relieve immediately prob-
lems created by the unnecessarily limited seat
spacing in buses then being built. The action
resulted from numerous complaints by school bus
users relating to seat spacing. The proposal and
interim final rule responded to petitions from the
Wisconsin School Bus Association and the Na-
tional School Transportation Association asking
for increased seat spacing.
The agency received many comments in re-
sponse to its December 1977 proposal. Most com-
ments favored some extension in the seat spacing
allowance in school buses. Commenters differed
as to the amount of seat spacing needed to ac-
commodate fully tiie larger school children. Some
commenters suggested that the agency provide
still more seat spacing than proposed in the
December 22 notice. Other commenters sup-
ported the agency's suggested modification.
The agency has reviewed all of the comments
and the petitions concerning this issue and has
concluded that the proposal and interim rule
provide sufficient seat spacing in school buses for
all school children. To provide greater seat
spacing, as suggested by some commenters, might
necessitate changing the seat structures to absorb
more energy. See the December proposal for
further discussion of this point. The NHTSA
does not believe that such a costly change is war-
ranted at this time. The agency notes that as a
result of the interim rule seat spacing in buses
has become adequate to meet the needs for pupil
transportation to and from school. The agency
continues, however, to research the proper seating
for activity buses and will address that issue in a
separate notice as soon as all -of the research and
analysis is completed.
PART 571; S 222-PRE 13
In accordance with the foregoing, Volume 49 88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571, authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Issued on March 21 1979.
Protectiart, is amended .... ^, , ,
_,, . . , , „ , . . T, , Joan Claybrook
ihe principal authors oi this notice are Robert . .
Williams of the Crashworthiness Division and
Roger Tilton of the Office of Chief Counsel.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 44 F.R. 18674-18675
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 203, Pub. L. 93^92, March 29, 1979
PART 571; S 222-PRE 14
^
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection
[Docket No. 73-3; Notice 15]
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the agency's
school bus seating standard to increase seat
spacing from 21 to 24 inches. This amendment is
being issued to resolve problems experienced by
users, i.e., school districts and contract carriers, to
the effect that mandatory seat spacing at the
prior level inhibited some necessary uses. The
agency finds that an additional space seating
option will not inhibit safety.
DATE: This amendment is effective March 24,
1983.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard
No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash
Protection, was one of several standards
implemented pursuant to the Motor Vehicle and
School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L.
93-492). The standard regulates the performance
aspects of school bus seats. One portion of the
standard limits the longitudinal spacing between
seats in buses with gross vehicle weight ratings
(GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. No seat may
be positioned more than 21 inches from the seat
immediately to the front, measured from the
seating reference point to the seat back or
restraining barrier located in front of the seat.
The initial version of Standard 222 which
became effective on April 1, 1977, limited school
bus seat spacing to 20 inches. Soon after school
buses began to be produced in compliance with
this requirement, users began to experience
problems of inadequate spacing. Because of
quality control and other production problems
affecting seat spacing, manufacturers were
spacing seats significantly less than the 20 inches
permitted by the standard to ensure compliance.
As manufacturers improved their production
techniques, seat spacing was extended.
The agency upon examination of its then
existing data concluded later that same year that
it could extend seat spacing to 21 inches without
adversely affecting the compartmentalization
concept that was the key to protecting children in
the buses. Compartmentalization attempts to
protect children between well padded high-
backed seats. The agency amended the rule
accordingly (42 F.R. 64119, December 22, 1977)
and undertook to study further the
appropriateness of the required seat spacing.
Both the amendment and improved
manufacturer production methods reduced the
number of spacing problems significantly. Some
problems continue to exist, however, especially
concerning buses used to transport children long
distances to and from school, or to and from
school related events which may be located far
from the school itself. The agency has conducted
tests to see whether it could improve seat spacing
to respond to these continuing problems, without
compromise of safety. The tests, which are
available in the Technical Reference Section of
the agency under H73-3 "School Bus Passenger
Seat and Lap Belt Sled Tests." DOT-HS-804985,
December 1978, show that seat spacing could be
increased up to 24 inches without impairing the
concept of compartmentalization. An increase in
seat spacing beyond 24 inches might impair the
ability of the seats to absorb energy in the
manner required by the standard. Accordingly,
PART 571; S222-PRE 15
on February 25, 1982, the agency proposed a
further increase in seat spacing to 24 inches (47
F.R. 8231).
The agency received numerous comments in
response to the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Virtually all of those comments supported the
agency's action. In accordance with the comments
and the existing agency information, the agency,
by this notice, makes final the increased seat
spacing to 24 inches.
Three school districts out of the more than 140
commenters on the February notice objected to
the increased seat spacing. It appears that these
commenters were afraid that the increased seat
spacing was mandatory and that this would in
turn reduce the seating capacity in their vehicles
resulting in the need to purchase additional buses
or realign school routes. This understanding is
not accurate. The increased seat spacing is
merely optional. If a school chooses to have
additional spacing in some or all of its buses, up to
24 inches, this would be permitted. Otherwise,
schools may continue to purchase buses with
seats spaced as they are today. Seat spacing less
than 24 inches is completely within the discretion
of the school that is purchasing the vehicles.
Commenters to the February notice raised
another issue that is somewhat related to seat
spacing. They requested more comfortable seats
and additional leg room for long distance school
buses. These are the vehicles that frequently
have been involved in transporting children to
and from activities or, in some instances, carry
children over long distances to schools in some of
the Western States. The commenters in general
would prefer to have recliner seats or some other
seating system that would be more comfortable
for these uses.
The agency has explored the possibility of
establishing another optional seating mode in
school vehicles that would accommodate the
concerns of these commenters. The agency
concludes that recliner seats could not provide
the same level of safety as provided by existing
seat requirements in school buses. Accordingly,
the agency declines to adopt this suggestion.
NHTSA believes that the seat spacing extension
being made today should address adequately the
problem of comfort in buses used for school
activities.
This amendment is being made effective
immediately. It relieves a restriction, and is
com|)letely optional, and does not require any
manufacturer or purchaser to alter present
practices. Further, the agency has learned that
many companies and purchasers are waiting for
this amendment before purchasing new vehicles.
Therefore, an immediate effective date is in the
public interest.
Issued on March 17, 1983.
Raymond A Peek, Jr.
Administrator
48 F.R. 12384
March 24, 1983
PART 571; S222-PRE 16
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222
Seat Belt Assembly Achorages
(Docket No. 87-08; Notice 5)
RIN:2127-AD12
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a new requirement
for lap/shoulder safety belts to be installed in all
forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in con-
vertible passenger cars, light trucks and multipurpose
passenger vehicles (e.g., passenger vans and utility
vehicles), and small buses. Rear-seat lap/shoulder
belts are estimated to be even more effective than
rear-seat lap-only belts in reducing fatalities and
moderate-to-severe injuries. As safety belt use in the
rear seat of these vehicle types increases, the greater
effectiveness of rear-seat lap/shoulder belts should
yield progressively greater safety benefits. NHTSA
also anticipates that this rule will achieve benefits by
helping to increase safety belt use in rear seating
positions of these vehicle types, by providing rear-seat
occupants with maximum safety protection when they
buckle up.
This rule also establishes a requirement for lap/
shoulder belts to be installed at the driver's seat and at
any other front outboard seating position in small
buses. NHTSA believes that lap/shoulder safety belts
in these small buses will offer the same benefits as
lap/shoulder belts in those positions offer to occupants
of passenger cars, light trucks, and light multipurpose
passenger vehicles.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments of S7.1.1.3 and
S7.1.1.5 are effective on September 1, 1991. All the
other amendments made by this rule take effect on
May 1, 1990. These requirements apply to convertible
passenger cars, light trucks, light multipurpose pas-
senger vehicles, and small buses manufactured on or
after September 1, 1991. Convertible passenger cars,
light trucks, light multipurpose passenger vehicles,
and small buses manufactured before September 1,
1991 may also comply with these requirements.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.
On January 1, 1968, the initial Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards took effect. One of those standards
was Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49
CFR 571.208), which required the installation of
lap/shoulder safety belts at the driver's and right front
passenger's seating positions of passenger cars, and
either lap-only or lap/shoulder safety belts at every
other designated seating position. Another of the
initial safety standards that took effect on January 1,
1968 was Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly An-
chorages (49 CFR 571.210), which specified location
and strength requirements for the anchorages used to
hold the safety belts to the passenger car during a
crash. Standard No. 210 required passenger car manu-
facturers to provide anchorages for lap/shoulder belts
for each forward-facing front and rear outboard seating
position in all cars other than convertibles. NHTSA
subsequently amended both of these .standards to
extend their applicability to trucks, multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs), and buses. However, when
Standard No. 210 was extended to these additional
vehicle types, NHTSA did not require the manu-
facturers to provide upper torso (i.e., shoulder belt)
anchorages for rear outboard seating positions in these
other vehicle types or in convertible passenger cars.
Studies of occupant protection from 1968 forward
show that the lap-only safety belts installed in rear
seating positions are effective in reducing the risk of
death and injury. See, for example, the studies cited in
the ANPRM on this subject; 52 FR 22820, June 16,
1987. However, the agency believes that rear-seat
lap/shoulder safety belts would be even more effective.
NHTSA estimates that rear-seat lap-only belts reduce
the risk of death by 24-40 percent, while rear-seat
lap/shoulder belts reduce that risk by 32-50 percent.
The somewhat greater effectiveness of lap/shoulder
belts vs. lap-only belts in the rear seat results in
progressively greater actual safety benefits for rear-
seat occupants, to the extent that those safety belts
are, in fact, used. As recently as 1981-82, only two
percent of rear-seat occupants used their safety belts.
At that level of belt use, there are very few safety
benefits from requiring rear-seat lap/shoulder belts
instead of lap-only belts. However, belt use in the rear
seat has steadily risen, with 16 percent of rear seat
occupants buckling up in 1987. As rear-seat belt use
continues to rise, the incremental benefits of rear-seat
lap/shoulder belts can be realized.
PART 571; S222-PRE 17
The increase in belt use in rear seats was one of the
factors reflected in the agency's decision to grant a
petition by the Los Angeles Area Child Passenger
Safety Association asking NHTSA to establish a
requirement for rear-seat lap/shoulder safety belts.
After granting this petition, NHTSA published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on
June 16, 1987 (52 FR 22818). Thirty-four commenters
responded to the ANFRM's request for comments on
the need for rulemaking action to require lap/shoulder
safety belts in rear seating positions.
After considering these comments, NHTSA con-
cluded that several factors had changed since the
agency had previously examined this issue and deter-
mined that it was appropriate to give vehicle manu-
facturers the option of installing either lap-only belts
or lap/shoulder belts in rear seats. Among the changed
factors were the substantial increase in rear seat
safety belt use and the substantial decrease in costs of
a requirement for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts, because
of manufacturers voluntarily equipping more and
more of their vehicles with rear seat lap/shoulder
belts. After analyzing the effects of these changed
factors and the comments on the ANPRM, NHTSA
tentatively determined that a requirement for lap/
shoulder belts would now be appropriate. Accordingly,
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) on November 29, 1988 (53 FR 47982).
This NPRM was a comprehensive proposal that
proposed requirements for passenger cars and light
trucks, 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 lap/shoulder safety belts be equip-
ped with a particular type of retractor, that such belts
be integral (i.e., the shoulder belt could not be detach-
able from the lap belt), and that such belts comply with
some of the comfort and convenience requirements
specified in section S7.4 of Standard No. 208.
More than 70 comments were received on this
NPRM. The issue of whether passenger cars other
than convertibles would be equipped with rear seat
lap/shoulder belts was straightforward and noncontro-
versial, with only two commenters suggesting some
modifications of the agency's proposal to require all
1990 and subsequent model year passenger cars to be
equipped with rear-seat lap/shoulder belts. To ensure
the earliest possible implementation of a requirement
for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, on
June 14, 1989, NHTSA published a final rule addressing
only those vehicles (54 FR 25275). That rule requires
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in all passenger cars
manufactured on or after December 11, 1989.
This rule addresses all of the other issues that were
presented in the November, 1988 NPRM on this topic.
For the convenience of the reader, this rule uses the
same organization and format as the NPRM did.
Requirements of this Rule
1. Seating Positions Subject to These Requirements
The NPRM proposed that lap/shoulder belts be
required in rear seats at outboard seating positions
only. Some commenters suggested that technologies
and designs are available to provide lap/shoulder belts
at rear center seating positions, and that NHTSA
should further examine this issue. The agency ex-
plained in the NPRM that there are more technical
difficulties associated with any requirement for
lap/shoulder belts at center rear seating positions, and
that lap/shoulder belts at center rear seating positions
would yield small safety benefits and substantially
greater costs, given the lower center seat occupancy
rate and the more difficult engineering task. Accord-
ingly, this rulemaking excluded further consideration
of a requirement for center rear seating positions.
None of the commenters presented any new data that
would cause the agency to change its tentative con-
clusion on this subject that was announced in the
NPRM.
The NPRM also noted that seating positions adjacent
to aisleways in some vans might not be "outboard
designated seating positions" as defined at 49 CFR
§ 571.3. because those aisle seats could be more than
12 inches from the inside of the vehicle. General
Motors (GM) stated its belief that this discussion
showed the agency's intent to exclude seats that
border aisleways from the lap/shoulder belt require-
ment. GM suggested that the reasons for excluding
these seating positions from the lap/shoulder belt
requirement were the costs and/or practical difficulties
that would be presented if aisleway seating positions
were required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts.
Specifically, GM stated that locating the anchorage for
the upper end of the shoulder belt on the aisle side of
the vehicle would stretch the shoulder belt across the
aisleway and cause entry and exit problems for occu-
pants of seating positions to the rear of the aisleway
seating position. To avoid such difficulties, the an-
chorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt could be
moved to the roof of the vehicle. However, roof struc-
tural modifications would have to be made to accom-
modate the anchorage, and these modifications would
impose disproportionately high costs. GM stated in its
comments that these reasons would apply with equal
force to all seats adjacent to aisleways, regardless of
whether such seats were more than or less than 12
inches from the inside of the vehicle.
NHTSA has determined that these comments have
merit. The agency did not mean to suggest that
shoulder belts should be required at seating positions
where they would obstruct an aisle designed to give
access to rear seating positions. Accordingly, this rule
has been modified from the proposal to specify that
these rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirements apply
PART 571; S222-PRE 18
to rear outboard seating positions except any outboard
seating positions that are adjacent to a walkway
located between the seat and the side of the vehicle to
allow access to more rearward seating positions. Of
course, in those cases where manufacturers are able to
design and install lap/shoulder belts at seating posi-
tions adjacent to aisleways without interfering with
the aisleway's purpose of allowing access to more
rearward seating positions, NHTSA encourages the
manufacturers to do so. It should also be noted that
those rear seating positions at which lap/shoulder
belts are not installed voluntarily or in response to a
regulatory requirement are required by Standard No.
208 to be equipped with lap-only safety belts, which
have been proven effective in reducing the risk of death
and injury.
2. Types of Rear Seats Subject to These Requirements
The NPRM proposed limiting these requirements to
forward -facing rear outboard seats, because the agency
is unaware of any data showing that occupants of
center-facing or rear-facing seating positions would be
significantly better protected by lap/shoulder belts
than by lap-only belts. The NPRM also referred to an
April 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Ohdaira of Isuzu Motors, in
which NHTSA stated that S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208
requires safety belts on swivel seats installed at front
outboard seating positions to adjust to fit occupants
"with the seat in any position." Because the same
regulatory language would apply to swivel seats in-
stalled at rear outboard seating positions if the proposal
were adopted as a final rule, the NPRM proposed to add
express regulatory language to S7.1.1 to codify the
interpretation.
Three commenters responded to this discussion in
the NPRM. Ford, Nissan, and Toyota raised sub-
stantially the same points in their comments. These
commenters all suggested that the agency ought to
require swivel seats to provide lap/shoulder belts for
occupants when the seats are forward-facing, but
permit occupants to be restrained by lap-only belts
when the swivel seats are adjusted to some position
other than forward-facing. These manufacturers
argued that the overall protection of upper torso
restraints (i.e., shoulder belts) on occupants of center-
facing seating positions is unclear. For example, in
certain instances, the design standard in Australia
prohibits manufacturers from providing upper torso
restraints at center-facing seating positions. Further,
these manufacturers stated that they knew of no crash
data suggesting the need for such a requirement.
According to these commenters, the absence of demon-
strable safety benefits associated with such a re-
quirement combined with the demonstrable techno-
logical problems and costs associated with such a
requirement should lead the agency to require only lap
belts when swivel seats are adjusted to a position other
than forward-facing.
NHTSA was persuaded by these comments. Indeed,
as Ford noted in its comments, just as the NPRM
stated that no data show that occupants of center-
facing or rear-facing seats would be significantly
better protected by lap/shoulder belts instead of lap-
only belts, no data show that occupants of swivel seats
adjusted to the center-facing or rear-facing positions
would be significantly better protected by lap/shoulder
belts instead of lap-only belts. Accordingly, this final
rule adds language to Standard No. 208 that requires
swivel seats to provide lap/shoulder belts for occupants
when the seat is adjusted to the forward-facing position
and permits swivel seats to provide lap-only belts for
occupants when the seat is adjusted to some position
other than forward-facing. The Ohdaira interpretation
is, therefore, overruled to the extent that it is in-
consistent with this new language in Standard No.
208.
In its comments. Ford indicated that it would be
appropriate for this preamble to discuss a type of seat
Ford is considering installing in future vehicle models.
This seat was described as a bench seat that converts
from forward-facing to rear-facing. Under the language
added to Standard No. 208 by this rule, all seats that
can be adjusted to a forward-facing position and some
other position, regardless of whether such seats are
swivel seats, convertible seats of the sort described in
Ford's comment, or any other such seat, must provide
lap/shoulder belts when in the forward-facing position
and may provide lap-only belts when adjusted to some
position other than forward-facing.
3. Vehicle Types Subject to These Requirements
a. Passenger Cars
In the NPRM, the agency proposed to make the
requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder belts apply to
all passenger cars, including convertibles. As previous-
ly discussed, the requirements for passenger cars
other than convertibles were published in a June 14,
1989 final rule (54 FR 25275). The NPRM proposed that
rear seat lap/shoulder belts be required on convertible
passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1,
1991.
In its comments, Volkswagen asked for an additional
year of leadtime, until September 1, 1992, before rear
seat lap/shoulder belts must be installed in convertible
passenger cars. According to this commenter, the
convertible version of its Golf model (the Cabriolet) is
not currently equipped with rear seat lap/shoulder
belts, was not originally designed to accommodate
such belts, and will need substantial modifications to
its current design if the car is to accommodate such
belts.
PART 571; S222-PRE 19
No change has been made in response to this
comment. The NPRM noted that it was more difficult
to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in convertibles
than in other passenger cars, but that, in spite of these
difficulties, at least three different manufacturers had
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in their 1988 model year
convertibles. Accordingly, the agency proposed to
require convertible passenger cars to be equipped with
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts, but to allow two years
more leadtime than was proposed for other passenger
cars, in recognition of the greater technical difficulties.
Volkswagen's comment appears to be that more than
two years of additional leadtime is needed to overcome
the greater technical difficulties associated with con-
vertibles, although the comment does not include any
explanation or analysis of why this is so. A manu-
facturer's unsubstantiated desire for additional lead-
time is not a sufficient basis for the agency to postpone
the proposed September 1, 1991 effective date for rear
seat lap/shoulder belts in convertibles. Therefore, this
rule adopts the proposed requirement.
b. Light Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.
This vehicle type consists primarily of passenger
vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less and
utility vehicles and other off-road vehicles. None of the
commenters suggested any particular problems that a
requirement for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts would
impose on MPVs in general. Toyota repeated its
position that the voluntary installation of rear-seat
lap/shoulder belts by manufacturers in all vehicle
types made it unnecessary for NHTSA to proceed with
this rulemaking. NHTSA responded at length to similar
comments by the vehicle manufacturers in the pre-
amble to the NPRM; see 53 FR 47984.
Ford did not object to the proposed general require-
ment for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in light MPVs,
but asked that open-body type MPVs be excluded from
the requirement. Ford explained its comment by
stating that its Bronco II utility vehicle has a removable
roof over the rear passenger and cargo area. According
to Ford's comments, "Because the removable roof on
this vehicle extends below the shoulder reference
point, it would be impossible to obtain a good shoulder
belt fit if the shoulder belt anchorages were to be
located on the non-removable side panels of the vehicle."
For these reasons. Ford suggested that open-body type
MPVs be exempted from these requirements or that
the proposed requirements be revised to make clear
that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts are not required in
open-body type MPVs when the roof is removed.
NHTSA agrees with Ford's assertions that open-
body type MPVs present greater technical difficulties
for the installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts than
other MPVs or convertible passenger cars. For example,
the rear seats are closer to the rear of the vehicle and
the rear seats are higher in relation to the vehicle floor
and sides in most open-body type MPVs than in most
convertible passenger cars. The agency concurs with
Ford's assertion that these factors tend to make the
shoulder belt geometry more difficult in open-body
type MPVs. However, the agency does not believe that
these factors present insurmountable engineering dif-
ficulties. Instead, NHTSA believes that these problems
can be solved in a relatively straightforward manner.
While manufacturers cannot use the exact same
designs used for convertible passenger cars on open-
body type MPVs, the convertible passenger car designs
can be modified for use in open-body type MPVs.
NHTSA concludes that if it is practicable to offer the
increased protection of shoulder belts at rear outboard
seating positions, and the added costs are comparable
to the costs for other MPVs and convertible passenger
cars, there is no reason to exclude open-body type
MPVs from the requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder
belts in MPVs. Hence, no change has been made to the
proposed requirements for MPVs in response to this
comment by Ford.
The agency notes that this means that lap/shoulder
belts will be required in the rear outboard seats of
open-body type MPVs, while lap-only belts will be
permitted in front outboard seats of those vehicles. (In
practice, however, manufacturers have voluntarily
provided front-seat lap/shoulder belts in these vehicles.)
NHTSA is in the process of re-examining the occupant
protection requirements for the front seating positions
in open-body type MPVs and other light trucks and
vans, with particular consideration of whether auto-
matic occupant protection should be required in these
vehicles. NHSTA will address the discrepancy between
the regulatory requirements for front and rear seat
occupant protection in open-body type MPVs in the
course of that re-examination.
c. Light Trucks and Small Buses
All commenters that addressed the proposed require-
ments for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in light trucks
supported the proposal. Similarly, no commenters
raised any objections to the proposed rear-seat
lap/shoulder belt requirements in small
buses other than school buses. Thus, those proposed
requirements are adopted, for the reasons explained in
the NPRM.
However, several commenters, primarily school bus
manufacturers and operators, objected to the proposed
requirements for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in small
school buses. Thomas Built, a school bus manufacturer,
questioned the effectiveness of rear-seat lap/shoulder
belts in certain small school buses ("body on chassis"
buses). The Connecticut Operators of School Trans-
PART571;S222-PRE20
portation Association (COSTA) also questioned the
effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts in small school
buses, by voicing concerns about how the additional
stress on the side walls of a small school bus would
affect its compliance with Standard No. 221, School
Bus Body Joint Strength (49 CPR 571.221). Thomas
Built also raised the issue of different levels of safety
protection for passengers on small school buses, with
lap/shoulder belts for outboard seating positions and
lap-only belts for the the inboard seating positions.
The National School Transportation Association
(NSTA) likewise objected to the different levels of
occupant protection that would result if some seating
positions were equipped with lap/shoulder belts while
others were equipped with lap-only belts. Blue Bird,
another school bus manufacturer, raised similar ob-
jections, claiming that NHTSA occupant protection
standards for school buses are "disorganized and
confusing," and suggested that the agency undertake
rulemaking to separate the occupant protection re-
quirements for school buses from the occupant pro-
tection standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
Additionally, Blue Bird argued that the requirements
proposed in the NPRM would require too many varieties
of occupant protection for small school buses.
NHTSA is concerned if Blue Bird or any other school
bus manufacturer is having difficulty understanding
the occupant protection requirements applicable to the
different types of vehicles that can be used to transport
school children. A brief summary of those requirements
might be helpful. If school systems use a nine or fewer
passenger vehicle to transport school children, that
vehicle is not a "school bus" for the purposes of the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly,
that vehicle is not subject to any of the requirements in
Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and
Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.222). Instead, that
vehicle would have to comply with the applicable
requirements in Standard No. 208. As a result of this
rule published today and the agency's previous rule-
making, all front and rear outboard seating positions,
in nine-passenger light vehicles must be equipped with
lap/shoulder safety belts, irrespective of whether the
nine-passenger light vehicle is classified as a passenger
car, truck, or an MPV.
If the vehicle used to transport school children can
accommodate 10 or more passengers, the vehicle is a
"school bus" for the purposes of the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. Every vehicle that is a
"school bus" must comply with the occupant protection
requirements of Standard No. 222. In the case of school
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
more than 10,000 pounds, no safety belts are required
at seating positions other than the driver's seat.
Instead, Standard No. 222 sets forth requirements that
protect occupants of rear seating positions in large
school buses by means of a concept called "compart-
mentalization." Persons interested in learning more
about the concept of compartmentalization and occu-
pant protection in large school buses may wish to
review the agency's notice terminating rulemaking to
specify installation requirements for voluntarily in-
stalled safety belts on large school buses. This notice
was published March 22, 1989 at 54 FR 11765.
In the case of school buses with a GVWR of 10,000
■ pounds or less. Standard No. 222 requires that occu-
pants be protected both by safety belts at seating
positions other than the driver's seat and by most of
the features of compartmentalization. This double
means of occupant protection reflects the more severe
"crash pulse" or deceleration experienced by lighter
vehicles as compared with heavier vehicles in similar
collisions. Sections S5(b) of Standard No. 222 requires
that small school buses meet the requirements of
Standard No. 208 as those requirements apply to
MPVs. The provisions of Standard No. 208 currently
require MPVs (and small school buses, since the
requirements for these two vehicle types are linked) to
be equipped with lap/shoulder safety belts at front
outboard seats and either lap/shoulder belts or lap-
only belts at all other seating positions.
Upon further consideration , NHTSA has determined
that the occupant protection requirements for small
school buses should be considered separately, not as an
aspect of the rulemaking action. In the past, NHTSA
has recognized the special importance of issues related
to school buses by examining many of those issues in
rulemaking actions focused exclusively on school buses,
instead of examining those issues as one part of a
rulemaking addressing many types of vehicles. This
policy has allowed both the agency and the public to
consider fully the implications of any proposed action
on school buses safety. NHTSA believes it is appro-
priate to continue following this policy. Accordingly,
this rule continues to permit small school buses to be
equipped with either lap-only or lap/shoulder safety
belts at all rear seating positions, but small school
buses must also comply with most of the compart-
mentalization requirements for large school buses. All
other small buses will be required to be equipped with
rear-seat lap/shoulder safety belts, but will not be
required to comply with the compartmentalization
requirements.
The NPRM acknowledged that small buses other
than school buses are not currently required to have
lap/shoulder safety belts at front outboard seating
positions, even though front seats generally present a
more hostile crash environment than rear seats. As
noted above, small school buses are subject to the
occupant protection requirements for MPVs, and small
MPVs have long been required to have lap/shoulder
safety belts at front outboard seating positions. No
PART 571; S222-PRE 21
commenters suggested any reasons why front-seat
lap/shoulder belts should not be required in small
buses, just as they are required in small school buses.
This rule adopts such a requirement.
4. Vehicle Types NOT Subject to These Requirements
a. Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 10,000
Pounds
NHTSA has traditionally used GVWRs as dividing
lines for the purposes of applying occupant crash
protection standards. These groupings reflect the
differences in the vehicles' functions and crash re-
sponses and exposure. The NPRM proposed to use
such a dividing line by limiting the rear seat lap/
shoulder belt requirements to vehicles with a GVWR
of 10,000 pounds or less. No commenters addressed
this issue, and this rule adopts the proposal.
b. Motor Homes
The NPRM proposed to exclude vehicles that are
"motor homes" from the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt
requirements, because lap/shoulder belts at rear seat-
ing positions might interfere with the residential
purposes of those seats and because the agency had no
evidence of significant potential benefits from lap/
shoulder belts, instead of the currently permitted
option for lap/shoulder or lap-only belts, at these
seating positions. The NPRM also proposed a specific
definition of "motor home." These proposed require-
ments are adopted in this rule.
5. Retractor Types Required for Rear Seat Lap/Shoulder
Belts
Retractors at Driver's Seat in Small Buses.
The NPRM proposed to require that the lap/shoulder
belt assembly installed at the driver's seating position
of small buses include an anti-cinch automatic locking
retractor (ALR) on the lap belt portion. Both Ford and
Chrysler objected to this proposed requirement, stating
that it would preclude the use of the continuous loop
lap/shoulder belt system in small buses. The con-
tinuous loop system, currently used on most manual
lap/shoulder belt systems in passenger cars, uses a
single emergency locking retractor (ELR) on one end of
the belt system and the other end of the belt system is
fixed. The ELR then retracts both the lap and shoulder
belt portions of the belt system. Ford and Chrysler
each commented that they currently use a continuous
loop system for the lap/shoulder belts that they
voluntarily install at the front outboard seating posi-
tions of their small buses, and that they knew of no
safety justification for a requirement that would
prohibit the use of continuous loop system in small
buses, as the proposed requirement for an ALR for the
lap belt would have the effect of doing. NHTSA was
persuaded by these comments. This rule has been
amended to permit the belt systems at front outboard
seating positions in small buses to be equipped with
either an ELR or an anti-cinch ALR for the lap belt
portion.
Retractors for Rear Seats and Child Safety
Seats
The NPRM contained a detailed discussion of the
agency's previous statements on this subject, and
repeated the agency's previous conclusion that only
ELRs should be permitted as the retractor for the lap
belt portion of the lap/shoulder belt system. See 53 FR
47987-47989; November 29, 1988. The agency's con-
clusion was based on the fact that ELRs for the lap belt
made the belt system more comfortable and convenient
for adult occupants, thereby tending to increase use of
the belt system. Although active children can make
some child restraint systems unstable if the child
restraint is secured by a lap belt that incorporates an
ELR, NHTSA knew of no data to show that this
potential instability would affect the safety perfor-
mance of the child restraint in motor vehicle crashes.
Those parents that wanted to eliminate the potential
instability of child restraints, even if the instability did
not have any demonstrable effect on safety, could
purchase locking clips. These locking clips can prevent
movement of belts equipped with an ELR.
NHTSA received many comments on this discussion
and the accompanying proposal. Many pediatricians
and other medical professionals, as well as advocates
of child safety, associations representing the insurance
industry, and manufacturers of child safety seats,
commented that it was important that the belt system
in the vehicle be capable of tightly securing a child
seat, without resort to any additional hardware like
locking clips. The commenters suggested differing
means of achieving this end. Some of these commenters
advocated that this rule should specify the use of only
ALRs in the lap belt portion, because ALRs auto-
matically tighten down to secure the child seat. Other
of these commenters, such as the Los Angeles Area
Child Passenger Safety Association, urged the agency
to draft this rule to require the use of convertible
retractors similar to those installed in some General
Motors vehicles. These convertible retractors function
as ELRs normally, to ensure comfort for adult occu-
pants. When the belt webbing is fully extended,
however, the retractors convert to ALRs, to tightly
secure child seats. Other of these commenters sug-
gested that the agency could ensure that these rear-
seat lap/shoulder belt systems would tightly secure
child seats by following the course of action being
considered for recommendation by a Society of Auto-
motive Engineers (SAE) Task Force. That task force
may recommend that safety belts which incorporate
ELRs in the lap belt or lap belt portion of a belt
assembly shall include a means for locking the lap belt
when it is used with a child seat. Instead of specifying
PART571;S222-PRE22
the use of some specific technology, hke ALRs or
convertible retractors, this approach sets forth the
desired goal and permits manufacturers to use any
available technology to achieve that goal.
Some of the vehicle manufacturers, such as Nissan
and Toyota, believe that there is no need for any
further requirements. According to these commenters,
and persons wishing to secure a child seat at a seating
position whose lap belt is equipped with ELR can cause
the retractor to perform like an ALR simply by using a
locking clip. Volvo commented that the agency ought
to permit the use of a continuous loop lap/shoulder
belt. Volvo asserted that its design of the continuous
loop system uses friction at the loop in the buckle to
achieve an effect similar to that which would be
obtained by using a locking clip. In Volvo's opinion,
this lap/shoulder belt system is the best means of both
securing child safety seats and ensuring comfort for
other occupants of the belt system. Chrysler com-
mented that it was considering modifications to the
buckle latchplate as a means of accomplishing the
same effect as would locking clips for its belt assemblies
equipped with ELRs.
NHTSA has reached the following conclusions after
reexamining the available information in light of these
comments. Nothing in these comments or the available
information shows that low-speed movement of child
safety seats actually reduces to any significant extent
the effectiveness of those seats in crashes. However,
the low-speed movement of child safety seats held by
lap belts that use an ELR seems to have given rise to
questions and concerns about the safety and effective-
ness of child seats when used with a belt that in-
corporates an ELR. Even if these questions and
concerns have not been substantiated, the public may
not be as likely to use child safety seats if there are
perceived questions about the effectiveness of those
seats. NHTSA has concluded that it isjjjprepfiate to
take action to remove these perceived questions, so as
to maintain public trust and confidence in the efficacy
of child seats.
The agency was persuaded by the comments assert-
ing that it would be unnecessarily restrictive to
require the use of ALRs on the lap belt portion of rear
seat lap/shoulder belts, because there are design
features other than incorporating an ALR that are as
effective in ensuring that the belt system can tightly
secure a child safety seat and because such a feature
could reduce safety belt use by adult occupants.
NHTSA has devised an approach in this final rule that
will ensure comfort for adult occupants and tight
securing of child safety seats. First, this rule requires
that any lap belt or lap belt portion of a lap/shoulder
belt installed at an outboard designated seating position
in compliance with Standard No. 208 shall be equipped
with an ELR. This requirement will take effect on
September 1, 1991 for passenger cars, as well as the
vehicle types addressed in this rule.
Second, this final rule requires that safety belts that
incorporate an ELR in the lap belt or lap belt portion of
a lap/shoulder belt shall provide some means other
than an external device that requires manual attach-
ment or activation that will prevent any further
webbing from spooling out until that means is released
or deactivated. This requirement will also take effect
on September 1, 1991 for passenger cars and vehicle
types addressed in this rule. The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that child safety seats can be
tightly secured. This requirement will not allow vehicle
manufacturers to provide "locking clops" to comply
with this requirement. However, any means that can
function without additional manual actions can satisfy
this requirement. For instance, the convertible re-
tractors on some GM vehicles would comply with this
requirement. Additionally, devises like Volvo's are
acceptable if those devices do not require any further
manual actions to prevent webbing spool out. This
approach is intended to allow vehicle manufacturers
the freedom to choose whatever approach they prefer
to prevent webbing spool out for ELRs, while ensuring
that whatever approach is chosen will be effective.
6. The Requirements With Which Rear Seat Lap/
Shoulder Belts Must Comply
The NPRM did not propose to require any crash
testing requirements for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts,
for several reasons. First, neither dummy positioning
procedures nor testing procedures for rear seat occu-
pants have yet been developed. In fact, the rear seats
are generally removed from vehicles when conducting
eempliance testing for occupant protection for the
front seating positions, to allow the specified weight
distribution to be more easily achieved and to permit
the installation of additional instrumentation. Second,
the rear seating positions offer a generally more benign
crash environment than the front seating positions.
Accordingly, the agency concluded that it could not
justify delaying a proposal for rear-seat lap/shoulder
belts until it was able to propose a requirement for
dynamic testing of those safety belts. Several com-
menters stated that they agreed with the agency's
decision not to delay this rulemaking, but suggested
that the agency ought to move expeditiously to estab-
lish crash testing requirements for rear seat occu-
pants. NHTSA will consider these comments when it
establishes its priorities for future activities in the
area of occupant protection.
As an adjunct to the decision not to require crash
testing of rear-seat lap/shoulder belts, the agency
proposed to require that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts be
PART 571; S222-PRE 23
integral. Section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208 speci-
fies that manual safety belts installed at front outboard
seating positions must be either (a) integral lap/
shoulder belts or (b) crash-tested lap-only belts such
that the car complies with the occupant protection
requirements with test dummies restrained only by
the lap belts. However, since the agency cannot at this
time promulgate any crash testing requirements for
rear-seat safety belts, NHTSA believes it is appropriate
to require that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts installed in
compliance with this rule be integral; i.e., the lap belt
must not be detachable from the shoulder belt.
Several commenters suggested that the requirement
for integral lap/shoulder belts should not apply to
certain types of seats or vehicles, because of special
difficulties posed for those seats or vehicles. In response
to these comments, NHTSA has carefully reexamined
it proposal to require that all rear seat lap/shoulder
belts installed in compliance with this rule be integral.
The agency prefers to retain the proposed requirement,
for the same reasons that the requirement was pro-
posed. That is, to the extent that the lap belt is
detachable from the shoulder belt and the lap belt is
used without the shoulder belt, the enhanced safety
protection offered by lap/shoulder belts will not be
achieved. The agency's responses to the comments
suggesting that there are some seating positions or
vehicles in which rear outboard lap/shoulder belts
should not be required to be integral are as follows:
a. Convertible Passenger Cars. ASC, Inc., a company
that converts hardtops into convertibles, commented
that it did not believe that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts
installed in convertibles should be required to be
integral. According to ASC's comments, a detachable
shoulder belt that is not buckled would still offer the
occupant the protection of the lap-only belt. While this
comment is true, the purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure that rear-seat occupants will enjoy even greater
safety protection than is afforded by lap-only belts.
Detachable shoulder belts would not serve this purpose.
ASC's comment then asserted that "the detachability
feature is essential for ASC to continue to manufacture
at a competitive price a majority of its present con-
vertible production which is already equipped with
three point lap-shoulder safety belts." Accordingly,
ASC believed that a requirement for integral rear-seat
lap/shoulder belts would have a "significant negative
impact on its business." The agency has previously
stated that it is typically more difficult to install rear-
seat lap/shoulder belts in convertibles than in sedans
or coupes. However, the 1988 convertible models
produced by BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Saab were all
equipped with integral lap/shoulder belts at rear
outboard seating positions. These voluntary actions
by convertible manufacturers showed that the techni-
cal difficulties associated with integral rear seat lap/
shoulder belts in convertibles can be overcome. It may
well cost ASC , Inc. or other converters more to equip a
convertible with integral rear-seat lap/shoulder belts
than it would cost a high volume manufacturer.
However, ASC provided no data or cost estimates that
would permit the agency to estimate the cost differen-
tial ,for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts installed by high
volume manufacturers and converters. Based on the
available information, NHTSA concludes that it is
unlikely that any such cost differential would have
more than an insignificant effect on the demand for
convertibles produced by converters.
NHTSA repeats it previous acknowledgements that
it will cost manufacturers more to equip convertibles
with integral rear seat lap/shoulder belts than it will
cost to equip sedans and coupes with those safety
belts. In its comments, Volkswagen stated that it
would have to incur tooling costs of $1.2 million to
install integral rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in its
convertibles, with variable costs of an additional $60
per vehicle to install integral lap/shoulder belts instead
of lap-only belts. NHTSA estimates that these costs
would result in a consumer cost increase of $90 per
vehicle. Even accepting these costs as accurate, NHTSA
does not believe that a $90 cost increase for conver-
tibles, which already cost substantially more than the
hardtop version of the same vehicle, will have any
significant negative impacts on the demand for con-
vertibles, even those produced by converters.
To the extent that these costs result in some
relatively minor economic impacts, the agency con-
cludes that those costs and impacts are reasonable.
The occupants of rear seating positions in convertibles
are exposed to at least the same degree of risk of death
and injury in a motor vehicle crash as occupants of
rear seating positions in other light vehicles. In these
circumstances, NHTSA has concluded it is appropriate
to provide those occupants with the same amount of
safety protection. Therefore, a requirement that con-
vertible passenger cars manufactured on or after
September 1 , 1991 be equipped with integral lap/shoul-
der belts at rear outboard seating positions is adopted
as proposed.
Fiat filed comments on behalf of Ferrari to the effect
that it was possible to comply with the requirement for
integral lap/shoulder belts for convertibles that were
designed to include those safety belt systems. However,
Fiat asserted that the steps needed to modify an
existing convertible design to accept the upper an-
chorages for rear seat lap/shoulder belts "would be
financially intolerable." Fiat asked that this final rule
be structured to provide an exemption for at least two
years for existing convertible designs "which cannot
be made to comply without extreme economic and
technical hardships." NHTSA has not done so. Section
123 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) and 49 CFR Part
555 set forth procedures for obtaining temporary
exemptions from any of the generally applicable re-
PART 571; S222-PRE 24
quirements set forth in the safety standards. If Fiat is
statutorily eligible for such an exemption and can
make the requisite showings, it can obtain the tem-
porary exemption it seeks in accordance with those
statutory and regulatory requirements.
b. Readily Removable Seats. In the NPRM for this
rule, the agency summarized Ford's comment to the
ANPRM asserting that lap/shoulder belts installed for
readily removable seats should be permitted to be
nonintegral, since that would be more convenient for
persons using the vehicle especially with the seats
removed. NHTSA concurred with this assertion, but
noted that permitting detachable shoulder belts would
result in lower usage of the shoulder belts and lower
safety benefits for this rule. The agency suggested that
manufacturers are capable of designing an integral
lap/shoulder belt system that is nearly as convenient
as safety belt systems with nonintegral shoulder belts.
The NPRM suggested: "For instance, a shoulder belt
that is readily detachable at the anchorage could be
used for the outboard seating positions." 53 FR 47990,
November 29, 1988.
Both Ford and GM suggested in their comments that
permitting belts to be detachable at the upper anchor-
age would ease the problems of providing integral
lap/shoulder belts at outboard seating positions of
readily removable seats. However, both these com-
menters also stated that a March 1 , 1985 interpretation
letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Mr. Hiroshi
Shimizu of Tokai Rika Co. appeared to state that the
provisions of Standard No. 208 forbid the use of a
lap/shoulder safety belt that is detachable at the upper
anchorage.
Mr. Shimizu provided a diagram with his letter that
illustrated the safety belt design in question. This
diagram showed two reasons why this design would
not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208.
First, because of the location of the retractor and the
separate buckles for the lap and shoulder belt portions
of this belt system, an occupant could release the
shoulder belt buckle and use this system soley as a lap
belt with no dangling shoulder belt webbing to alert
the occupant to the need to fasten the shoulder belt
buckle. Alternatively, an occupant could release the
lap belt buckle and use the system solely as a shoulder
belt with no dangling webbing to alert the occupant to
the need to fasten the lap belt buckle. NHTSA stated
that this design would not satisfy the requirement in
S4.1.2.3.1 and S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208 the non-
detachable shoulder belts be provided on some belt
assembli ;s.
Second, section S7.2 of Standard No. 208 requires
that the latch mechanism of seat belt assemblies shall
release both lap and shoulder belt simultaneously and
release at a single point by a pushbutton action. When
both the lap and shoulder belt portions of Mr. Shimizu's
design were buckled, the occupant would have to
release both buckles to get out of the belt system.
Hence, this belt system could not comply with Standard
No. 208 because the release from the lap and shoulder
belt would not be simultaneous, nor would it be at a
single point.
NHTSA does not believe that the Shimizu inter-
pretation forecloses all safety belt system designs that
detach at the upper anchorage. The language of section
S7.2 plainly requires that any such safety belt system
must use a single, pushbutton buckle that releases the
occupant from the lap belt and shoulder belt simul-
taneously. There is nothing inherent in the design of a
safety belt system detachable at the upper anchorage
that makes it impossible to comply with these re-
quirements. Similarly, a shoulder belt could be de-
tachable at the upper anchorage without incorporating
an additional point at which the belt could be released
by the seat occupant, such as the buckle in Mr.
Shimizu's design. For example, manufacturers could
install some type of spring operated "dog leash" device
that would not be equipped with a push button release
mechanism. By a "dog leash" device, NHTSA is
referring to a device that does not use any form of push
button release. Such devices rely on other actions such
as a slide button or slide collar to mechanically
uncouple the belt system from the upper anchorage.
Such a design would not be prohibited by Standard No.
208 nor anything in the Shimizu interpretation. To
make this more clear, this rule adopts language in
Standard No. 208 expressly stating that vehicles with
readily removable rear seats may use a shoulder belt
that detaches at the upper anchorage point to meet the
requirements for an integral rear-seat lap/shoulder
belt.
f. Swivel seats. As previously noted, swivel seats and
other seats that can be adjusted to be forward-facing
and to face some other direction will be required to
provide lap/shoulder belts only when in the forward-
facing position and may provide lap-only belts when
adjusted to face other directions. The agency had to
consider the question of what requirements should be
specified for the detachable shoulder belt. NHTSA
could have required those belts to be detachable at the
upper anchorage point, by establishing requirements
such as were established for readily removable seats.
However, that would have left the occupant of the
swivel seat with webbing in his or her lap every time
the occupant adjusted the seat to some position other
than forward-facing. The shoulder belt webbing could
become soiled, so that the occupant of the swivel seat
not use either the lap belt alone or the belt as a
lap/shoulder belt.
To prevent this, NHTSA has decided that seats that
adjust to be forward-facing and to face in some other
direction are the only rear outboard seating positions
PART 571; S222-PRE 25
that will not be required to be equipped with integral
lap/shoulder belts. Instead, those seating positions
may be equipped with a shoulder belt that is detachable
at the latchplate.
However, this rule establishes an additional re-
quirement that any such non-integral shoulder belt
portion be equipped with an ELR, so that the shoulder
belt portion will be available for use by all occupants of
the seat in its retracted position, and will be less likely
to become soiled. This will ensure that those occupants
of adjustable seating positions that want the added
protection of a lap/shoulder belt in these seating
positions will have that protection.
The agency acknowledges that this requirement is
likely to result in lower shoulder belt use at these
seating positions than at other rear outboard seating
positions. However, the agency concludes that belt use
at these adjustable seating positions would be lower
still if the agency were to require that the lap/shoulder
belts be integral and the shoulder belt webbing were in
the occupant's lap or on the floor of the vehicle. On
balance, the agency concludes that the interests of
occupants of adjustable rear seating positions will be
best served by permitting the shoulder belt portion of
the lap/shoulder belt system to be detachable at the
buckle, i.e., non-integral, while including a requirement
for a shoulder belt retractor so that a lap shoulder belt
will always be available for those persons.
7. Comfort and Convenience
The NPRM stated that compliance with the pro-
visions in S7.4.2(a), S7.4.3, S7.4.4, and S7.4.5 of
Standard No. 208 is determined with reference to a test
dummy for the front seating positions. As noted above,
there are no dummy positioning procedures for the
rear seating positions, so the agency cannot determine
compliance with the comfort and convenience pro-
visions with reference to a test dummy. Additionally,
the NPRM announced that the agency has not yet
developed any alternative surrogate measurements for
comfort and convenience in rear seating positions. As
was the case with crash testing requirements discussed
above, NHTSA did not believe it would be appropriate
to delay this rulemaking to allow the agency to develop
a full set of comfort and convenience requirements.
NHTSA noted that the requirements in S7.4.6 for
seat belt guides and hardware would apply to rear-seat
lap/shoulder belts without proposing any changes to
accomplish that. No commenters objected to this
result, so safety belts installed in compliance with this
rule are subject to those requirements.
The remaining issue in this area concerned tension-
relieving devices on rear-seat lap/shoulder belts. In the
NPRM, the agency expressed its tenative conclusion
that the same considerations should apply to rear
seating positions with tension-relieving devices on
safety belts as already apply to front seating positions
with tension-relieving devices on safety belts. That is,
tension-relieving devices are permitted to be installed
on front seat safety belts if vehicles that have tension- '
relieving devices at those seating positions comply
with certain special conditions intended to reduce the
likelihood of misuse of tension-relieving devices. Those
special conditions are set forth in S7.4.2 as follows:
1. The vehicle owner's manual must include an
explanation of how the tension-relieving device works
and recommend a maximum amount of slack that
should be introduced into the belt under normal
circumstances (S7.4.2(b);
2. The vehicle must comply with the injury criteria
specified in S5.1 of Standard No. 208 during a barrier
crash test with the shoulder belt webbing adjusted to
introduce the maximum amount of slack recommended
by the manufacturer (S7. 4.2(c);
3. The vehicle must have an automatic means to
cancel any shoulder belt slack introduced into the belt
system by a tension-relieving device (S7.4.2(c).
The NPRM explained that the second requirement
listed above could not be applied to rear seat lap/shoul-
der belts, because the agency could not develop dynamic
testing procedures for the rear seating positions at this
time. However, the notice proposed to apply the other
two requirements listed above to rear-seat lap/shoulder
belts equipped with tension-relieving devices.
None of the commenters addressed the proposal to
require the vehicle owner's manual to include an
explanation of how the tension-relieving device works
and a recommendation of the maximum amount of
slack to be introduced into the safety belt. Hence, that
requirement is adopted as proposed, for the reasons
explained in the NPRM.
In its comments, GM objected to the proposed
requirement for automatic cancellation of slack. GM
indicated that automatic cancellation of slack in front-
seat lap/shoulder belts is accomplished by either of
two means. If the retractor is mounted on the floor or
on the pillar near the adjacent door, the manufacturer
generally uses a simple cable, which operates when the
door is open to cancel the slack. If there are dual spool
retractors on the safety belt system, a simple mechani-
cal device triggered by retraction of the lap belt is used
to cancel the slack in the shoulder belt. According to
GM, "cable routing concerns" make it difficult to use a
cable and the current size of dual spool retractors
precludes the use of that technology in rear seating
positions. This comment concluded by alleging that
only "complex, expensive mechanisms" could be used
for slack cancellation in rear seating positions. Ford
also suggested in its comments that it would be very
complex to develop an automatic means for slack ,
PART 571; S222-PRE 26
cancellation. Ford stated that all of its slack cancella-
tion mechanisms are activated by opening the adjacent
door. Ford also stated that electric slack cancellation
mechanisms would be impracticable for rear-seat
lap/shoulder belts.
In response to these comments, NHTSA has re-
examined its proposal. That proposal was that slack be
automatically cancelled'eifRer when the belt is un-
buckled or when the adjacent door is opened. Although
not expressly stated by either GM or Ford, the manu-
facturers' concern appears to be that there is no
adjacent door for rear seating positions in many of the
vehicles that will be subject to these requirements.
The effect of the proposal, then, would be to force
manufacturers that chose to install tension-relieving
devices in rear-seat lap/shoulder belts for passenger
vans, extended cab pickups, and the like, to cancel the
slack every time the latchplate is unbuckled, because
there is no door adjacent to those seating positions.
The agency did not intend such a result. Instead, the
agency's intent was to permit the slack to be cancelled
either every time the latchplate was unbuckled or each
time the door is opened that is designed to allow the
occupant of the seating position in question entry and
egress to and from the seat. Thus, if a passenger van
has a sliding door on the right side of the vehicle that is
designed as the means of entry and egress for all rear
seat passengers, slack for rear seat lap/shoulder belts
in that van must be cancelled either when that sliding
door is opened or when the belt latchplate is unbuckled.
Similarly, if a two-door convertible has tension-reliev-
ing devices for its rear- seat lap/shoulder belts, slack in
the rear-seat lap/shoulder belts must be cancelled
either when the latchplate is unbuckled or when the
door is opened on the same side of the vehicle as the
rear outboard seating position.
This approach will permit manufacturers to use,
with appropriate modifications, the same slack cancel-
lation mechanism that is activated by the opening of
an adjacent door in seating positions that are not
immediately adjacent to the door. The agency is not
aware of any reasons why cable routing concerns
would present any insuperable difficulties for slack
cancellation for the rear- seat lap/shoulder belt systems
that are not adjacent to a door. Accordingly, S7.4.2(c) of
Standard No. 208 has been amended to provide that
slack must be cancelled automatically either when the
latchplate is unbuckled or when the door that is
designed to provide entry and egress for that seating
position is opened.
Both Ford and GM also commented that there was
no safety need for automatic cancellation of slack in
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts. GM stated that it was not
aware of any data showing a safety need for automatic
of slack cancellation. Ford commented that there was
no possibility of safety belts getting tangled in the door
when there was no door adjacent to the seating
position at which the tension-relieving device is in-
stalled.
NHTSA has previously explained the safety need for
automatic slack cancellation in belts equipped with
tension-relieving devices. Persons interested in re-
viewing those discussions may examine 50 CFR 14580;
April 12, 1985 and 54 FR 29047; July 11, 1989. Ford and
GM did not raise any new arguments that have not
already been considered and rejected by the agency.
Accordingly, this rule incorporates a requirement for
automatic slack cancellation. NHTSA notes that it is
currently reviewing a petition that asks the agency to
prohibit tension-relieving devices altogether.
8. Relationship of This Rule to Standard No. 210
As noted in the NPRM, section S4.1.1 of Standard
No. 2 10 provides that seat belt anchorages for a Type 2
seat belt assembly (lap/shoulder belt) shall be installed
for each forward-facing outboard designated seating
position in passenger cars other than convertibles, and
for each designated seating position for which a Type 2
seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208 in
vehicles other than passenger cars. The NPRM pro-
posed to delete Standard No. 210's exemption for
conver'bles, because the agency was proposing to
amend Standard No. 208 to require rear-seat lap/
shoulder belts in convertibles. Obviously, there would
be lesser benefits from requiring rear-seat lap/shoulder
belts in convertibles if those lap/shoulder belts are not
required to be effectively anchored to the vehicle. No
commenter objected to this proposal, so it is adopted as
proposed.
No amendment is needed to ensure that the rear-seat
lap/shoulder belts required in other vehicle types
covered by this rule will be effectively anchored to the
vehicle. As explained above, the existing language of
S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 automatically requires
anchorages for lap/shoulder belts to be provided at
seating positions required by Standard No. 208 to have
lap/shoulder belts.
9. Timing for Applying These New Requirements
Some of the requirements specified in this rule apply
to both the vehicle types addressed exclusively in this
rule (convertible passenger cars, light trucks, MPVs,
and small buses) and to the vehicle type previously
addressed in NHTSA's June 14, 1989 final rule (pas-
senger cars other than convertibles). These require-
ments include the types of retractors that can be
installed on rear-seat lap/shoulder belts and special
performance requirements for tension-relieving devices
installed on rear seat-lap/shoulder belts.
The NPRM proposed that these general require-
ments, as well as the new requirement that rear-seat
PART 571; S222-PRE 27
lap/shoulder belts be installed, apply to the vehicle
types addressed exclusively in this rule for all such
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.
None of the commenters has provided any evidence
demonstrating that the amount of leadtime would be
inadequate. Accordingly, the requirements in this rule
will apply to convertible passenger cars, light trucks,
MPVs and small buses as of September 1, 1991, as was
proposed. Earlier compliance is also permitted and
encouraged.
With respect to passenger cars, the June 14, 1989
final rule established certain general requirements
applicable to cars manufactured on or after September
1, 1990. These general requirements included a re-
quirement that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts be integral
and that the upper anchorage for the rear-seat
lap/shoulder belt comply with the location require-
ments of Standard No. 210. The general requirements
of this rule for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts (retractor
type and special requirements for tension-relieving
devices) will apply on or after September 1, 1991, the
same data as the other requirements mandated by this
rule take effect. The general requirements of this rule
will require greater changes, and thus longer leadtime,
than the general requirements announced in the June
14, 1989 rule. Accordingly, passenger cars manufac-
tured on or after September 1, 1991 must comply with
the retractor type and tension-relieving device require-
ments set forth in this rule.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part
571.208 is amended as follows:
S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 is revised to read as
follows:
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 pas-
senger 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 require-
ments 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 protection 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 con-
vertible, 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) Except as provided in S4. 1.4.2.1, each passenger
car other than a convertible manufactured on or after
September 1, 1990 and each convertible passenger car
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 shall be
equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at
every iorward-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 S7.2 and
S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 seat belt assembly
installed in compliance with this requirement in-
corporates 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.
54. 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 position,
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.
54. 1.4.2.2 Any rear outboard designated seating
position with a readily removable seat (that is, a seat
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means
installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) shall
meet the requirements of S4.1.4.2, and may use an
upper torso belt that detaches at the upper anchorage
point to meet those requirements.
3. A new S4.2.4 is added to Standard No. 208, to read
as follows:
S4.2.4 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, each truck and each multipurpose passenger
vehicle, except a motor home, manufactured on or
after September 1 , 1991 that has a gross vehicle weight
rating of 10,000 pounds or less shall be equipped with
an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at every forward-
PART 571; S222-PRE 28
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 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.
54.2.4.1 As used in this section —
(a) "Motor home" means a motor vehicle with motive
power that is designed to provide temporary residential
accommodations, as evidenced by the presence of at
least four of the following facilities: cooking; refrigera-
tion or ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/or air
conditioning; a portable 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 vehicle, which walkway is
designed to allow access to more rearward seating
positions.
54.2.4.2 Any rear outboard designated seating posi-
tion with a seat that can be adjusted to be forward-
facing and to face some other direction shall either:
(i) meet the requirements of S4.2.4 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 position,
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.
S4.2.4.3 Any rear outboard designated seating posi-
tion with a readily removable seat (that is, a seat
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means
installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) shall
meet the requrements of S4.2.4, and may use an upper
torso belt that detaches at the upper anchorage point to
meet those requirements.
4. A new S4.4.3 is added to Standard No. 208, to read
as follows:
S4.4 Buses.
S4.4.3 Buses manufactured on or after September 1,
1991.
54.4.3.1 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.
54.4.3.2 Except as provided in S4. 4.3.2.2, 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 posi-
tion, 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 require-
ment 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.
54.4.3.2. 1 As used in this section, a "rear outboard
designated 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 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 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 position,
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.
54.4.3.2.3 Any rear outboard designated seating
position with a readily removable seat (that is, a seat
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means
installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) shall
meet the requirements of S4.4.3.2, and may use an
upper torso belt that detaches at the upper anchorage
point to meet those requirements.
PART 571; S222-PRE 29
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 position 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 require-
ment 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 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the
retractor. In determining whether an automatic locking
retractor complies with this 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.
5. S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 is amended by revising
S7.1.1.3 and by adding a new S7. 1.1.5, to read as
follows:
S7.1 Adjustment.
*****
S7.1.1.3 A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of
any Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any out-
board designated seating position of a vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less to
comply with a requirement of ths standard, except
walk-in van-type vehicles and school buses, shall meet
the requirements of S7.1 by means of any emergency
locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209
(49 CFR 571.209).
*****
S7.1.1.5 Seat belt assemblies installed at a seating
position other than the driver's position that incor-
porate an emergency locking retractor in the lap belt or
the lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall
provide some means other than an external device that
requires manual attachment or activation to lock the
lap belt or lap belt portion, by preventing additional
webbing from spooling out, so that the seat belt
assembly can be used to tightly secure a child restraint
system.
6. S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208 is amended by revising
the introductory text and S7.4.2(c), to read as follows:
S7.4.2 Webbing tension-relieving device. Each vehicle
with an automatic seat belt assembly or with a Type 2
manual seat belt assembly that must meet the occupant
crash protection requirements of S5.1 of this standard
installed at a front outboard designated seating posi-
tion, 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, that 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:
*****
(c) Have, except for open-body vehicles with no
doors, and 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, cancellation of the tension-relieving device
shall occur, at the manufacturer's option, either each
time the adjacent door is opened or each time the
latchplate is released from the buckle. In the case of a
Type 2 manual seat belt assembly installed at a rear
outboard designated seating position, cancellation of
the tension-relieving device shall occur, at the manu-
facturer's option either each time the door designed to
to allow the occupant of that seating position 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 manual
means.
§571.210 [Amended!
7. S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 is revised to read as
follows:
84. 1.1 Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt
assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing
outboard designated seating position in passenger cars
other than convertibles and for each designated seating
position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is
required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) in
vehicles other than passenger cars. .Seat belt anchor-
ages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed
for each rear forward-facing outboard designated
seating position in convertible passenger cars man-
ufactured on or after September 1, 1991.
§571.222 (Amended]
8. S5(b) of Standard No. 222 is revised to read as
follows:
85. Requirements, (a) * * *
(b) Each vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of
10,000 pounds or less shall be capable of meeting the
following requirements at all seating positions other
than the driver's seat:
(1)(A) In the case of vehicles manufactured before
September 1, 1991, the requirements of §§571.208,
PART 571; S222-PRE 30
571.209, and 571.210 as they apply to multipurpose
passenger vehicles; or
(B) In the case of vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 1991, the requirements of S4.4.3.3. of
§571.208 and the requirementsof §§571.209 and 571.210
as they apply to school buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less; and
(2) TherequirementsofS5.1.2,S5.1.3,S5. 1.4,55.1.5,
and S5.3 of this standard. However, the requirements
of §§571.208 and 571.210 shall be met at W seating
positions in a bench seat using a body block as specified
in Figure 2 of this standard, and a particular school bus
passenger seat (i.e., a test specimen) in that weight
class need not meet further requirements after having
met S5. 1.2 and S5. 1.5, or after having been subjected to
either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, or S5.3 of this standard or
§571.210.
*****
Issued on: October 27, 1989.
Jeffrey R. Miller
Acting Administrator
54 F.R. 46257
November 2, 1989
PART 571; S222-PRE 31-32
^
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222
School Bus Seating and Crash Protection
51. Scope. This standard establishes occu-
pant protection requirements for school bus pas-
senger seating and restraining barriers.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to
reduce the number of deaths and the severity of in-
juries that result from the impact of school bus
occupants against structures within the vehicle dur-
ing crashes and sudden driving maneuvers.
53. Application. This standard applies to
school buses.
84. Definitions. "Contactable surface" means
any surface within the zone specified in S5.3.1.1
that is contactable from any direction by the test
device described in S6.6, except any surface on
the front of a seat back or restraining barrier 3
inches or more below the top of the seat back or
restraining barrier.
"School bus passenger seat" means a seat in
a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a
seat installed to accommodate handicapped or
convalescent passengers as evidenced by orienta-
tion of the seat in a direction that is more than
45 degrees to the left or right of the longitudinal
centerline of the vehicle.
S4.1 The number of seating positions con-
sidered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the
symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in
inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest
whole number.
S5. Requirements, (a) Each vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000
pounds shall be capable of meeting any of the
requirements set forth under this heading when
tested under the conditions of S6. However, a
particular school bus passenger seat (i.e., test
specimen) in that weight class need not meet
further requirements after having met S5.1.2 and
S5.1.5, or having been subjected to either S5.1.3,
S5.1.4, or S5.3.
(b) lEach vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable of
meeting the following requirements at all seating
positions other than the driver's seat:
(1)(A) In the case of vehicles manufactured
before September 1, 1991, the requirements of
§§ 571.208, 571.209, and 571.210 as they apply to
multipurpose passenger vehicles; or
(B) In the case of vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 1991, the requirements of
S4.4.3.3 of § 571.208 and the requirements of
§§ 571.209 and 571.210 as they apply to school
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000
pounds or less; and
(2) The requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4,
S5.1.5, and S5.3 of this standard. However, the re-
quirements of §§ 571.208, and 571.210 shall be met
at W seating positions in a bench seat using a body
block as specified in Figure 2 of this standard, and a
particular school bus passenger seat (i.e., a test
specimen) in that weight class need not meet further
requirements after having met S5.1.2 and S5.1.5, or
after having been subjected to either S5.1.3, S5.1.4,
or S5.3 of this standard of § 571.210. 54 F.R.
46257— November 2, 1989. Effective: May 1, 1990)]
S5.1 Seating requirements. School bus pas-
senger seats shall be forward facing.
55.1.1 [Reserved]
55.1.2 Seat bacl( heiglit and surface area.
Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped
with a seat back that, in the front projected
view, has a front surface area above the hori-
zontal plane that passes through the seating
reference point, and below the horizontal plane
20 inches above the seating reference point, of
not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width
in inches multiplied by 20.
55.1.3 Seat performance forward. When a
school bus passenger seat that has another seat
(Rev. 11 f 2/89)
PART 571; S 222-1
behind it is subjected to the application of force
as specified in S5. 1.3.1 and S5. 1.3.2, and subse-
quently, the application of additional force to
the seat back as specified in S5. 1.3.3 and S5. 1.3.4:
(a) The seat-back force/deflection curve shall
fall within the zone specified in Figure 1;
WWWWWWWW
lein. ivattt]
SEAT B«CK FORCE/OtFlECIIOH CUIIVE
SHALL NOT ENTER SHADED AREAS
OEFLECIIDII IIKCHESI
FICURE I FORCE/OEFLECIION lOnl
(b) Seat back deflection shall not exceed 14
inches; (for determination of (a) and (b) the
force/deflection curve describes only the force
applied through the upper loading bar, and only
the forward travel of the pivot attachment point
of the upper loading bar, measured from the
point at which the initial application of 10
pounds of force is attained.)
(c) The seat shall not deflect by an amount
such that any part of the seat moves to within 4
inches of any part of another school bus passen-
ger seat or restraining barrier in its originally
installed psition;
(d) The seat shall not separate from the ve-
hicle at any attachment point; and
(d) Seat components shall not separate at any
attachment point.
55.1.3.1 Position the loading bar specified in
S6.5 so that it is laterally centered behind the
seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a
transverse plane of the vehicle and in any hori-
zontal plane between 4 inches above and 4 inches
below the seating reference point of the school
bus passenger seat behind the test specimen.
55.1.3.2 Apply a force of 700W pounds hori-
zontally in the forward direction through the
loading bar at the pivot attachment point. Reach
the specified load in not less than 5 nor more
than 30 seconds.
55.1.3.3 No sooner than 1.0 second after at-
taining the required force, reduce that force to
350W pounds and, while maintaining the pivot
point position of the first loading bar at the posi-
tion where the 350W pounds is attained, position
a second loading bar described in S6.5 so that it
is laterally centered behind the seat back with
the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane
of the vehicle and in the horizontal plane 16
inches above the seating reference point of the
school bus passenger seat behind the test speci-
men, and move the bar forward against the seat
back until a force of 10 pounds has been applied.
55.1.3.4 Apply additional force horizontally
in the forward direction through the upper bar
until 4,000W inch-pounds of energy have been
absorbed in deflecting the seat back (or restrain-
ing barrier). Apply the additional load in not
less than 5 seconds nor more than 30 seconds.
Maintain the pivot attachment point in the maxi-
mum forward travel position for not less than
5 seconds nor more than 10 seconds and release
the load in not less than 5 nor more than 30
seconds. (For the determination of S5. 1.3.4 the
force/deflection curve describes only the force
applied through the upper loading bar, and the
forward and rearward travel distance of the up-
per loading bar pivot attachment point measured
from the position at which the initial application
of 10 pounds of force is attained.)
S5.1.4 Seat performance rearward. When a
school bus passenger seat that has another seat
behind it is subjected to the application of force
as specified in S5. 1.4.1 and S5. 1.4.2:
(a) Seat back force shall not exceed 2,200
pounds;
(b) In the case of a school bus manufactured
on or after April 1, 1978, seat back deflection
shall not exceed 10 inches; (For determination
of (a) and (b) the force/deflection curve de-
scribes only the force applied through the load-
ing bar, and only the rearward travel of the
pivot attachment point of the loading bar, meas-
ured from the point at which the initial applica-
tion of 50 pounds of force is attained.
PART 571; S 222-2
(c) The seat shall not deflect by an amount
such that any part of the seat moves to within
4 inches of any part of another passenger seat
in its originally installed position;
(d) The seat shall not separate from the ve-
hicle at any attachment point; and
(e) Seat components shall not separate at any
attachment point.
55.1.4.1 Position the loading bar described
in S6.5 so that it is laterally centered forvifard
of the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis
in a transverse plane of the vehicle and in the
horizontal plane 13.5 inches above the seating
reference point of the test specimen, and move
the loading bar rearward against the seat back
until a force of 50 pounds has been applied.
55.1.4.2 Apply additional force horizontally
rearward through the loading bar until 2,800W
inch-pounds of energy have been absorbed in de-
flecting the seat back. Apply the additional load
in not less than 5 seconds nor more than 30 sec-
onds. Maintain the pivot attachment point in the
maximum rearward travel position for not less
than 5 seconds nor more than 10 seconds and re-
lease the load in not less than 5 seconds nor more
than 30 seconds. (For determination of S5. 1.4.2
the force/deflection curve describes the force ap-
plied through the loading bar and the rearward
and forward travel distance of the loading bar
pivot attachment point measured from the posi-
tion at which the initial application of 50 pounds
of force is attained.)
S5.1.5 Seat cushion retention. In the case of
school bus passenger seats equipped with seat
cushions, with all manual attachment devices be-
tween the seat and the seat cushion in the manu-
facturer's designed position for attachment, the
seat cushion shall not separate from the seat at
any attachment point when subjected to an up-
ward force of five times the seat cushion weight,
applied in any period of not less than 1 nor more
than 5 seconds, and maintained for 5 seconds.
S5.2 Restraining barrier requirements. Each
vehicle shall be equipped with a restraining bar-
rier forward of any designated seating position
that does not have the rear surface of another
school bus passenger seat within 20 inches of its
seating reference point, measured along a hori-
zontal longitudinal line through the seating ref-
erence point in the forward direction.
55.2.1 Barrier-seat separation. The horizontal
distance between the restraining barrier's rear
surface and the seating reference point of the
seat in front of which it is required shall be not
more than 20 inches, measured along a horizontal
longitudinal line through the seating reference
point in the forward direction.
55.2.2 Barrier position and rear surface area.
The position and rear surface area of the re-
straining barrier shall be such that, in a front
projected view of the bus, each point of the bar-
rier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of
the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for
which it is required.
55.2.3 Barrier performance forward. When
force is applied to the restraining barrier in the
same manner as specified in S5. 1.3.1 through
S5. 1.3.4 for seating performance tests:
(a) The restraining barrier force/deflection
curve shall fall within the zone specified in
Figure 1;
(b) Restraining barrier deflection shall not ex-
ceed 14 inches; (For computation of (a) and
(b) the force/deflection curve describes only the
force applied through the upper loading bar,
and only the forward travel of the pivot attach-
ment point of the loading bar, measured from
the point at which the initial appHcation of 10
pounds of force is attained.)
(c) Restraining barrier deflection shall not in-
terfere with normal door operation;
(d) The restraining barrier shall not separate
from the vehicle at any attachment point; and
(e) Restraining barrier components shall not
separate at any attachment point.
S5.3 Impact zone requirements.
S5.3.1 Head protection zone. Any contactable
surface of the vehicle within any zone specified
in S5.3.1.1 shall meet the requirements of S5.3.1.2
and S5.3.1.3. However, a surface area that has
been contacted pursuant to an impact test need
not meet further requirements contained in S5.3.
PART 571; S 222-3
S5.3.1.1 The head protection zones in each
vehicle are the spaces in front of each school
bus passenger seat which are not occupied by
bus sidewall, window, or door structure and
which, in relation to that seat and its seating
reference point, are enclosed by the following
planes;
(a) Horizontal planes 12 inches and 40 inches
above the seating reference point;
(b) A vertical longitudinal plane tangent to
the inboard (aisle side) edge of the seat;
(c) A vertical longitudinal plane 3.25 inches
inboard of the outboard edge of the seat, and
(d) Vertical transverse planes through and 30
inches forward of the reference point.
S5.3.1.2 Head form impact requirement. When
any contactable surface of the vehicle within
the zones specified in S5.3.1.1 is impacted from
any direction at 22 feet per second by the head
form described in S6.6, the axial acceleration at
the center of gravity of the head form shall be
such that the expression
y^i" -^ ]
2.5
(t.-t.)
shall not exceed 1,000 where a is the axial ac-
celeration expressed as a multiple of g (the
acceleration due to gravity), and ti and t2 are
any two points in time during the impact.
S5.3.1.3 Head form force distribution. When
any contactable surface of the vehicle within the
zones specified in S5.3.1.1 is impacted from any
direction at 22 feet per second by the head form
^1.94R
(TYP)
19.5 R
^ BLOCK COVERED BY
1.00 MED. DENSITY CANVAS
COVERED FOAM RUBBER
-2.00 R
0.75 DIA.
THRU HOLE
-2.00R
3.34
1.94 R
(TYPl
FIGURE 2-BODY BLOCK FOR LAP BELT
PART 571; S 222-4
described in S6.6, the energy necessary to deflect
the impacted material shall be not less than 40
inch-pounds before the force level on the head
form exceeds 150 pounds. When any contactable
surface within such zones is impacted by the
head form from any direction at 5 feet per sec-
ond, the contact area on the head form surface
shall be not less than 3 square inches.
S5.3.2 Leg protection zone. Any part of the
seat backs or restraining barriers in the vehicle
within any zone specified in S5. 3.2.1 shall meet
the requirements of S5.3.2.2.
55.3.2.1. The leg protection zones of each ve-
hicle are those parts of the school bus passenger
seat backs and restraining barriers bounded by
horizontal planes 12 inches above and 4 inches
below the seating reference point of the school
bus passenger seat immediately behind the seat
back or restraining barrier.
55.3.2.2. When any point on the rear surface
of that part of a seat back or restraining barrier
within any zone specified in S5.3.2.1 is impacted
from any direction at 16 feet per second by the
knee form specified in S6.7, the resisting force
of the impacted material shall not exceed 600
pounds and the contact area on the knee form
surface shall not be less than 3 square inches.
S6. Test conditions. The following conditions
apply to the requirements specified in S5.
56.1 Test surface. The bus is at rest on a level
surface.
56.2 Tires. Tires are inflated to the pressure
specified by the manufacturer for the gross ve-
hicle weight rating.
6.3 Temperature. The ambient temperature is
any level between 32 degrees F. and 90 degrees F.
S6.4 Seat back position. If adjustable, a seat
back is adjusted to its most upright position.
S6.5 Loading bar. The loading bar is a rigid
cylinder with an outside diameter of 6 inches
that has hemispherical ends with radii of 3 inches
and with a surface roughness that does not ex-
ceed 63 micro-inches, root mean square. Then
length of the loading bar is 4 inches less than the
PART 571; S 222-5
width of the seat back in each test. The stroking
mechanism applies force through a pivot attach-
ment at the centerpoint of the loading bar which
allows the loading bar to rotate in a horizontal
plane 30 degrees in either direction from the
transverse position.
S6.5.1 A vertical or lateral force of 4,000
pounds applied externally through the pivot at-
tachment point of the loading bar at any posi-
tion reached during a test specified in this
standard shall not deflect that point more than
1 inch.
S6.6 Head form. The head form for the meas-
urement of acceleration is a rigid surface com-
prised of two hemispherical shapes, with total
equivalent weight of 11.5 pounds. The first of
the two hemispherical shapes has a diameter of
6.5 inches. The second of the two hemispherical
shapes has a 2 inch diameter and is centered as
shown in Figure 3 to protrude from the outer
surface of the first hemispherical shape. The
surface roughness of the hemispherical shapes
does not exceed 63 micro-inches, root mean
square.
56.6.1 The direction of travel of the head
form is coincidental with the straight line con-
necting the centerpoints of the two spherical
outer surfaces which constitute the head form
shape.
56.6.2 The head form is instrumented with an
acceleration sensing device whose output is re-
corded in a data channel that conforms to the
requirements for a 1,000 Hz channel class as
specified in SAE Recommended Practice J211a,
December 1971. The head form exhibits no
resonant frequency below three times the fre-
quency of the channel class. The axis of the
acceleration sensing device coincides with the
straight line connecting the centerpoints of the
two hemispherical outer surfaces which consti-
tute the head form shape.
S6.6.3 The head form is guided by a stroking
device so that the direction of travel of the head
form is not affected by impact with the surface
being tested at the levels called for in the
standard.
BIHEMISPHERICAL HEAD FORM RADII
FIGURE 3
S6.7 Knee form. The knee form for measure-
ment of force is a rigid 3-inch-diameter cylinder,
with an equivalent weight of 10 pounds, that has
one rigid hemispherical end with a IV2 inch
radius forming the contact surface of the knee
form. The hemispherical surface roughness does
not exceed 63 micro-inches, root mean square.
56.7.1 The direction of travel of the knee
form is coincidental with the centerline of the
rigid cylinder.
56.7.2 The knee form is instrumented with an
acceleration sensing device whose output is re-
corded in a data channel that conforms to the
requirements of a 600 Hz channel class as spec-
ified in the SAE Recommended Practice J211a,
December 1971. The knee form exhibits no
resonant frequency below three times the fre-
quency of the channel class. The axis of the
acceleration sensing device is aligned to measure
acceleration along the centerline of the cylindrical
knee form.
56.7.3 The knee form is guided by a stroking
device so that the direction of travel of the knee
form is not affected by impact with the surface
being tested at the levels called for in the
standard.
S6.8 The head form, knee form, and con-
tactable surfaces are clean and dry during impact
testing,
41 F.R. 4016
January 28, 1976
PART 571; S 222-6
EffacHva: $*pl*mb«r I, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
STANDARD NO. 301
Fuel System Integrity
(Docket No. 70-20; Notice 2)
This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 301 on fuel system integrity to
specify static rollover requirements applicable to
passenger cars on September 1, 1975, and to
extend applicability of the standard to multi-
purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less on Sep-
tember 1, 1976.
The NHTSA proposed amending 49 CFR
571.301, Fvsl Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and
Fuel Tank Connections, on August 29, 1970, (35
F.R. 13799). Under the proposal the standard
would be extended to all vehicles with a GVWR
of 10,000 pounds or less. No fuel spillage would
be permitted during the standard's tests. As
proposed, these would include a spike stop from
60 mph, and a 30 mph frontal barrier crash.
Additional tests for vehicles with a GVWR of
6,000 pounds or less would include a rear-end
collision with a fixed barrier at 30 mph, and a
static rollover test following the frontal barrier
crash. With respect to the proposal : the frontal
impact and static rollover tests are adopted but
with an allowance of fuel spillage of 1 ounce
per minute; the spike stop test is not adopted;
and the rear-end fixed barrier collision test is
being reproposed in a separate rule making ac-
tion published today to substitute a moving
barrier.
The proposal that there be zero fuel spillage
was almost universally opposed for cost/benefit
reasons. The NHTSA has concluded that the
requirement adopted, limiting fuel spillage to
1 ounce per minute, will have much the san
effect as a zero-loss requirement. The standa
will effectively require motor vehicles to be c
signed for complete fuel containment, since any
spillage allowed by design in the aftermath of
testing could well exceed the limit of the stand-
ard. At the same time, the 1-ounce allowance
would eliminate concern over a few drops of
spillage that in a functioning system may be un-
avoidable.
Fuel loss will be measured for a 15-minute
period for both impact and rollover tests.
The NHTSA proposed a panic-braking stop
from 60 mph to demonstrate fuel system integ-
rity. Many commented that this appeared
superfluous, increasing testing costs with no per-
formance improvements, since the proposed front
and rear impact tests represented considerably
higher deceleration loadings than could be
achieved in braking. The NHTSA concurs, and
has not adopted the panic stop test. The frontal
barrier crash at 30 mph has been retained for
passenger cars, and extended to multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less as of Septem-
ber 1, 1976.
The static rollover test was adopted as pro-
posed. It applies to passenger cars as of Sep-
tember 1, 1975, and to multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of
6,000 pounds or less, as of September 1, 1976.
The rollover test follows the front barrier crash,
and consists of a vehicle being rotated on its
longitudinal axis at successive increments of 90°.
A condition of the test is that rotation between
increments occurs in not less than 1 minute and
not more than 3 minutes. After reaching a 90°
increment, the vehicle is held in that position for
5 minutes.
The proposed rear-end crash test incorporated
a fixed collision barrier. Manufacturers gener-
ally favored a moving barrier impact as a closer
PART 571; S 301(9/1/75)— PRE 1
EffccHv*: Saptambar 1, 1975
simulation of real world conditions. The NHTSA
concurs and is not adopting a rear end fixed
barrier test. Instead, it is proposing a rear-end
moving barrier collision test as part of the notice
of proposed rulemaking published today.
Under the proposal the vehicle would be
loaded to its GVWR with the fuel tank filled to
any level between 90 and 100 percent of capacity.
Many commenters objected on the grounds that
full loading of a vehicle represents an unrealistic
condition in terms of actual crash experience.
The NHTSA does not agree. Although full
loading of a vehicle is not the condition most
frequently encountered, it certainly occurs fre-
quently enough that the vehicle should be de-
signed to give basic protection in that condition.
The vehicle test weight condition has been
adopted as proposed. It should be noted that,
in the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking
issued today, vehicles would be tested under the
weight conditions specified in Standard No. 208,
effective September 1, 1975.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
Part 571.301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 301, is amended
Effective date: September 1, 1975. Because
of the necessity to allow manufacturers sufficient
production leadtime it is found for good cause
shown that an effective date later than 1 year
after issuance of this rule is in the public in-
t«rest.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718,
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on August 15, 1973.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
38 F.R. 22397
August 20, 1973
PART 571; S 301(9/1/75)— PRE 2
^
Effactiv*: S«p»«mb*r 1, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301
Fuel System Integrity
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2)
The purpose of this notice is to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fiiel
System Integrity, to upgrade substantially the
requirements of the standard by specifying a
rear moving barrier crash, a lateral moving bar-
rier crash, and a frontal barrier crash including
impacts at any angle up to 30° in either direction
from the perpendicular.
A notice of proposed rulemaking published
August 20, 1973 (38 F.R. 22417) proposed the
imposition of additional testing requirements
designed to ameliorate the dangers associated
with fuel spillage following motor vehicle acci-
dents. In an amendment to Standard No. 301,
published on the same day as the proposal, a
frontal barrier crash and a static rollover test
were specified. In order to ensure the safety of
fuel systems in any possible collision situation,
the NHTSA finds it essential to incorporate ad-
ditional proposed test requirements into the
present standard and to make these requirements
applicable to all vehicle types with a GVWR of
10,000 pounds or less.
Comments in response to the proposal were
received from 29 commenters. Any suggestions
for changes of the proposal not specifically men-
tioned herein are denied, on the basis of all the
information presently available to this agency.
A number of the issues raised in the comments
have been dealt with by the agency in its re-
sponse to the petitions for reconsideration of the
final rule issued on August 20, 1973. In its notice
responding to the petitions, the NHTSA consid-
ered objections to the use of actual fuel during
testing, the specified fuel fill level, the applica-
tion of the standard to vehicles using diesel fuel,
tlie fuel spillage measuring requirement, and the
allegedly more stringent loading requirements
applicable to passenger cars. The type of fuel
subject to the standard was also clarified.
Objections were registered by 13 commenters
to the proposed inclusion of a dynamic rollover
test in the fuel system integrity standard. As
proposed, the requirement calls for a measure-
ment of tlie fuel loss while the vehicle is in mo-
tion. Commenters pointed out the exceptional
difficulty in measuring or even ascertaining a
leakage when the vehicle is rolling over at 30
mph. The NHTSA has decided that the objec-
tions have merit, and h.as deleted the dynamic
rollover test. The results of the dynamic rollover
do not provide sufficiently unique data with re-
gard to the fuel system's integrity to justify the
cost of developing techniques for accurately
measuring spillage during such a test, and of
conducting the test itself. The NHTSA has
concluded that the severity of the other required
tests, when conducted in the specified sequence,
is sufficient to assure the level of fuel system
integrity intended by the agency.
Triumph Motors objected to the use of a 4,000-
pound barrier during the moving barrier impacts,
asserting that such large barriers discriminate
against small vehicles. Triumph requested that
the weight of the barrier be the curb weight of
the vehicle being tested in order to alleviate the
burden on small vehicles. The NHTSA has con-
cluded that no justification exists for this change.
The moving barrier is intended to represent
another vehicle with which the test vehicle must
collide. The use of a 4,000-pound moving bar-
rier is entirely reasonable since vehicles in use
are often over 4,000 pounds in weight and a
small vehicle is as likely to collide with a vehicle
of that size as one smaller. Tlie NHTSA con-
siders it important that vehicle fuel systems be
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 3
Effacllv*: S«plemb«r 1, 1975
designed in such a way as to withstand impacts
from vehicles they are exposed to on the road,
regardless of the differences in their sizes.
Jeep and American Motors objected to the
effective dates of the proposed requirements and
asked that they be extended. Jeep favors an
effective date not earlier than September 1, 1979,
and American Motors favors a September 1,
1978, effective date. The NHTSA denies these
requests. It has found that the time period pro-
vided for development of conforming fuel sys-
tems is reasonable and should be strictly adhered
to considering the urgent need for strong and
resilient fuel systems.
Several commenters expressed concern over the
impact of the prescribed testing procedures on
manufacturers of low-volume specialty vehicles.
The NHTSA appreciates the expense of conduct-
ing crash tests on low-production vehicles, realiz-
ing that the burden on the manufacturer is
related to the number of vehicles he manufac-
tures. However, there are means by which the
small-volume manufacturer can minimize the
costs of testing. He can concentrate test efforts
on the vehicle (s) in his line that he finds most
difficult to produce in conformity with the stand-
ard. These manufacturers should also be aware
that an exemption from application of the stand-
ard is available where fewer than 10,000 vehicles
per year are produced and compliance would
subject him to substantial financial hardship.
In responding to the petitions for reconsider-
ation of the amendment to Standard No. 301,
published August 20, 1973, the NHTSA revised
the fuel system loading requirement to specify
Stoddard solvent as the fuel to be used during
testing. In accordance with that amendment,
the proposed requirement that the engine be
idling during the testing sequence is deleted.
However, electrically driven fuel pumps that
normally run when the electrical system in the
vehicle is activated shall be operating during the
barrier crash tests.
In order to fulfill the intention expressed in
the preamble to the proposal, that simultaneous
testing under Standards Nos. 208 and 301 be
possible, language has been added to subpara-
graph S7.1.5 of Standard No. 301 specifying the
same method of restraint as that required in
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 4
Standard No. 208. In its response to petitions
for reconsideration of Standard No. 301 (39 F.R.
10586) the NHTSA amended the standard by
requiring that each dummy be restrained during
testing only by means that are installed in the
vehicle for protection at its seating position and
that require no action by the vehicle occupant.
Suggestions by several commenters that the
application of certain crash tests should be lim-
ited to passenger cars in order to maintain com-
plete conformance to the requirements of
Standard No. 208 are found to be without merit.
Enabling simultaneous testing under several
standards, although desirable, is not the most
important objective of the safety standards. The
NHTSA is aware of the burden of testing costs,
and therefore has sought to ease that burden
where possible by structuring certain of its
standards to allow concurrent testing for com-
pliance. It must be emphasized, however, that
the testing requirements specified in a standard
are geared toward a particular safety need.
Application of the tests proposed for Standard
No. 301 to all vehicle types with a GVAVR of
10,000 pounds or less is vital to the accomplish-
ment of the degree of fuel system integrity neces-
sary to protect the occupants of vehicles involved
in accidents.
No major objections were raised concerning the
proposed angular frontal barrier crash, lateral
barrier crash, or rear moving barrier crash. On
the basis of all information available to this
agency, it has been determined that these pro-
posed crash tests should be adopted as proposed.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
571.301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301,
is amended to read as set forth below.
Effective date: September 1, 1975, with addi-
tional requirements effective September 1, 1976,
and September 1, 1977, as indicated.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-56", 80 Stat. 718,
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on March 18, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 10588
March 21, 1974
Effective: September 1, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75
Fuel System Integrity
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 3)
This notice responds to petitions for recon-
sideration of the two recent Federal Register
notices amending and upgrading Standard No.
301 (39 F.R. 10586; 39 F.R. 10588) and amends
the standard in several respects.
On March 21, 1974 two notices were published
pertaining to Standard No. 301, Fuel System In-
tegrity. One notice (39 F.R. 10586) responded
to petitions for reconsideration of an earlier
amendment to the standard (38 F.R. 22397),
while the other (39 F.R. 10588) substantially
upgraded the standard's performance require-
ments. It was the intention of the NHTSA that
the notice upgrading the standard be considered
as the final rule and supersede the notice re-
sponding to petitions. Hereafter, the notice re-
sponding to petitions will be referred to as
Notice 1, while the notice upgrading the stand-
ard will be referred to as Notice 2.
On October 27, 1974, the Motor Vehicle and
Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (P.L.
93—492) were signed into law. These amend-
ments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act incorporate Standard No. 301 as it
was published in Notice 2 on March 21, 1974.
According to the amendment the technical errors
which appeared in Notice 2 may be corrected,
while future amendments are prohibited from
diminishing the level of motor vehicle safety
which was established in the notice. The changes
contained in this notice conform to these statu-
tory requirements.
Due to an oversight. Notice 2 failed to include
two provisions which appeared in Notice 1. The
limitation of the standard's application to ve-
hicles which use fuel with a boiling point above
32°F was inadvertently omitted in Notice 2 and
is hereby reinstated. Notice 2 also failed to in-
clude a provision specifying that vehicles not be
altered during the testing sequences. It was the
intent of the NHTSA that damage or other
alteration of the vehicle incurred during the bar-
rier crashes not be corrected prior to the static
rollover tests. The test requirements are there-
fore amended to prohibit the alteration of ve-
hicles following each of the specified test impacts.
In order to clarify the manner in which the
load is to be distributed during testing of multi-
purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses,
S7.1.5(b) is amended to require that when the
weight on one of the axles exceeds its propor-
tional share of the loaded vehicle weight, when
the vehicle is loaded only with dunmiies, the re-
mainder of the required test weight shall be
placed on the other axle, so that the weight on
the first axle remains the same. The loading
specification did not specifically address this
contingency.
The requirement that the load be located in
the load carrying area of multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses during testing is de-
leted since the agency has determined that such
a limitation is consistent with the provision spec-
ifying distribution of weight in proportion with
the vehicle's gross axle weight ratings.
Petitions for reconsideration were received
from eleven petitioners. Although only those
comments raising issues found to be significant
have been discussed, due consideration has been
given to all requests. Any requests not spe-
cifically discussed herein are denied.
A substantial number of petitioners objected
to the requirement that dummies used during
testing be restrained only by passive means in-
stalled at the seating positions. Petitioners
pointed out that mandatory passive restraint
systems proposed in Standard No. 208 have a
proposed effective date of September 1, 1976;
one year after the September 1, 1976 effective
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 5
Effective: September 1, 1975
date set for implementation of Standard 301.
This would leave a period of time when most
dummies would be involved in testing while to-
tally unrestrained. Renault, Jeep, American
Motors, Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, and
Ford requested that the dummies be restrained
during testing by whatever means, active or pas-
sive, are installed at the particular seating posi-
tions. To provide otherwise, they argued, would
unnecessarily expose the dummies to costly dam-
age when subjected to impacts in an unrestrained
condition.
The NHTSA finds petitioners' objections mer-
itorious. Although this agency has determined
that reliable test results can be best obtained
when occupant weight is included in the vehicle
during crash testing, the manner in which that
weight is installed is subject to additional con-
siderations. The NHTSA has made clear its
desire to enable simultaneous testing under more
than one standard where the test requirements
are compatible. Standards 301 and 208 both
require frontal and lateral barrier crash tests
which can be conducted concurrently if the ve-
hicles are loaded uniformly. Since Standard
208 provides for crash testing with dummies in
vehicles with passive restraint systems. Standard
301 testing of these same vehicles should be con-
ducted with dummies installed in the seating
positions provided under Standard 208. The
presence of the passive restraints will protect
the dummies from unnecessary damage and the
required testing for complia,nce with both stand-
ards can be accomplished simultaneously. Where
a vehicle is not equipped with passive restraints,
and Standard 208 testing is not mandated, weight
equal to that of a 50th percentile test dummy
should be secured to the floor pan at the front
outboard designated seating positions in the ve-
hicles being tested.
Further concern over the damage to which test
dummies might be exposed was manifested by
Jeep and American Motors. They petitioned
for the removal of the dummies prior to the
static rollover tests, arguing that their presence
serves no safety-related purpose. The NHTSA
has granted the request, on the basis of its deter-
mination that the dummies would have little or
no effect on the fuel system's integrity during
the rollover segment of the test procedure.
Jeep and American Motors further suggested
that the standard specify that hardware and
instrumentation be removed prior to the static
rollover test in order to prevent its damage.
This request is denied as unnecessary. Standard
No. 301 contains no specification for the inclusion
of instrumentation during testing. Any instru-
mentation present in the vehicle is there by deci-
sion of the manufacturer to assist him in
monitoring the behavior of the fuel system
during testing, and must be installed and utilized
in such a manner as not to affect the test results.
Therefore, as long as the loading requirements
of the standard are met, manufacturers may deal
with their instrumentation in any fashion they
wish, as long as the test results are unaffected.
Volkswagen urged that unrestrained dummies
not be required during the rear moving impact
test, citing the absence of such a test in Standard
208 and alleging that the integrity of vehicle
fuel systems would not be greatly affected by the
presence of dummies. This request is denied.
The rear moving barrier crash specified in pro-
posed Standard 207, Seating Systems, provides
for the installation of dummies in the same seat-
ing positions as required for Standard 301, thus
permitting simultaneous conduct of the rear bar-
rier crashes required by both standards. In
order to obtain realistic and reliable test results,
occupant weight must be in vehicles during
Standard 301 crash testing. The NHTSA has
determined that unrestrained dummies would
have, at most, slight vulnerability to damage
during rear barrier crash tests, since the impact
is such that the seats themselves serve as pro-
tective restraint mechanisms. It has therefore
been concluded that the best method for includ-
ing occupant weight during rear barrier crash
testing is with test dummies.
Notice 2 specified that the parking brake be
engaged during the rear moving barrier crash
test. Ford requested in its petition for recon-
sideration that this requirement be changed in
order to enable simultaneous rear barrier crash
testing with Standard 207 which provides for
disengagement of the parking brake in its recent
proposal. The NHTSA has decided to grant
Ford's request. The condition of the parking
brake during this test sequence would not so
significantly affect the test results as to warrant
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 6
EfFeclive: September 1, 1975
letention of <a requirement that would prevent
simultaneous testing.
The Recreational Vehicle Institute objected to
tlie standard, arguing that it was not cost-effec-
tive as applied to motor homes. RVI requested
that different test [)rocedures be developed for
motor home manufacturers. Specifically it ob-
jected to wiiat it suggested was a requirement
for unnecessary double testing in situations
wliere the incomplete vehicle has already been
tested before the motor home manufacturer re-
(^eives it. RVI expressed the view that the motor
liome manufacturer should not have to concern
himself with compliance to the extent that he
nuist test the entire vehicle in accordance with
the sti.ndard's test procedures.
The NHTSA has found the requirements of
Standard 301 to be reasonable in that they en-
force a level of safety that has been determined
necessary and provide adequate lead time for
manufacturers to develop methods and means of
compliance. The National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act does not require a manu-
facturer to test vehicles by any particular
method. It does require that lie exercise due
care in assuring himself that iiis vehicles are
cai)able of satisfying the performance require-
ments of applicable standards when tested in the
manner prescribed. This may be accomplished,
however, by whatever means the manufacturer
reasonably determines to be reliable. If the final
stage manufacturer of a motor home concludes
that additional testing by him of the entire ve-
hicle for compliance is unnecessary, and he has
exercised due care in completing the vehicle in a
manner that continues its conformity to appli-
cable standards, he is under no obligation to re-
peat the procedures of the standards.
RVI further pressed its contention that the
standard is not cost-beneficial by arguing that
the agency has not provided specific data indi-
cating a frequency of fuel system fires in motor
homes that would justify the costs imposed by
the standard.
Sufficient record evidence has been found to
support the conclusion that fuel spillage in the
types of crashes with which the standard deals
is a major safety hazard. The only basis upon
which motor home manufacturers could justify
the execption of their vehicles from Standard
SOl's requirements would be an inherent im-
munity from gasoline spillage. The standard
establishes a reasonable test of a vehicle's ability
to withstand impacts without experiencing fuel
loss. If a motor home is designed in such a
way as to preclude the spillage of fuel during
the prescribed test impacts, compliance with the
standard should present no significant hardship.
Volkswagen challenged the cost-benefit ra-
tionale of the more extensive performance re-
quirements contained in Notice 2, and proposed
that only the rear barrier crash be retained, if
sufficient data exists to support its inclusion.
The agency has carefully considered the issues
raised in the Volkswagen petition. As discussed
earlier. Standard 301 has been designed to allow
testing for its requirements with some of the
same barrier crash tests that are required by
other standards: 208. 204, 212, and 207. This
should reduce substantially the costs of testing
to Standard 301, especially when viewed on a
cost-per-vehicle basis. The NHTSA has con-
cluded that the changes necessary for vehicles
to comply with the standard are practicable and
that the need for such increased fuel system
integrity is sufficient to justify the costs.
The Recreational Vehicle Institute also urged
that the effective date for motor homes be de-
layed 1 year beyond the date set for application
of the standard to other vehicles. RVI contends
that a uniform effective date for all manufac-
turers will create serious problems for the motor
home manufacturer who will not have complying
incomplete vehicles available to him until the
effective date of the standard.
The NHTSA finds RVI's argument lacking
in merit. Adequate lead time has been provided
in Standard 301 to allow final stage manufac-
turers of multistage vehicles to become familiar
with the requirements and to assure themselves
that chassis and other vehicle components are
available sufficiently in advance of the effective
date to enable timely compliance. The availa-
bility of complying incomplete vehicles is a
situation that should properly be resolved in the
commercial dealings between motor home manu-
facturers and their suppliers. If the motor home
manufacturer is unable to obtain complying in-
PART 571 ; S 301-75— PRE 7
Effective: September 1 , 1 975
complete vehicles far enough in advance of the
standard's effective date, he might, for example,
work out an arrangement with his supplier
whereby the supplier will provide information
relating to the manner in which the incomplete
vehicle must be completed in order to remain in
compliance with yll applicable safety standards.
The lead time provided in the standards is
planned to take into account the needs of per-
sons at each stage of the manufacturing process,
including final stage manufacturers.
Jeep, American Motors, and Toyota urged de-
lays in tlie implementation of various aspects of
the standard. Jeep suggested a new schedule
for application of the standard's requirements to
nudtipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and
buses, stating that the current lead time is in-
sufficient to enable completion of necessary de-
sign changes and compliance testing. American
Motors requested a 1-year delay in the effective
date for the static rollover test in order to allow
satisfactory completion of the required Environ-
mental Protection Agency 50,000 mile durability
test. Once vehicles have completed required
EPA testing and certification, their fuel system
components cannot be altered. AMC says that
it cannot make the design changes necessary for
Standard 301 compliance in time to utilize them
in this year's EPA tests. AMC also desires a
2-year delay in the frontal angular, rear, and
lateral impact tests, alleging that that constitutes
tlie minimum time necessary to produce designs
that comply. Toyota asked for a delay in the
frontal angular crash test for all passenger ve-
hicles until 1978, in order to allow them suffi-
cient time to develop a satisfactory means of com-
pliance with the specified performance level.
All of these requests are denied. The lead time
that has been provided for compliance with
Standard 301 is found adequate and reasonable.
The rollover requirements have been in rule form
for over a year, and the more extensive require-
ments were proposed more than 3 years in ad-
vance of their effective dates. Considering the
urgent need for stronger and more durable fuel
systems, further delay of the effective dates is
not justified. On the basis of all information
available, the NHTSA has determined that de-
velopment of complying fuel systems can be
attained in the time allowed. In addition, Con-
gress lias expressed in the recently enacted
amendments to the National Traffic and Motor
Veiiicle Safety Act its decision tliat the effective
dates specified in Notice 2 should be strictly
adhered to.
Toyota requested that the requirements of the
rear moving barrier crash not be imposed on
vehicles with station wagon or hatch-back bodies,
alleging diffiodty in relocation of the fuel tank
to an invulnerable position. The request is de-
nied as the NHTSA has determined that satis-
faction of the rear barrier crash requirements
by station wagons and hatch-backs is practicable
and necessary.
Volkswagen raised several objections in its pe-
tition to the static rollover test, including asser-
tions that the test does not reflect real world
accidents, and that the test procedure is unclear
since the direction of rotation is unspecified.
The NHTSA does not consider these argu-
ments to be germane. It is true that the static
rollover test, like any "static" test, is not de-
signed as a simulation of the actual behavior of
a vehicle in a dynamic crash situation. It is
intended rather as a laboratory method of quan-
titatively measuring the vehicle properties that
contribute to safety in a range of crash situa-
tions. The NHTSA has found that a vehicle's /
performance in the static rollover test is directly
related to the fuel system integrity that is the
goal of the standard, and is an appropriate
means of measuring that aspect of performance.
With regard to the direction of rotation, the
NHTSA has stipulated that only a cetrain
amount of fuel may escaj^e during a 360° rota-
tion of a vehicle on its longitudinal axis. The
vehicle must be capable of meeting this perform-
ance level regardless of the direction of its
rotation.
British Leyland (in a petition for rulemaking)
and Volkswagen requested revision of the aspect
of the barrier crash requirement limiting the
amount of fuel spillage taking place from impact
until motion of the vehicle has ceased. They
stated that the current 1-ounce limitation is too
difficult to measure in the period while the ve-
hicle is moving and suggested that fuel spillage
be averaged over the period from impact until
5 minutes following the cessation of motion.
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 8
The NHTSA must deny this request. The
purpose of the current limitation on the spillage
of fuel during the impact and post-impact mo-
tion is to prohibit the sudden loss of several
ounces of fuel which might occur, as an example,
by the displacement of the filler cap. Simul-
taneous loss of several ounces of fuel during the
impact and subsequent vehicle motion could have
a fire-causing potential, because of sparks that
are likely to be given off during a skid or metal
contact between vehicles.
Chrysler petitioned to have the requirement
specifying that the moving barrier be guided
during the entire impact sequence deleted in
favor of a requirement that would allow the
termination of guidance of the barrier imme-
diately prior to impact. They argued that their
suggested procedure is more representative of
real world impacts.
The request is denied. The condition that
there be no transverse or rotational movement of
the barrier, which has been in effect since Jan-
uary 1, 1972, eliminates random variations be-
tween different tests and therefore makes the
standard more repeatable and objective as re-
quired by the statute.
Jeep requested clarification that a given vehicle
is only required to be subjected to one of the spec-
ified barrier impacts followed by a static roll-
over. This request is granted as it follows the
Effective: September 1, 1975
agency's intent and the standard is not specific
on that point. Section S6. is amended to require
that a single vehicle need only be capable of
meeting a single crash test followed by a static
rollover.
American Motors submitted a request that the
agency finds repetitious of previous petitions,
urging that vehicle fluids be stabilized at ambient
temperatures prior to testing. In responding to
earlier petitions for reconsideration from MVMA
and GM in Notice 1, the NHTSA denied a re-
quest for temperature specification, stating that
it intended that the full spectrum of tempera-
tures encountered on the road be reflected in the
test procedure. That continues to be this agency's
position.
In light of the foregoing S3., S6., S6.1, S6.3,
S7.1.4, and S7.1.5 of Standard No. 301, Fuel Sys-
tem Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301) are amended
Effective date: September 1, 1975, with addi-
tional requirements effective September 1, 1976
and September 1, 1977, as indicated.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718,
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on November 15, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 40857
November 21, 1974
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 9-10
EffecHva: S*pt*mb*r I, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75
Fuel System Integrity
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 6)
This notice amends Standard No. 301, Fitel
System Integrity (49 CFK 571.301), to specify
new loading conditions and to establish a 30-
minute fuel spillage measurement period follow-
ing barrier crash tests.
On April 16, 1975, the NHTSA published a
notice (40 F.R. 17036) proposing a revision of
the loading conditions and fuel spillage measure-
ment period requirement in Standard 301. The
NHTSA also proposed in that notice an exten-
sion of the applicability of Standard 301 to
school buses with a GVWR in excess of 10,000
pounds. At the request of several Members of
Congress, the due date for comments on the
school bus proposal was extended to June 26,
1975, and final rulemaking action on it will ap-
pear in a later Federal Register notice.
It was proposed that the current 15-minute
fuel spillage measurement period be extended to
30 minutes in order to allow more time for leaks
to be located and rates of flow to be established.
Measurement of fuel loss during only a 15 minute
time period is difficult because fuel may be es-
caping from various parts of the vehicle where
it is not readily detectable. Chrysler, American
Motors, and General Motors objected to the pro-
posed change and asked that it either not be
adopted or that adoption be delayed for one
year until September 1, 1976.
The commenters argued that the revision was
unnecessary and would involve a change in their
testing methods. The NHTSA has fully consid-
ered these arguments and does not consider the
amendment to prescribe a higher level of per-
formance. It concludes that the 30-minute
measurement period is necessary to achieve ac-
curate measurement of fuel loss and assessment
of vehicle compliance and accordingly amends
Standard 301 to prescribe the longer period for
measurement.
The April 16, 1975, notice also proposed a
change in the Standard 301 loading conditions
to specify that 50th percentile test dummies be
placed in specified seating positions during the
frontal and lateral barrier crash tests, and that
they be restrained by means installed in the ve-
hicle for protection at the particular seating
position. Currently the standard requires (dur-
ing the frontal and lateral barrier crash tests)
ballast weight secured at the specified designated
seating positions in vehicles not equipped with
passive restraint systems. In vehicles equipped
with passive restraints, 50th percentile test dum-
mies are to be placed in the specified seating
positions during testing.
In petitions for reconsideration of this amend-
ment to Standard No. 301 (39 F.R. 40857)
various motor vehicle manufacturers stated that
attachment of such ballast weight to the vehicle
floor pans during the barrier crashes would exert
unrealistic stresses on the vehicle structure which
would not exist in an actual crash. The NHTSA
found merit in petitioners' arguments, and its
proposed revision of the loading conditions is
intended to make the crash tests more represen-
tative of real-life situations.
Only Mazda objected to the proposal. It
argued that curb weight be prescribed as the
loading condition so that it could conduct Stand-
ard 301 compliance testing concurrently with
testing for Standards No. 212 and 204. The
NHTSA does not find merit in Mazda's request
as the Standard 301 loading condition is consid-
ered necessary to assure an adequate level of fuel
system integrity. Since the proposed loading
conditions are more stringent than a curb weight
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 11
Effadiva: September 1, 1975
condition, manufacturers could conduct compli-
ance testing for Standards 301, 212, and 204
simultaneously. If the vehicle complied with the
requirements of Standards 212 and 204 when
loaded according to 301 specifications, the manu-
facturer presumably could certify the capability
of the vehicles to comply with the performance
requirements of 212 and 204 when loaded to curb
weight. It should be noted that the NHTSA is
considering amending Standards 212 and 204
to specify the same loading conditions as pro-
posed for Standard 301.
All other commenters supported immediate
adoption of the proposed loading conditions.
Therefore, the NHTSA adopts the loading con-
ditions as they were proposed in the April 16,
1975, notice.
In consideration of the foregoing, S5.5 and
S7.1.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301),
are amended to read as follows :
Effective date: Because this amendment re-
vises certain requirements that are part of 49
CFR 571.301-75, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
301-75, effective September 1, 1975, and creates
no additional burden upon any person, it is
found for good cause shown that an effective
date of less than 180 days after publication is in
the public interest.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued August 1, 1975.
Robert L. Carter
Acting Administrator
40 F.R. 33036
August 6, 1975
PART 671; S 301-75— PRE 12
Effeclive: September 1, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75
Fuel System Integrity
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 7)
This notice responds to a petition for recon-
sideration of the notice published August 6, 1975
(40 FR 33036), which amended Standard No.
301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), to
specify new loading conditions and establish a
30-minute fuel spillage measurement period fol-
lowing a barrier crash test.
American Motors Corporation (AMC) has
petitioned for reconsideration of the amendment
to S5.5 of Standard No. 301 insofar as it estab-
lishes an effective date of September 1, 1975, for
the 30-minute fuel spillage requirement. AMC
requests that the effective date for the 30-minute
fuel spillage measurement time be delayed for
180 days from the date of publication of the rule.
The NHTSA has determined that AMC's peti-
tion has merit. AMC argues that the imposition
of an effective date 25 days after the publication
of the rule is burdensome because the 30-minute
spillage requirement is a more stringent require-
ment than the previous 15-minute requirement
and therefore requires additional testing to deter-
mine compliance. The NHTSA agrees that 25
days is not enough time to complete the addi-
tional testing. However, the effective date will
be postponed 12 months instead of the 6 months
requested by AMC so that manufacturers will
not have to conduct compliance testing for 1976
model vehicles already certified under the old
15-minute spillage requirement. For these rea-
sons the petition of American Motors Corporation
is granted.
In S5.5 of Standard No. 301, Fuel System
Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301), the amendment of
August 6, 1975 (40 FR 33036), changing the term
"10-minute period" to "25-minute period" effec-
tive September 1, 1975, is hereby made effective
September 1, 1976.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15
U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.51).
Issued on October 3, 1975.
Gene G. Mannella
Acting Administrator
40 F.R. 47790
October 10, 1975
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE ia-14
Effective: October 15, 1975
July IS, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75
Fuel System Integrity
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 8)
The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System
Integrity (49 CFR 571.301) to extend the appli-
cability of the standard to school buses with a
GVAVR in excess of 10,000 pounds. The amend-
ment specifies conditions for a moving contoured
barrier crash for school buses in order to deter-
mine the amount of fuel spillage following
impact.
On October 27, 1974, the Motor Vehicle and
Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, amending
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act, were signed into law (Pub. L. 93^92, 88
Stat. 1470). Section 103(i)(l)(A) of the Act,
as amended, orders the promulgation of a safety
standard establishing minimum requirements for
the fuel system integrity of school buses. Stand-
ard No. 301 currently contains requirements for
school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less which will become effective beginning Sep-
tember 1, 1976. Larger school buses, which com-
prise approximately 90 percent of the school bus
population, will be included in Standard No. 301
by this amendment.
A proposal to amend Standard No. 301 with
respect to school buses, loading conditions, and
spillage measurement time was published on
April 16, 1975 (40 FR 17036). An amendment
to the Standard specifying certain loading con-
ditions and establishing a 30-minut« fuel spillage
measurement period was published on August 6,
1975 (40 FR 33036). At the request of several
members of Congress, the period for comments
on the school bus proposals was extended. This
notice responds to the comments received with
respect to the inclusion of school buses within the
requirements of the standard.
Seven manufacturers opposed the requirement
of a single impact test by a moving contoured
barrier at any point on the school bus body, argu-
ing that such a requirement would necessitate a
proliferation of expensive tests in order to ensure
compliance at every conceivable point of impact.
The NHTSA does not agree. Although not
specifying a particular impact point, the test con-
dition allows for testing at the few most vulner-
able points of each kind of school bus fuel system
configuration. Therefore, only impacts at those
points are necessary to determine compliance. On
the basis of its knowledge of the bus design, a
manufacturer should be able' to make at least an
approximate determination of the most vulnerable
points on the bus body.
Two school bus body manufacturers requested
a requirement that the manufacturer who installs
the fuel system be responsible for compliance
testing, while one chassis manufacturer argued
that responsibility for compliance should rest
with the final manufacturer. In most cases, if
the basic fuel system components are included
in the chassis as delivered by its manufacturer,
the multistage vehicle regulations of 49 CFR
Part 568 require the chassis manufacturer at least
to describe the conditions under which the com-
pleted vehicle will conform, since it could not
truthfully state that the design of the chassis has
no substantial determining effect on conformity.
Beyond that, however, the NHTSA position is
that the decision as to who should perform the
tests and who should take the responsibility is
best not regulated by the government. The effect
of Part 568 is to allow the final-stage manufac-
turer to avoid primary responsibility for con-
formity to a standard if it completes the vehicle
in accordance with the conditions or instructions
furnished with the incomplete vehicle by its man-
PART 671; S 301-75— PRE 15
Effective: October 15, 1975
July 15, 1976
ufacturer. Whether it does so is a decision it
must make in light of all the circumstances.
This notice extends the proposed exclusion for
vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point below
32° F. to school buses having a GVWR greater
than 10,000 pounds. Fuel systems using gaseous
fuels are not subject to the spillage problems
against which this standard is directed.
The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission re-
quested that school buses be required to undergo
static rollover tests and that the engine be run-
ning during the tests. Upon consideration, the
NHTSA finds that a static rollover test for school
buses is impractical in light of the expensive test
facility that would be required. A requirement
that the engine be running during the impact test
would make little difference in the resulting fuel
spillage. Since the standard requires that the
fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent during
the impact test, the test vehicle would have to be
equipped with an auxiliai-y fuel system for the
engine. The expense of modifying the test ve-
hicle to allow the engine to run during the test
would not justify the minimal benefits resulting
from a requirement that the engine be running.
However, the fuel system integrity of school
buses will be continually monitored and analyzed
by the XHSTA. Therefore, suggestions such as
these may be the subject of future rulemaking.
One school bus body manufacturer cited the
infrequency of school bus fires resulting from
collisions as a reason for ameliorating or eliminat-
ing altogether fuel system integrity requirements
for school buses. In promulgating these amend-
ments to Standard Xo. 301, the NHTSA is act-
ing under tlie statutory mandate to develop regu-
lations concerning school bus fuel systems. This
statute reflects the need, evidently strongly felt
by the public, to protect the cliildren who ride
in the school buses. They and their parents have
little direct control over the types of vehicles in
which they ride to school, and are therefore not
in a position to determine the safety of the ve-
hicles. Considering the high regard expressed
by the public for the safety of its children, the
NHTSA finds it important that the school bus
standards be effective and meaninjrful.
The California Highway Patrol expressed the
concern that these amendments would preempt
State regulations to the extent that the State
would be precluded from specifying the location
of fuel tanks, fillers, vents, and drain openings in
school buses. The standard will unavoidably
have that effect, by the operation of section
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act. However, although a State may not
have regulations of general applicability that
bear on these aspects of performance, the second
sentence of the same section makes it clear that
a State or political subdivision may specify
higher standards of performance for vehicles pur-
chased for its own use, although of course the
Federal standards must be met in any case.
In addition to provisions directly relating to
school buses, this notice clarifies the loading con-
dition amendments in the notice of August 6,
1975, by amending S6.1 to provide for testing
with 50th percentile dummies. The wording of
S6.1 is identical to that of the proposal.
In light of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.301,
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, is
amended. . . .
Elective date: July 15, 1976, in conformity
with the schedule mandated by the 1974 Amend-
ments to the Traffic Safety Act. However, the
effective date of the amendment of S6.1 is October
15, 1975. Because the amendment to that para-
graph clarifies the revision of certain require-
ments which became effective September 1. 1975,
it is found for good cause shown that an effective
date for the amendment of S6.1 less than 180
days after issuance is in the public interest.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15
U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 202. Pub. L. 93-492, 88
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392) ; delegations of au-
thority at 49 CFR 1.51 and 501.8).
Issued on October 8, 1975.
Gene G. Mannella
Acting Administrator
40 F.R. 48352
October 15, 1975
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 16
Effective: As set forth in S5 of the standard
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75
Fuel System Integrity
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 9)
This notice clarifies the effective date of the
change in Standard No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301-
75) from a 15-minute to a 30-minute fuel spillage
measurement period following cessation of mo-
tion in barrier crash tests.
Until August 1975, S5.4 of Standard No.
301-75 specified a 15-minute fuel spillage meas-
urement period for the barrier crash test re-
quirements that would become effective September
1, 1975. To allow more time for leaks to be lo-
cated and rates of flow to be established, that
period was extended to 30 minutes in Notice 6
(40 FR 33036, August 6, 1975; correction of
section numbers at 40 FR 37042, August 25,
1975). Notice 6 set the effective date of the
change as September 1, 1975.
In response to a petition for reconsideration
filed by American Motors Corporation, the
NHTSA in Notice 7 (40 FR 47790; October 10,
1975) delayed for 1 year the effective date of
that change, thereby establishing the following
scheme: a 15-minute period would be used in
applying the standard to vehicles manufactured
before September 1, 1976, while a 30-minute
measurement period would be used for vehicles
manufactured after that date.
In Notice 8, which was published on October
15, 1975 (40 FR 48352), the loading conditions
of S6.1 were revised, effective immediately, and
the standard was extended to apply to school
buses with a G\nVR in excess of 10,000 pounds,
effective July 15, 1976. Because these amend-
ments were made by republishing the entire text
of the standard, it appeared that the effective
date of the change from a 15-minute measure-
ment period to a 30-minute measurement period
luad been advanced from September 1, 1976, to
July 15, 1976, for all vehicles. The NHTSA
did not intend such an advancement, and this
notice amends the standard to reestablish the
September 1, 1976, effective date for vehicles
other than school buses with a GVIVR greater
than 10,000 pounds.
The following corrections of Notice 8 are also
made: the standard is designated as "Standard
No. 301-75" and typographical errors in S6.4 and
S7.5.2 are corrected.
In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.301 of
49 CFR Part 571 (Standard No. 301, Fuel Sys-
tem Integrity), as published in the issue of
October 15, 1975 (40 FR 48352), is redesignated
as § 571.301-75 and amended
Effective dates: As set forth in the standard.
Changes indicated in the text of the Code of
Federal Regulations should be made immediately.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 108, Pub. L. 93-492,
88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392 note) ; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on February 25, 1976.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
41 F.R. 9350
March 4, 1976
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 17-18
Effective; August 26, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75
Fuel System Integrity
(Docket No. 73-03; Notice 07); Docket No. 73-20; Notice 010);
(Docket No. 73-34; Notice 04); (Docket No. 75-02; Notice 03);
(Docket No. 75-03; Notice 05); (Docket No. 75-07; Notice 03);
(Docket No. 75-24; Notice 03)
This notice announces that the effective dates
of the redefinition of "school bus" and of six
Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they
apply to school buses are chang^ed to April 1,
1977, from the previously established efl'ective
dates. This notice also makes a minor amend-
ment to Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover
Protection, and adds a figure to Standard No.
221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.
The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety
Amendments of 1974 (the Act) mandated the
issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety stand-
ards for several aspects of school bus perform-
ance, Pub. L. 93-492, §202 (15 U.S.C. § 1392(i)
(1)(A)). These amendments included a defini-
tion of school bus that necessitated a revision of
the existing definition used by the NHTSA in
establishing safety requirements. The Act also
specified that the new requirements "apply to
each schoolbus and item of schoolbus equipment
which is manufactured ... on or after the ex-
piration of the 9-month period which begins on
the date of promulgation of such safety stand-
ards." (15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)(B)).
Pursuant to the Act, amendments were made
to the following standards : Standard No. 301-75,
Fiiel System Integrity (49 CFK 571.301-75),
effective July 15, 1976, for school buses not al-
ready covered by the standard (40 FR 483521,
October 15, 1975) ; Standard No. 105-75, Hy-
draulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105-75),
effective October 12, 1976 (41 FR 2391, January
16, 1976) ; and Standard No. 217, Bus Window
Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), effec-
tive for school buses on October 26, 1976 (41 FR
3871, January 27, 1976).
In addition, the following new standards were
added to Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, effective October 26, 1976:
Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protec-
tion (41 FR 3874, January 27, 1976) ; Standard
No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (41
FR 3872, January 26, 1976) ; and Standard No.
222, School Bits Passenger Seating and Crash
Protection (41 FR 4016, January 28, 1976). Also,
the existing definition of "school bus" was
amended, effective October 27, 1976, in line with
the date set by the Act for issuance of the
standards.
The Act was recently amended by Public Law
94-346 (July 8, 1976) to change the effective
dates of the school bus standards to April 1,
1977 (15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)(B)). This notice
is intended to advise interested persons of these
changes of effective dates. In the case of Stand-
ard No. 301-75, the change of effective date is
reflected in a conforming amendment to S5.4 of
that standard. A similar amendment is made in
S3 of Standard No. 105-75.
The agency concludes that the October 27,
1976, effective date for the redefinition of "school
bus" should be postponed to April 1, 1977, to
conform to the new effective dates for the up-
coming requirements. If this were not done, the
new classes of school buses would be required to
meet existing standards that apply to school
buses (e.g.. Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108))
before being required to meet the new standards.
This would result in two stages of compliance,
and would complicate the redesign efforts that
Congress sought to relieve.
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 19
Effective: August 26, 1976
This notice also amends Standard No. 220 in
response to an interpretation request by Blue
Bird Body Company, and Sheller-Globe Cor-
poration's petition for reconsideration of the
standard. Botli companies request confirmation
that the standard's requirement to operate emer-
gency exits during the application of force to the
vehicle roof (S4(b)) does not apply to roof
exits which are covered by the force application
plate. The agency did not intend to require the
operation of roof exits while the force applica-
tion plate is in place on the vehicle. Accord-
ingly, an appropriate amendment has been made
to S4(b) of the standard.
With regard to Standard No. 220, Sheller-
Globe also requested information that, in testing
its school buses that have a gi'oss vehicle weight
rating (GVIVR) of 10,000 pounds or less, it may
test with a force application plate with dimen-
sions other than those specified in the standard.
The standard does not prohibit a manufacturer
from using a different dimension from that
specified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed
position on the legal effect of its regulations.
To certify compliance, a manufacturer is free to
choose any means, in the exercise of due care, to
show that a vehicle (or item of motor vehicle
equipment) would comply if tested by the
NHTSA as specified in the standard. Thus the
force application plate used by the NHTSA need
not be duplicated by each manufacturer or com-
pliance test facility. Sheller-Globe, for example,
is free to use a force application plate of any
width as long as it can certify its vehicle would
comply if tested by the NHTSA according to
the standard.
In a separate area, the agency corrects the
inadvertent omission of an illustration from
Standard No. 221 as it was issued January 26,
1976 (41 FR 3872). The figure does not differ
from that proposed and, in that form, it received
no advei-se comment.
In accordance with recently enunciated De-
partment of Transportation policy encouraging
adequate analysis of the consequences of regula-
tory action (41 FR 16200, April 16, 1976), the
agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of the
economic and other consequences of this action
on the public and private sectors, including pos-
sible loss of safety benefits. The changes in
effective dates for the school bus standards are
not evaluated because they were accomplished by
law and not by regulatory action.
The change of effective date for the redefini-
tion of "school bus" will result in savings to
manufacturers who will not be required to meet
existing school bus standards between October 27,
1976, and April 1. 1977. The agency calculates
that the only standard that would not be met
would be the requirement in Standard No. 108
for school bus marker lamps. In view of the
agency's existing provision for the marking of
night school buses in Pupil Transportation
Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 1204), it is concluded
that the absence of this equipment until April 1.
1977, will not have a significant adverse impact
on safety.
The interpretative amendment of Standard
No. 220 and the addition of a figure to Standard
No. 221 are not expected to affect the manufac-
ture or operation of school buses.
In consideration of the foregoing. Part 571 of
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended. . . .
Effective dates:
1. Because the listed amendments do not im-
pose additional requirements of any person, the
National Higliway Traffic Safety Administration
finds that an immediate effective date of August
26, 1976 is in the public interest.
2. The effective date of the redefinition of
"school bus" in 49 CFR Part 571.3 that was pub-
lished in the issue of December 31, 1976 (40 FR
60033) is changed to April 1, 1977.
3. The effective dates of Standard Nos. 105-75,
217, 301-75, 220, 221, and 222 ( as they apply to
school buses) are April 1, 1977, in accordance
witli Public Law 94-346.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); Pub. L. 94-346, Stat.
(15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)(B)); delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on August 17, 1976.
John W. Snow
Administrator
41 F.R. 36026
August 26, 1976
PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 20
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301
Fuel; System Integrity
[Docket No. 88-01; Notice 01]
ACTION: Technical amendment; final rule
SUMMARY: This notice makes a technical amend-
ment to Figure 2 of Standard No. 301 to correct
the ground clearance dimension specified, in the
figure for moving contoured barrier used in testing
the fuel system integrity of school buses. Currently,
Figure 2 specifies the ground clearance to the
lower edge of the contoured impact surface as
12.25 inches (311 mm.). The text of the standard
refers to the same dimension as 5.25 ± 0.5 inches.
This amendment corrects Figure 2 to reflect the
agency's intent that the ground clearance to the
lower edge of the contoured impact surface is 5.25
inches (133 mm.).
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1988.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Blue
Bird Body Company (Blue Bird), a school bus
manufacturer, has brought to the agency's at-
tention that corrective action should be taken to
remedy a discrepancy in the moving contoured
barrier specifications in Standard No. 301. Blue
Bird informed the agency that there appeared to
be a conflict in the standard about the correct
ground clearance of the contoured impact surface
used in the school bus impact test of the standard.
Paragraph S7.5.1 of the standard refers to the
dimension between the ground to the lower edge
of the impact surface as 5.25 ± 0.5 inches, while
Figure 2 of the standard shows the ground
clearance to be 12.25.
This amendment corrects Figure 2 to reflect the
agency's intent that the ground clearance to the
lower edge of the contoured impact surface is 5.25
inches (133 mm.). NHTSA adopted the use of the
contoured barrier in a final rule issued on October
15, 1975 (40 FR 48352). In the April 16, 1975,
proposal to the rule (40 FR 17036), NHTSA stated
that:
The contoured barrier would incorporate the
moving barrier specifications of SAE Recom-
mended Practice J972a (March 1973). How-
ever, the impact surface of the barrier would
be at a height 30 inches above the ground
level, rather than 37 inches as specified in the
SAE provision. Studies have shown that a 30-
inch test height is more representative of
actual collisions. This would be a typical
engine height of vehicles that might impact a
school bus.
Thus, in S7.5.1 of the standard, the agency
adopted the ground clearance as 5.25 inches ± 0.5
inches to ensure that the top of the barrier would
be 30 inches from the ground. In Figure 2, the
agency apparently inadvertently incorporated the
barrier dimensions directly from the SAE Recom-
mended Practice J972a, without making the
necessary 7 inch adjustment in the ground
clearance dimension.
The agency has therefore concluded that a
technical correction to Figure 2 is required to
reflect NHTSA's true intent. The agency is
amending the table marked "Dimensions" in the
figure by -hanging the "12.25" inch and "311"
mm. dimensions for letter "d" (referring to the
distance between the ground to the lower edge of
the impact surface) to "5.25" inches, and "133"
mm., respectively.
Because the amendment is corrective in nature
and imposes no additional burden upon any person,
it is hereby found that notice and comment thereon
are not necessary, and that for good cause shown
an effective date earlier than 180 days after
issuance of the rule is in the public interest. The
amendment is effective upon 30 days after publica-
tion in the Federal Register.
NHTSA has considered this amendment and
has determined that it is not major within the
meaning of Executive Order 12291 "Federal
Regulation" or significant under Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures,
and that neither a regulatory impact analysis nor
a regulatory evaluation is required. The amend-
ment imposes no additional requirements nor
alters the cost impacts of requirements already
adopted.
NHTSA has analyzed this rule for purposes of
the National Environmental Policy Act. The rule
will have no effect on the human environment
since it clarifies an existing requirement.
The agency has also considered the impact of
this amendment under the Regulatory Flexibility
PART 571;S301-PRE 21
Act. I certify that the amendment will not have a In consideration of the foregoing, Figure 2 of
significant economic impact on a substantial Part 571 is amended,
number of small entities. Accordingly, no regula-
tory flexibility analysis has been prepared. Man-
ufacturers of motor vehicles, those businesses
affected by the amendment, generally are not
small businesses within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Any manufacturer
who is a small business within the meaning of the Issued on March 8 1988
Act will not be significantly affected since this ' r i? i •
corrective amendment only clarifies a previously . . aj'"'-^- ^ '"'^^
adopted requirement and imposes no additional Associate Administrator
requirements. Finally, small organizations and '^^ " emaking
governmental jurisdictions will not be affected by 53 F.R. 8202
this amendment since prices will not be impacted. March 14, 1988
PART 571;S301-PRE 22
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 301
FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY; CORRECTION
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 12)
ACTION: Technical correction.
SUMMARY: This notice corrects a typographical
error in 49 CFR § 571.301, FiLel System Integrity,
concerning the application of the standard to large
school buses. This standard limits the amount of fuel
spillage that can occur from vehicle fuel systems
during and after specified front, rear, and lateral
barrier impact tests.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 1988.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agency has
become aware of a typographical error in paragraph
S3, Application, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 571.301).
Standard No. 301 limits the amount of fuel spillage
that can occur from fuel systems of vehicles subject to
the standard during and after specified front, rear,
and lateral barrier impact tests.
Paragraph S3 should state: "This standard applies to
passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds
or less and use fuel with a boiling point above 32° F."
(Emphasis added.) However, as published in the CFR,
the latter portion of S3 states: "... and to schoolbuses
that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and fuel
with a boiling point about 32° F."
The change in wording occurred between the
issuance and publication of the final rule establishing
Standard No. 301. On October 8, 1975, NHTSA
issued for publication in the Federal Register the final
rule which established the application of Standard
No. 301 to school buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR,
and amended paragraph S3 to reflect that
application. As issued, the wording in question in
paragraph S3 read "above 32° F." This was in accord
with the preamble to the final rule, which stated that:
"This notice extends the proposed exclusion for
vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point below 32° F.
to school buses having a GVWR greater than 10,000
pounds." 40 FR 48352; October 15, 1975. However,
as published, the final rule used the word "about"
instead of "above" with respect to those more heavily
rated school buses. This notice corrects that error.
Issued on December 7, 1988.
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
53 F.R. 49989
December 13, 1988
PART 571; S301-PRE 23-24
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301
Fuel System Integrity
51. Scope. This standard specifies require-
ments for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel
systems.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires
that result from fuel spillage during and after
motor vehicle crashes.
53. Application. This standard applies to pas-
senger cars, and to multipurpose passenger ve-
hicles, trucks, and buses that have a GVWR of
10,000 pounds or less and use fuel with a boiling
point above 32° F., and to school buses that have
a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and use fuel
with a boiling point above 32° F.
54. Definition. "Fuel spillage" means the fall,
flow, or run of fuel from the vehicle but does not
include wetness resulting from capillary action.
55. General requirements.
55.1 Passenger cars. Each passenger car man-
ufactured from September 1, 1975, to August 31,
1976, shall meet the requirements of S6.1 in a
perpendicular impact only, and S6.4. Each pas-
senger car manufactured on or after September 1,
1976, shall meet all the requirements of 86, ex-
cept S6.5.
55.2 Vehicles with GVWR of 6,000 pounds or
less. Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck,
and bus with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less
manufactured from September 1, 1976, to August
31, 1977, shall meet all the requirements of S6.1
in a perpendicular impact only, S6.2, and S6.4.
Each of these types of vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 1977, shall meet the require-
ments of S6, except S6.5.
55.3 Vehicles with GVWR of more than 6,000
pounds but not more than 10,000 pounds. Each
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus
with a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds but
not more than 10,000 poimds manufactured from
September 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977, shall meet
the requirements of S6.1 in a perpendicular im-
pact only. Each vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 1977, shall meet all the requirements
of S6, except S6.5.
55.4 School buses with a GVWR greater than
10,000 pounds. Each school bus with a GVWR
greater than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or
after April 1, 1977, shall meet the requirements
of S6.5.
85.5 Fuel spillage: Barrier crash. Fuel spill-
age in any fixed or moving barrier crash test
shall not exceed 1 ounce by weight from impact
until motion of the vehicle has ceased, and shall
not exceed a total of 5 ounces by weight in the
5-minute period following cessation of motion.
For the subsequent 25-minute period (for vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 1976, other
than school buses with a GVWR greater than
10,000 pounds: the subsequent 10-minute period),
fuel spillage during any 1 -minute interval shall
not exceed 1 ounce by weight.
55.6 Fuel spillage: Rollover. Fuel spillage in
any rollover test, from the onset of rotational
motion, shall not exceed a total of 5 ounces by
weight for the first 5 minutes of testing at each
successive 90° increment. For the remaining test-
ing period, at each increment of 90° fuel spillage
during any 1 -minute interval shall not exceed 1
ounce by weight.
S6. Test requirements. Each vehicle with a
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable
of meeting the requirements of any applicable
PART 571; S 301-1
barrier crash test followed by a static rollover,
without alteration of the vehicle during the test
sequence. A particular vehicle need not meet
further requirements after having been subjected
to a single barrier crash test and a static rollover
test.
56.1 Frontal barrier crash. When the vehicle
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up
to and including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision
barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel
of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 30° in either
direction from the perpendicular to the line of
travel of the vehicle, with 50th-percentile test
dummies as specified in Part 572 of this chapter
at each front outboard designated seating posi-
tion and at any other position whose protection
system is required to be tested by a dummy under
the provisions of Standard No. 208, under the
applicable conditions of S7, fuel spillage shall not
exceed the limits of S5.5. (Effective: October 15,
1975)
56.2 Rear moving barrier crash. When the ve-
hicle is impacted from the rear by a barrier
moving at 30 mph, with test dummies as specified
in Part 572 of this chapter at each front out-
board designated seating position, under the ap-
plicable conditions of S7, fuel spillage shall not
exceed the Hmits of S5.5.
56.3 Lateral moving barrier crash. When the
vehicle is impacted laterally on either side by a
barrier moving at 20 mph with 50th-percentile
test dummies as specified in Part 572 of this
chapter at positions required for testing to Stand-
ard No. 208, under the applicable conditions of
S7, fuel spillage shall not exceed the limits of
S5.5.
56.4 Static rollover. When the vehicle is ro-
tated on its longitudinal axis to each successive
increment of 90°, following an impact crash of
S6.1, S6.2, or S6.3, fuel spillage shall not exceed
the limits of S5.6.
56.5 Moving contoured barrier crash. When the
moving contoured barrier assembly traveling lon-
gitudinally forward at any speed up to and includ-
ing 30 mph impacts the test vehicle (school bus
with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds) at any
point and angle, under the applicable conditions
of S7.1 and S7.5, fuel spillage shall not exceed
the limits of S5.5.
S7. Test conditions. The requirements of S5
and S6 shall be met under the following condi-
tions. Where a range of conditions is specified,
the vehicle must be capable of meeting the re-
quirements at all points within the range.
S7.1 General test conditions. The following
conditions apply to all tests:
57.1.1 The fuel tank is filled to any level from
90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard sol-
vent, having the physical and chemical prop-
erties of type 1 solvent, Table I ASTM Standard
D484-71, "Standard Specifications for Hydro-
carbon Dry Cleaning Solvents."
57.1.2 The fuel system other than the fuel
tank is filled with Stoddard solvent to its normal
operating level.
57.1.3 In meeting the requirements of S6.1
through S6.3, if the vehicle has an electrically
driven fuel pump that normally runs when the
vehicle's electrical system is activated, it is op-
erating at the time of the barrier crash.
57.1.4 The parking brake is disengaged and
the transmission is in neutral, except that in
meeting the requirements of S6.5 the parking
brake is set.
57.1.5 Tires are inflated to manufacturer's
specifications.
57.1.6 The vehicle, including test devices and
instrumentation, is loaded as follows:
(a) Except as specified in S7.1.1, a passenger
car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus
its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, se-
cured in the luggage area, plus the necessary test
dummies as specified in S6, restrained only by
means that are installed in the vehicle for protec-
tion at its seating position.
(b) Except as specified in S7.1.1, a multipur-
pose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus with a
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is loaded to its
unloaded vehicle weight, plus the necessary test
dummies, as specified in S6, plus 300 pounds of
its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight,
whichever is less, secured to the vehicle and dis-
PART 571; S 301-2
1. OUTER FRAME 6.0 X 2.0 X 0.19 IN (1S2 X 51 X 5 mml STEEL TUBING. TWO PIECES
WELDED TOGETHER FOR A 12.0 IN 1306 mml HEIGHT
2. BALLAST TIE DOWNS.
3 ALL INNER REINFORCEMENTS AND FRAME GUSSETS OF 4 0 X 20 X 0 19 IN
1102 X 51 X 5 mml STEEL TUBING
4. REINFORCE AREAS FOR BOLTING ON FACE PLATES.
DIMENSIONS
Letter
In
mm
A
1200
3048
B
600
1524
C
42.0
1067
D
21 0
533
E
144.0
3658
F
150
381
G
160
406
H
12 0
305
J
24 0
610
K
600
1524
L
840
2134
M
220
559
N
1200
3048
P
160
406
0
12.0
305
R
60
152
FIG. 1-COMMON CARRIAGE FOR MOVING BARRIERS
1100 i 25LB 1499.0 ±
11.3 kgl
AT EACH FRONT WHEEL
DIMENSIONS
TOTAL WEIGHT
4000 ± 50LB (1814.4 ± 22,7 kg)
Letter
In
mm
A
540
1372
B
15.8
401
C
30-0
762
D
5 25
133
E
375
95
F
24 75
629
G
18.0
457
H
39,0
991
J
78,0
1981
K
30.0
762
MOMENTS OF INERTIA
l_ = 271 ± 13.6 SLUG • FT ' (367 ± 18.4 kg.m')
Ij = 3475 ± 174 SLUG • FT ' (471 1 ± 236 kg . m')
NOTES:
1. UPPER FRAME 4.0 IN DIA X 0.25 IN WALL (102 mm DIA X 6 mm WALL) STEEL TUBING
(THREE SIDES!
2. LOWER FRAME 6,0 IN DIA X 0 50 IN WALL (152 mm DIA X 13 mm WALLI STEEL TUBING.
3. FACE PLATE 0 75 IN (19 mm) THICK COLD ROLLED STEEL
4. LEADING EDGE 1,0 X 4.0 IN (25 X 102 mml STEEL BAND. SHARP EDGES BROKEN.
5. ALL INNER REINFORCEMENTS 4,0 X 2,0 X 0 19 IN (102 X 51 X 5 mm) STEEL TUBING,
FIG. 2 -COMMON CARRIAGE WITH CONTOURED IMPACT SURFACE ATTACHED
PART 571; S 301-3
tributed so that the weight on each axle as
measured at the tire-ground interface is in pro-
portion to its GAWR. If the weight on any
axle, when the vehicle is loaded to unloaded ve-
hicle weight plus dummy weight, exceeds the
axle's proportional share of the test weight, the
remaining weight shall be placed so that the
weight on that axle remains the same. Each
dummy shall be restrained only by means that are
installed in the vehicle for protection at its seat-
ing position.
(c) Except as specified in S7.1.1, a school bus
with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds is
loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus 120
pounds of unsecured weight at each designated
seating position.
57.2 Lateral moving barrier crash test condi-
tions. The lateral moving barrier crash test con-
ditions are those specified in S8.2 of Standard
No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208.
57.3 Rear moving barrier test conditions. The
rear moving barrier test conditions are those
specified in S8.2 of Standard No. 208, 49 CFR
571.208, except for the positioning of the barrier
and the vehicle. The barrier and test vehicle are
positioned so that at impact—
(a) The vehicle is at rest in its normal atti-
tude;
(b) The barrier is traveling at 30 mph with
its face perpendicular to the longitudinal center-
line of the vehicle; and
(c) A vertical plane through the geometric
center of the barrier impact surface and perpen-
dicular to that surface coincides with the longi-
tudinal centerline of the vehicle.
57.4 Static roiiover test conditions. The ve-
hicle is rotated about its longitudinal axis, with
the axis kept horizontal, to each successive incre-
ment of 90°, 180°, and 270° at a uniform rate,
with 90° of rotation taking place in any time
interval from 1 to 3 minutes. After reaching
each 90° increment the vehicle is held in that posi-
tion for 5 minutes.
57.5 IMoving contoured barrier test conditions.
The following conditions apply to the moving
contoured barrier crash test:
S7.5.1. The moving barrier, which is mounted
on a carriage as specified in Figure 1, is of rigid
construction, symmetrical about a vertical longi-
tudinal plane. The contoured impact surface,
which is 24.75 inches high and 78 inches wide,
conforms to the dimensions shown in Figure 2,
and is attached to the carriage as shown in that
figure. The ground clearance to the lower edge
of the impact surface is 5.25 ±0.5 inches. The
wheelbase is 120 ±2 inches.
57.5.2 The moving contoured barrier, includ-
ing the impact surface, supporting structure, and
carriage, weighs 4,000 ±50 pounds with the
weight distributed so that 900 ±25 pounds is at
each rear wheel and 1100 ±25 pounds is at each
front wheel. The center of gravity is located
54.0 ± 1.5 inches rearward of the front wheel axis,
in the vertical longitudinal plane of symmetry,
15.8 inches above the ground. The moment of
inertia about the center of gravity is:
/, = 271 ±13.6 slug ft^
/, = 3475 ±174 slug ft»
57.5.3 The moving contoured barrier has a
solid nonsteerable front axle and fixed rear axle
attached directly to the frame rails with no
spring or other type of suspension system on any
wheel. (The moving barrier assembly is equipped
with a braking device capable of stopping its
motion.)
57.5.4 The moving barrier assembly is
equipped with 078-15 pneumatic tires with a
tread width of 6.0 ± 1 inch, inflated to 24 psi.
57.5.5 The concrete surface upon which the
vehicle is tested is level, rigid, and of
uniform construction, with a skid number of 75
when measured in accordance with American
Society of Testing and Materials Method E-274-
65T at 40 mph, omitting water delivery as speci-
fied in paragraph 7.1 of that method.
57.5.6 The barrier assembly is released from
the guidance mechanism immediately prior to im-
pact with the vehicle.
38 F.R. 22397
August 20, 1973
40 F.R. 48352
October 15, 1975
PART 571; S 301-4
Effactiv*: S«pl«mb«r I, 1973
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302
Flammability of Interior Materials — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles,
Trucks, and Buses
(Docket No. 3-3; Notice 4)
This notice amends § 575.21 of Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new
motor vehicle safety standard, No. 302, Flam-
mability of Interior Materials. Notices of pro-
posed rulemaking on the subject were published
on December 31, 1969 (34 F.R. 20434) and June
26, 1970 (35 F.R. 10460).
As stated in the notice of December 31, 1969,
the occurrence of thousands of fires per year that
begin in vehicle interiors provide ample justifi-
cation for a safety standard on flammability of
interior materials. Although the qualities of
interior materials cannot by themselves make
occupants safe from the hazards of fuel-fed fires,
it is important, when fires occur in the interior
of the vehicle from such sources as matches,
cigarettes, or short circuits in interior wiring,
that there be sufficient time for the driver to stop
the vehicle, and if necessary for occupants to
leave it, before injury occurs.
The question on which the public responses to
the above notices differed most widely was the
burn rate limit to be required. The rate pro-
posed was 4 inches per minute, measured by a
horizontal test. Some manufacturers suggested
maximum burn rates as high as 15 inches per
minute. The Center for Auto Safety, the Textile
Fibers and By-Products Association, and the
National Cotton Batting Institute, on the other
hand, suggested essentially a zero burn rate, or
self-extinguishment, requirement, with a vertical
rather than a horizontal test. A careful study
was made of the available information on this
subject, including the bum rates of materials
currently in use or available for use, recommen-
dations or regulations of other agencies, and the
economic and technical consequences of various
possible rate levels and types of tests. A con-
siderable amount of Bureau-sponsored research
has been conducted and is continuing on the
subject. On consideration of this data, the Bu-
reau has decided to retain the 4-inch-per-minute
bum limit, with the horizontal t«st, in this
standard. It has been determined that suitable
materials are not available in sufficient quanti-
ties, at reasonable costs, to meet a significantly
more stringent burn rate by the effective date
that is hereby established. The 4-inch rate will
require a major upgrading of materials used in
many areas, and a corresponding improvement
in this aspect of motor vehicle safety. It is im-
portant that this standard not hinder manufac-
turers' efforts to comply with the crash protection
requirements that are currently being imposed,
and that in the Bureau's judgment are of the
greatest importance. Further study will be
made, however, of the feasibility of, and justifi-
cation for, imposing more stringent requirements
with a later effective date.
As pointed out in several comments, the prob-
lem of toxic combustion by-products is closely
related to that of burn rat«. Release of toxic
gases is one of the injury-producing aspects of
motor vehicle fires, and many of the common
ways of treating materials to reduce theii bum
rates involve chemicals that produce highly
poisonous gases such as hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen cyanide. The problem of setting
standards with regard to combustion by-products
is difficult and complex, and the subject of con-
tinuing research under Bureau auspices. Until
enough is known in this area to form the basis
for a standard, and to establish the proper inter-
action between burn rate and toxicity, this un-
certainty constitutes an additional reason for not
requiring self-extinguishing materials.
PART 571 ; S 302— PRE 1
EfftcHv*: September 1, 1972
The proposal specified a particular commercial
gas for the test bum and several comments sug-
gested problems in obtaining the gas for manu-
facture testing. As is the case with all the motor
vehicle safety standards, the test procedures de-
scribe the tests that the regulated vehicles or
equipment must be capable of passing, when
tested by the Bureau, and not the method by
which a manufacturer must ascertain that cap-
ability. Any gas with at least as high a flame
temperature as the gas described in the standard
would therefore be suitable for manufacturer
testing. To make this point clearer, and to use
a more readily available reference point, the
standards been reworded to specify a gas that
"has a flame temperature equivalent to that of
natural gas."
The dimensions of the enclosure within which
the test is conducted have been changed from
those proposed, in order to provide more draft-
free conditions, and consequently more repeat-
able results. Smaller cabinets, furthermore,
evidently are more generally available than
larger ones. Again it should be noted that there
is no necessity that manufacturers duplicate the
dimensions of the test cabinet, as long as they
can establish a reasonable basis for concluding
that their materials will meet the requirements
when tested in such a cabinet.
Several comments questioned the need for
specifying the temperature and relative humidity
under which the material is conditioned and the
test is conducted. The foregoing discussions of
the relation of the standard to manufacturer
testing apply here also. The specification of
temperature and relative humidity for condition-
ing and testing is made to preclude any argu-
ments, in the face of a compliance test failure,
that variations in test results are due to per-
mitted variations in test conditions. The relative
humidity specification has been changed from
65 percent, as proposed, to 50 percent. This
humidity level represents more closely the con-
ditions encountered in use during fairly dry
weather. While it is a slightly more stringent
condition, it is one in wide use for materials
testing, according to the comments, and is not,
in the judgment of the Bureau, a large enough
change in the substance of the proposal to war-
rant further notice and opixjrtunity for comment.
Several comments suggested that the standard
should specify the number of specimens to be
tested, with averaging of results, as is commonly
found in specification-type standards. The legal
nature of the motor vehicle safety standards is
such, however, that sampling and averaging
provisions would be inappropriate. As defined
by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act, the standards are minimum performance
levels that must be met by every motor vehicle
or item of motor vehicle equipment to which
they apply. Enforcement is based on inde-
pendent Bureau testing, not review of manu-
facturer testing, and manufacturers are required
to take legal responsibility for every item they
produce. The result, and the intent of the Bu-
reau in setting the standards, is that manufac-
turers must establish a sufficient margin of
performance between their test results and the
standard's requirements to allow for whatever
variances may occur between items tested and
items produced.
The description of portions to be tested has
been changed slightly, such that the surface and
the underlying materials are tested either sepa-
rately or as a composite, depending on whether
they are attached to each other as used in the
vehicle. In the proposal, surface and underlying
materials were to be tested separately regardless
of how used, an element of complexity found
unnecessary for safety purposes.
In response to comments with respect to ma-
terials that burn at a decreasing rate, to which
the application of the test is not clear, an addi-
tional criterion has been added. If material
stops burning before it has burned for 60 seconds,
and does not burn more than 2 inches, it is con-
sidered to meet the requirement.
In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.21 of
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended
by the addition of Standard No. 302, Flam-
mability of Interior Materials.
Effective date: September 1, 1972. Because
of the extensi\e design changes that will be
necessitated by this new standard, and the lead-
time consequently required by manufacturers to
prepare for production, it is found, for good
PART 571; S 302— PRE 2
Effeclive: Seplembar I, 1972
cause shown, that an effective date later than one Douglas W. Toms
year from the issuance of this notice is in the Director
public interest. 36 F.R. 289
Issued on December 29, 1970. January 8, 1971
PAET 571; S 302— PRE 3^
Effective: October 1, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302
Flammability of Interior Materials
(Docket No. 3-3; Notice 7b)
This notice modifies the test procedures and
specimen preparation requirements of Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability
of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). A notice
of proposed rulemaking was issued on May 17,
1973 (38 FR 12934).
Several comments on the notice of proposed
rulemaking suggested exempting small com-
ponents on the basis of size because of the con-
fusion caused by paragraph S4.1. This agency
has not found, however, that the exemption of
a component on the basis of size is consistent
with safety. Rather, NHTSA finds that if a
component is too small to produce an acceptable
test sample, a test sample consisting of the ma-
terial from which the component is fabricated
should be substituted. Consequently, a new sec-
tion S4.1.1 has been added to require surrogate
testing of such components as switches, knobs,
gaskets, and grommets which are considered too
small to be effectively tested under the current
procedures.
A previous notice of proposed rulemaking (36
FR 9565) suggested a scheme for testing single
and composite materials that would allow the
testing of certain configurations of vehicle in-
terior materials not taken into accomit under
the present scheme. Examples of such configura-
tions are multi-layered composites and single
layers of underlying materials that are neither
padding nor cushioning materials. Comments to
that notice argued that some aspects of the pro-
posed scheme would require some duplicative
testing without providing a measurable safety
benefit.
In response to these arguments, it was pro-
posed (38 F.R. 12934) that S4.2 be amended to
take into account some omissions in the present
scheme and to reduce the complexity of testing
single and composite materials. After reviewing
the comments, the proposed scheme is adopted.
Thus, the standard is amended to require single
materials or composites (materials that adhere
at every point of contact), any part of which is
within 1/2 iiich of the surface of the component,
to meet the bum-rate requirements. Materials
that are not part of adhering composites are sub-
ject to the requirements when tested separately.
Those materials that do adhere to adjacent ma-
terials at every point of contact are subject to
the requirements as composites when tested with
the adjacent materials. The concept of "ad-
herence" would replace language presently con-
tained in the standard describing materials as
"bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached." An
illustrative example is included in the text of
the section.
Several comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking requested changes in the
test cabinet, as did comments in response to pre-
vious notices concerning this standard. The
NHTSA has evaluated various recommendations
and suggestions concerning the cabinet. No
changes are proposed in this notice, however, as
sufficient justification has not been found for a
design change at this time.
Paragraph S5.2.1 of the standard presently
provides that materials exceeding lA inch in
thickness are to be cut down to V^ inch in thick-
ness before testing. As described in the notice
of proposed rulemaking, cutting certain materials
to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted sur-
face upon which a flame front may be propa-
gated at a faster rate than it would be upon the
surface of the material before cutting, thereby
creating an artificial test condition. In order
PART 571; S 302— PRE 5
Effactlva: October 1, 1975
to avoid this, the requirements for the transmis- In light of the above, Motor Vehicle Safety
sion rate of a flame front are amended in S4.3 (a) Standard No. 302, 49 CFR § 571.302, is
to exclude surfaces created by cutting. amended. . . .
The notice of proposed rulemaking points out Ejfective date: Oct. 1, 1975.
that a related problem has arisen concerning ^g^^g ^^^^ ^^9^ p^^ L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
which surfaces of a test specimen should face the ^^g ^.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority
flame in the test cabinet. To answer this ques- ^ .^ CFR 1 51 ^
tion and avoid unnecessary test duplication, the ivt v, i7 iq7k
1 111 •i.iiii XSSU.6C1 on iMfliI*Cil Xik Luio,
test procedures are amended to provide that the
surface of the specimen closest to the occupant ^ -r. /-.
_. . . , , jxu James B. Gregory
compartment air space face downward on the \a ' t t
test frame. The test specimen is produced by
cutting the material in the direction that pro- 40 F.R. 14318
vides the most adverse test results. March 31, 1975
PART 571; S 302— PRE 6
Effactiva: Seplambcr 16, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302
Flammability of Interior Materials
(Docket No. 3-3; Notice 9)
On March 31, 1975, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued
a notice modifying the test procedures and speci-
men preparation requirements of Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302, Flam-
mobility of interior materials (40 FR 14318).
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule were
received from American Motors Corporation,
General Motors Corporation, White Motor Cor-
poration, Chrysler Corporation, Volkswagen of
America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
Ford Motor Company, and the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association of the United States,
Inc.
The NHTSA notice established a process of
surrogate testing for components which were too
small to test without difficulty using the proce-
dures previously prescribed by Standard No. 302.
The objections raised to this new process by the
petitioners were that (a) the surrogate testing
procedure is an entirely new departure, and the
public should have been afforded an opportunity
for comment, (b) the results of surrogate testing
will in certain cases differ from the results of
testing the actual component, (c) the creation of
a surrogate testing sample of certain materials,
such as elastic cord, is impossible, and (d) the
dimensions of the surrogate sample are inappro-
priate.
It should be fully understood that small com-
ponents which would otherwise be included
within the purview of Standard No. 302 are not
excluded by virtue of their size. Further, the
NHTSA intends to utilize a surrogate testing
procedure, among other testing procedures, in
the case of small components as the first step in
determining whether a safety defect exists pur-
suant to section 152 of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Since the testing of
small components is a more difficult process, the
NHTSA concluded in amending Standard No.
302 to include the surrogate testing process that
the new requirement was less stringent than that
currently required by the standard. Further, by
amending the standard the industry could also
be fully apprised of one of the methods the
NHTSA intended to use to determine whether a
section 152 defect existed.
Nonetheless, it appears from the petitions for
reconsideration which were received that a num-
ber of manufacturers feel that they should be
allowed an opportunity for comment. The
NHTSA concludes their request is reasonable and
the rule, as it relates to surrogate testing, is here-
by revoked and is reissued as a notice of proposed
rulemaking in this issue of the Federal Register.
A number of the petitioners questioned the
need for including any small components within
the ambit of Standard No. 302, citing the notice
of proposed rulemaking (38 FR 12934, May 17,
1973) which stated that certain small components
designed to absorb energy are not fire hazards.
Therefore, the petitioners believe the NHTSA
has reversed its previous position.
This understanding is correct. As the NHTSA
said in the preamble to the proposed amendment
to Standard No. 302, issued concurrently with
the amendment to the Standard (March 31, 1975,
40 FR 14340) :
On May 11, 1973, the NHTSA issued a notice
(38 FR 12934) which proposed, inter alia,
amending paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302
to enumerate the interior components of vehicle
occupant compartment which fell within the
ambit of the standard.
PART 571; S 302— PRE 7
EfFective: September 16, 1975
Comments to the notice, however, liavc made
clear that the enumeration of coinponoiits, even
with the proposed amenchnent, ^\iIl continue to
confuse manufacturers requiiod to meet tlie
standard.
***** *
While some materials exposed to the occupant
compartment air space are not fire hazards, the
burden of ascertaining that fact should properly
lie with the manufacturer.
Several petitions also questioned what safety
benefits would come from applyino; the standard
to small components. As petitioner American
Motors pointed out. the purpose of Standard No.
302 is to provide sufficient time for the occupants
of a vehicle to exit in cnse of an interior fire.
Thus, even small components which are hijjhly
flammable would hasten the spreading of fires
in motor vehicles, resulting in a serious hazard.
Testing -procedures. Petitioners pointed out
that while the preamble provides that the sur-
face of the specimen closest to the occupant com-
partment air space face dov/nward on test frame,
this is not made entirely clear in the body of the
standard itself. The standard is amended to
clarify this matter. Likewise, a definition of
the term "occupant compartment air space" is
added, although this term was used in the notice
of proposed rulemaking without raising a prob-
lem for those commenting.
Extension of effective date of arr^ndment.
Several petitioners asked for an extension of the
effective date. As the surrogate testing proce-
dures have been revoked and reissued as a pro-
posed rule, the NHTSA concludes that an exten-
sion of the effective date is not necessary.
Redesignation of Docket 3-3; Notice 7.
Through a clerical error, two notices were issued
with the heading, "Docket 3-?.; Notice 7" (July
11, 1973, 38 FR 18.564; March 31, 1975, 40 FR
14318). The notice appearing at 38 FR 18564
is hereby redesig^iated "Notice 7a" and that ap-
pearing at 49 FR 14318 is redesignated "Notice
7b."
In consideration of the foregoing, Motor Ve-
hicle Safety Standard No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302,
is amended. . . .
Effective date: September 16, 1975.
Because this amendment relieves a restriction,
it is found for good cause shown that an im-
mediate effective date is in the public interest.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392. 1407); delegation of autliority
at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on September 10, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
September 16, 1975
40 F.R. 42746
PART 571; S 302— PRE 8
Effective: December 4, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302
Flammability of Interior Materials
(Docket No. 3-3; Notice 11)
This notice establishes a new section, S3A.
Definitions, in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302.
On September 16, 1975, the NHTSA published
in the Federal Register its response to a petition
for reconsideration of Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior ma-
terials (40 FR 42746). The rule esteblished a
definition of the term "occupant compartment air
space" that was supposed to be added to "S3A.
Definitions.''^ The wording of the amendment
was faulty, however, since the Definitions section
had not yet been established in Standard No.
302. This notice corrects the error by adding
that section to the standard.
Petitions have been received from General
Motors Corporation, Motor Vehicle Manufac-
turers Association, American Motors Corporation,
and Ford Motor Company requesting that the
definition of "occupant compartment air space"
in Notice 9 be revoked. These petitions will be
addressed in a separate notice. The purpose of
this notice is only to promulgate the section head-
ing which was omitted in error from Notice 9.
In light of the above, in place of the amend-
ment numbered 1. in Docket 3-3, Notice 9 (40
FR 42746, September 16, 1975), Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 302 is amended by adding
a new S3A. Definitions. . . .
Effective date : December 4, 1975. Because this
amendment is of an interpretative nature and
makes no substantive change in the rule, it is
found for good cause shown that an immediate
effective date is in the public interest.
(Sec. 103, 119 Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority
at CFR 1.51)
Issued on November 28, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
40 F.R. 56667
December 4, 1975
PART 571; S 302— PRE 9-10
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302
Flammability of Interior Materials— Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles,
Trucks, and Buses
(Docket N. 3-3; Notice 4)
51. Scope. This standard specifies bum re-
sistance requirements for materials used in the
occupant compartments of motor vehicles.
52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is
to reduce the deaths and injuries to motor ve-
hicle occupants caused by vehicle fires, especially
those originating in the interior of the vehicle
from sources such as matches or cigarettes.
53. Application. This standard applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses.
S3A. Definitions.
"Occupant compartment air space" means the
space within the occupant compartment that nor-
mally contains refreshable air. (40 F.R. 42746—
September 16, 1975. Effective 9/16/75. 40 F.R.
56667-December 4, 1975. Effective: 12/4/75)
54. Requirements.
S4.1 The portions described in S4.2 of the
following components of vehicle occupant com-
partments shall meet the requirements of S4.3:
Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining,
convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels in-
cluding door, front, rear, and side panels, com-
partment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings,
sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing cov-
ers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers,
and any other interior materials, including pad-
ding and crash-deployed elements, that are de-
signed to absorb energy on contact by occupants
in the event of a crash.
S4.2 Any portion of a single or composite
material which is within V2 inch of the occupant
compartment air space shall meet the require-
ments of S4.3.
84.2.1 Any material that does not adhere to
other material(s) at every point of contact shall
meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested sepa-
rately.
54.2.2 Any material that adheres to other ma-
terials) at every point of contact shall meet
the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a com-
posite with the other material(s). Material A
has a non-adhering interface with material B
and is tested separately. Part of material B is
within V2 inch of the occupant compartment air
space, and materials B and C adhere at every
point of contact; therefore B and C are tested
as a composite. The cut is in material C as
shown, to make a specimen V2 inch thick.
Illustrative Example
Occupant Compartment Air Space
Material tested SEPARATELV
1/ Materials tested as
/2 COMPOSITE
84.1.1 Deleted and Reserved.
(Rev. 11/2 V75)
S4.3(a) When tested in accordance with S5,
material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not
bum, nor transmit a flame front across its sur-
face, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute.
PART 571; S 302-1
However, the requirement concerning transmis-
sion of a flame front shall not apply to a surface
created by the cutting of a test specimen for pur-
poses of testing pursuant to S5.
(b) If a material stops burning before it has
burned for 60 seconds from the start of timing,
and has not burned more than 2 inches from the
point where timing was started, it shall be con-
sidered to meet the burn-rate requirement of
S4.3(a).
S5. Test procedure.
S5.1 Conditions.
55.1.1 The test is conducted in a metal cabi-
net for protecting the test specimens from drafts.
The interior of the cabinet is 15 inches long, 8
inches deep, and 14 inches high. It has a glass
observation window in the front, a closable
opening to permit insertion of the specimen
holder, and a hole to accommodate tubing for a
gas burner. For ventilation, it has a ]4-inch
clearance space around the top of the cabinet,
ten %-inch-diameter holes in the base of the
cabinet, and legs to elevate the bottom of the
cabinet by three-eighths of an inch, all located
as shown in Figure 1.
55.1.2 Prior to testing, each specimen is con-
ditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 70° F.
and a relative humidity of 50 percent, and the
test is conducted under those ambient conditions.
55.1.3 The test specimen is inserted between
two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock
1 inch wide and three-eighths of an inch high.
The interior dimensions of the U-shaped frames
are 2 inches wide by 13 inches long. A specimen
that softens and bends at the flaming end so as
to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by
supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires,
spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under
the speciinien at 1-inch intervals. A device that
may be used for supporting this type of ma-
terial is an additional U-shaped frame, wider
than the U-shaped frame containing the speci-
men, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat-resistant
composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the
bottom U-shaped frame.
55.1.4 A bunsen burner with a tube of %-inch
inside diameter is used. The gas adjusting valve
is set to provide a flame, with the tube vertical,
of 1% inches in height. The air inlet to the
burner is closed.
55.1.5 The gas supplied to the burner has a
flame temperature equivalent to that of natural
gas.
S5.2 Preparation of specimens.
55.2.1 Each specimen of material to be tested
shall be a rectangle 4 inches wide by 14 inches
long, wherever possible. The thickness of the
specimen is that of the single or composite ma-
terial used in the vehicle, except that if the
material's thickness exceeds ^ inch, the specimen
is cut down to that thickness measured from the
surface of the specimen closest to the occupant
compartment air space. Where it is not possible
to obtain a flat specimen because of surface cur-
vature, the specimen is cut to not more than ^
inch in thickness at any point. The maximum
available length or width of a specimen is used
where either dimension is less than 14 inches or
4 inches, respectively, unless surrogate testing is
required under S4.1.1.
55.2.2 The specimen is produced by cutting
the material in the direction that provides the
most adverse test results. The specimen is
oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant
compartment air space faces downward on the
test frame.
55.2.3 Material with a napped or tufted sur-
face is placed on a flat surface and combed twice
against the nap with a comb having seven to
eight smooth, rounded teeth per inch.
S5.3 Procedure.
(a) Mount the specimen so that both sides and
one end are held by the U-shaped frame, and one
end is even with the open end of the frame.
Where the maximum available width of a speci-
men is not more than 2 inches, so that the sides
of the specimen cannot be held in the U-shaped
frame, place the specimen in position on wire
supports as described in S5.1.3, with one end
held by the closed end of the U-shaped frame.
(Rev. 9/16/75)
PART 571; S 302-2
(b) Place the mounted specimen in a hori-
zontal position, in the center of the cabinet.
(c) With the flame adjusted according to
S5.1.4, position the bunsen burner and specimen
so that the center of the burner tip is three-
fourths of an inch below the center of the bottom
edge of the open end of the specimen.
(d) Expose the specimen to the flame for 15
seconds.
(e) Begin timing (without reference to the
period of application of the burner flame) when
the flame from the burning specimen reaches a
point IV2 inches from the open end of the spec-
imen.
(f) Measure the time that it takes the flame
to progress to a point IV2 inches from the
clamped end of the specimen. If the flame does
not reach the specified end point, time its pro-
gress to the point where flaming stops.
(g) Calculate the bum rate from the formula
B=60xD
t"
Where B=buni rate in inches per minute,
D=5leng:th the flame travels in inches, and
T = time in seconds for the flame to travel
inches.
1/2 IN.
VENTILATING
CLEARANCE
HEAT
RESISTANT
GLASS
1 1/2 IN
2 1/2 IN
3/4 IN. r'
VENTILATION
HOLES
36 F.R. 289
January 8, 1971
(R»v. 9/16/7S)
PART 571; S 302-3
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
Notice of Ruling Regarding Chassis-Cabs
Inquiry has been received from persons en-
gaged in the sale of trucks, buses, and multi-
purpose vehicles regarding their legal responsi-
bility under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for assuring that
vehicles sold by them are in conformity with all
applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such
persons commonly purchase chassis-cabs from
manufacturers and bodies or work-performing
and load-carrying structures from other manu-
facturers and then combine the chassis-cab with
the body or other structure. A regulation is
being issued this date by the Federal Highway
Administration defining the chassis-cab as a ve-
hicle within the meaning of the Act, requiring
that it meet all motor vehicle safety standards
applicable on the date of manufacture of the
chassis-cab.' Under this regulation the manu-
facturer of a chassis-cab manufactured subsequent
to January 1, 1968, will have responsibility for
compliance with all applicable motor vehicle
safety standards as set forth therein and for
certification of such compliance to distributors
and dealers.
Section 101(5) of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "manufac-
turer" as any person engaged in the "assembling"
of motor vehicles. Persons who combine chassis-
cabs with bodies or similar structures are, there-
fore, manufacturers within the meaning of the
Act. Inasmuch as the chassis-cab's manufacturer
is responsible for compliance with standards
under the regulation issued today, persons who
add bodies or other structures to such chassis-
cab are not considered manufacturers of the
chassis-cab and, therefore, will not be responsible
for the conformance of the chassis-cab to the
standards certified by the manufacturer of the
■ See F.R. Doc. 67-15174, Title 23, in Rules and Regu-
lations Section, supra.
chassis-cab. In numerous instances the chassis-
cab will not be capable of complying with motor
vehicle safety standard 108 because it will not
be equipped with all items of lighting equipment
referred to in such standard. Where vendors
combine a chassis-cab which has not been certified
to be in conformance with standard 108, with a
body or other like structure, such vendor will be
responsible for compliance with the lighting
standard, and where such vendor sells the com-
bined assemblage to another vendor, certification
of compliance with the lighting standard must
accompany the vehicle.
We are advised that a substantial inventory
of chassis-cabs manufactured prior to the effec-
tive date of the initial motor vehicle safety
standards and hence not required to comply with
the same will be held by manufacturers, distrib-
utors, and dealers on January 1, 1968. These
vehicles may contain various items of lighting
equipment manufactured prior to the effective
date of the lighting standard or be designed to
accept such equipment. Under these circum-
stances, it does not appear appropriate to require
compliance with the lighting standard when such
chassis-cabs, i.e., those manufactured prior to
January 1, 1968, are combined with bodies or
similar strucutres. Section 108(a) (1) of the
Act also prohibits any person from manufac-
turing for sale or selling any motor vehicle
manufactured "after the date any applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect
under this title unless it is in conformity with
such standard ***." Under this provision per-
sons who combine the chassis-cab with a body
or other structure will be responsible for (1)
compliance of the combined assemblage with any
motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the
end use of the combined assemblage in effect on
the date of manufacture of the chassis-cab, com-
pliance with which has not already been certified
PART 571; (RULING)-l
by the chassis-cab manufacturer, and (2) com-
pliance with all applicable standards in effect on
the date of manufacturer of the chassis-cab to
the extent that the addition of a body or other
structure to the chassis-cab affects the chassis-
cab's previous conformance with applicable
standards.
To insure that the person combining the
chassis-cab with the body or other structure has
adequate information to enable him to meet the
conditions specified above, the regulation being
issued concurrently with this ruling requires the
chassis-cab manufacturer to affix a label to the
chassis-cab which identifies the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards with which the chassis-
cab fully complies for the principal end uses of
such chassis-cab.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 29,
1967.
Lowell K. Bridwell,
Federal Highway Administrator
33 F.R. 29
January 3, 1968
PART 571; (RULING)-2
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
(FHWA Ruling 68-1)
Notice of Ruling Regarding Campers Slide-in and Chassis-Mount
This ruling is in response to inquiries for a
clarification of the applicability of Federal
Motor vehicle safety standards to certain items
of motor vehicle equipment commonly known as
"campers" which are used mostly for recreational
purposes.
A "camper" can be described generally as a
portable structure designed to be loaded onto, or
affixed to, a motor vehicle to provide temporary
living quarters for recreation, travel, or other
use. The ruling is concerned with two general
categories of campers. The first, a "slide-in
camper", is placed on, or slides onto a completed
vehicle, usually a pickup truck. The second, a
"chassis-mount camper", is mounted on a chassis-
cab.
In past months the Bureau received a number
of written inquiries regarding the applicability
of the glazing material standard (No. 205) to
slide-in campers. These persons received re-
sponses from the Bureau indicating that slide-in
campers would have to comply with standard 205
under certain specified conditions. These re-
sponses of the Bureau apparently received wide-
spread dissemination in the industry. Subse-
quently, additional inquiries were received from
affected persons asking for clarification of the
Bureau's earlier responses with respect to the
question of whether standard 205 was applicable
to glazing materials contained in slide-in campers
sold by the manufacturer of such campers to
members of the public and to dealers when not
an integral part of the vehicle.
The Bureau has reconsidered this question and
determined that the glazing standard is ap-
plicable to slide-in campers.
Standard 205 is applicable to "glazing ma-
terials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses."
The slide-in camper is an item of motor vehicle
equipment for use in motor vehicles. As such,
glazing materials contained in slide-in campers
must comply with standard 205 when such camp-
ers are sold as a separate unit as well as when
attached to a completed pickup truck. Addi-
tionally, manufacturers of slide-in campers must
also comply with the certification requirements
set forth in section 114 of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C.
1403).
Review of the Bureau's prior communications
with affected persons indicates that such persons,
and others who received notice of such communi-
cations, could justifiably have concluded that
standard 205 was subject to an interpretation
which excluded its application to slide-in camp-
ers sold directly to consumers or to dealers when
not an integral part of the pickup truck. In
these circumstances the Bureau does not regard
it as appropriate that the interpretation of the
applicability of standard 205, which this ruling
announces, should be given retroactive effect.
Further, in view of such reliance a reasonable
time should be afforded affected parties to allow
for possible necessary production adjustments.
Accordingly, it is determined that with respect
to slide-in campers, the interpretation announced
by this ruling shall not become effective until
July 1, 1968.
With regard to the chassis-mount camper, it is
an integral part of the vehicle when attached to
a chassis-cab as defined in § 371.3(b), Part 371,
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (33
F.R. 19).
Persons who mount the chassis-mount camper
to the chassis-cab are manufacturers of vehicles
within the meaning of section 102(3) of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
PART 571; (RULING)-3
of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392). As such, they are to by the manufacturer of the chassis-cab, and for
be guided by the regulation and ruling on chassis- assuring that previously met standards have not
cabs issued December 29, 1967 (33 F.R. 19 and been adversely affected by the addition of the
33 F.R. 29). Under this regulation and ruling chassis-mount camper.
persons combining a chassis-cab manufactured on j^^^^^ -^ Washington, D.C., on March 20, 1968.
or after January 1, 1968, with a body or like
structure (in this case the chassis-mount camper) ^ n i^ d j n
■ui f • n, «- 4.U 1 *- J Lowell K. Bndwell,
are responsible for assuring that the completed ^^^^^^1 ^.^ Administrator
assemblage complies with all applicable standards
in effect on the date of manufacture of the 33 F.R. 5020
chassis-cab which had not previously been met March 26, 1968
PART 571; (RULING)-4
Section Three
Part 572— Anthropomorphic Test Dummies
Part 573— Defect and NoncompHance Reports
Part 574— Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
Part 575— Consumer Information Regulations
Part 576— Record Retention
Part 577— Defect and Noncompliance Notification
Part 579— Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
Part 580— Odometer Disclosure Requirements
Part 581— Bumper Standard
Part 582— Insurance Cost Information Regulations
Part 585— Automatic Restraint Phase-in Reporting Requirements
Part 590— Motor Vehicle Emission Inspections
Part 591— Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards
Part 592— Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured to
Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Part 593— Determinations That a Vehicle Not Originally Manufactured to
Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is Eligible
for Importation
Part 594— Schedule of Fees Authorized by the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act
Department of the Treasury Regulation Relating to Importation of Motor
Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment
c
Effacllve: Auguil 1, 1973
PREAMBLE TO PART 572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMY
(Docket No. 73-8; Notice 2)
The purposes of this notice are (1) to adopt
a re<,nilation that specifies a test dummy to
measure tlie performance of vehicles in crashes,
and (2) to incorporate the dummy into Motor
Veliicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR
§.^)71.208), for the limited purpose of evaluating
\ehicles with passive restraint systems manufac-
tured imder the first and second restraint
options between August 15, 1973, and August 15,
1975. The question of the restraint system re-
qiiirements to be in effect after August 15, 1975,
is not addressed by this notice and will be the
subject of future rulemaking action.
Tlie test dunmiy regulation (49 CFR Part
572) and the accompanying amendment to
Standard No. 208 were proposed in a notice
published April 2, 1973 (38 F.R. 8455). The
duumiy described in the regulation is to be used
to evaluate vehicles manufactured under sec-
tions S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2, (the first and second
options in the period from August 15, 1973, to
A\igust 15, 1975), and the section incorporating
the dummy is accordingly limited to those sec-
tions. The dmiimy has not been specified for
use with any protection systems after August 15,
1975, nor with active belt systems under the
third restraint option (S4.1.2.3). The recent
decision in For(^ v. NHTSA. 473 F. 2d 1241
(6tli Cir. 1973), removed the injury criteria
from such systems. To make the dummy ap-
plicable to belts under the third option, the
agency would have to provide additional notice
and opport\mity for comment.
By invalidating the former test dummy
specification, the decision in Chrysler v. DOT,
472 F. 2d 659 (6th Cir. 1972), affected the re-
straint options in effect before August 15, 1975,
as well as the mandatory passive restraint re-
quirements that were to be effective after that
date. A manufacturer who built cars with passive
restraints under one of the options would
therefore be (mable to certify the cars as com-
plying with the standard, as illustrated by the
necessity for General Motors to obtain a limited
exemption from tlie standard in order to com-
plete the remainder of a run of 1,000 air-bag
equipped cars.
The immediate [)urpose of this rulemaking is
to reconstitute those portions of the standard
that will enable manufacturers to build passive
restraint vehicles during the period when they
are optional. The test dummy selected by the
agency is tlie "GM Hybrid II", a composite
developed by General Motors largely from com-
mercially available components. GM had re-
quested NHTSA to adopt the Hybrid II on the
grounds that it had been successfully used in
vehicle tests with passive restraint systems, and
was as good as, or better than, any other im-
mediately available dummy system. On con-
sideration of all available evidence, the NHTSA
concurs in this judgment. One fact weighing
in favor of the decision is that General Motors
lias used this diunmy to measure the conformity
of its vehicles to the passive protection require-
ments of Standard 208, in preparation for the
announced introduction of up to 100,000 air-
bag-equipped vehicles during the 1974 model
year.
No other vehicle manufacturer has announced
plans for the production of passive restraint
systems during the optional phase, nor has any
other vehicle manufacturer come forward with
suggestions for alternatives to Hybrid II. The
NHTSA would have considered other dummies
had some other manufacturer indicated that it
was planning to produce passive restraint vehicles
during the option period and that some other
dummy had to be selected in order to allow
them to proceed with their plans. If there had
PART 572— PRE 1
EfFactiva: Auguil 1, 1973
been any such plans, NHTSA would have made
every effort to insure that a test device satisfac-
tory to said manufacturer would have been
selected.
This agency recognizes that since various
types of dummy systems have been in use under
the previous specification, any selection of one
dummy, as is required by the Chrysler decision,
will necessitate readjustments by some manu-
facturers. However, considering the quantity of
GM's production, the scope and advanced state
of its passive restraint development program,
and the fact that the Hybrid II does not differ
radically from other dummies currently in use,
in the NHTSA's judgment that dummy repre-
sents the best and least costly choice. That
conclusion has not been contradicted by the com-
ments to the docket.
The agency will not make any final decision
regarding reinstatement of mandatory passive
restraint requirements without further notice and
opportunity for comment. Should the agency
propose mandatory passive restraint require-
ments, the question of the conformity of the
dununy that is chosen with the instructions of
the court in Chrysler will again be open for
comment. The NHTSA strongly encourages the
continuance of the dummy test programs men-
tioned in the comments, in the hope that any
problems that may arise can be identified and
resolved before the dummy specifications for
later periods are issued.
The Hybrid II dummy has been found by
NHTSA to be a satisfactory and objective test
instrument. In sled and barrier tests conducted
by GM with the GM restraint systems and in
sled tests conducted by Calspan Corp. on behalf
of NHTSA, the Hybrid II has produced results
that are consistent and repeatable. This is not
to say that each test at the same nominal speed
and deceleration has produced identical values.
In testing with impact sleds, and to an even
greater extent with crash-tested vehicles, the
test environment itself is comple.x and necessarily
subject to variations that affect the results. The
test data show, however, that the variance from
dummy to dummy in these tests is sufficiently
small that a manufacturer would have no dif-
ficulty in deciding whether his vehicle would
be likely to fail if tested by NHTSA.
The provisions of the dummy regulation have
been modified somewhat from those proposed in
the notice of proposed rulemaking, largely as a
result of comments from GM. Minor corrections
liave been made in the drawings and materials
specifications as a result of comments by GM and
the principal dimimy suppliers. The dummy
specification, as finally adopted, reproduces the
Hybrid II in each detail of its design and pro-
vides, as a calibration check, a series of perform-
ance criteria based on the observed performance
of normally functioning Hybrid II components.
The performance criteria are wholly derivative
and are intended to filter out dummy aberrations
that escape detection in the manufacturing
process or that occur as a result of impact
damage. The revisions in the performance
criteria, as discussed hereafter, are intended to
eliminate potential \ariances in the test pro-
cedures and to hold the performance of the Hy-
brid II witliin the narrowest possible range.
General Motors suggested the abandonment of
the definition of ''upright position" in section
.572.4(c), and the substitution of a setp-up pro-
cedure in section .^72. 11 to serve both as a
positioning metiiod for tlie performance tests and
as a measurement method for tlie dummy's
dimensions as shown in the drawings. The
XHTSA does not object to the use of an ex-
panded set-up procedure, but has decided to
retain the term "upright position" with appro-
l)riate reference to the new section 572.11 (i).
Tlie structural properties test of section
.")72.5(c), which had proposed that the dummy
keep its proi)erties after being subjected to tests
l)roducing readings 25 percent above the injury
criteria of Standard No. 208, has been revised
to provide instead that tlie properties must be
retained after vehicle tests in accordance with
Standard No. 208,
Tlie head performance criteria are adopted as
pro[)osed. The procedures liave been amended to
insure tiiat tlie foreliead will be oriented below
the nose prior to the drop, to avoid interference
from the nose. In response to comments by tlie
Road Research Laboratory, American Motors,
and GM. an inter\al of at least 2 hours between
tests is specified to allow full restoration of
compressed areas of the head skin.
PART 572— PRE 2
Effective: August 1, 1973
Tlie neck performance criteria are revised in
several respects, in keeping with GM's recom-
mendations. The penduhim impact surface,
sliown in Figure 4, has been modified in ac-
cordance with GM's design. The zero time point
lias been specified as the instant the pendulum
contacts the honeycomb, the instructions for de-
termining chordal displacement have been
modified, and the pulse shape of the pendulum
deceleration curve has been differently specified.
The maximum allowable deceleration for the
liead has been increased slightly to 26g. In
response to suggestions by the Road Research
Laboratory and the Japan Automobile. Manufac-
turers Association (JAMA), as well as GM, a
tolerance has been specified for the pendulum's
impact velocity to allow for minor variances in
the honeycomb material.
With respect to the thorax test, each of the
minor procedural changes requested by GM has
been adopted. As with the head, a minimum
recovery time is specified for the thorax. The
seating surface is specified in greater detail, and
the test probe orientation has been revised to
refer to its height above the seating surface.
The test probe itself is expressly stated to have a
rigid face, by amendment to section 572.11,
thereby reflecting the probes actually used by
NHTSA and GM. A rigid face for the probe
was also requested by Mercedes Benz.
The test procedures for the spine and abdomen
tests are specified in much greater detail than
before, on the basis of suggestions by GM and
others that the former procedures left too much
room for variance. The test fixtures for the
spinal test orientation proposed by GM, and
its i^roposed method of load application have
been adopted. The parts of the dummy to be
assembled for these tests are specifically recited,
and an initial .50° flexion of the diunmy is also
specified. The rates of load application and
removal, and the method of taking force readings
are each specified. The direction of force ap-
plication is clarified in response to a comment by
Vol vo.
The abdomen test is amended with respect to
the initial point of force measurement, to resolve
a particular source of disagreement between
GM's data and NHTSA's. The boundaries of
the abdominal force-deflection curve are modified
to accord with the measurements taken by GM
subsequent to the issuance of the notice. The
rate of force application is specified as not more
than 0.1 inci) per second, in response to com-
ments by Mercedes Benz, JAMA, and GM.
The test procedures for the knee tests are
revised to specify the type of seating surface
used and to control the angle of the lower legs
in accordance with suggestions by JAMA, the
Road Research Laboratory, and GM. The in-
strtmientation specifications of section 572.11 are
amended to clarify the method of attachment
and orientation of the thorax accelerometers and
to specify the ciiannel classes for the chest
potentiometer, the pendulum accelerometer, and
tlie test probe accelerometer, as requested by
several comments.
The design and assembly drawings for the
test dummy are too cumbersome to publish in the
Federal Ueghter. During the comment period
on the April 2 notice, the agency maintained
master copies of the drawings in the docket and
placed the reproducible mylar masters from
which the copies were made with a commercial
blueprint facility from whom interested parties
could obtain copies. The NHTSA has decided
to continue this practice and is accordingly
placing a master set of drawings in the docket
and the reproducible masters for these drawings
with a blueprint facility.
Tlie drawings as adopted by this notice differ
only in minor detail from those that accompanied
the April 2 notice. The majority of the changes,
incoi-porated into corrected drawings, have
already been gi\en to those persons who ordered
copies. The letter of June 13, 197.3, that ac-
companied the corrected drawings has been
placed in the docket. The June corrections are
iucoriwrated into the final drawing jiackage.
.Vdditional adjustments are made hereby to re-
flect better the weight distribution of separated
segments of the dummy, to allow other materials
to be used for head ballast, and to specify the
instrument for measuring skin thickness. The
details of these changes are recited in a memo-
randum incorporated into the drawing package.
Rach of the final drawings is designated by
the legend "XHTSA Release 8/1/73". Each
PART 572— PRE 3
EffKMva: Augud 1, 1973
drawing so designated is hereby incorporated as
part of the test dummy specifications of 49 CFR
Part 572. Subsequent changes in the drawings
will not be made without notice and opportunity
for comment.
The incorporation of the Part 572 test dummy
into Standard No. 208 makes obsolete several
test conditions of the standard that had been
adopted to supplement the former test dummy
specifications. The location, orientation, and
sensitivity of test instrumentation formerly
specified by sections S8.1.15 through S8.1.18 are
now controlled by Part 572 are are no longer
necessary within Standard No. 208. Similarly,
the use of rubber components for the head, neck
and torso joints as specified in Part 572, supplant
the joint setting specifications for those joints
in section S8.1.10 of the standard. The NHTSA
has determined that the deletion of the above
portions of the Standard No. 208 will have no
effect on the substantive requirements of the
standard and that notice and public procedure
thereon are unnecessary.
In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended by the
addition of Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test
Dummy. . . .
In view of the pressing need for a test dummy
to permit the continued development of passive
restraint systems, and the fact that it presently
only relates to a new option for compliance, the
NHTSA finds that there is good cause to adopt
an immediate effective date. Accordingly, Part
572 is effective August 1, 1973, and the amend-
ment to Standard 208 is effective August 15, 1973.
Issued under the authority of sections 103 and
119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, P.L. 89-563, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407,
and the delegation of authority at 38 F.R. 12147.
Issued on July 26, 1973.
James E. Wilson
Associate Administrator
Traffic Safety Programs
38 F.R. 20449
August 1, 1973
PART 57a— PRE 4
Effective: August 8, 1977
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES
(Docket No. 73-8; Notice 4)
This notice amends Part 572, Anthrojjcmiorphic
Test Dummy, to specify several elements of the
dummy calibration test procedures and make
minor changes in the dummy design specifica-
tions. Part 572 is also reorganized to provide
for accommodation of dummies other than the
50th-percentile male dummy in the future.
Part 572 (49 CFR Part 572) establishes, by
means of approximately 250 drawings and five
calibration tests, the exact specifications of a test
device that simulates an adult occupant of a
motor vehicle, for use in evaluating certain types
of crash protection systems provided in accord-
ance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection (49 CFR §571.208). Interested per-
sons are advised that NHTSA Docket Nos. 69-7
and 74-14 concerning Standard No. 208 are re-
lated to this rulemaking.
Proposed occupant protection requirements in
Standard No. 208 were reviewed by the Sixth
Circuit in 1972 {'■'■Chi^sler v. Department of
Transportation," 472 F. 2d 659 (6th Cir. 1972) ),
and the dummy previously specified for use in
testing was invalidated as insufficiently objective.
The NHTSA subsequently established new
dummy specifications under Part 572 for the
limited purpose of qualifying passive restraint
systems which manufacturers choose to offer on
an optional basis (38 FR 20499, August 1, 1973).
After examining test experience with the Part
572 dummy, the NHTSA specified its use in a
proposal to mandate passive restraint systems
(39 FR 10271, March 19, 1974).
Recently, the agency proposed minor changes
in calibration procedures and dummy drawings
(40 FR 33462, August 8, 1975) in response to the
comments of manufacturers and others on the
March 1974 notice. The August 1975 proposal
only addressed the issue of dummy objectivity
raised by the Sixth Circuit, while issues of
dummy similarity to humans, sensitivity to test
environment, and dummy positioning in a vehicle
have been treated elsewhere (41 FR 29715, July
19, 1976).
It is noted that the most recent Department of
Transportation proposals on Standard No. 208
(41 FR 24070, June 14, 1976) reflected a modifi-
cation of performance requirements that reduce
the number and types of tests in which the Part
572 dummy would be used in Standard No. 208
dynamic tests. Specifically, rollover and lateral
testing would no longer be required if a lap belt
were instaP^d in the front seating positions. The
NHTSA's July 1976 proposal noted above would
conform existing tests in Standard No. 208 to the
modified approach. It would also increase the
permissible femur force loads that could be reg-
istered on the dummy during impact, and restrict
femur force requirements to compressive forces.
Interested persons should be aware of these sig-
nificant potential changes in the use of the dummy
in Standard No. 208.
As for the dummy objectivity treated by the
proposal that underlies this notice, manufactur-
ers' comments stressed the complexity of the test
environment in which the device is used and their
uncertainty as to how much tlie dummy char-
acteristics contribute to the variability that is
encountered. In somewliat contradictory fashion,
several of the manufactui'ers repeated requests
for a "whole systems'' calibration of the dummy
that would be conducted under conditions ap-
proximating the barrier crash whose complex
variables had just been emphasized.
As is the case with any measuring instrument,
variations in readings can result from imperfec-
tion in the instrument or variations in the phe-
nomenon being measured (in this case, the
PART 572— PRE 5
EffecHve: August 8, 1977
complex events that occur as a passenger car
impacts a barrier at 30 mph, or is impacted lat-
erally by a 4,000-pound moving barrier, or is
rolled over). While the '■'■Chrysler" court delayed
Standard No. 208 so that variation in the
dummy's behavior could be corrected, it found
the standard (and the dynamic test procedures)
practicable and "designed to meet the need for
motor vehicle safety" (472 F2d at 674, 675).
To meet the need for motor vehicle safety, the
dynamic tests are realistic simulations of the
actual crash environment. Variations in the pre-
cise circumstances to which the dummy is exposed
from test to test are expected.
Simulation of such crashes to provide a "whole
systems" calibration of the dummy would not be
reasonable, however, because of the variations
that are inherent in the 30-mph (and the other)
impacts. Unless the inputs to the dummy during
calibi'ation are precisely controlled, as is the case
with the five sub-assembly tests, the "whole sys-
tems" calibration would be meaningless. To con-
duct precisely controlled 30-mph barrier crash
tests as part of the dummy calibration procedure
would be very expensive, since dummy calibration
is normally performed before and after each
compliance test. The good results obtained in
sub-assembly calibration, and supported by the
controlled "whole dummy" t«st results referred
to in the preamble to the proposal, make such a
"whole systems" test redundant. The agency
concludes that introduction into Part 572 of an
extremely expensive and unfamiliar additional
calibration is unjustified.
General Motors (GM), Chrysler Corporation.
Ford Motor Company, and the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association (MVMA) stated that
the dummy construction is unsuited to measure-
ments of laterally-imposed force, thereby render-
ing the dummy unobjective in the "lateral impact
environment." While the agency does not agree
with these objections, the modified performance
levels put forward by the Department of Trans-
portation and the agency would allow manufac-
turers to install lap belts if they do not wish to
undertake lateral or rollover testing. Any manu-
facturer that is concerned with the objectivity of
the dummy in such impacts would provide lap
belts at the front seating positions in lieu of
conducting the lateral or rollover tests.
Ford and Chrysler argued that the test dummy
is insufficiently specified despite the approxi-
mately 250 detailed drawings that set forth
dummy construction. Their concern seems to be
limited to minor contour dimensions that they
consider critical to dummy objectivity. To
eliminate any such concern the agency will place
a specimen of the dummy in the data and draw-
ings package and incorporate it by reference into
Part 572.
The MVMA stated that its reading of the
docket comments indicated that the dummy can-
not be assembled as it is designed. The agency
is aware that dimensional tolerances could, at
their extremes, "stack up" to cause the need in
rare instances for selective fitting of components.
Manufacturers can avoid any such problem by
reducing the dispersion of tolerances or by select
fitting of components to avoid tolerance "stack-
up." Of the three dummy manufacturers' com-
ments on this proposal, only Humanoid Systems
(Humanoid) listed discrepancies. The agency
has reviewed the asserted discrepancies and con-
cludes that the specifications themselves, the
manufacturing practices just noted, or the cali-
bration procedures are adequate to resolve the
cited problems. To simplify the dummy, certain
studs located at the side of the dummy femurs
(used for mounting photographic targets and
unnecessary to NHTSA test procedures) are de-
leted because of their potential for reducing re-
peatability under some circumstances. These
studs are designated F/02, G/02, F/25, and G/25.
Bayerische Motorenverken recited test experi-
ence that demonstrated different performance
charactei'istics among the products of different
dummy manufacturers, although they are all
warranted to meet the specifications of the regu-
lations. NHTSA Report DOT-HS-801-861
demonstrates that some manufacturer-warranted
dummies did not meet all calibration require-
ments of Part 572. The agency, however, is not
in a position to assume responsibility for the
contractual terms established between private
parties.
Humanoid noted that experience with the vinyl
flesh specification of the dummy led to resolution
of aging problems on which it had earlier com-
mented. The company did recommend latitude
in vinyl formulation to permit market competi-
PAKT 572— PRE 6
Effective: August 8, 1977
tion. General Motors also expressed concern that
specification of the Part 572 dummy not stifle
innovation. Alderson Research Laboratories
(ARL) once again asked that the agency specify
a one-piece casting in place of the welded head
presently specified. The agency sympathizes
with this interest in improvement of the dummy
manufacturing techniques. However, the dummy
is a test instrument crucial to the validity of an
important motor vehicle safety standard and as
such, it cannot be loosely described for the benefit
of innovation.
Volkswagen requested improvement in aging
and in storage techniques for the dummy. The
agency considers that it has met its responsibili-
ties by specifying calibration tests that will sig-
nal improper storage or age-related changes.
Further development in this area is within the
province of the manufacturers and users. Sig-
nificant improvements in aging or storage factors
will, of course, not be ignored by the agency.
Although Ford and American Motors Corpora-
tion (AMC) made no comment on the specifics
of the NHTSA proposal, Chrysler Corporation
and several other vehicle manufacturers, as well
as the dummy manufacturers, supported the pro-
posed changes. The National Motor Vehicle
Safety Advisory Council took no position on the
proposal. The Vehicle Equipment Safety Com-
mission did not comment on the proposal. Hav-
ing carefully reviewed all of the comments
submitted and additional data compiled by the
agency, the changes are adopted, essentially as
proposed. The agency proposed modification of
the five calibration procedures for dummy sub-
assemblies, along with minor changes in the
drawings that describe all components of the
dummy.
HEAD
The head calibration involves dropping the
head 10 inches so that its forehead strikes a rigid
surface and registers acceleration levels that must
fall within a certain range. No comments were
received on the small relocation of measurement
points or the specification of "instant release"
of the head, and these modifications are made as
proposed.
The proposal included a specification of 250
microinches (rms) for the finish of the steel plate
on which the head is dropped. The agency had
considered other factors (particularly friction at
the skull-skin interface of the dummy forehead)
that might affect the accelerometer readings. It
was found that, in most instances, the dummy as
received from the manufacturer conformed to the
specifications. When deviations were encoun-
tered, treatment of the head in accordance with
manufacturer recommendations eliminated the
effect of these factors on results. Comparison of
data on 100 head drop tests conducted since
issuance of the proposal confirms that conclusion.
Ninety-seven percent of these head drops reg-
istered readings within the specified limits, with
a mean response value of 232g and a standard
deviation of 14g, indicating a coefficient of vari-
ance of 6 percent. Of the three failures, the
response values were 203g, 204g and 263g. All
of the drop tests fell within the specified 0.9- to
1.5-ms time range at the lOOg level. The surface
finish of the drop plate was 63 microinches (rms).
In view of this data, it does not appear necessary
to adjust either the I'esponse range as advocated
by Humanoid or the time range as recommended
by Ford. The test results, however, support the
request by a number of comments to change the
proposed 250-microinch finish to a value below
100 microinches (rms). On the basis of the
comments and NHTSA test data, the impact
plate surface finish is specified as any value in
the range from 8 to 80 microinches (rms).
General Motors asked whether coating of the
steel plate is permitted. Coating is permitted so
long as the 8- to 80-microinch range for the
surface is maintained.
Humanoid recommended that any lubrication
or surface smoothness introduced by the dummy
manufacturers be made uniform in the interests
of component interchange. Volkswagen also rec-
ommended a skull-to-skin interface finish speci-
fication. The NHTSA, however, does not believe
that differing procedures for preparation of the
skull-skin interface prevent interchange of the
heads, and the requests are therefore not granted.
PART 572— PRE 7
Effective: August 8, 1977
In view of the agency decision to incorporate
by reference a specimen of the Part 572 dummy
in the drawings and data package, it is also con-
sidered unnecessary to specify, as requested by
Humanoid, thickness and performance specifica-
tion for the headform at 45 and 90 degrees from
the midsaggital plane. With regards to Hu-
manoid's view that head drop tests are irrelevant
to performance of the dummy as a measuring
instrument, the agency considers them closely
tied to the characteristics of the dummy that
affect its repeatability as a measuring device.
Renault and Peugeot recommended considera-
tion of a revision in the test criteria of Standard
No. 208, in the case of safety belts, to replace the
limitation on head acceleration with a limitation
on submarining. The agency considers the pres-
ent limit on head acceleration a valuable means
to limit head loading and neck hyperflexion in
belt systems as well as other systems. It is a
requirement that is already being met on a pro-
duction basis by Volkswagen.
Toyota stated that the lOg limit on lateral
acceleration during the head drop would be im-
possible to satisfy. The NHTSA's own test ex-
perience did not exhibit any evidence of the noted
problem. None of the manufacturers of dummies
objected to the proposal, and Alderson Research
Laboratories (ARL) supported the lOg limit. It
is therefore made final as proposed.
ARL once more requested consideration of the
one-piece headform in place of the welded head-
form presently specified. If, as ARL states, its
customers accept and utilize the one-piece casting,
the agency does not understand the necessity to
modify the specification. ARL's request for con-
sideration of a one-piece neck bracket is subject
to the same response. As earlier noted, the justi-
fication to "freeze" the dummy specification is
clear from its use as a measurement instrument
that is the basis of manufacturer compliance
with, and agency verification testing to, a major
motor vehicle safety standard.
NECK
Comments generally agreed with the proposed
changes in the dummy neck calibration (attach-
ment of the head form to the neck, and attach-
ment of the neck to the end of a pendulum which
impacts an energy-absorbing element, inducing
head rotation which must fall within specified
limits). General Motors clarified that its engi-
neers' reason for recommending a non-articulated
neck instead of an articulated neck concerned the
cost, maintenance, and complexity of the latter's
construction. Volkswagen agreed with Sierra
Engineering Company (Sierra) that a smaller
tolerance for the pendulum's speed at impact
should be considered. Humanoid agreed with
the agency's view that the articulated neck does
not provide the desired level of repeatability at
this time. Having considered these comments
the agency makes final the proposed location
change for the accelerometers, deletion of § 572.7
(c)(5), and clarification of the "t4" point and
the 26g level.
Manufacturers made several additional recom-
mendations. Humanoid expressed support of
AMC's view that the neck calibration should be
conducted at barrier impact velocity. The agency
has reviewed these comments and finds that the
specified energy levels are adequate for the in-
tended purpose of establishing dynamic response
characteristics and the measurement of repeat-
ability of dummy necks under dynamic test con-
ditions. Testing at higher levels would bring
other dummy components besides the neck into
direct impact interaction, thereby obscuring or
completely masking the measured phenomena.
Volkswagen cautioned against an entirely free
selection of damping materials because of varia-
tion in rebound characteristics produced with
different materials that can achieve conforming
deceleration time histories. The agency agrees
that a limit on rebound should be established to
compliment the choice of damping materials and
has added such a specification to the end of the
text of § 572.7(b).
Humanoid noted interference in the attachment
of the neck bracket to the backplate of the sterno-
thoracic structure, due to the presence of a weld-
ing bead. The agency has found no interference
in the dummies manufactured by two companies
and concludes that the interference must be asso-
ciated with Humanoid's manufacturing tech-
nique.
PART 572— PRE 8
Effective: August 8, 1977
THORAX
The NHTSA proposed several additional speci-
fications for test probe orientation, dummy seat-
ing, and limb positioning for the calibration test.
The calibration consists of striking the torso of
the seated dummy at two speeds with a specified
striker to measure thorax resistance, deflection,
and hysteresis characteristics. Comments did not
object to the changes and they are incorporated
as proposed.
The agency also proposed several changes in
the drawings for the thorax sub-assembly of the
dummy and, without objection, they are made
final in virtually the same form. ARL indicated
that four heat seals should be used on the zipper.
ARL clarified that the longer socket head cap
screw is intended to permit sufficient thread en-
gagement, not more latitude in the ballast con-
figuration as stated in the proposal. Humanoid's
request to know the clavicle contours that con-
stitute the Part 572 specification is met by placing
the dummy specimen in the drawings and data
package as earlier noted. Humanoid and Toyo
Kogyo suggested an increase in clavicle strength.
The agency's experience with the clavicle since
the last consideration of this suggestion has been
that all dummies are not significantly susceptible
to clavicle breakage. Accordingly, the agency
does not consider the modification necessary.
The major suggestion by vehicle and dummy
manufacturers was a slight I'evision of the thorax
resistance and deflection values, which must not
be exceeded during impact of the chest. The
present values (1400 pounds and 1.0 inch at 14
fps, 2100 pounds and 1.6 inches at 22 fps) were
questioned by GM, which recommends an in-
crease in both resistance and deflection values to
better reflect accurate calibration of a correctly
designed dummy. Cojnparable increases were
recommended by Humanoid and Sierra. ARL
noted that the present values are extremely
stringent.
The agency's experience with calibration of the
thorax since issuance of the proposal confirms
that a slight increase in values is appropriate,
although not the amount of increase recom-
mended by the manufacturers. The values have
accordingly been modified to 1450 pounds and
1.1 inches at 14 fps, and 2250 pounds and 1.7
inches at 22 fps. The agency does not set a
minimum limit on the value as recommended by
General Motors, because the interaction of the
deflection and resistance force values make lower
limits unnecessary. The changes in values should
ease ARL's concern about the seating surface,
although the agency's own experience does not
indicate that a significant problem exists with
the present specifications of the surface.
In conjunction with these changes, the agency
has reduced the maximum permissible hysteresis
of the chest during impact to 70 percent as rec-
ommended by GM.
GM requested a clarification of the dummy
limb positioning procedures for purposes of
thorax impact testing, citing the possibility of
limb misadjustment between steps (1) and (4)
of § 572.8(d). The agency has added wording
to subparagraph (4) to make clear that the limbs
remain horizontally outstretched. The agency
does not consider GM's suggested wording to be
adequate for calibration. For example, the atti-
tude of the test probe at impact is not specified.
For this reason, the requested modification is not
undertaken.
Humanoid requested clarification of paragraph
(7) of § 572.8(d) that specifies measurement of
horizontal deflection "in line with the longitudinal
centerline of the probe." Humanoid expressed
concern that, as the thorax rotated backwards,
the horizontal measurement could not be made.
A clarification has been added to the cited
language.
Humanoid also requested a less temperature-
sensitive rib damping material than is presently
employed. The NHTSA concludes that its strict
limitation on permissible temperature and hu-
midity conditions for calibration testing ade-
quately controls the effects of temperature on
this damping material.
LUMBAR SPINE, ABDOMEN
The NHTSA proposed minor modifications of
the lumbar spine construction, and several
changes in the procedures for lumbar spine cali-
bration, which consists of spine flexion from the
upright position, followed by release of the force
which was required to attain this deflection, and
measurement of the return angle. Manufactur-
ers supported the majority of the changes, and
PART 572— PRE 9
Effective: August 8, 1977
they aro made final in this notice. The agency
proposed that measurements be taken when
"flexing has stopped," and Toyota, noting the
difficulty of establishing this point under some
cii'cumstances, suggested that the measurement
be made 3 minutes after release. This modifica-
tion is reasonable and is included in the final
action.
Testing at NHTSA's Safety Research Labora-
tory demonstrates the need to clarify proposed
§ 572.9(c) (3) to specify return of the lumbar
spine sufficiently so that it remains in "its initial
position in accordance with Figure 11" unas-
sisted. An appropriate further specification has
been made.
Humanoid requested that the four-bolt attach-
ment of the push plate be revised to two-bolt
attachment in view of Humanoid's practice of
providing a two-bolt plate. The agency has
undertaken its data collection using four-bolt
attachment, and to preserve the uncontested
validity of these data, declines to modify the
proposed specification.
ARL requested reconsideration of NHTSA's
decision to leave unchanged the lumbar cable ball
and socket attachment design. The agency has
continued to examine test results and cannot con-
clude that the present attachment design has
caused a calibration or compliance problem.
Accordingly, ARL's request is denied. An ARL
request to limit the reference to the strength
requirements of the military specification in the
case of lumbar cable swaging is granted. If such
a limitation were not specified, the other elements
of the military specification might arguably be
included in the NHTSA's specification.
Calibration of the abdomen of the dummy is
accomplished by application of a specified force
to the abdomen while the dummy toi'so is placed
on its back, with a required "force/deflection"
curve resulting. The proposal added a range of
force application rates to make the procedure
more uniform, as well as a 10-pound preload and
further specification of the horizontal surface.
Manufacturers did not oppose these changes.
Manufacturers did oppose the proposed speci-
fication changes that would require the dummy
abdominal sac to be sealed. Various reasons un-
related to abdomen performance were listed
(e.g., transportation of sealed sac in unpressur-
ized aircraft compartment) and available data
show successful calibration in both configurations.
In view of the expressed preference for the un-
sealed design, the leak test has been removed
from the drawings, and the vent is retained.
Humanoid requested that the shape of the ab-
dominal insert be modified to conform more
closely to the dummy's abdominal cavity. The
shape of the insert affects the dummy perform-
ance, however, and the agency does not consider
a change with unknown consequences advisable
at this time. The agency also concludes that
Humanoid's request to drop all specification of
wall thickness for the abdominal sac is also un-
advisable for this reason.
Ford, the MVMA, and Humanoid noted an
asymmetry of the dummy pelvic castings and
requested a justification for it. The asymmetry
is apparently an artifact of the adoption of
Society of Automotive Engineers specifications,
whose origin is unknown. In the agency's judg-
ment, based on experience with numerous Part
572 dummies and evaluation of test results, no
degradation in performance is attributable to the
asymmeti"y. While the agency intends to further
review the asymmetry noted, no action will be
taken without evidence that the specification
affects testing.
LIMBS
Little comment was received on the changes
proposed for limb calibration, which consists of
impacting the knees of a seated dummy with a
test probe of a specified weight at a specified
speed and measuring the impact force on the
dummy femurs. In response to Toyota's request
for clarification, the positioning in accordance
with § 572.11 is followed by the leg adjustments
specified in § 572.10(c), which have the effect of
changing leg position from that achieved under
§ 572.11.
The proposed specification of vinyl skin thick-
ness over the knee face was supported in com-
ments, although two manufacturers requested
that the thickness tolerance be moved upward to
thicken the skin somewhat. Humanoid did sug-
gest elimination of the fenuir calibration as use-
less, but the agency considers such a control
important to repeatable performance of the
dummy.
PART 572— PRE 10
Effective: August 8, 1977
Ford interpreted information contained in con-
tract work undertaken for the NHTSA (DOT-
HS^i-00873) to show that femur force loads
registered too high in 50 percent of cases con-
ducted under the calibration conditions of the
standard. In NHTSA tests of 100 dummy knees
on Part 572 dummies (DOT-HS-801 861), the
2,500-pound limit was exceeded only twice. The
same data indicated a tendency for the femur to
register lower than previously estimated, and a
minor reduction of the lower limit is established
in this action. The agency considers the small
reduction to fall within the ambit of the pro-
posal to improve conditions for calibration.
Ford's and Humanoid's observations with re-
gard to off-center impacts that result in bending
or torque have been dealt with in the recent
agency proposal to limit femur force require-
ments of Standard No. 208 to compressive force.
As for Humanoid's concern that unacceptable
variation is possible in the femur load cell, it is
noted that General Motors and Volkswagen have
both certified thousands of vehicles based on im-
pact readings taken from this dummy with these
femur cells installed.
GENERAL TEST CONDITIONS
The agency proposed minor changes in the
general test conditions of § 572.11 that apply to
dummy test, such as a minimum period of dummy
exposure to the temperature and humidity at
which calibration tests are conducted. With cor-
rection of accelerometer locations, a clarification
of dummy positioning, and an increase of zipper
heat seals from three to four, the contemplated
changes ai'e made as proposed.
Sierra requested a broader range of humidity
conditions for the calibration tests, stating that
a range of 10- to 90-percent humidity would not
affect results of "performance tests." The com-
pany cited freezing and desert heat conditions
as reasons for a 6-hour conditioning rather than
the 4-hour conditioning proposed by the agency.
Humanoid and Toyota also addressed this aspect
of the general test conditions. It appears that
Sierra misunderstood the temperature and hu-
midity specifications as applicable to vehicle
performance tests. This rulemaking action ad-
dresses only calibration tests which presumably
would be conducted indooi's in a tempei'ature-
controlled setting. Because the dummies are not
expected to be stored in areas of great tempera-
ture extremes prior to calibration testing, the
proposed ranges of hiimidity and temperature
conditions are considered to be effective to sta-
bilize the affected dummy properties. While
instrumentation would be affected by the 90-
percent humidity condition suggested by Sierra,
the agency has reduced the lower humidity con-
dition to a 10-percent level in agreement that the
change does not affect the ability to calibrate the
dummy.
Sierra objected that a dummy manufacturer's
warranty of conformity of its products to Part
572 would be complicated b}' a time specification
for temperature and humidity conditioning. The
coinpany believed that its customers would re-
quire that 4 hours of conditioning occur whether
or not the dummy had already stabilized at the
correct temperature. The agency sees no reason
why a purchaser would insist on a senseless con-
dition but, in any case, has no control over the
contractual dealings between the dummy manu-
facturer and the purchaser. The NHTSA cannot
delete necessary stabilizing conditions from its
regulations simply because a purchaser wishes
to make an unreasonable contractual specification
based on it. The same rationale is responsive to
Sierra's request for shorter recovery intervals be-
tween repeated tests.
Toyota supplied data to demonstrate that more
consistent thorax and knee impact tests could be
achieved by using cotton pants on the dummy.
The agency's data do not agree with Toyota's
and no other manufacturer took issue with the
agency's proposal to delete all clothing require-
ments. This deletion is made final as proposed.
ARL asked why the agency's proposed prohibi-
tion against painting dummy components is
qualified to state "except as specified in this part
or in drawings subtended by this part." This
qualification simply preserves the agency's op-
portunity to specify painted components in the
future.
No conclusive evidence of preferable storage
methods was submitted by commenters. The
agency therefore does not specify that the dummy
calibrations be preceded by positioning in a spe-
cific posture. To avoid the possibility of intro-
ducing a variable, however, the eye bolt in the
PART 572— PRE 11
Effective: August 8, 1977
dummy head has been relabeled on the drawings
as "not for use in suspending dummy in storage."
Interested persons are advised that the first
stage of choosing a replacement foaming agent
for the specified Nitrosan are complete. Details
are available in document HS-802-030 in the
public docket.
In accordance with recently enunciated Depart-
ment of Transportation policy encouraging ade-
quate analysis of the consequences of regulatory
action (41 FE 16200, April 16, 1976), the agency
herewith summarizes its evaluation of the eco-
nomic and other consequences of this action on
the public and private sectors, including possible
loss of safety benefits. The changes made are all
to existing specifications and calibration proce-
dures and are intended as clarifications of speci-
fications already established. Therefore, the
cost of the changes are calculated as minimal,
consisting at most of relatively small modifica-
tions of test equipment and minor dummy com-
ponents. The number and complexity of
calibration tests are not affected by the changes.
At the same time, the clarification will improve
a manufacturer's ability to conduct compliance
tests of safety systems and will thereby con-
tribute to an increase in motor vehicle safety.
Note —
The economic and inflationary impacts of this
rulemaking have been carefully evaluated in ac-
cordance with Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-107, and an Inflation Impact State-
ment is not required.
In anticipation of the use of dummies other
than the 50th-percentile male dummy in compli-
ance testing, the agency takes this opportunity
to reorganize Part 572 so that the 50th-percentile
dummy occupies only one Subpart.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dwrrmiy, and
the dummy design drawings incorporated by
reference in Part 572, are amended ....
Elective date : August 8, 1977.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on January 31, 1977.
John W. Snow
Administrator
42 F.R. 7148
February 7, 1977
PART 572— PRE 12
Effective: July 5, 1978
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES
(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 11; Docket No. 73-8; Notice 07)
This notice amends occupant crash protection
Standard No. 208 and its accompanying test
dummy specification to further specify test pro-
cedures and injury criteria. The changes are
minor in most respects and reflect comments by
manufacturers of test dummies and vehicles and
the NHTSA's own test experience with the
standard and the test dummy.
Date : Effective date— July 5, 1978.
Addresses : Petitions for reconsideration should
refer to the docket number and be submitted to:
Docket Section, Room 5108, Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
For further information contact :
Mr. Guy Hunter,
Motor Vehicle Programs,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration,
Washington, D.C. 20590
(202 426-2265)
Supplementary information : Standard No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208),
is a Department of Transportation safety stand-
ard that requires manufacturers to provide a
means of restraint in new motor vehicles to keep
occupants from impacting the vehicle interior in
the event a crash occurs. The standard has, since
January 1968, required the provision of seat belt
assemblies at each seating position in passenger
cars. In January 1972 the requirements for seat
belts were upgraded and options were added to
permit the provision of restraint that is "active"
(requiring some action be taken by the vehicle
occupant, as in the case of seat belts) or "passive"
(providing protection without action being taken
by the occupant).
In a separate notice issued today (42 FR
34289; FR Reg. 77-19137), the Secretary of
Transportation has reached a decision regarding
the future occupant crasli protection that must be
installed in passenger cars. The implementation
of that decision will involve the testing of passive
restraint systems in accordance with the test pro-
cedures of Standard No. 208, and this notice is
intended to make final several modifications of
that procedure which have been proposed for
change by the NHTSA. This notice also re-
sponds to two petitions for reconsideration of
rulemaking involving the test dummy that is
used to evaluate the compliance of passive re-
straints systems.
DOCKET 74-14; NOTICE 05
Notice 5 was issued July 15, 1976 (41 FR
29715; July 19, 1976) and proposed that Stand-
ard No. 208's existing specification for passive
protection in frontal, lateral, and rollover modes
(S4.1.2.1) be modified to specify passive protec-
tion in the frontal mode only, with an option to
provide passive protection or belt protection in
the lateral and rollover crash modes. Volks-
wagen had raised the question of the feasibility
of small cars meeting the standard's lateral im-
pact requirements : A 20-mph impact by a 4,000-
pound, 60-inch-high flat surface. The agency
noted the particular vulnerability of small cars
to side impact and the need to provide protection
for them based on the weight of other vehicles
on the highway, but agreed that it would be
difficult to provide passive lateral protection in
the near future. Design problems also underlay
the proposal to provide a belt option in place of
the existing passive rollover requirement.
Ford Motor Company argued that a lateral
option would be inappropriate in Standard No.
208 as long as the present dummy is used for
PART 572— PRE 13
Effective: July 5, 1978
measurement of passive system performance.
This question of dummy use as a measuring de-
vice is treated later in this notice. General
Motors Corporation (GM) supported the option
without qualification, noting that the installation
of a lap belt with a passive system "would pro-
vide comparable protection to lap-shoulder belts
in side and rollover impacts." Chrysler did not
object to the option, but noted that the lap belt
option made the title of S4.1.2.1 ("complete
passive protection") misleading. Volkswagen
noted that its testing of belt systems without the
lap belt portion showed little loss in efficacy in
rollover crashes. No other comments on this
proposal were received. The existing option
S4.1.2.1 is therefore adopted as proposed so that
manufacturers will be able to immediately under-
take experimental work on passive restraints on
an optional basis in conformity with the Secre-
tary's decision.
There were no objections to the agency's pro-
posal to permit either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat
belt assembly to meet the requirements, and thus
it is made final as proposed.
The NHTSA proposed two changes in the in-
jury criteria of S6 that are used as measures of a
restraint system's qualification to Standard No.
208. One change proposed an increase in per-
missible femur force limits from 1,700 pounds to
2,250 pounds. As clarification that tension loads
are not included in measurement of these forces,
the agency also proposed that the word "com-
pressive" be added to the text of S6.4. Most
comment ers were cautionary about the changes,
pointing out that susceptibility to fracture is
time dependent, that acetabular injury could be
exacerbated by increased forces, and that angular
applications of force were as likely in the real
world as axial forces and would more likely
fracture the femur.
The agency is aware of and took into account
these considerations in proposing the somewhat
higher femur force limit. The agency started
with the actual field experience of occupants of
GM and Volkswagen vehicles that have been
shown to produce femur force readings of about
1,700 pounds. Occupants of these vehicles in-
volved in crashes have not shown a significant
incidence of femur fracture. The implication
from this experience that the 1,700-pound figure
can safely be raised somewhat is supported in
work by Patrick on compressive femur forces of
relatively long duration. The Patrick data
(taken with aged embalmed cadavers) indicate
that the average fracture load of the patella-
femur-pelvis complex is 1,910 pounds. This
average is considered conservative, in that ca-
daver bone structure is generally weaker than
living human tissues. While these data did not
address angular force applications, the experi-
ence of the GM and Volkswagen vehicle occu-
pants does suggest that angular force application
can go higher than 1,700 pounds.
The agency does not agree that the establish-
ment of the somewhat higher outer limit for
permissible femur force loads of 2,250 pounds is
arbitrary. Wliat is often ignored by the medical
community and others in commenting on the in-
jury criteria found in motor vehicle safety stand-
ards is that manufacturers must design their
restraint systems to provide greater protection
than the criteria specified, to be certain that each
of their products will pass compliance tests con-
ducted by the NHTSA. It is a fact of industrial
production that the actual performance of some
units will fall below nominal design standards
(for quality control and other reasons). Volks-
wagen made precisely this point in its comments.
Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act states that each vehicle must comply
(15 U.S.C. § 1392(a)(1) (a)), manufacturers
routinely design in a "compliance margin" of
superior performance. Thus, it is extremely un-
likely that a restraint system designed to meet
the femur force load criterion of 2,250 pounds
will in fact be designed to provide only that
level of performance. With these considerations
in mind, the agency makes final the changes as
proposed.
While not proposed for change, vehicle manu-
facturers commented on a second injury criterion
of the standard : A limitation of the acceleration
experienced by the dummy thorax during the
barrier crash to 60g, except for intervals whose
cumulative duration is not more than 3 milli-
seconds (ms). Until August 31, 1977, the agency
has specified the Society of Automotive Engi-
PART 572— PEE 14
Effective: July 5, 1978
neers' (SAE) "severity index" as a substitute for
the 60g-3ms limit, because of greater familiarity
of the industry with that criterion.
General Motors recommended that the severity
index be continued as the chest injury criterion
until a basis for using chest deflection is devel-
oped in place of chest acceleration. GM cited
data which indicate that chest injury from cer-
tain types of blunt frontal impact is a statisti-
cally significant function of chest deflection in
humans, while not a function of impact force or
spinal acceleration. GM suggested that a shift
from the temporary severity index measure to
the 60g-3ms measurement would be wasteful,
because there is no "strong indication" that the
60g-3ms measurement is more meaningful than
the severity index, and some restraint systems
have to be redesigned to comply with the new
requirement.
Unlike GM, Chrysler argued against the use
of acceleration criteria of either type for the
chest, and rather advocated that the standard be
delayed until a dummy chest with better deflec-
tion characteristics is developed.
The Severity Index Criterion allows higher
loadings and therefore increases the possibility
of adverse effects on the chest. It only indirectly
limits the accelerations and hence the forces
which can be applied to the thorax. Accelera-
tion in a specific impact environment is consid-
ered to be a better predictor of injury than the
Severity Index.
NHTSA only allowed belt systems to meet the
Severity Index Criterion of 1,000 instead of the
60g-3ms criterion out of consideration for lead-
time problems, not because the Severity Index
Criterion was considered superior. It is recog-
nized that restraint systems such as lap-shoulder
belts apply more concentrated forces to the
thorax than air cushion restraint, and that in-
jury can result at lower forces and acceleration
levels. It is noted that the Agency is considering
rulemaking to restrict forces that may be applied
to the thorax by the shoulder belt of any seat
belt assembly (41 FR 54961; December 16, 1976).
With regard to the test procedures and condi-
tions that underlie the requirements of the stand-
ard, the agency proposed a temperature range
for testing that would be compatible with the
temperature sensitivity of the test dummy. The
test dummy specification (Part 572, ''''Anthropo-
morphic Test Dummy,''' 49 CFR Part 572) con-
tains calibration tests that are conducted at any
temperature between 66° and 78° F. This is
because properties of lubricants and nonmetallic
parts used in the dummy will change with large
temperature changes and will affect the dummy's
objectivity as a test instrument. It was proposed
that the Standard No. 208 crash tests be con-
ducted within this temperature range to eliminate
the potential for variability.
The only manufacturers that objected to the
temperature specification were Porsche, Bayer-
ische Motoren Werke (BMW), and American
Motors Corporation (AMC). In each case, the
manufacturers noted that dynamic testing is con-
ducted outside and that it is unreasonable to
limit testing to the few days in the year when
the ambient temperature would fall within the
specified 12-degree range.
The commenters may misunderstand their cer-
tification responsibilities under the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section
108(b)(2) limits a manufacturer's responsibility
to the exercise of "due care" to assure compliance.
The NHTSA has long interpreted this statutory
"due care" to mean that the manufacturer is free
to test its products in any fashion it chooses, as
long as the testing demonstrates that due care
was taken to assure that, if tested by NHTSA
as set forth in the standard, the product would
comply with the standard's requirements. Thus,
a manufacturer could conduct testing on a day
with temperatures other than those specified, as
long as it could demonstrate through engineering
calculations or otherwise, that the difference in
test temperatures did not invalidate the test re-
sults. Alternatively, a manufacturer might
choose to perform its preparation of the vehicle
in a temporarily erected structure (such as a
tent) that maintains a temperature within the
specified range, so that only a short exposure
during acceleration to the barrier would occur
in a higher or lower temperature. To assist any
such arrangements, the test temperature condi-
tion has been limited to require a stabilized
temperature of the test dummy only, just prior
to the vehicle's travel toward the barrier.
PART 572— PRE 15
EfFeclive: July 5, 1978
In response to an earlier suggestion from GM,
the agency proposed further specificity in the
clothing worn by the dummy during the crash
test. The only comment was filed by GM, which
argued that any shoe specification other than
weight would be unrelated to dummy perform-
ance and therefore should not be included in the
specification. The agency disagrees, and notes
that the size and shape of the heel on the shoe
can affect the placement of the dummy limb
within the vehicle. For this reason, the clothing
specifications are made final as proposed, except
that the requirement for a conforming "config-
uration" has been deleted.
Renault and Peugeot asked for confirmation
that pyrotechnic pretensioners for belt retractors
are not prohibited by the standard. The stand-
ard's requirements do not specify the design by
which to provide the specified protection, and the
agency is not aware of any aspect of the standard
that would prohibit the use of pretensioning de-
vices, as long as the three performance elements
are met.
With regard to the test dummy used in the
standard, the agency proposed two modifications
of Standard No. 208 : a more detailed positioning
procedure for placement of the dummy in the
vehicle prior to the test, and a new requirement
that the dummy remain in calibration without
adjustment following the barrier crash. Com-
ments were received on both aspects of the
proposal.
The dummy positioning was proposed to elimi-
nate variation in the conduct of repeatable tests,
particularly among vehicles of different sizes.
The most important proposed modification was
the use of only two dummies in any test of front
seat restraints, whether or not the system is de-
signed for three designated seating positions.
The proposal was intended to eliminate the prob-
lem associated with placement of three 50th-
percentile male dummies side-by-side in a smaller
vehicle. In bench seating with three positions,
the system would have to comply with a dummy
at the driver's position and at either of the other
two designated seating positions.
GM supported this change, but noted that
twice as many tests of 3-position bench-seat ve-
hicles would be required as before. The company
suggested using a simulated vehicle crash as a
means to test the passive restraint at the center
seat position. The agency considers this ap-
proach unrepresentative of the actual crash pulse
and vehicle kinematic response (e.g., pitching,
yawing) that occur during an impact. To the
degree that GM can adopt such an approach in
the exercise of "due care" to demonstrate that
the center seating position actually complies, the
statute does not prohibit such a certification
approach.
Ford objected that the dummy at the center
seat position would be placed about 4 inches to
the right of the center of the designated seating
position in order to avoid interference with the
dummy at the driver's position. While the
NHTSA agrees that a small amount of displace-
ment is inevitable in smaller vehicles, it may well
occur in the real world also. Further, the physi-
cal dimensions of the dummy preclude any other
positioning. With a dummy at the driver's posi-
tion, a dummy at the center position cannot
physically be placed in the middle of the seat in
all cases. In view of these realities, the agency
makes final this aspect of the dummy positioning
as proposed.
GM suggested the modification of other stand-
ards to adopt "2-dummy" positioning. The
compatibility among dynamic tests is regularly
reviewed by the NHTSA and will be again fol-
lowing this rulemaking action. For the moment,
however, only those actions which were proposed
will be acted on.
As a general matter with regard to dummy
positioning, General Motors found the new speci-
fications acceptable with a few changes. GM
cautioned that the procedure might not be suf-
ficiently reproducible between laboratories, and
Chrysler found greater variation in positioning
with the new procedures than with Chrysler's
own procedures. The agency's use of the proce-
dure in 15 different vehicle models has shown
consistently repeatable results, as long as a reason-
able amount of care is taken to avoid the effect
of random inputs (see "Repeatability of Set Up
and Stability of Anthropometric Landmarks and
Their Influence on Impact Response of Automo-
tive Crash Test Dummies." Society of Automo-
tive Engineers, Technical Paper No. 770260,
1977). The agency concludes that, with the
PART 572— PRE 16
EfFecllve: July 5, 1978
minor improvements cited below, the positioning
procedure should be made final as proposed.
The dummy is placed at a seating position so
that its midsagittal plane is vertical and longi-
tudinal. Volkswagen argued against use of the
midsagittal plane as a reference for dummy
placement, considering it difficult to define as a
practical matter during placement. The agency
has used plane markers and plane lines to define
the midsagittal plane and has experienced no
significant difficulty in placement of the dummy
with these techniques. For this reason, and be-
cause Volkswagen suggested no simpler orienta-
tion technique, the agency adopts use of the
midsagittal plane as proposed.
Correct spacing of the dummy's legs at the
driver position created the largest source of ob-
jections by commenters. Ford expressed concern
that an inward-pointing left knee could result in
unrealistically high femur loads because of
femur-to-steering column impacts. GM asked
that an additional 0.6 inch of space be specified
between the dummy legs to allow for installation
of a device to measure steering column displace-
ment. Volkswagen considered specification of
the left knee bolt location to be redundant in
light of the positioning specification for the right
knee and the overall distance specification be-
tween the knees of 14.5 inches.
The commenters may not have understood that
the 14.5- and o.9-inch dimensions are only initial
positions, as specified in S8.1.11.1.1. The later
specification to raise the femur and tibia center-
lines "as close as possible to vertical" without
contacting the vehicle shifts the knees from their
initial spacing to a point just to the left and
right of the steering column.
As for GM's concern about instrumentation,
the agency does not intend to modify this posi-
tioning procedure to accommodate instrumenta-
tion preferences not required for the standard's
purposes. GM may, of course, make test modi-
fications so long as it assures, in the exercise of
due care, that its vehicles will comply when
tested in accordance with the specification by the
agency.
In the case of a vehicle which is equipped with
a front bench seat, the driver dummy is placed
on the bench so that its midsagittal plane inter-
sects the center point of the plane described by
the steering wheel rim. BMW pointed out that
the center plane of the driver's seating position
may not coincide with the steering wheel center
and that dummy placement would therefore be
unrealistic. Ford believed that the specification
of the steering wheel reference point could be
more precisely specified.
The agency believes that BMW may be de-
scribing offset of the driver's seat from the steer-
ing wheel in bucket-seat vehicles. In the case of
bench-seat vehicles, there appears to be no reason
not to place the dummy directly behind the steer-
ing wheel. As for the Ford suggestion, the
agency concludes that Ford is describing the
same point as the proposal did, assuming, as the
agency does, that the axis of the steering column
passes through the center point described. The
Ford description does have the effect of moving
the point a slight distance laterally, because the
steering wheel rim upper surface is somewhat
higher than the plane of the rim itself. This
small distance is not relevant to the positioning
being specified and therefore is not adopted.
In the case of center-position dummy place-
ment in a vehicle with a drive line tunnel, Ford
requested further specification of left and right
foot placement. The agency has added further
specification to make explicit what was implicit
in the specifications proposed.
Volkswagen suggested that the NHTSA had
failed to specify knee spacing for the passenger
side dummy placement. In actuality, the speci-
fication in S8.1.11.1.2 that the femur and tibia
centerlines fall in a vertical longitudinal plane
has the effect of dictating the distance between
the passenger dummy knees.
The second major source of comments con-
cerned the dummy settling procedure that assures
uniformity of placement on the seat cushion and
against the seat back. Manufacturers pointed
out that lifting the dummy within the vehicle,
particularly in small vehicles and those with no
rear seat space, cannot be accomplished easily.
While the NHTSA recognizes that the procedure
is not simple, it is desirable to improve the uni-
formity of dummy response and it has been ac-
complished by the NHTSA in several small cars
(e.g., Volkswagen Rabbit, Honda Civic, Fiat
PART 572— PRE 17
EffacHve: July 5, 1978
Spider, DOT HS-801-754). Therefore, the re-
quests of GM and Volkswagen to retain the
method that does not involve lifting has been
denied. In response to Renault's question, the
dummy can be lifted manually by a strap routed
beneath the buttocks. Also, Volkswagen's re-
quest for more variability in the application of
rearward force is denied because, while difficult
to achieve, it is desirable to maintain uniformity
in dummy placement. In response to the re-
quests of several manufacturers, the location of
the 9-square-inch push plate has been raised 1.5
inches, to facilitate its application to all vehicles.
Volkswagen asked with regard to SIO.2.2 for
a clarification of what constitutes the "lumbar
spine" for purposes of dummy flexing. This
refers to the point on the dummy rear surface at
the level of the top of the dummy's rubber spine
element.
BMW asked the agency to reconsider the
placement of the driver dummy's thumbs over
the steering wheel rim because of the possibility
of damage to them. The company asked for an
option in placing the hands. The purpose of
the specification in dummy positioning, however,
is to remove discretion from the test personnel,
so that all tests are run in the same fashion. An
option under these circumstances is therefore not
appropriate.
Ultrasystems, Inc., pointed out two minor er-
rors in SlO.3 that are hereby corrected. The
upper arm and lower arm centerlines are oriented
as nearly as possible in a vertical plane (rather
than straight up in the vertical), and the little
finger of the passenger is placed "barely in con-
tact" with the seat rather than "tangent" to it.
Two corrections are made to the dummy posi-
tioning procedure to correct obvious and unin-
tended conflicts between placement of the dummy
thighs on the seat cushion and placement of the
right leg and foot on the acceleration pedal.
In addition to the positioning proposed. Gen-
eral Motors suggested that positioning of the
dummy's head in the fore-and-aft axis would be
beneficial. The agency agrees and has added
such a specification at the end of the dummy
settling procedure.
In a matter separate from the positioning pro-
cedure, General Motors, Ford, and Renault re-
quested deletion of the proposed requirement that
the dummy maintain proper calibration follow-
ing a crash test without adjustment. Such a
procedure is routine in test protocols and the
agency considered it to be a beneficial addition
to the standard to further demonstrate the cred-
ibility of the dummy test results. GM, ho\rever,
has pointed out that the limb joint adjustments
for the crash test and for the calibration of the
lumber bending test are different, and that it
would be unfair to expect continued calibration
without adjustment of these joints. The NHTSA
accepts this objection and, until a means for
surmounting this difficulty is perfected, the pro-
posed change to S8.1.8 is withdrawn.
In another matter unrelated to dummy posi-
tioning, Volkswagen argued that active belt sys-
tems should be subject to the same requirements
as passive belt systems, to reduce the cost differ-
ential between the compliance tests of the two
systems. As earlier noted the NHTSA has issued
an advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (41
FR 54961, December 16, 1976) on this subject and
will consider Volkswagen's suggestion in the con-
text of that rulemaking.
Finally, the agency proposed the same belt
warning requirements for belts provided with
passive restraints as are presently required for
active belts. No objections to the requirement
were received and the requirement is made final
as proposed. The agency also takes the oppor-
tunity to delete from the standard the out-of-date
belt warning requirements contained in S7.3 of
the standard.
RECONSIDERATION OF DOCKET 73-8;
NOTICE 04
The NHTSA has received two petitions for
reconsideration of recent amendments in its test
dummy calibration test procedures and design
specifications (Part 572, '■^Anthropomorphic Test
Dummy," 49 CFR Part 572). Part 572 estab-
lishes, by means of approximately 250 drawings
and five calibration tests, the exact specifications
of the test device referred to earlier in this notice
that simulates the occupant of a motor vehicle
for crash testing purposes.
PART 572— PRE 18
Effective: July 5, 1978
Apart from requests for a technical change of
the lumbar flexion force specifications, the peti-
tions from General Motors and Ford contained a
repetition of objections made earlier in the rule-
making about the adequacy of the dummy as an
objective measuring device. Three issues were
raised: lateral response characteristics of the
dummy, failure of the dummy to meet the five
subassembly calibration limits, and the need for
a "whole systems" calibration of the assembled
dummy. Following receipt of these comments,
the agency published notification in the Federal
Register that it would entertain any other com-
ments on the issue of objectivity (42 FE 28200;
June 2, 1977). General comments were received
from Chrysler Corporation and American
Motors, repeating their positions from earlier
comments that the dummy does not qualify as
objective.
The objectivity of the dummy is at issue be-
cause it is the measuring device that registers the
acceleration and force readings specified by
Standard No. 208 during a 30-mph impact of the
tested vehicle into a fixed barrier. The resulting
readings for each vehicle tested must remain be-
low a certain level to constitute compliance.
Certification of compliance by the vehicle manu-
facturer is accomplished by crash testing repre-
sentative vehicles with the dummy installed.
Verification of compliance by the NHTSA is
accomplished by crash testing one or more of the
same model vehicle, also with a test dummy in-
stalled. It is important that readings taken by
diilerent dummies, or by the same dummy repeat-
edly, accurately reflect the forces and accelera-
tions that are being experienced by the vehicle
during the barrier crash. This does not imply
that the readings produced in tests of two ve-
hicles of the same design must be identical. In
the real world, in fact, literally identical vehicles,
crash circumstances, and test dummies are not
physically attainable.
It is apparent from this discussion that an
accurate reflection of the forces and accelerations
experienced in nominally identical vehicles does
not depend on the specification of the test dummy
alone. For example, identically specified and
responsive dummies would not provide identical
readings unless reasonable care is exercised in the
preparation and placement of the dummy. Such
care is analogous to that exercised in positioning
a ruler to assure that it is at the exact point
where a measurement is to commence. No one
would blame a ruler for a bad measurement if it
were carelessly placed in the wrong position.
It is equally apparent that the forces and ac-
celerations experienced in nominally identical
vehicles will only be identical by the greatest of
cbincidence. The small diffei'ences in body struc-
ture, even of mass-produced vehicles, will affect
the crash pulse. The particular deployment
speed and shape of the cushion portion of an
inflatable restraint system will also affect results.
All of these factors would affect the accelera-
tions and forces experienced by a human occu-
pant of a vehicle certified to comply with the
occupant restraint standard. Thus, achievement
of identical conditions is not only impossible
(due to the inherent differences between tested
vehicles and underlying conditions) but would
be unwise. Literally identical tests would en-
courage the design of safety devices that would
not adequately serve the variety of circumstances
encountered in actual crash exposure.
At the same time, the safety standards must
be "stated in objective terms" so that the manu-
facturer knows how its product will be tested
and under what circumstances it will have to
comply. A complete lack of dummy positioning
procedures would allow placement of the dummy
in any posture and would make certification of
compliance virtually impossible. A balancing is
provided in the test procedures between the need
for realism and the need for objectivity.
The test dummy also represents a balancing
between realism (biofidelity) and objectivity
(repeatability). One-piece cast metal dummies
could be placed in the seating positions and
instrumented to register crash forces. One could
argue that these dummies did not act at all like a
human and did not measure what would happen
to a human, but a lack of repeatability could not
be ascribed to them. At the other end of the
spectrum, an extremely complex and realistic
surrogate could be substituted for the existing
Part 572 dummy, which would act realistically
but differently each time, as one might expect
different humans to do.
PAKT 572— PRE 19
Effective: July 5, 1978
The existing Part 572 dummy represents 5
years of effort to provide a measuring instrument
that is sufficiently realistic and repeatable to
serve the purposes of the crash standard. Like
any measuring instrument, it has to be used with
care. As in the case of any complex instru-
mentation, paiticular care must be exercised in
its proper use, and there is little expectation of
literally identical readings.
The dummy is articulated, and built of ma-
terials that permit it to react dynamically, simi-
larly to a hiunan. It is the dynamic reactions of
the dummy that introduce the complexity that
makes a check on repeatability desirable and
necessary. The agency therefore devised five
calibration procedures as standards for the eval-
uation of the important dynamic dummy response
characteristics.
Since the specifications and calibration proce-
dures were established in August 1973, a substan-
tial amount of manufacturing and test experience
has been gained in the Part 572 dummy. The
quality of the dummy as manufactured by the
three available domestic commercial sources has
improved to the point where it is the agency's
judgment that the device is as repeatable and
reproducible as instrumentation of such complex-
ity can be. As noted, GM and Ford disagree
and raised three issues with regard to dummy
objectivity in their petitions for reconsideration.
Lateral response characteristics. Recent sled
tests of the Part 572 dummy in lateral impacts
show a high level of repeatability from test to
test and reproducibility from one dummy to an-
other ("Evaluation of Part 572 Dummies in Side
Impacts"— DOT HS 020 858). Further modifi-
cation of the lateral and rollover passive restraint
requirements into an option that can be met by
installation of a lap belt makes the lateral re-
sponse characteristics of the dummy largely
academic. As noted in Notice 4 of Docket 73-8
(42 FR 7148; Febniary 7, 1977), "Any manu-
facturer that is concerned with the objectivity of
the dummy in such [lateral] impacts would pro-
vide lap belts at the front seating positions in
lieu of conducting the lateral or rollover tests."
While the frontal crash test can be conducted
at any angle up to 30 degrees from perpendicular
to the barrier face, it is the agency's finding that
the lateral forces acting on the test instrument
are secondary to forces in the midsagittal plane
and do not operate as a constraint on vehicle and
restraint design. Compliance tests conducted by
NHTSA to date in the 30-degree oblique impact
condition have consistently generated similar
dummy readings. In addition, they are consid-
erably lower than in perpendicular barrier im-
pact tests, which renders them less critical for
compliance certification purposes.
Repeatability of dvmtmy calihration. Ford
questioned the dummy's repeatability, based on
its analysis of "round-robin" testing conducted
in 1973 for Ford at three differeent test labora-
tories (Ford Report No. ESRO S-76-^ (1976))
and on analysis of NHTSA calibration testing
of seven test dummies in 1974 (DOT-HS-801-
861).
In its petition for reconsideration, Ford
equated dummy objectivity with repeatability of
the calibration test results and concluded "it is
impracticable to attempt to meet the Part 572
component calibration requirements with test
dummies constructed according to the Part 572
drawing specifications."
The Ford analysis of NHTSA's seven dummies
showed only 56 of 100 instances in which all of
the dummy calibrations satisfied the criteria.
The NHTSA's attempts to reproduce the Ford
calculations to reach this conclusion were unsuc-
cessful, even after including the H03 dummy
with its obviously defective neck. Tliis neck
failed badly 11 times in a row, and yet Ford
apparently used these tests in its estimate of
56 percent compliance. This is the equivalent of
concluding that the specification for a stop watch
is inadequate because of repeated failure in a
stop watch with an obviously defective part. In
this case, the calibration procedure was doing
precisely its job in identifying the defective part
by demonstrating that it did not in fact meet the
specification.
The significance of the "learning curve" for
quality control in dununy manufacture is best
understood by comparison of three sets of dummy
calibration results in chronological order. Ford
in earlier comments relied on its own "round-
robin" crash testing, involving nine test dummies.
Ford stated that none of the nine dununies could
pass all of the component calibration require-
PART 572— PRE 20
EfFecHve: July 5, 1978
merits. Wliat the NHTSA learned through
follow-up questions to Ford was that three of the
nine dummies were not built originally as Part
572 dummies, and that the other six were not
fully certified by their manufacturers as qualify-
ing as Part 572 dummies. In addition, Ford
instructed its contractors to use the dummies as
provided whether or not they met the Part 572
specifications.
In contrast, recent NHTSA testing conducted
by Calspan (DOT-HS-6-01514, May and June
1977 progress reports) and the results of tests
conducted by GM (USG 1502, Docket 73-8, GR
64) demonstrate good repeatability and reproduc-
ibility of dummies. In the Calspan testing a
total of 152 calibration tests were completed on
four dummies fi'om two manufacturers. The
results for all five calibration tests were observed
to be within the specified performance criteria
of Part 572. The agency concludes that the
learning curve in the manufacturing process has
reached the point where repeatability and repro-
ducibility of the dummy has been fully demon-
strated.
Interestingly, Ford's own analysis of its round-
robin testing concludes that variations among the
nine dummies were not significant to the test
results. At the same time, the overall accelera-
tion and force readings did vary substantially.
Ford argued that this showed unacceptable
variability of the test as a whole, because they
had used "identical" vehicles for crash testing.
Ford attributed the variations in results to
"chance factors," listing as factors placement of
the dummy, postural changes during the ride to
the barrier, speed variations, uncertainty as to
just what part of the instrument panel or other
structure would be impact loaded, instrumenta-
tion, and any variations in the dynamics of air
bag deployment from one vehicle to another.
The agency does not consider these to be un-
controlled factors since they can be greatly re-
duced by carefully controlling test procedures.
In addition, they are not considered to be un-
acceptable "chance factors" that should be elim-
inated from the test. The most important
advantage of the barrier impact test is that it
simulates with some realism what can be experi-
enced by a human occupant, while at the same
time limiting variation to achieve repeatability.
As discussed, nominally identical vehicles are not
in fact identical, the dynamics of deployment
will vary from vehicle to vehicle, and humans
will adopt a large number of different seated
positions in the real world. The 30-mph barrier
impact requires the manufacturer to take these
variables into account by providing adequate
protection for more than an overly structured
test situation. At the same time, dummy posi-
tioning is specified in adequate detail so that the
manufacturer knows how the NHTSA will set
up a vehicle prior to conducting compliance test
checks.
"Whole ■systems'''' calibration. Ford and GM
both suggested a "whole systems" calibration of
of the dummy as a necessary additional check
on dummy repeatability. The agency has de-
nied these requests previously, because the dem-
onstrated repeatability and reproducibility of
Part 572 diunmies based on current specification
is adequate. The use of whole systems calibra-
tion tests as suggested would be extremely expen-
sive and would unnecessarily complicate compli-
ance testing.
It is instructive that neither General Motors
nor Ford has been specific about the calibration
tests they have in mind. Because of the variables
inherent in a high energy barrier crash test at
30 raph, the agency judges that any calibration
readings taken on the dummy would be over-
whelmed by the other inputs acting on the dummy
in this test environment. The Ford conclusion
from its round-robin testing agrees that dummy
variability is a relatively insignificant factor in
the total variability experienced in this type of
test.
GM was most specific about its concern for
repeatability testing of the whole dummy in its
comments in response to Docket 74^14; Notice
01:
Dummy whole body response requirements
are considered necessary to assure that a
dummy, assembled from certified components,
has acceptable response as a completed struc-
ture. Interactions between coupled components
and subsystems must not be assumed acceptable
simply because the components themselves have
been certified. Variations in coupling may
lead to significant variation in dummy response.
PART 572— PRE 21
Effective: July 5, 1978
There is a far simpler, more controlled means
to assure oneself of correct coupling of compo-
nents than by means of a "whole systems" cali-
bration. If, for example, a laboratory wishes to
assure itself that the coupling of the dummy
neck structure is properly accomplished, a simple
statically applied input may be made to the neck
prior to coupling to obtain a sample reading, and
then the same simple statically applied input may
be repeated after the coupling has been com-
pleted. This is a commonly accepted means to
assure that "bolting together" the pieces is prop-
erly accomplished.
Lumbar spine flexion. The flexibility of the
dummy spine is specified by means of a calibra-
tion procedure that involves bending the spine
through a forward arc, with specified resistance
to the bending being registered at specified angles
of the bending arc. The dummy's ability to flex
is partially controlled by the characteristics of
the abdominal insert. In Notice 04, the agency
increased the level of resistance that must be
registered, in conjunction with a decision not to
specify a sealed abdominal sac as had been pro-
posed. Either of these dummy characteristics
could affect the lumbar spine flexion perform-
ance.
Because of the agency's incomplete explanation
for its actions, Ford and General Motors peti-
tioned for reconsideration of the decision to take
one action without the other. Both companies
suggested that the specification of resistance
levels be returned to that which had existed
previously. The agency was not clear that it
intended to go forward with the stiffer spine
flexion performance, quite apart from the deci-
sion to not specify an abdomen sealing specifica-
tion. The purpose for the "stiffer" spine is to
attain more consistent torso return angle and to
assure better dummy stability during vehicle ac-
celeration to impact speed.
To assure itself of the wisdom of this course of
action, the agency has performed dummy cali-
bration tests demonstrating that the amended
spine flexion and abdominal force deflection
characteristics can be consistently achieved with
both vented and unvented abdominal inserts
(DOT HS-020875 (1977)).
Based on the considered analysis and review
set forth above, the NHTSA denies the petitions
of General Motors and Ford Motor Company for
further modification of the test dummy specifica-
tion and calibration procedures for reasons of
test dummy objectivity.
In consideration of the foregoing, Standard
No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) is amended as pro-
posed with changes set forth below, and Part 572
(49 CFR Part. 572) is amended by the addition
of a new sentence at the end of § 572.5, General
Description., that states: "A specimen of the
dummy is available for surface measurements,
and access can be arranged through : Office of
Crashworthiness, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590."
In accordance with Department of Transpor-
tation policy encouraging adequate analysis of
the consequences of regulatoi-y action (41 FR
16200; April 16, 1976), the Department has eval-
uated the economic and other consequences of this
amendment on the public and private sectors.
The modifications of an existing option, the
simplification and clarification of test procedures,
and the increase in femur force loads are all
judged to be actions that simplify testing and
make it less expensive. It is anticipated that the
"two dummy" positioning procedure may occasion
additional testing expense in some larger vehicles,
but not the level of expense that would have
general economic effects.
The effective date for the changes has been
established as one year from the date of publica-
tion to permit Volkswagen, the only manufac-
turer presently certifying compliance of vehicles
using these test procedures, sufficient time to
evaluate the effect of the changes on the com-
pliance of its products.
The program official and lawyer principally
responsible for the development of this amend-
ment are Guy Hunter and Tad Herlihy, respec-
tively.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on June 30, 1977.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
42 F.R. 34299
July 5, 1977
PART 572— PRE 22
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 572-ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST
DUMMIES REPRESENTING SIX-MONTH-OLD AND THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN
(Docket No. 78-09; Notice 4)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice is issued in conjunction
with new Standard No. 213, Child Restraint
Systems, which requires child restraint systems to
be dynamically tested using anthropomorphic test
dummies representing 6-month-old and 3-year-old
children. This notice establishes the specifications
for the dummies to be used in the child restraint
testing. In addition, it sets performance criteria as
calibration checks to assure the repeatability of the
dummy's performance.
DATES: The amendment is effective upon publica-
tion in the Federal Register. December 27, 1979.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should
refer to the docket number and be submitted to:
Docket Section, Room 5108, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Vladislav Radovich, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590
(202-426-2264)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice amends Part 572, Anthrojxmiorphic
Test Dummies, to establish specifications and per-
formance requirements for two test dummies, one
representing a 6-month-old child and the other
representing a 3-year-old child. This final rule is
issued to supplement new Standard No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems, published in the Federal
Register for December 13, 1979 (44 FR 72131).
Standard No. 213 evaluates the performance of
child restraints in dynamic sled tests using the
anthropomorphic test dummies whose specifica-
tions are established in this final rule. Restraints
recommended for children weighing 20 pounds or
less will be tested with an anthropomorphic
dummy representing a 6-month-old child and
restraints recommended for children weighing
more than 20 pounds, but not more than 50 pounds
will be tested with an anthropomorphic dummy
representing a 3-year-old child.
On May 18, 1978, NHTSA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking for the anthropomorphic test
dummy amendment (43 FR 21490) and the child
restraint standard (43 FR 21470). The comment
closing date for both notices was December 1,
1978. The May 18, 1978, proposal on the
anthropomorphic dummies noted that the calibra-
tion requirements proposed for the 3-year-old child
test dummy were tentative. The agency said it
would continue further testing on the calibrations
and the results of that work would be placed in the
public docket as soon as possible after the testing
was completed. Based on the testing, NHTSA
tentatively decided to make several minor
modifications to the test dummy specifications and
calibration requirements to improve the accuracy
of the test dummy as a tool for measuring the
performance of child restraints. A copy of the
modifications was placed in the public docket on
September 27, 1978, and the dummy manufac-
turers and child restraint testing facilities were
advised of the modifications. The tentative
modifications were published in the Federal
Register on November 16, 1978 (43 FR 53478).
At the request of the Juvenile Products Manufac-
turers Association, the agency extended the
comment closing date until January 5, 1979, for
the portions of the child restraint and test dummy
proposals dealing with testing with the
anthropomorphic dummies. NHTSA granted the
extension because manufacturers were reportedly
having problems obtaining the proposed test
PART 572-PRE 23
dummies to conduct their own evaluations. Based
on information gathered by the agency about the
availability of testing facilities and dummies, the
agency concluded that manufacturers could con-
duct the necessary testings before the extended
comment closing date.
On December 21, 1978, NHTSA made available
one of the agency's test dummies to General
Motors Corp. (GM) for the purpose of resolving
certain calibration problems GM reported it had
experienced with its own test dummy. All other
interested parties also were advised of the
availability of the NHTSA test dummy and informed
that NHTSA did not plan to issue a final rule on the
test dummy proposal until at least mid-summer.
The agency said it would review additional testing
material submitted to the docket before issuance of
the final rule. The final rule issuance date was
subsequently rescheduled for October 1979 in the
Department's March 1, 1979, Semi-Annual
Regulations Agenda (44 FR Part H, 38) and for
November 1979 in the August 27, 1979 Agenda (44
FR 50195).
Following issuance of the May 1978 notice of
proposed rulemaking, NHTSA conducted addi-
tional testing of the test dummies. This testing,
completed in July 1979, further confirmed the
results of the agency's prior testing which showed
the anthropomorphic dummies to be objective test
devices. The results of this testing were periodically
placed in the public docket so that all interested
parties could comment on them.
This final rule is based on the data obtained in
the agency's testing, data submitted in the com-
ments, and data obtained from other pertinent
documents and test reports. Significant comments
submitted to the docket are addressed below.
Infant Test Dummy
The infant test dummy is based on a simple
design representing the dimensions and mass
distribution characteristics of a 6-month-old child.
The test dummy is used to assess the ability of
infant restraints to retain their occupants and
maintain their structural integrity during dynamic
testing. Because of its construction, the dummy
cannot be instrumented to measure the forces that
would be exerted upon an infant in a crash.
NHTSA's tests have shown the infant dummy will
reliably and consistently represent the dynamics of
an infant during simulated impact tests.
GM, the only party to comment on the specifica-
tion for the infant test dummy, reported that it had
"no significant problem in building or verifying the
compliance of the dummy to the proposed
specification." To improve the durability of the
test dummy, GM recommended adding a wooden
form to the head to maintain its geometry and
using steel instead of lead for ballast in the test
dummy. Since these recommendations should not
affect the dummy's performance and should
increase its durability, NHTSA has adopted a
modified version of the proposed changes. The
changes add a plastic form to the dummy's head,
since a plastic form is easier to manufacture and
duplicate than a wooden form. In addition, a por-
tion of the ballast materials are now required to be
steel and aluminum.
The revised design drawings and a construction
manual for the infant dummy are available for
examination in the NHTSA docket section, which
is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Copies of these documents can be
obtained from: Keuffel and Esser Co., 1512 North
Danville Street, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
3-Year-Old Child Test Dummy
The test dummy representing a 3-year-old child
is based on the Alderson Model VIP-3C test
dummy. It was chosen over the other available test
dummies representing a 3-year-old child, such as
the Sierra 492-03 test dummy, because it has more
complete design details, can adequately withstand
the test load imposed during impact testing, has
more accurate anthropometry and mass distribu-
tion, can be easily instrumented for testing, more
closely simulates the responses of a child during
impact testing and has more consistent head and
chest acceleration measurements during impact
testing.
As with the infant test dummy, the final rule
establishes a complete set of design specifications
for the 3-year-old test dummy. For the 3-year-old
test dummy, NHTSA has provided: a drawing
package containing all of the technical details of
the dummy parts and the stages of dummy
manufacture; a set of master patterns for all molded
and cast parts of the dummy; and a maintenance
manual containing instructions for the assembly,
disassembly, use, adjustment and maintenance of
the dummy. These materials will ensure that
manufacturers can accurately and consistently
produce the test dummy.
PART 572-PRE 24
The drawings and the maintenance manual for
the 3-year-old test dummy are available for
examination at the agency's docket section. Copies
of these drawings and the maintenance manual can
be obtained from the Keuffel and Esser Co., 1512
North Danville Street, Arlington, Va. 22201. In
addition, patterns for all the cast and molded parts
are available on a loan basis from the agency's
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, at the address
given at the beginning of this notice.
Calibration Requirements
Unlike the infant test dummy, the 3-year-old
child test dummy can be instrumented with
accelerometers to measure the forces imposed on
the dummy during an impact. Thus, in Standard
No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, the 3-year-old
test dummy is used to measure the amount of head
and knee excursion and the magnitude of head and
chest acceleration allowed by the child restraint.
Since a test dummy is a complex instrument
required to measure important parameters, it is
essential that the test dummy be properly
calibrated to ensure accurate and repeatable
results. NHTSA has developed detailed test
dummy specifications and instrumentation
requirements to ensure that the test dummies are
as much as possible identically constructed and
identically instrumented. The agency also
developed calibration performance requirements
that the test dummy must meet in dynamic and
static tests. The calibration tests will determine
whether the test dummies are uniformly
constructed and properly instrumented.
In its comments, GM reported that it was unable
to calibrate its 3-year-old test dummies. As
mentioned previously, NHTSA loaned GM one of
the agency's test dummies for the purpose of
resolving the reported calibration problem. Using
the NHTSA test dummy equipped with NHTSA's
accelerometers, GM was able to meet the peak
resultant acceleration requirements set for the
dummy's head in specified pendulum impact tests,
but was not able to meet the lateral acceleration
requirement. When the same dummy was tested
with GM's accelerometers, the dummy did not
meet any of the head acceleration performance
requirements. In the case of the chest calibration
performance requirements, the accelerations
measured by GM test dummies and the NHTSA
test dummy, using both GM's and NHTSA's
accelerometers, were within the range set for peak
resultant and lateral acceleration.
GM also said that because the agency did not
define the term "unimodal" it was not certain that
the acceleration measurements that it made com-
plied with the requirement that the acceleration-
time curves for the head and chest impacts be
unimodal. To clarify the requirement, NHTSA has
defined unimodal in the final rule to mean an
acceleration curve that only has one prominent
peak and has specified that the measured
acceleration-time curve during the head and chest
impact testing need only be unimodal during a
short time period when the accelerations are above
a specified level.
GM attributed the calibration problem to
resonances in the head and chest of the test
dummies. (A resonance is a vibrational state that
can magnify the accelerations imposed on the test
dummy and thus prevent the accurate measure-
ment of those accelerations.) GM said that because
of the possible inaccurate measurements caused by
the resonances, the test dummy cannot be used as
an objective tool for assessing the performance of
child restraint systems.
The calibration testing done for the agency
indicates that the acceleration responses for the
head and chest pendulum impacts include a limited
amount of vibration. Such responses exist to some
extent in any acceleration measuring device and
are also found in similar pendulum impact tests of
the Part 572 adult test dummy. However, dynamic
sled tests of child test dummies in child restraint
systems have demonstrated that the test dummies
produce very repeatable results and do not show
the vibrations found in the more severe pendulum
impact tests. The agency's calibration tests also
show that the test dummies produce very
repeatable results. Even in GM tests of its three
test dummies equipped with GM's instrumenta-
tion, the test dummies produced repeatable
results. Such repeatability could not be obtained
with resonating systems. Based on a review of GM's
and the agency's test data, NHTSA concludes that
the GM calibration failures are not attributable to
resonances, but are very likely due to the
differences, discussed below, in the mounting of
the accelerometers in the GM test dummies.
NHTSA recognizes that because of different
instrumentation and test procedures, different test
facilities may obtain different results in what are
essentially the same tests. To reduce such
differences, NHTSA proposed requirements to
standardize the test and instrumentation pro-
cedures. In calibration tests conducted at Calspan
PART 572-PRE 25
Corporation the measurements of the peak resultant
head accelerations and the lateral head acceleration
were found to be close to the upper limits of the ten-
tative head calibration requirements (112 g peak
resultant acceleration and 5 g lateral acceleration)
proposed by the agency. To further accommodate
expected differences between different testing
facilities, NHTSA has decided to broaden the head
acceleration calibration requirements for peak re-
sultant head acceleration to 115 g's and for lateral
acceleration to 7 g's.
Instrumentation
Based on a review of GM's and the agency's test
data, NHTSA concludes that one of the significant
differences between NHTSA's and GM's test
dummy is the manner in which the accelerometer
mounting plate is attached to the head of the test
dummy. Finding what it thought was an incom-
patibility between the angle of the accelerometer
mounting plate bolt and the angle of the surface of
the plate that attaches to the dummy's head, GM
changed the angle of the surface in its test
dummies. However, NHTSA specified the
difference in the two angles for an important
reason. Having a difference in the angles allows
for a firmer attachment of the accelerometer
mounting plate to the dummy. The difference in
the firmness of the attachment of the
accelerometer mounting plate may account for the
additional acceleration that occurred in the head
calibration tests of the GM test dummies.
GM also asked the agency to set a torque
specification for the accelerometer mounting plate
bolt. In response to GM's request, the agency has
added a torque specification of 10 ft. lbs. to the
specifications set out in the maintenance manual
for the test dummy.
GM said that another possible source of the dif-
ference between the measurements it obtained
with its own test dummies and the measurements
it made with the NHTSA test dummies could be
due to differences in the type and location of the
accelerometers in the test dummies. GM noted that
the specifications proposed in the rule allow the
use of different types of accelerometers by allow-
ing a number of different accelerometer
placements within the test dummy.
As explained below, testing done for the agency
has shown that the use of different types of
accelerometers within the permissible locations
does not prevent the test dummy from producing
accurate and repeatable results. However, to
further reduce the possibility of test differences
due to accelerometer placement, the agency has
more specifically defined several of the permissible
accelerometer mounting locations.
Testing done for the agency at two different
facilities to develop the calibration requirements
used two types of accelerometers and different
accelerometer locations. That testing produced no
appreciable differences in test results and showed
that different facilities could obtain repeatable
results, when the accelerometers are properly
mounted.
The agency's test experience with the adult test
dummy also shows that minor differences in
accelerometer mounting locations do not affect the
ability of the test dummy to produce similar and
repeatable results. The number of permissible
accelerometer locations allowed for the adult test
dummy is in some cases larger than the number
permitted in the child test dummy. Yet no signifi-
cant differences in test results for the adult test
dummy have been encountered due to accelerometer
location.
GM's own test data also indicate that use of dif-
ferent types of properly mounted accelerometers and
different mounting locations produces only minor
variations in the measurements. GM tested
NHTSA's test dummy using two types of
accelerometers mounted at different locations within
the prescribed tolerances. The average measured
acceleration in the chest impact tests varied by only 4
percent between the two types of accelerometers. It
was only when GM used the improperly installed
accelerometer mounting block in the head impact
tests, discussed above, that GM obtained a 14 percent
difference in measured accelerations within the
NHTSA dummy using two types of accelerometers.
Calibration Procedures
GM also raised questions about the procedures
for conducting the chest and head calibration tests.
GM said that the sequence of procedures for posi-
tioning the dummy for the chest pendulum impact
test was ambiguous since it called for the test
dummy to be adjusted so that the area on the chest
of the dummy immediately adjacent to the impact
point is vertical. However, that surface of the
dummy is curved and has variable radii. GM also
pointed out that when the dummy is moved to the
more vertical position, the area that a pendulum
strikes the dummy also moves so that the portion
of the test dummy's chest which is too rigid might
be impacted. NHTSA has changed the dummy's
PART 572-PRE 26
positioning procedures so that a plane tangent to
the surface of the chest immediately adjacent to
the designated impact area is vertical. The posi-
tioning of the pendulum is also changed to ensure
that the pendulum consistently strikes the chest at
the designated point on the chest.
GM also raised questions about the positioning of
the pendulum for the head calibration impact tests.
The proposed requirement specified that the
impact point for the pendulum was to be measured
relative to the top of the dummy's head. GM said
that because of differences in the thickness and
shape of the dummy's skin, the location of the
impact point can vary. GM recommended deter-
mining the impact point relative to the head center
of gravity reference pins which protrude through
the test dummy's skin.
NHTSA has evaluated GM's proposed head
impact positioning procedure and decided to adopt
a modified version of it. A measurement made
from the head center of gravity pins will be used to
determine the head impact point to ensure that all
test dummies will be struck in the same location
during the head impact tests.
GM said that the lumbar spine calibration test
was ambiguous because it did not specify either the
direction in which the force was to be applied to the
lumbar spine or the location on the spine which is
to be used to define the direction of force applica-
tion. GM also pointed out that the procedures
erroneously set requirements for femur friction
plungers which are not included in the 3-year-old
test dummy. NHTSA has corrected the test
procedures to specify the direction of force
application and deleted the reference to friction
plungers.
GM also criticized ambiguities in the specifica-
tion for the amount of chest deflection. NHTSA
has reevaluated the need for a chest deflection
specification and has decided to eliminate the
requirement, since the chest acceleration test
should serve as an adequate calibration test of the
dummy's chest.
Repeatability
Ford, GM and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association (MVMA) raised questions about the
ability of the 3-year-old test dummy to give
repeatable results in crash testing. MVMA proposed
that the agency conduct another series of tests to
determine the amounts of variances in test results
between the same dummy in several tests and
between different dummies in the same tests.
MVMA and Ford also recommended that the
additional testing also include testing of the
proposed Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
test dummy to determine if it would be an objective
test device. The agency has not conducted an
evaluation of the ECE test dummy since there are
no calibration requirements for that test dummy.
Without caHbration requirements, there is no
means to ensure the accuracy of the measurements
obtained by the test dummy and therefore it
cannot be used as an objective test device.
The agency has already conducted three
separate research programs to evaluate the 3-year-
old test dummy as an objective test device. As
explained below, those programs have shown that
the test dummy is an objective device that
produces repeatable test results.
During 1977-78, the agency had simultaneous
research programs conducted at the University of
Michigan's Highway Safety Research Institute and
NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center in
East Liberty, Ohio to develop and evaluate the
calibration performance requirements and test
procedures for the 3-year-old test dummy. Four of
the 3-year-old test dummies were used in the
testing program. Two of the dummies were tested
by one laboratory and the other two were tested by
the other laboratory. Then the two sets of test
dummies were exchanged by the laboratories and
subjected to the same calibration tests. By setting
up the research program in this manner, the agency
was able to determine if the test procedures and
calibration performance requirements were
repeatable from test dummy to test dummy and
from test laboratory to test laboratory. The test
results from both research programs showed that
the calibration test procedures and performance
requirements produced repeatable results.
The repeatability of the test dummy was
reaffirmed in further testing conducted between
June 1978 and July 1979 at Calspan Corporation.
In that research program, four of the 3-year-old
test dummies were used with two different types of
child restraints— one shield type (Chrysler Mopar)
and one plastic shell with integral harness type
(GM Love Seat). Each of the four test dummies
was subjected to six sled tests at 30 mph in both
types of child restraints. The harness type
restraint was also subjected to 3 sled tests at 20
mph with the top tether strap unattached.
To determine the repeatability of the test
dummies, the head and chest accelerations and the
amounts of head and knee excursion experienced
PART 572-PRE 27
by the test dummies were analyzed. That analysis
showed that the amount of deviation measured by
the same dummy in the different tests was small
and similar in nature to the results obtained with
Part 572 test dummies representing adults, which
have been established as objective test devices.
In addition to examining the results obtained for
the same dummy in different tests, the research
program also examined the results for each of the
four 3-year-old dummies in the same test. Based on
previous testing of test dummies representing
adults, it was determined that if the absolute
deviation of the oberved test results for each per-
formance criteria, such as head acceleration, was
less than six percent from the mean results, then
the dummies had sufficient repeatability. In all but
one of the test results, the deviation from the mean
was less than six percent. The single exception
involved the amount of chest acceleration
measurered in the test dummies in the 20 mph
tests of an untethered harness-type restraint. In
that instance the deviation was only 7.7 percent.
The reason for the variation in that test is probably
due to the increased movement of the seat because
the tether strap was unattached, rather than due
to any variability in the test dummy.
Costs
The agency has considered the economic and
other impacts of this final rule and determined that
this rule is not significant within the meaning of
Executive Order 12044 and the Department of
Transportation's policies and procedures for
implementing that order. The agency's assessment
of the benefits and economic consequences of this
final rule are contained in a regulatory evaluation
which has been placed in the docket. Copies of that
regulatory evaluation can be obtained by writing to
NHTSA's docket section at the address given in
the beginning of this notice.
The cost of the infant test dummy is estimated to
be approximately $1,000. The 3-year-old test
dummy should cost approximately $4,000. The
materials used in the dummies are commercially
obtainable. The availability of the test dummy
drawing and other specifications means that any
manufacturer can produce its own test dummy and
does not have to purchase the test dummy from an
independent test dummy manufacturer.
Strollee, a child restraint manufacturer, and the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association
asked the agency to reconsider the calibration
requirements set for the 3-year-old dummy. They
argued that the cost of calibrating the test dummy
is approximately $800 to $1,100. Combined with
the cost of the sled testing, each test of a car seat
could cost approximately $2,000-$3,500. Such
costs "would certainly discourage a manufacturer
from testing frequently," Strollee said.
The calibration requirements set by this final
rule are essential to ensure that the test dummy is
an objective test device that will produce
repeatable results in dynamic sled tests. So that
the requirements would be practicable, the agency
established the minimum number of calibration
tests possible which would still ensure that the test
dummy is properly constructed and properly in-
strumentated. Each manufacturer, in the exercise
of due care, must determine how frequently it will
calibrate its test dummy and how frequently it will
run tests to determine its child restraint's
compliance with Standard No. 213.
In its own testing, the agency has used some test
dummies in as many as 15 tests over a 2-3 week
period without recalibrating them and has not
found any difference in their performance. With
other test dummies, the agency has found it
necessary to recalibrate them after several tests.
However, in its compliance testing the agency will
use properly calibrated dummies.
The principal authors of this notice are Vladislav
Radovich, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, and
Stephen Oesch, Office of Chief Counsel.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 572,
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, of Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
1. A new subsection (c) is added . . . Subpart
A-General, Section 572.4 Terminology (49 CFR
572.4) to read as follows:
(c) The term "unimodal", when used in
Subpart C, refers to an acceleration-time curve
which has only one prominent peak.
2. A new Subpart C-Three Year Old Child, is
added ....
Issued on December 20, 1979.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
44 F.R. 76527
December 27, 1979
PART 572-PRE 28
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies
(Docl<et No. 78-9, Notice 5; Docl<et No. 73-8, Notice 9)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends Part 572, Anthro-
pomorphic Test Dummies, to allow the use of an
alternative chemical foaming agent for molding
the dummy's flesh parts. In response to a Ford
petition, the notice also makes a minor technical
amendment to modify one specification in the
calibration procedures for the neck of the test
dummy repfesenting a 50th percentile male. The
effect of the latter amendment is to simplify the
calibration test.
DATES: The amendment is effective on June 16,
1980.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should
refer to the docket numbers and be submitted to:
Docket Section, Room 5108, National Highway
Traffic Safety Adminstration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W.. Washington, D.C. 20590. (Docket hours: 8:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Vladislav Radovich, Office of Vehicle
Standards, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington. D.C. 20590 (202-426-2264)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice
amends Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dum-
mies, to modify the design specification for
molding the test dummy's flesh parts to allow the
use of an alternative chemical foaming agent,
"OBSH/TBPP," to the currently specified "Ni-
trosan." In response to a petition from the Ford
Motor Company, the agency is also making a minor
technical amendment to simplify the calibration
test for the neck used in the 50th percentile male
test dummy. The amendment deletes the current
specification and substitutes the specification used
in the calibration testing of the recently issued
three-year-old child test dummy (44 FR 76527,
December 27, 1979).
The agency published the proposed changes to
the flesh molding and neck calibration specifica-
tions in the Federal Register oi December 18, 1978
(43 FR 58843). Only one party. Ford Motor Co.,
commented on the proposed changes and Ford sup-
ported the adoption of both proposed changes.
Molding Specifications
The agency proposed the changes in the molding
specification because the sole manufacturer of
"Nitrosan," the currently specified chemical foam-
ing agent, has discontinued its production due to
the hazardous propensities of the compound dur-
ing its manufacturing process. Based on an exten-
sive research program to develop and test new
chemical foaming agents (which was fully de-
scribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking), the
agency found that test dummy flesh parts made
from "OBSH/TBPP" have comparable material
properties to those produced with "Nitrosan" and
are superior in some respects. Based on an evalua-
tion of the research results, the agency concludes
that flesh parts produced from "OBSH/TBPP" can
be used for all purposes for which test dummies
are required by the applicable safety standards
and the dummy performance will be equivalent to
the performance of dummies produced with
"Nitrosan." Therefore, the agency is amending the
regulation to allow the use of "OBSH/TBPP."
Drawings and specifications outlining the formu-
lations for molding dummy flesh parts with the
"OBSH/TBPP" compound are available for exam-
ination in NHTSA Docket 73-8 and Docket 78-9,
Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20590. Copies of these drawings may also be
obtained from the Keuffel and Esser Company,
1513 North Danville Street, Arlington, Virginia
22201.
Neck Calibration Requirements
In response to a request from Ford, the agency
PART 572 -PRE 29
proposed an amendment to the pendulum impact
test specification established in section 572.7(b) for
the calibration of the 50th percentile male test
dummy. The amendment would have replaced the
current specification with the specification for
calibration testing established for the 3-year old
chUd test dummy.
The pendulum neck test found in Subpart B of
the standard for the 50th percentile male dummy
is intended to measure the bending properties of
the dummy's neck. The current test specifies that,
during the neck bending procedure, the pendulum
shall not reverse direction until "T = 123 ms." This
means that from the time the pendulum contacts
the arresting material which it must strike, the
pendulum cannot reverse direction for 123 milli-
seconds. The original intent of this requirement
was to negate the effects of arresting material
having rebound characteristics that could force
the pendulum to reverse its motion before the
bending properties of the neck could be measured.
Ford requested a change in this specification
because in certain instances the use of a special
apparatus may be required to hold the pendulum
arm for at least 123 milliseconds after the pen-
dulum has impacted the arresting material.
Research by NHTSA and the industry has
shown that when appropriate crushable materials
are used in pendulum impact tests, the pendulum
does not reverse its motion until the neck has
straightened out and the head's center of gravity
has returned to its original zero-time position
relative to the pendulum. At that time, all
measurements of the neck bending characteristics
are completed and the pendulum's motion there-
after is inconsequential. In light of this research,
the recent addition of Subpart C to Part 572,
specifying requirements for the 3-year-old child
dummy, modified the language concerning rever-
sal of the pendulum arm during the neck impact
test. Section 572.17 of that subpart specifies that
"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."
Under this requirement, a dummy user could only
use an arresting material for the impact test
whose rebound characteristics would not over-
come the pendulum's inertia before the head and
neck returned to the zero time position.
Since the specification in Subpart C of Part 572
represents a simplification of the pendulum
impact test specified in the current Subpart B,
without any degradation of performance
characteristics, the agency is amending section
572.7(b) of Subpart B to read as section 572.17(b) of
Subpart C.
Costs
The agency has considered the economic and
other impacts of this final rule and determined
that this rule is not significant within the meaning
of Executive Order 12044 and the Department of
Transportation's policies and procedures for im-
plementing that order. Based on that assessment,
the agency has concluded also that the economic
and other consequences of this proposal are so
minimal that a regulatory evaluation is not
necessary. The impact is minimal since there is no
estimated increase in the cost of the test dummies
due to the change in the foaming agent and neck
calibration specification. In addition, the amend-
ments would have no adverse environmental ef-
fects.
The engineer and lawyer primarily responsible
for this notice are Vladislav Radovich and
Stephen Oesch, respectively.
In consideration of the foregoing. Part 572,
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, of Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
1. Technical drawing ATD-6070 incorporated
by reference in Section 572.15 of Subpart
C — 3-Year-Old-Child is amended to add the for-
mulation for "OBSH/TBPP" foaming compound.
2. Technical drawing ATD-7151 incorporated
by reference in Section 572.5 of Subpart B— 50th
Percentile Male is amended to add the formula-
tion for "OBSH/TBPP" foaming compound.
3. The last sentence of Section 572.7(b) of Sub-
part B — 50th Percentile Male is amended to read:
"The pendulum shall not reverse direction until
the head's center of gravity returns to the
original zero time position relative to the pen-
dulum arm."
Issued on June 9, 1980.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 FR 40595
June 16, 1980
PART 572 -PRE 30
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies Representing 6-month-old and
3-year-old Children
(Docket No. 78-09; Notice 6)
ACTION: Response to petition for reconsideration.
SUMMARY: This notice grants in part and denies in
part a General Motors (GM) petition for recon-
sideration of the 3-year-old test dummy require-
ments set in Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test
Dummies. GM said it could not calibrate its test
dummies because of resonances in the dummies,
which prevent accurate acceleration measure-
ments. NHTSA found that GM's calibration prob-
lems are due to its failure to comply with all of the
design specifications set for the dummy and its use
of single axis rather than triaxial accelerometers.
In another notice in today's Federal Register the
agency is proposing to require the use of triaxial
accelerometers. This notice also corrects typo-
graphical errors in the final rule.
DATES: The amendments are effective on June 26,
1980.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Vladislav Radovich, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2264)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December
27, 1979, NHTSA published in the Federal
Register a final rule amending Part 572, An-
thropomorphic Test Dummies, to establish
specifications and performance requirements for
two test dummies, one representing a 6-month-old
child and the other representing a 3-year-old child
(44 FR 76527). The dummy is used in testing child
restraint systems in accordance with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems. General Motors (GM) timely
filed a petition for reconsideration concerning the
specifications and performance requirements set
for the test dummy representing a 3-year-old child.
No other petitions were filed and GM raised no
issues concerning the specifications set for the test
dummy representing a 6-month-old child.
In its petition, GM again argued that the 3-year-
old test dummy is not an objective test device for
acceleration measurement because of resonances
in the test dummy. GM requested the agency not
to use the dummy as an acceleration measurement
device until the resonances are eliminated.
GM also asked the agency to revise its ac-
celerometer specifications to require the axes of
triaxial accelerometers to intersect at a single
point. GM said the change would reduce possible
variability between different types of accelerom-
eters. In addition, GM requested a further change
in the lumbar spine test procedures to permit the
use of either a pull or a push force during the spine
calibration tests.
GM also raised questions about the possible use
of different signal filtering techniques at different
test laboratories. GM said that the use of different
filters might account for differences between its
testing and testing done for the agency.
NHTSA has evaluated GM's comments and the
agency's responses to GM's petition are discussed
below. All requests that are not specifically
granted below are denied.
Signal Filtering
GM argued that one of the possible reasons for
the differences between the test dummy head
calibration test results at GM and other labora-
tories was the use of incorrect filters (devices used
in the electronic processing of the acceleration
measurements) by some laboratories. Part 572 re-
quires the acceleration measurements to be
filtered according to the Society of Automotive
Engineers Recommended Practice J211a. Both
Calspan Corporation and the agency's Vehicle
Research and Test Center (VRTC), which did
PART 572 -PRE 31
testing for NHTSA, used the required filter and
instrumented their test dummies with triaxial ac-
celerometers. The test results at VRTC were all
within the limits set by the agency.
The Calspan test results originally reported to
the agency were also within the limits. In recheck-
ing its data, however, Calspan determined that it
had made an error in calculating the peak result-
ant accelerations in the head calibration test. The
corrected data showed that in one of the four head
calibration tests the peak resultant acceleration
was 116 g's, which exceeds the 115 g limit set in
Part 572. To evaluate possible variability in the
processing of the data by different laboratories,
the agency also had HSRI and VRTC process the
Calspan data. For the tests which exceeded the
calibration limit, there was little variability be-
tween the different laboratories, with HSRI
measuring 118 g's and VRTC measuring 117.4 g's.
The dummies Calspan used in the calibration
testing were subsequently used in sled tests of
child restraint systems. In the sled tests, the dum-
mies provided consistent and repeatable accelera-
tion measurements. Since dummies that experi-
ence 118 g's in the head calibration test can pro-
vide consistent and repeatable acceleration
measurements, the agency, in a separate notice
appearing in today's Federal Register, is propos-
ing to increase the head resultant acceleration
calibration limit from 115 to 118 g's.
NHTSA has found that the University of Michi-
gan's Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI),
which instrumented its dummies with single axis
accelerometers, did not use the filter required by
Part 572, but instead used a filter that deviates
from the required filter. To determine whether
the use of the HSRI filter made a difference in the
calibration tests conducted by that laboratory, the
agency had HSRI process the accelerations
recorded during its head calibration tests with the
correct filter. Using the correct filter, HSRI found
that in five of the eighteen head calibration tests
the peak resultant acceleration exceeded the
limits set in Part 572. In those five tests, the peak
resultant acceleration ranged from 115.9 to 119.1
g's.
The peak resultant accelerations and the shape
of the acceleration pulses in the HSRI tests that
exceeded the calibration limit were smaller than
and not the same shape as the measurements
made by GM in its tests, which also used test
dummies instrumented with single axis acceler-
ometers. In the two sets of data submitted by GM
to the docket, the peak resultant accellerations
ranged from 119 to 130 g's. In addition, the shape
of the GM head acceleration pulse was different
than the pulses measured in all the testing done
for the agency. In the GM acceleration pulse,
there is a brief secondary peak after initial peak is
reached. Based on the agency's testing of adult
test dummies, such secondary peaks are usually
indications of accelerometer vibration resulting
from improper installation.
The differences between the GM testing and
the testing done for the agency is not attributable
to the use of different filters. When all the test
data is filtered as specified in the standard, the
peak resultant accelerations measured by GM are
still greater than those obtained at the other
three laboratories. As explained below, use of
triaxial accelerometers, rather than the single
axis accelerometers used by GM and HSRI, will
provide repeatable, complying results in the head
calibration test.
Instrumentation
Part 572 allows the use of two different types of
accelerometers (single axis and triaxial) in the test
dummy and sets different axis intersection
requirements for each type of accelerometer. GM
asked the agency to apply the axis intersection re-
quirements set for single axis accelerometers to
triaxial accelerometers. It said such a requirement
would reduce the variability in test measurements
resulting from use of different types of accel-
erometers.
The agency's testing has demonstrated that
variability can be sufficiently controlled by use of
the existing specification with a triaxial ac-
celerometer. Testing done by GM has also shown
that the test dummy can be properly calibrated
with triaxial accelerometers. When GM tested one
of the agency's test dummies with GM's accel-
erometer mounting place and single axis acceler-
ometers, the peak lateral accelerations measured
in the test dummy's head exceeded the limits cur-
rently set in the regulation. Yet when GM tested
the same test dummy equipped with triaxial ac-
celerometers placed on the mounting plate re-
quired by the design specifications, the test dum-
my easily met the calibration requirements.
Therefore, rather than adopt GM's proposal, the
PART 572 -PRE 32
agency is proposing, elsewhere in today's Federal
Register, to require the use of only triaxial accel-
erometers.
Resonances
GM said that "the consistent lack of correlation
between dummy tests at General Motors and at
other laboratories" was attributable to resonances
in the test dummy. It said the dummy could not be
used as an objective test device until the
resonances were eliminated. As explained
previously, the variability between different test
laboratories can be controlled by the use of triaxial
accelerometers.
One reason for the "resonances" in the GM test
results may be GM's failure to use dummies that
fully comply with the agency's design specifica-
tions. The agency's review of some of the
blueprints used in the construction of the GM test
dummies revealed that GM did not use the ac-
celerometer mounting plate required by the
NHTSA design specifications. The mounting plate
used by GM was smaller and presumably lighter
than the plate specified by the agency. Use of a
smaller and lighter plate may have also con-
tributed to the higher acceleration readings ob-
tained by GM.
Thus, the agency denies GM's request not to use
the dummy for acceleration measurement and con-
cludes that the 3-year-old test dummy in-
strumented with triaxial accelerometers is an
objective test device for measuring accelerations
in child restraints.
Spine Calibration
The calibration requirements for the lumbar
spine of the test dummy specify the amount of flex-
ion the spine must experience when force is ap-
plied to it. The calibration procedures specify that
the applied force is to be applied as a pull force.
GM requested the agency to permit the use of a
"push" force saying that it "is more convenient to
apply in some test set-ups."
When the agency developed the spine calibra-
tion tests, both pull and push forces were used to
apply force to the spine. However, the testing
done by the Highway Safety Research Institute
(HSRI) found that use of a push force "proved to
be awkward and inconsistent." HSRI also found
that use of a pull force was simpler procedure and
provided consistent data. Based on the HSRI
testing, the agency has decided to deny GM's
request since the use of a pull force provides a sim-
ple, repeatable method to measure compliance.
Corrections
In the final rule issued on December 12, 1979,
NHTSA amended the instrumentation require-
ments for the chest to more specifically define
several of the accelerometers mounting locations.
The revised specifications inadvertently reversed
two of the axis mounting locations in the chest.
The specifications have been amended in this
notice to correct that error.
The test procedure for conducting the head im-
pact test set forth in the final rule contained a
typographical error. The tolerance for positioning
the test probe was listed as ±1.1 inches. The
regulation has been amended in this notice to
specify the correct tolerance of ± 0.1 inches.
The performance requirement for the neck
calibration test was incorrectly listed as 84
degrees ± 18 degrees rather than the correct
figure of 84 degrees ± 8 degrees. The necessary
corrections have been made in this notice to the
regulation.
The principal authors of this notice are Vlad-
islav Radovich, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,
and Stephen Oesch, Office of Chief Counsel.
In consideration of the foregoing. Subpart
C- 3- Year-Old Child of Part 572, Anthropomorphic
Test Dummies, of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, is amended as follows:
1. Section §572.1(c)(2) is amended to read as
follows:
(2) Adjust the test probe so that its longitudinal
centerline is at the forehead at the point of or-
thogonal 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 ± 0.1 inches
above the centers of the head center of gravity
reference pins and coincides within 2 degrees with
the line made by the intersection of horizontal and
midsagittal planes passing through this point.
2. The first sentence of section §572.17(b) is
amended to read as follows:
(b) When the head-neck assembly is tested in ac-
cordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the
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
PART 572 -PRE 33
extent specified in the following table at each in-
dicated point in time, measured from impact, with
the chordal displacement measured at its center of
gravity.
3. Section §572.21(c) is amended to read as
follows:
(c) Accelerometers are mounted in the thorax
on the mounting plate attached to the vertical
Hransverse bulkhead shown in the drawing
subreferenced under assembly No. SA 103C 030 in
drawing SA 103C 001 so that their sensitive axes
are orthogonal and their seismic masses are posi-
tioned relative to the axial intersection point
located in the midsagittal plane 3 inches above the
top surface of the lumbar spine and 0.3 inches dor-
sal to the accelerometer mounting plate surface.
Except in the case of triaxial accelerometers, the
sensitive axes shall intersect at the axial intersec-
tion point. One accelerometer is aligned with its
sensitive axis parallel to the vertical bulkhead and
midsagittal planes, and with its seismic mass
center at any distance up to 0.2 inches to the left,
0.1 inches inferior and 0.2 inches ventral of the
axial intersection point. Another accelerometer is
aligned with its sensitive axis in the transverse
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the mid-
sagittal plane and with its seismic mass center at
any distance up to 0.2 inches to the right, 0.1 inches
inferior and 0.2 inches ventral to the axial intersec-
tion point. A third accelerometer is aligned with
its sensitive axis parallel to the midsagittal and
transverse horizontal planes and with its seismic
mass center at any distance up to 0.2 inches supe-
rior, 0.5 inches to the right and 0.1 inches ventral
to the axial intersection point. In the case of a
triaxial accelerometer, its axes are aligned in the
same way that the axes of three separate accel-
erometers are aligned.
Issued on June 17, 1980.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 FR 43352
June 17, 1980
PART 572 -PRE 34
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies
(Docket No. 78-09; Notice 8)
ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsidera-
tion, final rule and correction.
SUMMARY: This notice amends Subpart C of Part
572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, to specify
the use of a triaxial accelerometer in the test dum-
my representing a 3-year-old child. The use of a
triaxial accelerometer will eliminate calibration
problems associated with single axis accel-
erometers. The notice also denies petitions filed by
Ford Motor Company and General Motors Cor-
poration seeking reconsideration of the agency's
June 26, 1980 notice responding to a prior General
Motors Corporation petition for reconsideration.
Finally, the notice corrects a typographical error
in the agency's June 26, 1980 final rule.
DATES: The amendments are effective on
December 15, 1980.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should
refer to the docket number and be submitted to:
Docket Section, Room 5108, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Vladislav Radovich, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590
(202-426-2264)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice
amends Subpart C of Part 572, Anthropomorphic
Test Dummies, to change several of the re-
quirements for the test dummy representing a
3-year-old child. The test dummy is used in testing
child restraint systems in accordance with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems.
The notice amends Subpart C of Part 572 to
specify the use of triaxial accelerometers, instead
of single axis accelerometers, in the head and chest
of the test dummy. In addition the notice increases
the upper limit for permissible resultant accelera-
tion in the head calibration test from 115 g's to 118
g's. The agency published a notice proposing these
changes in the Federal Register for June 26, 1980
(45 FR 43355). Only two parties. Ford Motor Com-
pany (Ford) and General Motors Corporation (GM),
submitted comments on the proposal. The final
rule is based on the data submitted in those com-
ments, data obtained in the agency's testing and
data obtained from other pertinent documents.
Significant comments submitted to the docket are
addressed below.
This notice also denies petitions filed by Ford
and GM seeking reconsideration of the agency's
June 26, 1980 notice (45 FR 43352) that granted in
part and denied in part a prior GM petition for
reconsideration.
Finally, this notice corrects a typographical er-
ror in an amendment made in the agency's June 26,
1980 notice (45 FR 43352) responding to a prior GM
petition for reconsideration.
Resonances
Ford and GM both agree with the agency that
the test dummy representing a 3-year-old child is
an objective test device for measuring the amount
of head and knee excursion that occurs in child
restraint system testing using the test dummy.
The fundamental disagreement stated in the Ford
and GM comments and petitions for reconsidera-
tion is whether the test dummy is an objective test
device for measuring accelerations in the dummy's
head and chest during child restraint testing. GM
argues that the test dummy is not an objective
PART 572 -PRE 35
device because of the presence of resonances in
the head and chest of the test dummy. Ford says
that the test dummy "may be a suitable measuring
device, when there is no head impact (such as in a
shoulder harness type of child restraint)" during
child restraint testing. It, however, argues that if
there is a head impact in the child restraint
testing, then the test dummy's head will resonate.
Ford and GM both argue that the resonances
can reinforce or attenuate the measurement of im-
pact forces on the test dummy. Thus, if the test
dummy does resonate, the acceleration measured
in the test dummy may not represent the actual
forces experienced by the test dummy.
Ford argues that the source of the resonance is
an oscillation of the urethane skull of the test dum-
my. Ford included with its petition and comments
on the June 26, 1980 proposal the results of several
tests in which it struck the head of the test dummy
with a rubber mallet. Ford said that regardless of
the direction of the impact, the head resonated
with a frequency of approximately 200 Hertz (Hz)
when it was struck.
The agency has reviewed the Ford and other
test data and concluded that the test dummy is an
objective test device that can be used for measur-
ing accelerations. As explained below, the
agency's conclusion is based on an analysis of the
structure of the test dummy's head and chest and
the relationship between that structure and the
impact response of the test dummy.
Many physical structures, such as the test dum-
my's head, have a natural or resonating frequency
at which they will vibrate when they are driven by
a force of the same frequency. When resonance
occurs, small variations in the applied force can
produce large variations in the measured accelera-
tion, thus preventing accurate measurement of the
acceleration. The resonance, however, will not
occur if the driving force is of a frequency that is
below the natural or resonating frequency of the
object being struck.
Analysis of the test dummy shows that the
natural or resonating frequency of the head is ap-
proximately 128 Hz, while the natural frequency of
the accelerometer attachment in the test dummy's
head is approximately 255 Hz. The natural
resonating frequencies of the test dummy's chest
and chest accelerometer attachment are approx-
imately 85 Hz and 185 Hz.
Impacts with hard and unyielding objects, such
as the unpadded portion of a car's instrument
panel, can create high frequencies, generally up to
1,000 Hz. Impacts with soft and yielding surfaces,
such as a padded child restraint, create low fre-
quencies, generally less than 50 Hz.
The test used in Standard No. 213 to evaluate
child restraints does not include impacts with hard
and unyielding surfaces. In Standard No. 213
testing, the child restraint is placed on a vehicle
seat and attached by a lap belt. There is no portion
of a vehicle's interior, such as an instrument panel,
placed in front of or to the side of the vehicle seat.
Thus, during the testing, the dummy will contact
the belts or padded surfaces of the child restraint.
Since the belts and padded surfaces are yielding
and energy-absorbing, contact with them will in-
volve impacts where the frequencies are well
below the natural or resonating frequency of the
test dummy's head and chest.
Ford raised the issue of whether contact be-
tween the head and arms of the dummy during the
testing might produce frequencies that will cause
the test dummy's head to resonate. Ford said that
it had experienced dummy head and arm contact in
some of its tests and resonance occurred.
The agency has conducted more than 150 tests
of child restraint systems. There have only been
2 tests in which the head of the test dummy struck
the toes and resonances occurred. The head-limb
contact occurred in those tests because of massive
structural failures in the child restraint system.
Although resonances did occur when the head
struck the toes, the validity of the acceleration
measurement in those tests is irrelevant for deter-
mining if the child restraint complied with Stand-
ard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The struc-
tural failure is, by itself, a violation of the stand-
ard. The agency had not found head and limb
contact affecting acceleration measurements in
any child restraint that maintained its structural
integrity during the testing.
In the past several years, the agency has con-
ducted 10 tests of the Ford TOT GUARD. In one of
those tests, the arm briefly touched the head,
but there was no effect on the acceleration
measurement. The dummy in those tests was posi-
tioned in accordance with the test procedure set
out in Standard No. 213. Since the test procedure
permits the limbs to be positioned so that they will
not inhibit the movement of the head or torso the
agency looked at the effect of positioning the dum-
PART572-PRE36
my's arm in different locations on the shield or the
side of the TOT GUARD. None of the different
arm positions resulted in head to arm contact af-
fecting acceleration measurement.
Triaxial Accelerometers
Part 572 currently allows the use of either triax-
ial accelerometers or single axis accelerometers to
measure accelerations in the head and chest of the
3-year-old child test dummy. The June 26, 1980
notice (45 FR 43355) proposed specifying the use of
only triaxial accelerometers in the test dummy to
eliminate calibration problems caused by single
axis accelerometers. The agency proposed only us-
ing triaxial accelerometers after GM was unable to
calibrate its test dummies with single axis ac-
celerometers. In GM's head calibration tests, the
peak resultant acceleration exceeded the upper
limit set by the regulation.
GM agreed that use of a triaxial accelerometer
"may reduce the possibility of exceeding the peak
acceleration in the dummy calibration test." It,
however, argued that the use of triaxial ac-
celerometers will not solve the problem of
resonance. As previously explained, the types of
impacts experienced in child restraint testing will
not produce resonances. The purpose of requiring
the use of triaxial accelerometers is to enable
manufacturers to calibrate consistently their test
dummies within the acceleration limits set in the
regulation.
Ford argued that single axis accelerometers are
easier to work with, more reliable and more easily
repaired than triaxial accelerometers. The agency
is not aware of any data, and Ford supplied none,
indicating that triaxial accelerometers are less
reliable than single axis accelerometers. Contrary
to Ford's assertion, a triaxial accelerometer should
be easier to use. The axes and seismic mass center
of the triaxial acceleromter (Endevco model
7267C-750) currently used in dummy testing are
permanently fixed in a mounting block. With
single axis accelerometers, three separate ac-
celerometers must be positioned by each user on a
mounting block in order to instrument the dummy.
Thus the possibility of variation in mounting loca-
tion between different users is increased by the
use of single axis accelerometers.
Single axis accelerometers are more readily
repairable than triaxial accelerometers. The agen-
cy, however, has used triaxial accelerometers in
numerous dummy tests for several years and has
found that their repair experience is comparable
to single axis accelerometers.
Based on all these considerations, the agency
has decided to adopt the triaxial accelerometer re-
quirement as proposed.
Calibration Limit
To accommodate minor variation in test meas-
urements between different test laboratories, the
agency's June 26, 1980 notice (45 Fr 43355) pro-
posed to slightly increase the permissible result-
ant acceleration limit for the head calibration test
from 115 g's to 118 g's. Neither Ford nor GM op-
posed this change, so the agency is adopting it as
proposed. Although the agency is expanding the
upper limit of the calibration range, experience
with the Part 572 adult test dummy has shown
that manufacturers will develop production tech-
niques to produce test dummies that have accel-
eration responses that fall within the middle of the
specified calibration range.
Correction
The final rule established by the agency's June
26, 1980 not'ce (45 FR 43352) amended the head
calibration ..ead test procedures. The notice in-
advertently made the amendment to section
572.1(c)(2) of Part 572 instead of to section
572.16(c)(2). This notice corrects that typograph-
ical error and makes the amendment to section
572.16(c)(2).
Costs
The agency has considered the economic and
other impacts of this final rule and determined
that this rule is not significant within the meaning
of Executive Order 12221 and the Department of
Transportation's policies and procedures imple-
menting that order. Based on that assessment, the
agency has concluded that the economic and other
consequences of this rule are so minimal that a
regulatory evaluation is not necessary. The impact
is minimal since the primary effect of this rule is to
bind the agency to using one of the two types of
accelerometers formerly permitted by the regula-
tion. The economic impact on manufacturers choos-
ing to purchase triaxial accelerometers needed to
instrument the dummy is approximately $2,500.
The agency finds, for good cause shown, that it
is in the public interest that the amendments made
PART 572 -PRE 37
by this notice have an immediate effective date.
The immediate effective date is needed since the
test dummy will be used in conducting compliance
tests for Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Sys-
tems, which goes into effect on January 1, 1981.
The engineer and lawyer primarily responsible
for this notice are Vladislav Radovich and Stephen
Oesch, respectively.
In consideration of the foregoing, Subpart C of
Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, of Ti-
tle 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is revised
to read as follows:
1. The first sentence of section 572.16(b) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(b) When the head is impacted in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section by a test probe
conforming to §572.21(a) at 7 fps., the peak result-
ant acceleration measured at the location of the
accelerometer mounted in the headform in accord-
ance with §572.21(b) shall be not less than 95g and
not more than 118g.
2. Section 572.21(b) is revised to read as follows:
(b) A triaxial accelerometer is mounted in the
head on the mounting block (A/310) located on the
horizontal transverse bulkhead as shown in the
drawings subreferenced under assembly SA 103C
010 so that its seismic mass centers are positioned
as specified in this paragraph relative to the head
accelerometer reference point located at the in-
tersection of a line connecting the longitudinal
centerlines of the transfer pins in the sides of the
dummy head with the midsagittal plane of the
dummy head. The triaxial accelerometer is aligned
with one sensitive axis parallel to the vertical
bulkhead and midsagittal plane and its seismic
mass center is located 0.2 inches dorsal to and 0.1
inches inferior to the head accelerometer ref-
erence point. Another sensitive axis of the triaxial
accelerometer is aligned with the horizontal plane
and is perpendicular to the midsagittal plane and
its seismic mass center is located 0.1 inch inferior
to, 0.4 inches to the right of and 0.9 inch dorsal
to the head accelerometer reference point. The
third sensitive axis of the triaxial accelerometer is
aligned so that it is parallel to the midsagittal and
horizontal planes and its seismic mass center is
located 0.1 inches inferior to, 0.6 inches dorsal to
and 0.4 inches to the right of the head accelerome-
ter reference point. All seismic mass centers shall
be positioned within ± 0.05 inches of the specified
locations.
3. Section 572.21(c) is revised to read as follows:
(c) A triaxial accelerometer is mounted in the
thorax on the mounting plate attached to the ver-
tical transverse bulkhead shown in the drawing
subreferenced under assembly No. SA 103C 030 in
drawing SA 103C 001 so that its seismic mass
centers 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
and 0.3 inches dorsal to the accelerometer mount-
ing plate surface. The triaxial accelerometer is
aligned so that one sensitive axis is parallel to the
vertical bulkhead and midsagittal planes and its
seismic mass center is located 0.2 inches to the left
of, 0.1 inches inferior to and 0.2 inches ventral to
the thorax accelerometer reference point. Another
sensitive axis of the triaxial accelerometer is
aligned so that it is in the horizontal transverse
plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane
and its seismic mass center is located 0.2 inches to
the right of, 0.1 inches inferior to and 0.2 inches
ventral to the thorax accelerometer reference
point. The third sensitive axis of the triaxial ac-
celerometer is aligned so that it is parallel to the
midsagittal and horizontal planes and its seismic
mass center is located 0.2 inches superior to, 0.5
inches to the right of and 0.1 inches ventral to the
thorax accelerometer reference point. All seismic
mass centers shall be positioned within ± 0.05
inches of the specified locations.
4. The document amending Subpart C — Three-
Year-Old Child of Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test
Dummies, of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations published in the Federal Register of
June 26, 1980 as 45 FR 43352 is corrected by
changing the reference to "Section 571.1(c)(2)"
made in the first amendment to the regulation set
out on page 43353 to read "572.16(c)(2)."
Issued on December 8, 1980.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 FR 82265
December 15, 1980
PART 572 -PRE 38
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies
[Docket No. 8505; Notice 1]
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This document amends regulations
concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's specifications for anthropomor-
phic test dummies by revising sections that state
where copies of drawings may be obtained.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 1985.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose
of this notice is to amend Part 572 of Chapter V of
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations by revising
§§ 572.5(a), 572.15(aXl), and 572.25(a), which state
where copies of drawings and a construction
manual describing the materials and the pro-
cedures involved in the manufacturing of an-
thropomorphic dummies may ■ be obtained. The
amendment changes the supply source for the
drawings and manual from Keuffel and Esser
Company to Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Incor-
porated. This revision is required because of the
sale of the Keuffel and Esser Company reproduc-
tion facilities to Rowley-Scher Reprographics, In-
corporated.
The amendment to Part 572 as set forth below is
technical in nature and does not alter existing
obligations. This notice simply provides the correct
address for obtaining copies of drawings and the
construction manuals. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration therefore finds for
good cause that this amendment may be made ef-
fective without notice and opportunity for com-
ment, may be made effective within 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register, and is not sub-
ject to the requirements of Executive Order 12291.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part
572 is amended as follows:
1. In § 572.5, paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows: § 572.5 General description.
(a) The dummy consists of the component assem-
blies specified in Figure 1, which are described in
their entirety 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— LumbEU" spine assembly
SA 150 M060— Pelvis and abdomen assembly
SA 150 M080-Right leg assembly
SA 150 MOBl-Left leg assembly
SA 150 MOlO-Head assembly
SA 150 M020-Neck assembly
SA 150 M030-Shoulder-thorax assembly
The drawings and specifications are incorporated
in this Part by reference to the nine headings, and
are available for examination in Docket 73-8,
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, attention
Mr. Allan Goldberg and Mr. Mark Krysinski ((202)
628-6667). The drawings and specifications are
subject to changes, but any change will be ac-
complished by appropriate administrative pro-
cedures, will be announced by publication in the
Federal Register, and will be available for ex-
amination and copying as indicated in this
paragraph. The drawings and specifications are
also on file in the reference library of the Federal
Register, National Archives and Records Services,
General Services Administration, Washington,
D.C.
PART 572-PRE 39
2. In § 572.15, paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows: § 572.15 General description.
(a) (1) The dummy consists of the component
eissemblies specified in drawing SA 103C 001,
which are described in their entirety by means of
approximately 122 drawings and specifications
that 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
The drawings and specifications are incorporated
in this Part by reference to the thirteen headings
and are available for examination in Docket 78-09,
Rm 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, attention Mr. Allan
Goldberg and Mr. Mark Krysinski ((202)
628-6667).
(3) An Operation and Maintenance Manual
(dated May 28, 1976, Contract No. DOT-
HS-6-01294) with instructions for the use and
maintenance of the test dummies is incorporated
in this Part by reference. Copies of the manual can
be obtained from Rowley -Scher Reprographics, Inc.
All provisions of this manual are valid unless
modified by this regulation. This document is
available for examination in Docket 78-09.
3. In § 572.25, paragraph (a) revised to read as
follows: § 572.25 General description.
(a) The infant dummy is specified in its entirety
by means of 5 drawings (No. SA 1001 001) and a
construction manual which describe in detail the
materials and the procedures involved in the
manufacturing of this dummy. The drawings and
the manual are incorporated in this P£U"t by
reference and are available for examination in
Docket 78-09, 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, at-
tention Mr. Allan Goldberg and Mr. Mark Krysin-
ski ((202) 628-6667). The drawings and the manual
are subject to changes, but any change will be ac-
complished by appropriate administrative pro-
cedures, will be announced by publication in the
Federal Register, and will be available for ex-
amination and copying as indicated in this
paragraph. The drawings and manual are also on
file in the reference library of the Federal Register,
National Archives and Records Services, General
Services Administration, Washington, D.C.
Issued on April 17, 1985
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
50 F.R. 25422
June 19, 1985
PART572-PRE40
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies
(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 45 )
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: This notice adopts the Hybrid III test
dummy as an alternative to the Part 572 test dummy
in testing done in accordance with Standard No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection. The notice sets forth the
specifications, instrumentation, calibration test pro-
cedures, and calibration performance criteria for the
Hybrid HI test dummy. The notice also amends
Standard No. 208 so that effective October 23, 1986,
manufacturers have the option of using either the
existing Part 572 test dummy or the Hybrid HI test
dummy until August 31, 1991. As of September 1,
1991, the Hybrid HI will replace the Part 572 test
dummy and be used as the exclusive means of deter-
mining a vehicle's conformance with the perfor-
mance requirements of Standard No. 208.
The notice also establishes a new performance
criterion for the chest of the Hybrid HI test dum-
my which will limit chest deflection. The new chest
deflection limit applies only to the Hybrid HI since
only that test dummy has the capability to measure
chest deflection.
These amendments enhance vehicle safety by per-
mitting the use of a more advanced test dummy
which is more human-like in response than the cur-
rent test dummy. In addition, the Hybrid III test
dummy is capable of making many additional
sophisticated measurements of the potential for
human injury in a frontal crash.
DATES: The notice adds a new Subpart E to Part
572 effective on October 23, 1986.
This notice also amends Standard No. 208 so that
effective October 23, 1986, manufacturers have the
option of using either the existing Part 572 test
dummy or the Hybrid HI test dummy until August
31, 1991. As of September 1, 1991, the Hybrid HI
will replace the Part 572 test dummy and be used
as the exclusive means of determining a vehicle's
conformance with the performance requirements of
Standard No. 208. The incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in the regulation is ap-
proved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 23, 1986.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In December
1983, General Motors (GM) petitioned the agency to
amend Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies,
to adopt specifications for the Hybrid HI test dum-
my. GM also petitioned for an amendment of Stand-
ard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to allow the
use of the Hybrid HI as an alternative test device
for compliance testing. The agency granted GM's
petition on July 20, 1984. The agency subsequently
received a petition from the Center for Auto Safety
to propose making Standard No. 208 's existing in-
jury criteria more stringent for the Hybrid HI and
to establish new injury criteria so as to take advan-
tage of the Hybrid Ill's superior measurement
capability. The agency granted the Center's petition
on September 17, 1984. On April 12, 1985 (50 FR
14602), NHTSA proposed amendments to Part 572
and Standard No. 208 that were responsive to the
petitioners and which, in the agency's judgment,
would enhance motor vehicle safety. Twenty-eight
individuals and companies submitted comments on
the proposed requirements. This notice presents the
agency's analysis of the issues raised by the com-
menters. The agency has decided to adopt the use
of the Hybrid III test dummy and some of the pro-
posed injury criteria. The agency has also decided
to issue another notice on the remaining injury
criteria to gain additional information about the
potential effects of adopting those criteria.
This notice first discusses the technical specifica-
tions for the Hybrid III, its calibration requirements,
its equivalence with the existing Part 572 test
dummy, and the applicable injury criteria. Finally,
it discusses the test procedure used to position the
dummy for Standard No. 208 compliance testing and
the economic and other effects of this rule.
PART 572-PRE 41
Test Dummy Drawings and Specifications
Test dummies are used as human surrogates for
evaluation of the severity of injuries in vehicle
crashes. To serve as an adequate surrogate, a test
dummy must be capable of simulating himian impact
responses. To serve as an objective test device, the
test dummy must be adequately defined through
technical drawings and performance specifications
to ensure uniformity in construction, impact
response, and measurement of injury in identical
crash conditions.
Virtually all of the commenters, with the excep-
tion of GM, said that they have not had sufficient
experience with the Hybrid III to offer comments
on the validity of the technical specifications for the
test dummy. Since the issuance of the notice, GM
has provided additional technical drawings and a
Society of Automotive Engineers-developed user's
manual to further define the Hybrid HI. These new
drawings do not alter the basic nature of the test
dummy, but instead provide additional information
which will enable users to make sure that they have
a correctly designed and correctly assembled test
dummy. The user's manual provides information on
the inspection, assembly, disassembly, and use of the
test dummy. Having the user's manual available will
assist builders and users of the Hybrid HI in pro-
ducing and using the test dummy. GM also provided
information to correct the misnumbering of several
technical drawings referenced in the notice.
In addition, the agency has reviewed the proposed
drawings and specifications. While NHTSA believes
the proposed drawings are adequate for producing
the test dummy, the agency has identified and
obtained additional information which should make
production and use of the test dummy even more ac-
curate. For example, the agency has obtained infor-
mation on the range of motions for each moving
body part of the test dummy. Finally, to promote
the ease of assembly, NHTSA has made arrange-
ments with GM to ensure that the molds and pat-
terns for the test dummy are available to all in-
terested parties. Access to the molds will assist other
potential builders and users of the Hybrid HI since
it is difficult to specify all of the details of the various
body contours solely by technical drawings.
The agency has adopted the new drawings and
user manual in this rule and has made the necessary
corrections to the old drawings. The agency believes
that the available drawings and technical specifica-
tions are more than sufficient for producing,
assembling, and using the Hybrid HI test dummy.
Commercial Availability of the Hybrid III
A number of commenters raised questions about
the commercial availability of the Hybrid HI test
dummy, noting problems they have experienced in
obtaining calibrated test dummies and the in-
strumentation for the neck and lower leg of the
Hybrid III. For example, Chrysler said that it had
acquired two Hybrid III test dummies, but has been
unable to obtain the lower leg and neck instrumen-
tation for five months. Likewise, Ford said that it
has been unable to obtain the knee displacement and
chest deflection measurement devices for the Hybrid
III. It also said that of the test dummies it had
received, none had sufficient spine stiffness to meet
the Hybrid HI specifications. Ford claimed to have
problems in retaining a stable dummy posture which
would make it difficult to carry out some of the
specified calibration tests. Subsequent investigation
showed that the instability was caused by out-of-
specification rubber hardness of the lumbar spine,
and was eliminated when spines of correct hardness
were used. In addition. Ford said that the necks and
ribs of the test dummy would not pass the proposed
calibration procedures. Finally, Ford said that the
equipment needed for calibrating the dummy is not
commercially available.
Although the commenters indicated they had ex-
perienced difficulty in obtaining the instrumentation
for the Hybrid Ill's neck and lower legs, they did
not indicate that there is any problem in obtaining
the instrumentation needed to measure the three in-
jury criteria presently required by Standard No. 208,
the head injury criterion, chest acceleration, and
femur loading and which are being adopted by this
rule for the Hybrid HI. For example, Volkswagen
said it had obtained Hybrid HI test dummies with
sufficient instrumentation to measure the same in-
jury criteria as with the Part 572. VW did say it had
ordered the additional test devices and instrumen-
tation for the Hybrid III but was told the instrumen-
tation would not be available for six months.
The agency notes that there are now two commer-
cial suppliers of the Hybrid HI test dummy. Alder-
son Research Labs (ARL) and Humanoid Systems.
Humanoid has built nearly 100 test dummies and
ALR has produced five prototype test dummies as
of the end of December 1985. Both manufacturers
have indicated that they are now capable of produc-
ing sufficient Hybrid Ills to meet the demand for
those dummies. For example, Humanoid Systems
said that while the rate of production is dependent
on the number of orders, generally three test dum-
mies per week are produced. Thus, in the case of the
basic test dummy, there appears to be sufficient
commercial capacity to provide sufficient test dum-
mies for all vehicle manufacturers.
PART 572-PRE 42
As to test dummy instrumentation, the agency is
aware that there have been delays in obtaining the
new neck, thorax, and lower leg instrumentation for
the Hybrid III. However, as Humanoid commented,
while there have been delays, the supplies of the
needed parts are expected to increase. Even if the
supply of the lower leg instrumentation is slow to
develop, this will not pose a problem, since the
agency is not adopting, at this time, the proposed
lower leg injury criteria. In the case of the neck in-
strumentation, the supply problem should be
minimized because each test facility will only need
one neck transducer to calibrate all of its test dum-
mies. The neck instrumentation will not be needed
for a manufacturer's crash testing since at this time,
the agency is not adopting any neck injury criteria.
In the case of the instrumentation for measuring
thoracic deflection, the supplier has indicated that
it can deliver the necessary devices within 3 months
of the time an order is placed. As to Ford's comment
about calibration test equipment, the agency notes
that current equipment used for calibrating the ex-
isting Part 572 test dummy can be used, with minor
modification, to calibrate the Hybrid III test dummy.
Calibration Requirements
In addition to having complete technical drawings
and specifications, a test dummy must have ade-
quate calibration test procedures. The calibration
tests involve a series of static and dynamic tests of
the test dummy components to determine whether
the responses of the test dummy fall within specified
performance requirements for each test. The testing
involves instrumenting the head, thorax and femurs
to measure the test dummy's responses. In addition,
there are tests of the neck, whose structural prop-
erties may have considerable influence on the
kinematics and impact responses of the instru-
mented head. Those procedures help ensure that the
test dummy has been properly assembled and that,
as assembled, it will provide repeatable and
reproducible results in crash testing. (Repeatability
refers to the ability of the same test dummy to pro-
duce the same results when subjected to several
identical tests. Reproducibility refers to the ability
of one test dummy to provide the same results as
another test dummy built to the same specifications.)
Lumbar Spine Calibration Test
The technical specifications for the Hybrid III set
out performance requirements for the hardness of
the rubber used in the lumbar spine to ensure that
the spine will have appropriate rigidity. NHTSA's
test data show that there is a direct relationship be-
tween rubber hardness and stiffness of the spine and
that the technical specification on hardness is suffi-
cent to ensure appropriate spine stiffness. Accord-
ingly, the agency believes that a separate calibra-
tion test for the lumbar spine is not necessary.
Humanoid supported the validity of relying on the
spine hardness specification to assure adequate
stability of the dummy's posture, even though it
found little effect on the dummy's impact response.
Humanoid 's support for this approach was based on
tests of Hybrid III dummies which were equipped
with a variety of lumbar spines having different
rubber hardnesses.
Subsequent to issuance of the notice, the agency
has continued its testing of the Hybrid III test
dummy. Through that testing, the agency found that
commercially available necks either cannot meet or
cannot consistently meet all of the calibration tests
originally proposed for the neck. To further evaluate
this problem, NHTSA and GM conducted a series
of round robin tests in which a set of test dummies
were put through the calibration tests at both GM's
and NHTSA's test laboratories.
The test results, which were placed in the docket
after the tests were completed, showed that none
of the necks could pass all of the originally specified
calibration tests.
In examining the test data, the agency determined
that while some of the responses of the necks fell
slightly outside of the performance corridors
proposed in the calibration tests, the responses of
the necks showed a relatively good match to existing
biomechanical data on human neck responses. Thus,
while the necks did not meet all of the calibration
tests, they did respond as human necks are expected
to respond.
In discussions with GM, the agency learned that
the calibration performance requirements were
originally established in 1977 based on the responses
of three prototype Hybrid III necks. GM first
examined the existing biomechanical data and
established several performance criteria that
reflected human neck responses. GM then built
necks which would meet the biomechanically based
performance criteria. GM established the calibration
tests that it believed were necessary to ensure that
the necks of the prototype test dummies would pro-
duce the required biomechanical responses.
Although extensive performance specifications may
have been needed for the development of specially
built prototype necks, not all of the specifications
appear to be essential once the final design was
established for the mass-produced commercial
version. Based on the ability of the commercially
available test dummies to meet the biomechanical
response criteria, NHTSA believes that the GM-
PART 572-PRE 43
derived calibration reqiiirements should be adjusted
to reflect the response characteristics of commer-
cially available test dummies and simplified as much
as possible to reduce the complexity of the testing.
Based on the results of the NHTSA-GM calibra-
tion test series, the agency is making the following
changes to the neck calibration tests. In the flexion
(forward bending) calibration test, the agency is:
1. increasing the time allowed for the neck to
return to its preimpact position after the pendulum
impact test from a range of 109-119 milHseconds
to a range of 113-128 milliseconds.
2. changing the limits for maximum head rotation
from a range of 67°-79° to a range of 64°-78°.
3. expanding the time limits during which max-
imum moment must occur from a range of 46-56
miUiseconds to 47-58 milHseconds.
4. modifying the limits for maximum moment
from a range of 72-90 ft-lbs to a range of 65-80
ft-lbs.
5. increasing the time for the maximum moment
to decay from a range of 95-105 milliseconds to a
range of 97-107 milliseconds.
In the extension (backward bending) calibration
test, the agency is:
1. expanding the time allowed for the neck to
return to its preimpact position after the pendulum
impact test from a range of 157-167 milliseconds
to a range of 147-174 milliseconds.
2. changing the limits for maximum head rotation
from a range of 94 °-106 ° to a range of 81 °-106 °.
3. expanding the time limit during which the
minimum moment must occur from a range of 69-77
milliseconds to 65-79 milliseconds.
4. modifying the limits for minimum moment
from a range of -52 to -63 ft-lbs to a range of -39
to -59 ft-lbs.
5. increasing the time for the minimum moment
to decay from the range of 120-144 milliseconds,
contained in GM's technical specifications for the
Hybrid III, to a range of 120-148 milliseconds.
In reviewing the NHTSA-GM test data, the
agency also identified several ways of simplifying
the neck's performance requirements. In each case,
the following calibration specifications appear to be
redundant and their deletion should not affect the
performance of the neck. The agency has thus
deleted the requirement for minimum moment in
flexion and the time requirement for that moment.
For extension, the agency has eliminated the limit
on the maximum moment permitted and the time
requirement for that moment. The agency has
deleted those requirements since the specification on
maximum rotation of the neck in flexion and minimum
rotation of the neck in extension appear to adequately
measure the same properties of the neck. Similarly,
the agency has simplified the test by eliminating the
pendulum braking requirement for the neck test, since
GM's testing shows that the requirement is not
necessary to ensure test consistency. Finally, the
agency is clarifying the test procedure by deleting the
specification in the GM technical drawings for the
Hybrid III calling for two pre-calibration impact tests
of the neck. GM has informed the agency that the two
pre-calibration tests are not necessary.
Based on the NHTSA-GM calibration test data,
the agency is making two additional changes to the
neck calibration test procedure. Both NHTSA and
GM routinely control the calibration pendulum im-
pact speed to within plus or minus one percent.
Currently available dummy necks are able to meet
the calibration response requirements consistently
when the pendulum impact speed is controlled to
that level Thus, NHTSA believes that the proposed
range of allowable velocities ( ± 8.5 percent) for the
pendulum impact is excessive. Reducing the allow-
able range is clearly feasible and will help maintain
a high level of consistency in dummy neck responses.
The agency has therefore narrowed the range of per-
missible impact velocities to the neck to ± 2 per-
cent. This range is readily obtainable with commer-
cially available test equipment. In reviewing the
neck calibration test data, GM and NHTSA noted
a slight sensitivity in the neck response to
temperature variation. In its docket submission of
January 27, 1986, GM recommended controlling the
temperature during the neck calibration test to 71 °
±1°. NHTSA agrees that controlling the tem-
perature for the neck calibration test will reduce
variability, but the agency believes that a slightly
wider temperature range of 69 ° to 72 °, which is the
same range used in the chest calibration test, is
sufficient.
Neck Durability
Nissan commented that, in sled tests of the two
test dummies, the neck bracket of one of the Hybrid
III test dummies experienced damage after 10 tests,
while the Part 572 test dummy had no damage. The
agency believes that Nissan's experience may be the
result of an early neck design which has been subse-
quently modified by GM. (See GM letter of Septem-
ber 16, 1985, Docket 74-14, Notice 39, Entry 28.)
The agency has conducted numerous 30 mile per
hour vehicle impact tests using the Hybrid III test
dummy and has not had any neck bracket failures.
PART 572-PRE 44
Thorax Calibration Test
As a part of the NHTSA-GM calibration test
series, both organizations also performed the pro-
posed calibration test for the thorax on the same test
dummies. That testing showed relatively small dif-
ferences in the test results measured between the
two test facilities The test results from both test
facilities show that the chest responses of the Hybrid
III test dummies were generally within the
established biomechanical performance corridors for
the chest. In addition, the data showed that the
Hybrid III chest responses fit those corridors
substantially better than the chest responses of the
existing Part 572 test dummy. The data also showed
that the chest responses in the high speed (22 ft/sec)
pendulum impact test more closely fit the corridors
than did the chest responses in the low speed (14
ft/sec) test. In addition, the data showed that if a
test dummy performed satisfactorily in the low
speed pendulum impact test, it also performed
satisfactorily in the more severe high speed test.
Based on those results, GM recommended in a
letter of January 27, 1986, (Docket No. 74-14, Notice
39, Entry 41) that only the low speed pendulum im-
pact be used in calibration testing of the Hybrid III
chest. GM noted that deleting the more severe pen-
dulum impact test "can lead to increasing the useful
life of the chest structure."
Based on the test data, the agency agrees with the
GM recommendation that only one pendulum impact
test is necessary. NHTSA recognizes that using only
the low speed pendulum impact will increase the
useful life of the chest. However, the agency has
decided to retain the high speed rather than the low
speed test. While NHTSA recognizes that the high
speed test is more severe, the agency believes the
high speed test is more appropriate for a number
of reasons. First, the data showed that the high
speed chest impact responses compared more closely
with the biomechanical corridors than the low speed
responses. Thus, use of the high speed test will make
it easier to identify chests that do not have the cor-
rect biofidelity. In addition, since the higher speed
test is more severe it will subject the ribcage to
higher stresses, which will help identify chest struc-
tural degradation. Finally, the high speed impact
test is more representative of the range of impacts
a test dummy can receive in a vehicle crash test.
Although the NHTSA-GM test data showed that
the production version of the Hybrid III chest had
sufficient biofidelity, the data indicated that
proposed calibration performance requirements
should be lightly changed to account for the wider
range in calibration test responses measured in com-
mercially available test dummies. Accordingly, the
agency is adjusting the chest deflection requirement
to increase the allowable range of deflections from
2.51-2.75 inches to 2.5-2.85 inches. In addition, the
agency is adjusting the resistive force requirement
from a range of 1186-1298 pounds to a range of
1080-1245 pounds. Also, the hysteresis requirement
is being adjusted from a 75-80 percent range to a
69-85 percent range. Finally, the agency is clarify-
ing the chest calibration test procedure by deleting
the specification in GM's technical drawing for the
Hybrid III that calls for two pre-calibration impact
tests of the chest. GM has informed the agency that
these tests are not necessary. These slight changes
will not affect the performance of the Hybrid III
chest, since the NHTSA-GM test data showed that
commercially available test dummies meeting these
calibration specifications had good biofidelity.
Chest Durability
Testing done by the agency's Vehicle Research
and Test Center has indicated that the durability of
the Hybrid Ill's ribs in calibration testing is less than
that of the Part 572 test dummy. ("State-of-the-Art
Dummy Selection, Volume I" DOT Publication No.
HS 806 722) The durability of the Hybrid III was
also raised by several commenters. For example,
Toyota raised questions about the durability of the
Hybrid Ill's ribs and suggested the agency act to
improve their durability.
The chest of the Hybrid III is designed to be more
flexible, and thus more human-like, than the chest
of the Part 572 test dummy. One of the calibration
tests used for the chest involves a 15 mph impact
into the chest by a 51.5 pound pendulum; an impact
condition which is substantially more severe than a
safety belt or airbag restrained occupant would ex-
perience in most crashes. The chest of the Hybrid
III apparently degrades after such multiple impacts
at a faster rate than the chest of the Part 572 test
dummy. As the chest gradually deteriorates, the
amount of acceleration and deflection measured in
the chest are also affected. Eventually the chest will
fall out of specification and will require either repair
or replacement.
In its supplemental comments to the April 1985
notice, GM provided additional information about
the durability of the Hybrid III ribs. GM said that
it uses the Hybrid III in unbelted testing, which is
the most severe test for the dummy. GM said that
the Hybrid III can be used for about 17 crash tests
before the ribs must be replaced. GM explained
PART 572-PRE 45
that it does not have comparable data for the Part
572 test dummy since it does not use that test
dummy in unbelted tests. GM said, however, that
it believes that the durability of the Part 572 test
dummy ribs in vehicle crash testing would be com-
parable to that of the Hybrid III.
Having reviewed all the available information, the
agency concludes that both the Hybrid HI and ex-
isting Part 572 test dummy ribs will degrade under
severe impact conditions. Although the Hybrid HFs
more flexible ribs may need replacement more fre-
quently, particularly after being used in unre-
strained testing, the Hybrid Hi's ribs appear to have
reasonable durability. According to GM's data,
which is in line with NHTSA's crash test experience,
the Hybrid Hi's ribs can withstand approximately
17 severe impacts, such as found in unrestrained
testing, before they must be replaced. Ford, in a
presentation at the MVMA Hybrid HI workshop
held on February 5, 1986, noted that one of its belt-
restrained Hybrid III test dummies was subjected
to 35 vehicle and sled crashes without any failures.
The potential lower durability of the ribs in
unrestrained testing should be of little consequence
if the Hybrid HI test dummy is used in air bag or
belt testing.
Chest Temperature Sensitivity
The April 1985 notice said NHTSA tests have in-
dicated that the measurements of chest deflection
and chest acceleration by the Hybrid HI are
temperature sensitive. For this reason, GM's
specifications for the Hybrid III recognize this prob-
lem and call for using the test dummy in a narrower
temperature range (69° to 72° F) to ensure the con-
sistency of the measurements. GM has also sug-
gested the use of an adjustment factor for
calculating chest deflection when the Hybrid III is
used in a test environment that is outside of the
temperature range specified for the chest. While this
approach may be reasonable to account for the ad-
justment of the deflection measurement, there is no
known method to adjust the acceleration measure-
ment for variations in temperature. For this reason,
the agency is not adopting GM's proposed adjust-
ment factor, but is instead retaining the proposed
69° to 72° F temperature range.
A number of commenters addressed the feasibility
and practicability of maintaining that temperature
range. BMW said that although it has an enclosed
crash test facility, it had reservations about its
ability to control the test temperature within the
proposed range. Daihatsu said that it was not sure
it could assure the test dimnmy's temperature will
remain within the proposed range. Honda said that
while it had no data on the temperature sensitivity
of the Hybrid HI, it questioned whether the
proposed temperature range was practical.
Mercedes-Benz said it is not practicable to maintain
the proposed temperature range because the flood
lights necessary for high speed filming of crash tests
can cause the test dummy to heat up. Nissan said
it was not easy to maintain the current 12 degree
range specified for the existing Part 572 test dummy
and thus it would be hard to maintain the three
degree range proposed for the Hybrid HI. Ford also
said that maintaining the three degree range could
be impracticable in its current test facilities.
Other manufacturers tentatively indicated that the
proposed temperature range may not be a problem.
VW said the temperature range should not be an in-
surmountable problem, but more experience with
the Hybrid III is necessary before any definite con-
clusions can be reached. Volvo said it could main-
tain the temperature range in its indoor test
facilities, but it questioned whether outdoor test
facilities could meet the proposed specification.
Humanoid indicated in its comments, that it has
developed an air conditioning system individualized
for each test dummy which will maintain a stable
temperature in the test dummy up to the time of the
crash test.
The agency believes that there are a number of
effective ways to address the temperature
sensitivity of the Hybrid III chest. The test pro-
cedure calls for placing the test dummy in an area,
such as a closed room, whose temperature is main-
tained within the required range for at least four
hours before either the calibration tests or the use
of the test dummy in a crash test. The purpose of
the requirement is to ensure that the primary com-
ponents of the test dummy have reached the correct
temperature before the test dummy is used in a test.
As discussed below, analytical techniques can be
used to determine the temperature within the test
dummy, to calculate how quickly the test dummy
must be used in a crash test before its temperature
will fall outside the required temperature range.
Testing done by the agency with the current Part
572 test dummy, whose construction and materials
are similar to the Hybrid HI, has determined how
long it takes for various test dummy components to
reach the required temperature range once the test
dummy is placed in a room within that range.
("Thermal Responses of the Part 572 Dummy to
Step Changes in Ambient Temperature" DOT
Publication No. HS-801 960, June 1976) The testing
was done by placing thermocouples, devices to
PART 572-PRE 46
measure temperature, at seven locations within the
dummy and conducting a series of heating and cool-
ing experiments. The tests showed that the thermal
time constants (the thermal time constant is the time
necessary for the temperature differential between
initial and final temperatures to decrease from its
original value to 37% of the original differential)
varied from 1.2 hours for the forehead to 6.2 hours
for the lumbar spine. Using this information it is
possible to estimate the time it takes a test dummy
originally within the required temperature range to
fall out of the allowable range once it has been ex-
posed to another temperature. The rib's thermal
time constant is 2.9 hours. This means, for exam-
ple, that if a test dummy's temperature has been
stabilized at 70.5 ° F and then transferred to a test
environment at 65 ° F, it would take approximately
0.8 hours for the rib temperature to drop to 69 ° F,
the bottom end of the temperature range specified
in Part 572.
Thus, the NHTSA test results cited above show
that the chest can be kept within the range proposed
by the agency if the test dummy is placed in a
temperature-controlled environment for a sufficient
time to stabilize the chest temperature. Once the
chest of the test dummy is at the desired
temperature, the test data indicate that it can
tolerate some temperature variation at either an in-
door or outdoor crash test site and still be within the
required temperature range as long as the crash test
is performed within a reasonable amount of time and
the temperature at the crash site, or within the vehi-
cle, or within the test dummy is controlled close to
the 69 to 72 degrees F range. Obviously, testing con-
ducted at extremely high or low temperatures can
move the test dummy's temperature out of the re-
quired range relatively quickly, if no means are used
to maintain the temperature of the test dummy
within the required range. However, auxiliary
temperature control devices can be used in the vehi-
cle or the test environment to maintain a stabilized
temperature prior to the crash test. Therefore, the
agency has decided to retain the proposed 69 to 72
degrees F temperature range.
Chest Response to Changes in Velocity
The April notice raised the issue of the sensitivity
of the Hybrid Hi's chest to changes in impact
velocities. The notice pointed out that one GM study
on energy-absorbing steering columns ("Factors In-
fluencing Laboratory Evaluation of Energy-
Absorbing Steering Systems," Docket No. 74-14,
Notice 32, Entry 1666B) indicated that the Hybrid
Hi's chest may be insensitive to changes in impact
velocities and asked commenters to provide further
information on this issue.
Both GM and Ford provided comments on the
Hybrid Hi's chest response. GM said that since the
Hybrid HI chest is designed to have a more human-
like thoracic deflection than the Part 572 test dum-
my, the Hybrid Ill's response could be different. GM
referenced a study ("System Versus Laboratory Im-
pact Tests for Estimating Injury Hazard" SAE
paper 680053) which involved cadaver impacts into
energy-absorbing steering columns. The study con-
cluded that the force on the test subject by the steer-
ing assembly was relatively constant despite
changes in test speeds. GM said that this study in-
dicated that "rather than the Hybrid III chest be-
ing insensitive to changes in velocity in steering
system tests, it is the Part 572 which is too sensitive
to changes in impact velocity to provide meaningful
information for evaluating steering systems."
GM also presented new data on chest impact tests
conducted on the Hybrid III and Part 572 test dum-
mies. The tests involved chest impacts by three pen-
dulum impact devices wath different masses and
three impact speeds. GM said that the test results
show that "the Hybrid HI chest deflection is sen-
sitive to both changes in impact velocity and impac-
tor mass." Ford also noted that the Hybrid HI ap-
pears sensitive in the range of speed and deflections
that are relevant to Standard No. 208 testing with
belt-restrained dummies.
Ford noted that the GM testing referenced in the
April notice was conducted at higher impact speeds
than used in the calibration testing of the Hybrid
HI. Ford said it agreed with GM that the indicated
insensitivity of chest acceleration to speed and load
is a reflection of the constant-force nature of the
steering column's energy absorption features. After
reviewing the information provided by Ford and
GM, NHTSA agrees that in an impact with a typical
steering column, once the energy-absorbing
mechanism begins to function, the test dummy's
chest will receive primarily constant force. The
lower stiffness of the Hybrid HI chests would make
it respond in a more human-like manner to these
forces than the existing Part 572 test dummy.
Chest Accelerometer Placement
Volvo pointed out that the chest accelerometer of
the Hybrid III is located approximately at the center
of gravity of the chest, while the accelerometer is
higher and closer to the back in the Part 572 test
dummy. Volvo said that since the biomechanical
tolerance limits for the chest were established us-
ing a location similar to that in the Part 572, it
PART 572-PRE 47
questioned whether the acceleration limits should
apply to the Hybrid III. Volvo recommended chang-
ing the location of the accelerometer in the Hybrid
HI or using different chest acceleration criteria for
the Hybrid III.
The agency recognizes that Hybrid HI ac-
celerometer placement should more correctly reflect
the overall response of the chest because it is placed
at the center of gravity of the chest. However, the
dimensional differences between the accelerometer
placements in the two test dummies are so small that
in restrained crash tests the differences in accelera-
tion response, if any, should be minimal.
Repeatability and Reproducibility
As discussed previously, test dummy repeatabil-
ity refers to the ability of one test dummy to
measure consistently the same responses when sub-
jected to the same test. Reproducibility refers to the
ability of two or more test dummies built to the same
specifications to measure consistently the same
responses when they are subjected to the same test.
Ford said that it is particularly concerned about
the repeatability of the chest acceleration and deflec-
tion measurements of the Hybrid III and about the
reproducibility of the Hybrid III in testing by dif-
ferent laboratories. Ford said that once a test dum-
my positioning procedure has been established, the
agency should conduct a series of 16 car crash tests
to verify the repeatability and reproducibility of the
Hybrid HI.
In its comments, GM provided data showing that
the repeatability of the Hybrid III is the same as the
existing Part 572 test dummy. Volvo, the only other
commenter that addressed repeatability, also said
that its preliminary tests show that the Hybrid III
has a repeatability comparable to the Part 572. The
agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center has also
evaluated the repeatability of the Hybrid HI and the
Part 572 in a series of sled tests. The data from those
tests show that the repeatabOity of the two test dum-
mies is comparable. ("State-of-the-Art Dummy
Selection, Volume I" DOT Publication No. HS 806
722.)
GM also provided data showing that the
reproducibility of the Hybrid HI is significantly bet-
ter than the Part 572. In its supplemental comments
filed on September 16, 1985, GM also said that
Ford's proposed 16 car test program was not
needed. GM said that "in such test the effects of
vehicle build variability and test procedure variabil-
ity would totally mask any effect of Hybrid III
repeatability and reproducibility."
The agency agrees with GM that additional testing
is unnecessary. The information Provided by GM
and Volvo shows that the repeatabOity of the Hybrid
III is at least as good as the repeatability of the ex-
isting Part 572 test dummy. Likewise, the GM data
show that the reproducibility of the Hybrid III is bet-
ter than that of the existing Part 572 test dummy.
Likewise, the recent NHTSA-GM calibration test
series provides further confirmation that tests by
different laboratories show the repeatability and
reproducibility of the Hybrid III.
Equivalence of Hybrid III and Part 572
As noted in the April 1985 notice, the Hybrid III
and the Part 572 test dummies do not generate iden-
tical impact responses. Based on the available data,
the agency concluded that when both test dummies
are tested in lap/shoulder belts or with air cushions,
the differences between the two test dummies are
minimal. The agency also said that it knew of no
method for directly relating the response of the
Hybrid HI to the Part 572 test dummy.
The purpose of comparing the response of the two
test dummies is to ensure that the Hybrid III will
meet the need for safety by adequately identifying
vehicle designs which could cause or increase occu-
pant injury. The agency wants to ensure that per-
mitting a choice of test dummy will not lead to a
degradation in safety performance.
As mentioned previously, one major improvement
in the Hybrid HI is that it is more human-like in its
responses than the current Part 572 test dummy.
The primary changes to the Hybrid HI, that make
it more human-like are to the neck, chest and knee.
Comparisons of the responses of the Part 572 and
Hybrid III test dummies show that responses of the
Hybrid III are closer than the Part 572 to the best
available data on human responses. (See Chapter II
of the Final Regulatory Evaluation on the Hybrid
HI.)
In addition to being more human-like, the Hybrid
III has increased measurement capabilities for the
neck (tension, compression, and shear forces and
bending moments), chest (deflection), knee (knee
shear), and lower leg (knee and tibia forces and
moments). The availability of the extra injury
measuring capability of the Hybrid III gives vehicle
manufacturers the potential for gathering far more
information about the performance of their vehicle
designs than they can obtain with the Part 572.
To evaluate differences in the injury mea-
surements made by the Hybrid HI and the existing
Part 572 test dummy, the agency has reviewed all
of the available data comparing the two test
dummies. The data come from a variety of sled
PART 572-PRE 48
barrier crash tests conducted by GM, Mercedes-
Benz, NHTSA, Nissan, and Volvo. The data include
tests where the dummies were unrestrained and
tests where the dimimies were restrained by manual
lap/shoulder belts, automatic belts, and air bags. For
example, subsequent to issuance of the April 1985
notice, NHTSA did additional vehicle testing to com-
pare the Part 572 and Hybrid HI test dummies. The
agency conducted a series of crash tests using five
different types of vehicles to measure differences
in the responses of the test dummies. Some of the
tests were frontal 30 mile per hour barrier impacts,
such as are used in Standard No. 208 compliance
testing, while others were car-to-car tests. All of the
tests were done with unrestrained test dummies to
measure their impact responses under severe con-
ditions. The agency's analysis of the data for all of
the testing done by NHTSA and others is fully
described in the Final Regulatory Evaluation for this
rulemaking. This notice will briefly review that
analysis.
One of the reasons for conducting the analysis was
to address the concern raised by the Center for Auto
Safety (CAS) in its original petition and the In-
surance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in its
comments that the Hybrid HI produces lower HIC
responses than the existing Part 572 test dummy.
As discussed in detail below, the test data do not
show a trend for one type of test dummy to con-
sistently measure higher or lower HIC's or femur
readings than the other. Based on these test data,
the agency concludes that the concern expressed by
CAS and IIHS that the use of the Hybrid HI test
dummy will give a manufacturer an advantage in
meeting the HIC performance requirement of
Standard No. 208 is not valid.
In the case of chest acceleration measurements,
the data again do not show consistently higher or
lower measurements for either test dummy, except
in the case of unrestrained tests. In unrestrained
tests, the data show that the Hybrid HI generally
measures lower chest g's than the existing Part 572
test dummy. This difference in chest g's measure-
ment is one reason why the agency is adopting the
additional chest deflection measurement for the
Hybrid III, as discussed further below.
HIC Measurements
The April 1985 notice specifically invited com-
ments on the equivalence of the Head Injury
Criterion (HIC) measurements of the two test dum-
mies. Limited laboratory testing done in a Univer-
sity of California at San Diego study conducted by
Dr. Dennis Schneider and others had indicated that
the Hybrid III test dummy generates lower accelera-
tion responses than either the Part 572 test dummy
or cadaver heads in impacts with padded surfaces.
The notice explained that the reasons for those dif-
ferences had not yet been resolved.
In its comments, GM explained that it had con-
ducted a series of studies to address the Schneider
results. GM said that those studies showed that the
Schneider test results are "complicated by the
changing characteristics of the padding material
used on his impact surface. As a result, his tests do
not substantiate impactor response difference be-
tween the Hybrid HI head, the Part 572 head and
cadaver heads. After examining our reports. Dr.
Schneider agreed with the finding that padding
degradation resulting from multiple impact ex-
posures rendered an input-response comparison in-
valid between the cadaver and the dummies." (The
GM and Schneider letters are filed in Docket 74-14,
General Reference, Entry 556.)
The agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center has
also conducted head drop tests of the current Part
572 and Hybrid III heads. The tests were conducted
by dropping the heads onto a two inch thick steel
plate, a surface which is considerably more rigid than
any surface that the test dummy's head would hit in
a vehicle crash test. One purpose of the tests was to
assess the performance of the heads in an impact
which can produce skull fractures in cadavers. The
tests found that the response of the Hybrid HI head
was more human-like at the fracture and subfracture
acceleration levels than the Part 572 head. The
testing did show that in these severe impacts into
thick steel plates, the HIC scores for the Hybrid III
were lower than for the Part 572. However, as
discussed below, when the Hybrid III is tested in vehi-
cle crash and sled tests, which are representative of
occupant impacts into actual vehicle structures, the
HIC scores for the Hybrid III are not consistently
lower than those of the Part 572 test dimimy.
The agency examined crash and sled tests, done
by GM, Mercedes-Benz, NHTSA and Volvo, in which
both a Hybrid III and the existing Part 572 test dum-
my were restrained by manual lap/shoulder belts.
(The complete results from those and all the other
tests reviewed by the agency are discussed in
Chapter HI of the Final Regulatory Evaluation on
the Hybrid HI.) The HIC responses in those tests
show that the Hybrid HI generally had higher HIC
responses than the Part 572 test dummy. Although
the data show that the Hybrid Ill's HIC responses
are generally higher, in some cases 50 percent
higher than the Part 572, there are some tests in
which the Hybrid Ill's responses were 50 percent
lower than the responses of the Part 572.
PART 572-PRE 49
For two-point automatic belts, the agency has
limited barrier crash test data and the direct com-
parability of the data is questionable. The tests using
the existing Part 572 test dimimy were done in 1976
on 1976 VW Rabbits for compliance purposes. The
Hybrid III tests were done in 1985 by the agency's
Vehicle Research and Test Center as part of the
SRL-98 test series on a 1982 and a 1984 VW Rabbit.
Differences in the seats, safety belts, and a number
of other vehicle parameters between these model
years and between the test set-ups could affect the
results. In the two-point automatic belt tests, the
data show that the Hybrid III measured somewhat
higher head accelerations than the existing Part 572
test dummy. In two-point automatic belts, the dif-
ferences appear to be minimal for the driver and
substantially larger for the passenger. In air bag sled
tests, the Hybrid Ill's HIC responses were generally
lower; in almost all the air bag tests, the HIC
responses of both the Hybrid III and the Part 572
test dummies were substantially below the HIC limit
of 1,000 set in Standard No. 208. Because of the
severe nature of the unrestrained sled and barrier
tests, in which the uncontrolled movement of the
test dummy can result in impacts with different
vehicle structures, there was no consistent trend for
either test dummy to measure higher or lower HIC
responses than the other.
Chest Measurements
For manual lap/shoulder belts, NHTSA compared
the results from CM, Mercedes-Benz, NHTSA, and
Volvo sled tests, and GM frontal barrier tests. The
NHTSA sled test results at 30 and the Volvo sled
test results at 31 mph are very consistent, with the
mean Hybrid III chest acceleration response being
only 2-3 g's higher than the response of the existing
Part 572 test dummy. In the 35 mph Volvo sled
tests, the Hybrid III chest acceleration response was
up to 44 percent higher than the existing Part 572
response. The GM 30 mph sled and barrier test data
were fairly evenly divided. In general, the Hybrid
III chest acceleration response is slightly higher than
that of the existing Part 572 test dummy. The
agency concludes from these data that at Standard
No. 208's compliance test speed (30 mph) with
manual lap/shoulder belts there are no large dif-
ferences in chest acceleration responses between the
two dummies. In some vehicles, the Hybrid III may
produce slightly higher responses and in other
vehicles it may produce slightly lower responses.
As discussed earlier, the agency has limited test
data on automatic belt tests and their comparability
is questionable. The Hybrid III chest acceleration
responses are up to 1.5 times higher than those for
the existing Part 572 test dummy. Only very limited
sled test data are available on air bags alone, air bag
plus lap belt, and air bag plus lap/shoulder belt. In
all cases, the Hybrid III chest acceleration responses
were lower than those for the existing Part 572 test
dummy.
For unrestrained occupants, the Hybrid III pro-
duces predominantly lower chest acceleration
responses than the existing Part 572 test dummy
in sled and barrier tests, and in some cases the dif-
ference is significant. In some tests, the Hybrid III
chest acceleration response can be 40 to 45 percent
lower than the Part 572 response, although in other
tests the acceleration measured by the Hybrid III
can exceed that measured by the Part 572 test
dummy by 10 to 15 percent.
In summary, the test data indicate the chest ac-
celeration responses between the Hybrid III and the
existing Part 572 test dtunmy are about the same
for restrained occupants, but differ for some cases
of unrestrained occupants. This is to be expected
since a restraint system would tend to make the two
dummies react similarly even though they have dif-
ferent seating postures. The different seating
postures, however, would allow unrestrained
dummies to impact different vehicle surfaces which
would in most instances produce different responses.
Since the Hybrid HI dummy is more human-like, it
should experience loading conditions that are more
human-like than would the existing Part 572 test
dummy. One reason that the agency is adding a
chest deflection criterion for the Hybrid HI is that
the unrestrained dummy's chest may experience
more severe impacts with vehicle structures than
would be experienced in an automatic belt or air bag
collision. Chest deflection provides an additional
measurement of potential injury that may not be
detected by the chest acceleration measurement.
Femur Measurements
The test data on the femur responses of the two
types of test dummies also do not show a trend for
one test dummy to measure consistently higher or
lower responses than the other. In lap/shoulder belt
tests, GM's sled and barrier tests from 1977 show
a trend toward lower measurements for the Hybrid
III, but GM's more recent tests in 1982-83 show the
reverse situation. These tests, however, are of little
significance unless there is femur loading due to knee
contact. These seldom occur to lap/shoulder belt
restrained test dummies. Also, in none of the tests
described above do the measurements approach
Standard No. 208's limit of 2250 pounds for femur
PART 572-PRE 50
loads. The air bag test data are limited; however,
they show little difference between the femur
responses of the two test dummies. As would be ex-
pected, the unrestrained tests showed no systematic
differences, because of the variability in the impact
locations of an unrestrained test dummy.
Injury Criteria
Many manufacturers raised objections to the ad-
ditional injury criteria proposed in the April 1985
notice. AMC, Ford, and MVMA argued that adopt-
ing the numerous injury criteria proposed in the
April 1985 notice would compound a manufacturer's
compliance test problems. For example. Ford said
it "would be impracticable to require vehicles to
meet such a multitude of criteria in a test with such
a high level of demonstrated variability. Notice 39
appears to propose 21 added pass-fail measurements
per dummy, for a total of 25 pass-fail measurements
per dummy, or 50 pass-fail measurements per test.
Assuming these measurements were all independent
of one another, and a car design had a 95% chance
of obtaining a passing score on each measurement,
the chance of obtaining a passing score on all
measurements in any single test for a single dummy
would be less than 28% and for both dummies would
be less than 8%." Ford, Nissan, VW and Volvo also
said that with the need for additional measurements,
there will be an increase in the number of tests with
incomplete data. BMW, while supporting the use of
the Hybrid III as a potential improvement to safety,
said that the number of measurements needed for
the additional injury criteria is beyond the capability
of its present data processing equipment.
VW said there is a need to do additional vehicle
testing before adopting any new criteria. It said that
if current production vehicles already meet the
additional criteria then the criteria only increase
testing variability without increasing safety. If cur-
rent vehicles cannot comply, then additional infor-
mation is needed about the countermeasures needed
to meet the criteria. Honda said there are insuffi-
cient data to determine the relationship between ac-
tual injury levels and the proposed injury criterion.
As discussed in detail below, the agency has
decided to adopt only one additional injury criterion,
chest deflection, at this time. The agency plans to
issue another notice on the remaining criteria pro-
posed in the April 1985 notice to gather additional
information on the issues raised by the commenters.
Alternative HIC Calculations
The April 1985 notice set forth two proposed alter-
native methods of using the head injury criterion
(HIC) in situations when there is no contact between
the test dummy's head and the vehicle's interior
during a crash. The first proposed alternative was
to retain the current HIC formula, but limit its
calculation to periods of head contact only. However,
in non-contact situations, the agency proposed that
an HIC would not be calculated, but instead new
neck injury criteria would be calculated. The agency
explained that a crucial element necessary for
deciding whether to use the HIC calculation or the
neck criteria was an objective technique for deter-
mining the occurrence and duration of head contact
in the crash test. As discussed in detail in the April
1985 notice, there are several methods available for
establishing the duration of head contact, but there
are questions about their levels of consistency and
accuracy.
The second alternative proposed by the agency
would have calculated an HIC in both contact and
non-contact situations, but it would limit the calcula-
tion to a time interval of 36 milliseconds. Along with
the requirement that an HIC not exceed 1,000, this
would limit average head acceleration to 60 g's or
less for any durations exceeding 86 milliseconds.
Almost all of the commenters opposed the use of
the first proposed alternative. The commenters
uniformly noted that there is no current technique
that can accurately identify whether head contact
has or has not occured during a crash test in all situa-
tions. However, the Center for Auto Safety urged
the agency to adopt the proposed neck criteria,
regardless of whether the HIC calculation is
modified.
There was a sharp division among the commenters
regarding the use of the second alternative; although
many manufacturers argued that the HIC calculation
should be limited to a time interval of approximately
15 to 17 milliseconds (ms), which would limit average
long duration (i.e., greater than 15-17 mOliseconds)
head accelerations to 80-85 g's. Mercedes-Benz,
which supported the second alternative, urged the
agency to measure HIC only during the time inter-
val that the acceleration level in the head exceeds 60
g's. It said that this method would more effectively
differentiate results received in contacts with hard
surfaces and results obtained from systems, such as
airbags, which provide good distribution of the loads
experienced during a crash. The Center for Auto
Safety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
and State Farm argued that the current HIC calcula-
tion should be retained; they said that the proposed
alternative would lower HIC calculations without en-
suring that motorists were still receiving adequate
head protection.
PART 572-PRE 51
NHTSA is in the process of reexamining the
potential effects of the two alternatives proposed by
the agency and of the two additional alternatives
suggested by the commenters. Once that review has
been completed, the agency will issue a separate
notice announcing its decision.
Thorax
At present, Standard No. 208 uses an acceleration-
based criterion to measure potential injuries to the
chest. The agency believes that the use of a chest
deflection criterion is an important supplement to
the existing chest injury criterion. Excessive chest
deflection can produce rib fractures, which can
impair breathing and inflict damage to the internal
organs in the chest. The proposed deflection limit
would only apply to the Hybrid III test dummy, since
unlike the existing Part 572 test dummy, it has a
chest which is designed to deflect like a human chest
and has the capability to measure deflection of the
sternum relative to the spine, as well as accelera-
tion, during an impact.
The agency proposed a three-inch chest deflection
limit for systems, such as air bags, which sym-
metrically load the chest during a crash and a two-
inch limit for all other systems. The reason for the
different proposed limits is that a restraint system
that symmetrically and uniformly applies loads to
the chest increases the ability to withstand chest
deflection ■ as measured by the deflection sensor,
which is centrally located in the dummy.
The commenters generally supported adoption of
a chest deflection injury criterion. For example.
Ford said it supported the use of a chest deflection
criterion since it may provide a better means of
assessing the risk of rib fractures. Likewise, the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said the
chest deflection criteria, "will aid in evaluating injury
potential especially in situations where there is chest
contact with the steering wheel or other interior
components." IIHS also supported adoption of a
three-inch deflection limit for inflatable systems and
a two-inch limit for all other systems. However, most
of the other commenters addressing the proposed
chest deflection criteria questioned the use of dif-
ferent criteria for different restraint systems.
GM supported limiting chest deflections to three-
inches in all systems. GM said that it uses a two-inch
limit as a guideline for its safety belt system testing,
but it had no data to indicate that the two-inch limit
is appropriate as a compliance limit.
Renault/Peugeot also questioned the three-inch
deflection limit for systems that load the dummy
symmetrically and two inches for systems that do
not. It said that the difference between those
systems should be addressed by relocation of the
deflection sensors. It also asked the agency to define
what constitutes a symmetrical system. VW also
questioned the appropriateness of setting separate
limits for chest compression for different types of
restraint systems. It recommended adoption of a
three-inch limit for al 1 types of restraint systems.
Volvo also raised questions about the ap-
propriateness of the proposed deflection criteria.
Volvo said that the GM-developed criteria proposed
in the April 1985 notice were based on a comparison
of accident data gathered by Volvo and evaluated
by GM in sled test simulations using the Hybrid III
test dummy. Volvo said that the report did not
analyze "whether the chest injuries were related to
the chest acceleration or the chest deflection, or a
combination of both."
The agency recognizes that there are several dif-
ferent types of potential chest injury mechanisms
and that it may not be possible to precisely isolate
and measure what is the relevant contribution of
each type of mechanism to the final resulting injury.
However, there is a substantial amount of data in-
dicating that chest deflection is an important con-
tributing factor to chest injury. In addition, the data
clearly demonstrate that deflection of greater than
three inches can lead to serious injury. For example,
research done by Neathery and others has examined
the effects of frontal impacts to cadaver chests with
an impactor that represents the approximate dimen-
sions of a steering wheel hub. Neathery correlated
the measured injuries with the amount of chest
deflection and recommended that for a 50th percen-
tile male, chest deflection not exceed three inches.
(Neathery, R. F., "Analysis of Chest Impact
Response Data and Scaled Performance Recommen-
dations," SAE Paper No. 741188)
Work by Walfisch and others looked at crash tests
of lap/shoulder belt restrained cadavers. They found
that substantial injury began to occur when the
sternum deflection exceeded 30 percent of the
available chest depth ("Tolerance Limits and
Mechanical Characteristic of the Human Thorax in
Frontal and Side Impact and Transposition of these
Characteristics into Protective Criteria," 1982
IRCOBI Conference Proceedings). With the chest
of the average man being approximately 9.3 inches
deep, the 30 percent limit would translate into a
deflection limit of approximately 2.8 inches. Since
the chest of the Hybrid III test dummy deflects
somewhat less than a human chest under similar
loading conditions, the chest deflection limit for
systems which do not symmetrically and uniformly
PART 572-PRE 52
load the chest, such as lap/shoulder belts, must be
set at a level below 2.8 inches to assure an adequate
level of protection.
To determine the appropriate level for non-
symmetrical systems, the agency first reviewed a
number of test series in which cadaver injury levels
were measured under different impact conditions.
(All of the test results are fully discussed in Chapter
III of the Final Regulatory Evaluation on the Hybrid
III.) The impact conditions included 30 mph sled
tests done for the agency by Wayne State Univer-
sity in which a pre-inflated, non-vented air bag
system symmetrically and uniformly spread the im-
pact load on the chest of the test subject. NHTSA
also reviewed 30 mph sled tests done for the agency
by the University of Heidelberg which used a
lap/shoulder belt system, which does not sym-
metrically and uniformly spread chest loads. In
addition, the agency reviewed 10 and 15 mph pen-
dulum impact tests done for GM to evaluate the
effects of concentrated loadings, such as might oc-
cur in passive interior impacts. The agency then
compared the chest deflection results for Hybrid III
test dummies subjected to the same impact condi-
tions. By comparing the cadaver and Hybrid III
responses under identical impact conditions, the
agency was able to relate the deflection
measurements made by the Hybrid III to a level of
injury received by a cadaver.
The test results show that when using a relatively
stiff air bag, which was pre-inflated and non- vented,
the average injury level measured on the cadavers
corresponded to an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)
of 1.5. (The AIS scale is used by researchers to
classify injuries an AIS of one is a minor injury, while
an AIS of three represents a serious injury.) In tests
with the Hybrid III under the same impact condi-
tions, the measured deflection was 2.7 inches. These
results demonstrate that a system that symmetri-
cally and uniformly distributes impact loads over the
chest can produce approximately threeinches of
deflection and still adequately protect an occupant
from serious injury.
The testing in which the impact loads were not
uniformly or symmetrically spread on the chest or
were highly concentrated over a relatively small area
indicated that chest deflection measured on the
Hybrid III must be limited to 2-inches to assure
those systems provide a level of protection compar-
able to that provided by systems that symmetrically
spread the load. In the lap/shoulder belt tests, the
average AIS was 2.6. The measured deflection for
the Hybrid III chest in the same type of impact test
was 1.6 inches. Likewise, the results from the
pendulum impact tests showed that as the chest
deflection measured on the Hybrid III increased, the
severity of the injuries increased. In the 10 mph pen-
dulum impacts, the average AIS was 1.3 and the
average .deflection was 1.3 inches. In the 15 mph
pendulum impacts the average AIS rose to 2.8.
Under the same impact conditions, the chest deflec-
tion measured on the Hybrid HI was 2.63 inches.
Based on these test results NHTSA has decided
to retain the two-inch limit on chest deflection for
systems that do not symmetrically and uniformly
distribute impact loads over a wide area of the chest.
Such systems include automatic safety belts, passive
interiors and air bag systems which use a lap and
shoulder belt. For systems, such as air bag only
systems or air bag combined with a lap belt, which
symmetrically and uniformly distribute chest forces
over a large area of the chest, the agency is adopt-
ing the proposed three-inch deflection limit. This
should assure that both symmetrical and non-
symmetrical systems provide the same level of pro-
tection in an equivalent frontal crash.
In addition to the biomechanical basis for the chest
deflection limits adopted in this notice, there is
another reason for adopting a two-inch deflection
limit for systems that can provide concentrated
loadings over a hmited area of the test dummy. The
Hybrid III measures chest deflection by a deflection
sensor located near the third rib of the test dummy.
Tests conducted on the Hybrid III by NHTSA's
Vehicle Research and Test Center have shown that
the deflection sensor underestimates chest displace-
ment when a load is applied to a small area away
from the deflection sensor. (The test report is filed
in Docket No. 74-14, General Reference, Entry 606.)
In a crash, when an occupant is not restrained by
a system which provides centralized, uniform
loading to a large area, such as an air bag system,
the thorax deflection sensor can underestimate the
actual chest compression. Thus, in a belt-restrained
test dummy, the deflection sensor may read two-
inches of deflection, but the actual deflection caused
by the off-center loading of a belt near the bottom
of the ribcage may be greater than two inches of
deflection. Likewise, test dummies in passive in-
terior cars may receive substantial off-center and
concentrated loadings. For example, the agency has
conducted sled tests simulating 30 mile per hour
frontal barrier impacts in which unrestrained test
dummies struck the steering column, as they would
do in a passive interior equipped car. Measurements
of the pre- and post-impact dimensions of the steer-
ing wheel rim showed that there was substantial
non-symmetrical steering wheel deformation, even
though these were frontal impacts. (See, e.g.,
PART 572-PRE 53
"Frontal Occupant Sled Simulation Correlation,
1983 Chevrolet Celebrity Sled Buck," Publication
No. DOT HS 806 728, February 1985.) The expected
off-center chest loadings in belt and passive interior
systems provide a further basis for applying a two-
inch deflection limit for those systems to assure they
provide protection comparable to that provided by
symmetrical systems.
Use of Acceleration Limits for Air Bag Systems
Two commenters raised questions about the use
of an acceleration-based criterion for vehicles which
use a combined air bag and lap/shoulder belt system.
Mercedes-Benz said that acceleration-based criteria
are not appropriate for systems that reduce the
deflection of the ribs but increase chest acceleration
values. Ford also questioned the use of acceleration-
based criteria. Ford said that its tests and testing
done by Mercedes-Benz have shown that using an
air bag in combination with a lap/shoulder belt can
result in increased chest acceleration readings. Ford
said it knew of no data to indicate that combined air
bag-lap/shoulder belt system loads are more in-
jurious than shoulder belt loads alone. Ford recom-
mended that manufacturers have the option of using
either the chest acceleration or chest deflection
criterion until use of the Hybrid III is mandatory.
As discussed previously, acceleration and deflec-
tion represent two separate types of injury
mechanisms. Therefore, the agency believes that it
is important to test for both criteria. Although the
tests by Mercedes-Benz and Ford show higher chest
accelerations, the tests also show that it is possible
to develop air bag and lap/shoulder belt systems and
meet both criteria. Therefore, the agency is retain-
ing the use of the acceleration-based criterion.
Use of Additional Sensors
Mercedes-Benz said the deflection measuring in-
strumentation of the Hybrid HI cannot adequately
measure the interaction between the chest and a
variety of vehicle components. Mercedes-Benz said
that it is necessary to use either additional deflec-
tion sensors or strain gauges. Renault/Peugeot
recommended that the agency account for the dif-
ference between symmetrical systems and asym-
metrical systems by relocating the deflection sensor.
The agency recognizes that the use of additional
sensors could be beneficial in the Hybrid HI to
measure chest deflection. However, such technology
would require considerable further development
before it could be used for compliance purposes.
NHTSA believes that, given the current level of
technology, use of a single sensor is sufficient for
the assessment of deflection-caused injuries in
frontal impacts.
Femurs
The April 1985 notice proposed to apply the femur
injury reduction criterion used with the Part 572 test
dummy to the Hybrid HI. That criterion limits the
femur loads to 2250 pounds to reduce the possibil-
ity of femur fractures. No commenter objected to
the proposed femur limit and it is accordingly
adopted.
Ford and Toyota questioned the need to conduct
three pendulum impacts for the knee. They said that
using one pendulum impact with the largest mass
impactor (11 pounds) was sufficient. GM has
informed the agency that the lower mass pendulum
impactors were used primarily for the development
of an appropriate knee design. Now that the knee
design is settled and controlled by the technical
drawings, the tests with the low mass impactors are
not needed. Accordingly, the agency is adopting the
suggestion from Ford and Toyota to reduce the
number of knee calibration tests and will require
only the use of the 11-pound pendulum impactor.
Hybrid III Positioning Procedure
The April notice proposed new positioning pro-
cedures for the Hybrid HI, primarily because the
curved lumbar spine of that test dummy requires a
different positioning technique than those for the
Part 572. Based on its testing experience, NHTSA
proposed adopting a slightly different version of the
positioning procedure used by GM. The difference
was the proposed use of the Hybrid HI, rather than
the SAE J826 H-point machine, with slightly
modified leg segments, to determine the H-point of
the seat.
GM urged the agency to adopt its dummy position-
ing procedure. GM said that users can more con-
sistently position the test dummy's H-point using the
SAE H-point machine rather than using the Hybrid
HI. Ford, while explaining that it had insufficient
experience with the Hybrid HI to develop data on
positioning procedures, also urged the agency to
adopt GM's positioning procedure. Ford said that
since GM has developed its repeatability data on the
Hybrid HI using its positioning procedure, the
agency should use it as well. Ford also said that the
use of GM's method to position the test dummy
relative to the H-point should reduce variability.
Based on a new series of dummy positioning tests
done by the agency's Vehicle Research and Test
Center (VRTC), NHTSA agrees that use of the SAE
H-point machine is the most consistent method to
position the dummy's H-point on the vehicle seat.
PART 572-PRE 54
Accordingly, the agency is adopting the use of the
H-point machine.
In the new test series, VRTC also evaluated a
revised method for positioning the Hybrid III test
dummy. The testing was done after the results of
a joint NHTSA-SAE test series conducted in
November 1985 showed that the positioning pro-
cedure used for the current Part 572 test dummy
and the one proposed in the April 1985 notice for
the Hybrid III does not satisfactorily work in all cars.
(See Docket 74-14, Notice 39, Entry 39.) The posi-
tioning problems are principally due to the curved
lumbar spine of the Hybrid III test dummy. In its
tests, VRTC positioned the Hybrid III by using the
SAE H-point machine and a specification detailing
the final position of the Hybrid III body segments
prior to the crash test. The test results showed that
the H-point of the test dummy could be consistently
positioned but that the vertical location of the
Hybrid III H-point is V4 inch below the SAE H-point
machine on average. Based on these results, the
agency is adopting the new positioning specification
for the Hybrid III which requires the H-point of the
dummy to be within a specified zone centered y* inch
below the H-point location of the SAE H-point
machine.
GM also urged the agency to make another slight
change in the test procedures. GM said that when
it settles the test dummy in the seat it uses a thin
sheet of plastic behind the dummy to reduce the fric-
tion between the fabric of the seat back and the
dummy. The plastic is removed after the diunmy has
been positioned. GM said this technique allows the
dummy to be more repeatably positioned. The
agency agrees that use of the plastic sheet can
reduce friction between the test dummy and the
seat. However, the use of the plastic can also create
problems, such as dislocating the test dummy during
removal of the plastic. Since the agency has suc-
cessfully conducted its positioning tests without
using a sheet of plastic, the agency does not believe
there is a need to require its use.
Ford noted that the test procedure calls for testing
vertically adjustable seats in their lowest position.
It said such a requirement was reasonable for ver-
tically adjustable seats that could not be adjusted
higher than seats that are not vertically adjustable.
However, Ford said that new power seats can be
adjusted to positions above and below the manually
adjustable seat position. It said that testing power
seats at a different position would increase testing
variability. Ford recommended adjusting vertically
adjustable seats so that the dummy's hip point is as
close as possible to the manufacturer's design
H-point with the seat at the design mid-point of its
travel.
The agency recognizes that the seat adjustment
issue raised by Ford may lead to test variability.
However, the agency does not have any data on the
effect of Ford's suggested solution on the design of
other manufacturer's power seats. The agency will
solicit comments on Ford's proposal in the NPRM
addressing additional Hybrid III injury criteria.
Volvo said that the lumbar supports of its seats
influence the positioning of the Hybrid III. It
requested that the test procedure specify that
adjustable lumbar supports should be positioned in
their rearmost position. Ford made a similar re-
quest. GM, however, indicated that it has not had
any problems positioning the Hybrid III in seats with
lumbar supports. To reduce positioning problems
resisting from the lumbar supports in some vehicles,
the agency is adopting Ford's and Volvo's sug-
gestion.
Test Data Analysis
The Chairman of the Society of Automotive
Engineers Safety Test Instrumentation Committee
noted that the agency proposed to reference an
earlier version of the SAE Recommended Practice
on Instrumentation (SAE J211a, 1971). He sug-
gested that the agency reference the most recent
version (SAE J211, 1980), saying that better data
correlation between different testing organizations
would result. The agency agrees with SAE and is
adopting the SAE J211, 1980 version of the in-
strumentation Recommended Practice.
Ford and GM recommended that the figures 25
and 26, which proposed a standardized coordinate
system for major body segments of the test dummy,
be revised to reflect the latest industry practice on
coordinate signs. Since those revisions will help
ensure uniformity in data analysis by different test
facilities, the agency is making the changes for the
test measurements adopted in this rulemaking.
Both GM and Ford also recommended changes in
the filter used to process electronically measured
crash data. GM suggested that a class 180 filtei' be
used for the neck force transducer rather than the
proposed class 60 filter. Ford recommended the use
of a class 1,000 filter, which is the filter used for the
head accelerometer.
NHTSA has conducted all of the testing used to
develop the calibration test requirement for the neck
using a class 60 filter. The agency does not have any
data showing the effects of using either the class 180
filter proposed by GM or the class 1,000 filter
proposed by Ford. Therefore the agency has adopted
PART 572-PRE 55
the use of a class 60 filter for the neck transducer
during the calibration test. The agency also used a
class 60 filter for the accelerometer mounted on the
neck pendulum and is therefore adopting the use of
that filter to ensure uniformity in measuring pen-
dulum acceleration.
Optional and Mandatory Use of Hybrid III
AMC, Chrysler, Ford, Jaguar and Subaru all
urged the agency to defer a decision on permitting
the optional use of the Hybrid III test dummy until
manufacturers have had more experience with using
that test dummy. AMC said it has essentially no
experience with the Hybrid HI and urged the agency
to postpone a decision on allowing the optional use
of that test dummy. AMC said this would give small
manufacturers time to gain experience with the
Hybrid HI.
Chrysler also said that it has no experience with
the Hybrid HI test dummy and would need to con-
duct two years of testing to be able to develop suffi-
cient information to address the issues raised in the
notice. Chrysler said that it was currently develop-
ing its 1991 and 1992 models and has no data from
Hybrid III test dummies on which to base its design
decisions. It said that allowing the optional use of
the Hybrid III before that time would give a com-
petitive advantage to manufacturers with more
experience with the test device and suggested in-
definitely postponing the mandatory effective date.
Ford said that the effective date proposed for
optional use of the Hybrid III should be deferred to
allow time to resolve the problems Ford raised in
its comments and to allow manufacturers time to
acquire Hybrid III test dummies. It suggested defer-
ring the proposed optional use until at least
September 1, 1989. Ford also recommended that the
mandatory use be deferred. Jaguar also said it has
not had experience with the Hybrid III and asked
that manufacturers have until September 1, 1987,
to accumulate information on the performance of the
test dummy. Subaru said that it has exclusively used
the Part 572 test dummy and does not have any ex-
perience with the Hybrid III. It asked the agency
to provide time for all manufacturers to gain ex-
perience with the Hybrid III, which in its case would
be two years, before allowing the Hybrid III as an
alternative.
A number of manufacturers, such as GM, Honda,
Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and Volvo, that sup-
ported optional use of the Hybrid III, urged the
agency not to mandate its use at this time. GM asked
the agency to permit the immediate optional use of
the Hybrid III, but urged NHTSA to provide more
time for all interested parties to become familiar
with the test dummy before mandating its use.
Honda said that while it supported optional use, it
was just beginning to assess the performance of the
Hybrid III and needed more time before the use of
the Hybrid III is mandated. Mercedes-Benz also sup-
ported the use of the Hybrid III as an alternative
test device because of its capacity to measure more
types of injuries and because of its improved
biofidelity for the neck and thorax. However,
Mercedes recommended against mandatory use until
issues concerning the Hybrid Ill's use in side impact,
the biofidelity of its leg, durability and chest deflec-
tion measurements are resolved. Nissan opposed the
mandatory us of the Hybrid III saying there is a
need to further investigate the differences between
the Hybrid III and the Part 572. Toyota said that
it was premature to set a mandatory effective date
until the test procedure and injury criteria questions
are resolved. Volkswagen supported the adoption of
the Hybrid III as an alternative test device, but it
opposed mandating its use. Volvo supported the op-
tional use of the Hybrid III. It noted that since
NHTSA is developing an advanced test dummy,
there might not be a need to require the use of the
Hybrid III in the interim.
The agency recognizes that manufacturers are
concerned about obtaining the Hybrid III test
dummy and gaining experience with its use prior to
the proposed September 1, 1991, date for mandatory
use of that test dummy. However, information pro-
vided by the manufacturers of the Hybrid III shows
that it will take no longer than approximately one
year to supply all manufacturers with sufficient
quantities of Hybrid Ill's. This means that manufac-
turers will have, at a minimum, more than four years
to gain experience in using the Hybrid III. In addi-
tion, to assist manufacturers in becoming familiar
with the Hybrid III, NHTSA has been placing in the
rulemaking docket complete information on the
agency's research programs using the Hybrid III
test dummy in crash and calibration tests. Since
manufacturers will have sufficient time to obtain and
gain experience with the Hybrid III by September
1, 1991, the agency has decided to mandate use of
the Hybrid III as of that date.
As discussed earlier in this notice, the evidence
shows that the Hybrid III is more human-like in its
responses to impacts than the existing Part 572 test
dummy. In addition, the Hybrid III has the capability
to measure far more potential injuries than the cur-
rent test dummy. The agency is taking advantage
of that capability by adopting a limitation on chest
deflection which will enable NHTSA to measure a
PART 572-PRE 56
significant source of injury that cannot be measured
on the current test dummy. The combination of the
better biofidelity and increased injury-measuring
capabiHty available with the Hybrid III will enhance
vehicle safety.
Adoption of the Hybrid HI will not give a com-
petitive advantage to GM, as claimed by some of the
commenters, such as Chrysler and Ford. As the
developer of the Hybrid HI, GM obviously has had
more experience with that test dummy than other
manufacturers. However, as discussed above, the
agency has provided sufficient leadtime to allow all
manufacturers to develop sufficient experience with
the Hybrid III test dummy. In addition, as discussed
in the equivalency section of this notice, there are
no data to suggest that it will be easier for GM or
other manufacturers to meet the performance re-
quirements of Standard No. 208 with the Hybrid HI.
Thus GM and other manufacturers using Hybrid HI
during the phase-in period will not have a com-
petitive advantage over manufacturers using the
existing Part 572 test dummy.
Finally, in its comments GM suggested that the
agency consider providing manufacturers with an
incentive to use the Hybrid HI test dummy. GM said
that the agency should consider providing manufac-
turers with extra vehicle credits during the
automatic restraint phase-in period for using the
Hybrid HI. The agency does not believe it is
necessary to provide any additional incentive to use
the Hybrid III. The mandatory effective date for use
of the Hybrid III provides sufficient incentive, since
manufacturers will want to begin using the Hybrid
HI as soon as possible to gain experience with the
test dummy before that date.
Optional use of the Hybrid HI may begin October
23, 1986. The agency is setting an effective date of
less than 180 days to facilitate the efforts of those
manufacturers wishing to use the Hybrid HI in cer-
tifying compliance with the automatic restraint
requirements.
Use of Non-instrumented Test Dummies
Ford raised a question about whether the Hybrid
III may or must be used for the non-crash perfor-
mance requirements of Standard No. 208, such as
the comfort and convenience requirements of S7.4.3,
7.4.4, and 7.4.5 of the standard. Ford said that
manufacturers should be given the option of using
either the Part 572 or Hybrid HI test dummy to
meet the comfort and convenience requirements.
The agency agrees that until September 1, 1991,
manufacturers should have the option of using either
the Part 572 or Hybrid HI test dummy. However,
since it is important the crash performance
requirements and comfort and convenience
requirements be linked together through the use of
a single test dummy to measure a vehicle's ability
to meet both sets of requirements. Therefore, begin-
ning on September 1, 1991, use of the Hybrid HI
will be mandatory in determining a vehicle's com-
pliance with any of the requirements of Standard
No. 208.
In addition. Ford asked the agency to clarify
whether manufacturers can continue to use Part 572
test dummies in the crash tests for Standard Nos.
212, 219, and 301, which only use non-instrumented
test dummies to simulate the weight of an occupant.
Ford said that the small weight difference and the
small difference in seated posture between the two
test dummies should have no effect on the results
of the testing for Standard Nos. 212, 219, and 301.
The agency agrees that use of either test dummy
should not affect the test results for those standards.
Thus, even after the September 1, 1991, effective
date for use of the Hybrid HI in the crash and non-
crash testing required by Standard No. 208,
manufacturers can continue to use, at their option,
either the Part 572 or the Hybrid HI test dummy
in tests conducted in accordance with Standard Nos.
212, 219, and 301.
Economic and Other Impacts
NHTSA has examined the impact of this rulemak-
ing action and determined that it is not major within
the meaning of Executive Order 12291 or significant
within the meaning of the Department of Transpor-
tation's regulatory policies and procedures. The
agency has also determined that the economic and
other impacts of this rulemaking action are not
significant. A final regulatory evaluation describing
those effects has been placed in the docket.
In preparing the regulatory evaluation, the agency
has considered the comments from several manufac-
turers that the agency had underestimated the costs
associated with using the Hybrid III. Ford said that
the cost estimates contained in the April 1985 notice
did not take into account the need to conduct sled
tests during development work. Ford said that for
1985, it estimated it will conduct 500 sled tests re-
quiring 1000 test dummy applications. Ford also said
that NHTSA's estimate of the test dummy inven-
tory needed by a manufacturer is low. It said that
it currently has an inventory of 31 Part 572 test
dummies and would expect to need a similar inven-
tory of Hybrid Hi's. In addition. Ford said that
NHTSA's incremental cost estimate of $3,000 per
test dummy was low. It said that the cost for
monitoring the extra data generated by the Hybrid
HI is $2,700. Ford said that it also would have to
incur costs due to upgrading its data acquisition and
data processing equipment.
PART 572-PRE 57
GM said that NHTSA's estimate of a 30-test useful
life for the test dummy substantially underestimates
its actual useful life, assuming the test dummy is
repaired periodically. It said that some of its
dummies have been used in more than 150 tests. GM
also said that the agency's assumption that a large
manufacturer conducts testing requiring ap-
proximately 600 dummy applications each year
underestimates the actual number of tests
conducted. In 1984, GM said it conducted sled and
barrier tests requiring 1179 dummy applications.
GM said that the two underestimates, in effect,
cancel each other out, since the dummies are usable
for at least five times as many tests, but they are
used four times as often.
Mitsubishi said that its incremental cost per
vehicle is $7 rather than 40 cent as estimated by the
agency. Mitsubishi explained the reason for this dif-
ference is that the price of an imported Hybrid III
is approximately two times the agency estimate and
its annual production is about one-tenth of the
amount used in the agency estimate. Volvo also said
the agency had underestimated the incremental cost
per vehicle. Volvo said it conducts approximately
500-600 test dummy applications per year in sled
and crash testing, making the incremental cost in
the range of $15-18 per vehicle based on its export
volume to the United States.
NHTSA has re-examined the costs associated with
the Hybrid III test dummy. The basic Hybrid III
dummy with the instrumentation required by this
final rule costs $35,000 or approximately $16,000
more than the existing 572 test dummy. Assuming
a useful life for the test dummy of 150 tests, the total
estimated incremental capital cost is approximately
$107 per dummy test.
To determine the incremental capital cost per test,
the agency had to estimate the useful life of the
Hybrid III. Based on NHTSA's test experience, the
durability of the existing Part 572 test dummy and
the Hybrid III test dummy is essentially identical
with the exception of the Hybrid III ribs. Because
the Hybrid III dummy chest was developed to
simulate human chest deflection, the ribs had to be
designed with much more precision to reflect human
impact response. This redesign uses less metal and
consequently they are more susceptible to damage
during testing than the Part 572 dummy.
As discussed previously, GM estimates that the
Hybrid III ribs can be used in severe unrestrained
testing approximately 17 times before the ribs or the
damping material needs replacement. In addition,
GM's experience shows that the Hybrid III can
withstand as many as 150 test applications as long
as occasional repairs are made. Ford reported at the
previously cited MVMA meeting that one of its belt-
restrained Hybrid III test dummies imderwent 35
crash tests without any degradation. Clearly, the
estimated useful life of the test dummy is highly
dependent on the type of testing, restrained or
unrestrained, it is used for. Based on its own test
experience and the experience of Ford and GM cited
above, the agency has decided to use 30 applications
as a conservative estimate of the useful life of the
ribs. Assuming a life of 30 tests before a set of ribs
must be replaced at a cost of approximately $2,000,
the incremental per test cost is approximately
$70.
The calibration tests for the Hybrid III test
dummy have been simplified from the original
specification proposed in the April 1985 notice. The
Transportation Research Center of Ohio, which does
calibration testing of the Hybrid III for the agency,
vehicle manufacturers and others estimates the cost
of the revised calibration tests is $1528. This is $167
less than the calibration cost for the existing Part
572 test dummy.
Numerous unknown variables will contribute to
the manufacturers' operating expense, such as the
cost of new or modified test facilities or equipment
to maintain the more stringent temperature range
of 69° F to 72° F for test dummies, and capital
expenditures for lab calibration equipment, signal
conditioning equipment, data processing techniques
and capabilities, and additional personnel. Obviously,
any incremental cost for a particular manufacturer
to certify compliance with the automatic restraint
requirements of Standard No. 208 will also depend
on the extent and nature of its current test facilities
and the size of its developmental and new vehicle
test programs.
In addition to the costs discussed above, Peugeot
raised the issue of a manufacturer's costs increas-
ing because the proposed number of injury
measurements made on the Hybrid III will increase
the number of tests that must be repeated because
of lost data. Since the agency is only adding one
additional measurement, chest deflection, for the
Hybrid III the number of tests that will have to
be repeated due to lost data should not be substan-
tially greater for the Hybrid III than for the Part
572.
PART 572-PRE 58
Effective Date
NHTSA has determined that it is in the public in-
terest to make the optional use of the Hybrid III test
dummy effective in 90 days. This will allow manufac-
turers time to order the new test dummy to use in
their new vehicle development work. Mandatory use
of the Hybrid HI does not begin until September 1,
1991.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 572,
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, and Part 571.208,
Occupant Crash Protection, of Title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Part 572-[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 572 is amended
to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, and 1407;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. A new Subpart E is added to Part 572 to read
as follows:
Subpart E -Hybrid HI Test Dummy
§ 572.30 Incorporated materials
§ 572.31 General description
§572.32 Head
§572.33 Neck
§ 572.34 Thorax
§ 572.35 Limbs
§ 572.36 Test conditions and instrumentation
§ 572.30 Incorporated Materials
(a) The drawings and specifications referred to in
this regulation that are not set forth in fuU 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 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 con-
venience to the reader, the materials incorporated by
reference are listed in the Finding Aid Table foimd
at the end of this volume of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
(b) The materials incorporated by reference are
available for examination in the general reference
section of Docket 74-14, Docket Section, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
Copies may be obtained from Rowley-Scher
Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20005 ((202) 628-6667). The draw-
ings and specifications are also on file in the
reference library of the Office of the Federal
Register, National Archives and Records Ad-
ministration, Washington, D.C.
§ 572.31 General description
(a) The Hybrid HI 50th percentile size dummy
consists of components and assemblies specified in
the Anthropomorphic Test Dummy drawing and
specifications package which consists of the follow-
ing six items:
(1) The Anthropomorphic Test Dummy Parts
List, dated July 15, 1986, and containing 13 pages,
and a Parts List Index, dated April 26, 1986, con-
taining 6 pages,
(2) A listing of Optional Hybrid HI Dummy
Transducers, dated April 22, 1986, containing 4
pages,
(3) A General Motors Drawing Package identified
by GM drawing No. 78051-218, revision P and subor-
dinate 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 II dummy transducers, dated July 15, 1986,
(6) Exterior Dimensions of the Hybrid III dummy,
dated July 15, 1986.
(b) The dummy is made up of the following com-
ponent assemblies:
Drawing Number Revision
78051-61 Head Assembly-Complete- (T)
78051-90 Neck Assembly-Complete- (A)
78051-89 Upper Torso Assembly-Complete- (I)
78051-70 Lower Torso Assembly— Without
Pelvic Instrumentation Assembly,
Drawing No. 78051-59 (C)
86-5001-001 Leg Assembly-Complete (LH)-
86-5001-002 Leg Assembly-Complete (RH)-
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 con-
form 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
(§ 571.208).
PART 572-PRE 59
§572.32 Head
(a) The head consists of the assembly shown in the
drawing 78051-61, revision T, and shall conform to
each of the drawings subtended therein.
(b) When the head (drawing 78051-61, revision T)
with neck transducer structural replacement (draw-
ing 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 acceleration/
time curve for the test shall be unimodal to the ex-
tent that oscillations occurring after the main ac-
celeration pulse are less than ten percent (zero to
peak) of the main pulse. The lateral acceleration vec-
tor shall not exceed 15g (zero to peak).
(c) Test Procedure. (1) Soak the head assembly
in a test environment at any temperature between
66° F to 78° 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 Trichlorethane 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 sup-
ported 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 (consisting
of the parts 78051-61, revision T; -84; -90, revision
A; -96; -98; -303, revision E; -305; -306; -307, revi-
sion X, which has a neck transducer (drawing
83-5001-008) installed in conformance 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 degree 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 Obs-ft) = My -i- 0.02875
X Fx where My is the moment measured in Ibs-ft by
the moment sensor of the neck transducer and Fjj
is the force measure measured in lbs by the x axis
force sensor of the neck transducer. The moment
shall have a maximum value between 65 Ibs-ft and
80 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 -i- 0.02875
X Fx where My is the moment measured in Ibs-ft by
the moment sensor of the neck transducer and Fx
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 be-
tween 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 ± .2 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 pendulimi and allow it to fall freely
from a height such that the tangential velocity at
the pendulum accelerometer centerline at the in-
stance 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 pendulum
deceleration vs. time pulse for flexion testing shall
PART 572-PRE 60
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)
Flexion
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 17.20-21.20
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 I and shall
conform to each of the drawings subtended therein.
(b) When impacted by a test probe conforming to
S572. 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 P) with
left and right shoes (78051-294 and -295) removed,
shall resist with the force measured by the test probe
from time zero of 1162.5 pounds ± 82.5 pounds and
shall have a stemtun displacement measured relative
to spine of 2.68 inches ± .18 inches. The internal
hysteresis in each impact shall be more than 69%
but less than 85%. The force measured is the pro-
duct of pendulum mass and deceleration. Time zero
is defined as the time of first contact between the
upper thorax and pendulum face.
(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° F and 72° F.
(2) Seat the dummy without back and arm sup-
ports on a surface as shown in Figure 23.
(3) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test
probe so that it is .5 ± .04 in. below the horizontal
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 its longitudinal centerline coincides
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
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 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 im-
pacted by the pendulum defined in 8572. 36(b) in ac-
cordance with paragraph (c) of this section at 6.9
ft/sec ± .10 ft/sec, the peak knee impact force,
which is a product of pendulum mass and accelera-
tion, shall have a minimum value of not less than 996
pounds and a maximum value of not greater than
1566 pounds.
(c) Test Procedure. (1) The test material consists
of leg assemblies (86-5001-001) left and (-002) right
with upper leg assemblies (78051-46) left and
PART 572-PRE 61
(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° F to 78° 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 sur-
face 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.
(5) Guide the pendulum so that there is no signifi-
cant 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 horizon-
tal 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.
(b) The test probe used for the knee impact tests
is a 3 inch diameter cylinder that weighs 1 1 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 ac-
celerometer mounted on the end opposite from im-
pact with its sensitive axis colinear to the
longitudinal centerline of the cylinder.
(c) Head accelerometers shall have dimensions,
response characteristics and sensitive mass locations
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 assembly
shown in drawing 78051-218, revision D.
(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 assembly
shown in drawing 78051-218, revision P.
(e) The chest accelerometers shall have the dimen-
sions, 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 L.
(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 L.
(g) The thorax and knee impactor accelerometers
shall have the dimensions and characteristics of
Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent. Each ac-
celerometer shall be mounted with its sensitive axis
colinear with the pendulum's longitudinal centerline.
(h) The femur load cell shall have the dimensions,
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 L.
(i) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing
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 J211,
JUNE 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 § 572.31(a)(5).
(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 horizontally.
The force required to move a limb segment shall not
exceed 2g throughout the range of limb motion.
PART 572-PRE 62
(m) Performance tests of the same component,
segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummj^ 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. PART 571 [Amended]
2. The authority citation for Part 571 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
3. Section S5 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR
571.208) is amended by revising S5.1 to read as
follows:
§571.208 [Amended]
S5. Occupant crash protection requirements.
S5.1 Vehicles subject to S5.1 and manufactured
before September 1, 1991, shall comply with either,
at the manufacturer's option, 5.1(a) or (b). Vehicles
subject to S5.1 and manufactured on or after
September 1, 1991, shall comply with 5.1(b).
(a) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally for-
ward at any speed, up to and including 30 mph, into
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 perpendicular
to the line of travel of the vehicle under the ap-
plicable 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, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4.
(b) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally for-
ward at any speed, up to and including 30 mph, into
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 perpendicular
to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the ap-
plicable conditions of S8. The test dummy specified
in S8. 1.8.2 placed at each front outboard designated
seating position shall meet the injury criteria of
S6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5.
3. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 208 is revised to
read as follows:
S5.2 Lateral moving barrier crash.
S5.2.1 Vehicles subject to S5.2 and manufactiu'ed
before September 1, 1991, shall comply with either,
at the manufacturer's option, 5.2.1(a) or (b). Vehicles
subject to S5.2 and manufactured on or after
September 1, 1991, shall comply with 5.2.1(b).
(a) Impact a vehicle laterally on either side by a
barrier moving at 20 mph under the applicable
conditions of S8. The test dummy specified in
S8. 1.8.1 placed at the front outboard designated
seating position adjacent to the impacted side shall
meet the injury criteria of S6.1.2 and S6.1.3.
(b) When the vehicle is impacted laterally under
the applicable conditions of S8, on either side by a
barrier moving at 20 mph, with a test device
specified in S8. 1.8.2, which is seated at the front out-
board designated seating position adjacent to the im-
pacted side, it shall meet the injury criteria of S6.2.2,
and S6.2.3.
4. Section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 is revised to
read as follows:
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 manufac-
turer'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.
5. Section S6 of Standard No. 208 is revised to
read as follows:
S6. Injury Criteria
S6.1 Injury criteria for the Part 572, Subpart B,
50th percentile Male Dummy.
S6.1.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be con-
tained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle
passenger compartment throughout the test.
S6.1.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of
gravity of the head shall be such that the expression:
1
/ '^' ]
2.5
t2-t,
shall not exceed 1,000, where a is the resultant
acceleration expressed as a multiple of g (the ac-
celeration of gravity), and ti and t2 are any two
points during the crash.
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 2250
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 con-
tained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle
passenger compartment throughout the test.
PART 572-PRE 63
S6.2.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of
gravity of the head shall be such that the expression:
2.5
[-ZT-f - ]
tz-ti
shall not exceed 1,000, where a is the resultant
acceleration expressed as a multiple of g (the
acceleration of gravity), and ti and t2 are any two
point during the crash.
56.2.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing
78051-218, revision L, incorporated by reference in
Part 572, Subpart E of this Chapter, shall not exceed
60g's, except for intervals whose cumulative dura-
tion is not more than 3 milliseconds.
56.2.4 Compression deflection of the sternum
relative to spine, as determined by instrumentation
shown in drawing 78051-317, revision A, incor-
porated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E of this
Chapter, shall not exceed 2 inches for loadings
applied through any impact surfaces except for those
systems which are gas inflated and provide
distributed loading to the torso during a crash. For
gas-inflated systems which provide distributive
loading to the torso, the thoracic deflection shall not
exceed 3 inches.
56.2.5 The force transmitted axially through each
upper leg shall not exceed 2250 pounds.
6. Section S8.1.8 of Standard No. 208 is revised
to read as follows:
88.1.8 Anthropomorphic test dummies
S8.1 8.1 The anthropomorphic test dummies used
for evaluation of occupant protection systems
manufactured pursuant to applicable portions of
paragraphs S4.1.2, 4.1.3, and S4.1.4 shall conform
to the requirements of Subpart B of Part 572 of this
Chapter.
S8. 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 conform
to the requirements of Subpart E of Part 572 of this
Chapter.
7. Section S8.1.9 of Standard No. 208 is revised
to read as follows:
S8.1.9.1 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 equip-
ped with a size llEE shoe which meets the config-
uration size, sole, and heel thickness specifications
of MIL-S-131192 and weighs 1.25 ± 0.2 pounds.
S8.1.9.2 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, Subpart
E, of this Chapter, respectively or their equivalents.
A size llEE shoe specified in drawings 78051-294
(left) and 78051-295 (right) or their equivalents is
placed on each foot of the test dummy.
8. Section S8.1.13 of Standard No. 208 is revised
to read as follows:
S8.1.13 Temperature of the test dummy
58. 1.13.1 The stabilized temperature of the test
dummy specified by S8. 1.8.1 is at any level between
66 degrees F and 78 degrees F.
58.1.13.2 The stabilized temperature of the test
dummy specified by S8. 1.8.2 is at any level between
69 degrees F and 72 degrees F.
9. A new fourth sentence is added to section
S8.1.3 to read as follows:
Adjustable lumbar supports are positioned so that
the lumbar support is in its lowest adjustment
position.
10. A new section Sll is added to read as follows:
Sll. Positioning Procedure for the Part 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.
SI 1.1 Head. The transverse instrumentation
platform of the head shall be horizontal within Vz
degree.
511.2 Arms
Sll. 2.1 The driver's upper arms shall be adjacent
to the torso with the centerlines as close to a ver-
tical plane as possible.
SI 1.2. 2 The passenger's upper arms shall be in
contact with the seat back and the sides of torso.
511.3 Hands
Sll.3.1 The palms of the driver test dummy shall
be in contact with the outer part of the steering
wheel rim at the rim's horizontal centerline. The
thumbs shall be over the steering wheel rim and
attached with adhesive tape to provide a breakaway
force of between 2 to 5 pounds.
PART 572-PRE 64
Sll.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.
SI 1.4 Torso
511.4.1 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 midsagit-
tal plane of the driver dummy.
511.4.2 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
dummy shall be vertical and shall coincide with the
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat.
511.4.3 Lower torso
511.4.3.1 H-point. The H-point of the driver and
passenger test dummies shall coincide within Vz inch
in the vertical dimension and V2 inch in the horizon-
tal 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 adjusted
to 16.3 and 15.8 inches, respectively, instead of the
50th percentile values specified in Table 1 of SAE
J826.
511.4.3.2 Pelvic angle. As determined using the
pelvic angle gage (GM drawing 78051-532 incor-
porated 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.
S11.5 Legs. The upper legs of the driver and
passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat
cushion to the extent permitted by placement of 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
SI 1.6 for various passenger compartment configura-
tions is permitted.
S11.6 Feet
SI 1.6.1 The right foot of the driver test dummy
shall rest on the undepressed accelerator with the
rearmost point of the heel on the floor surface in the
plane of the pedal. If the foot cannot be placed on
the accelerator pedal, it shall be positioned
perpendicular to the tibia and placed as far forward
as possible in the direction of the centerline of the
pedal with the rearmost point of the heel resting on
the floor surface. The heel of the left foot shall be
placed as far forward as possible and shall rest on
the floor surface. The left foot shall be positioned
as flat as possible on the floor surface. The longi-
tudinal centerline of the left foot shall be placed as
parallel as possible to the longitudinal centerline of
the vehicle.
Sll.6.2 The heels of both feet of the passenger
test dummy shall be placed as far forward as possi-
ble and shall rest on the floor surface. Both feet shall
be positioned as flat as possible on the floor surface.
The longitudinal centerline of the feet shall be placed
as parallel as possible to the longitudinal centerline
of the vehicle.
SI 1.7 Test dummy positioning for latchplate ac-
cess. The reach envelopes specified in S7.4.4 are ob-
tained by positioning a test dummy in the driver's
seat or passenger's seat in its forwardmost adjust-
ment 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 compliance
arcs of the outboard reach envelope of the test dum-
my's arms.
SI 1.8 Test dummy positioning for belt contact
force. To determine compliance with S7.4.3 of this
standard, position the test dummy in the vehicle in
accordance with the requirements specified in SI 1.1
through Sll.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 webb-
ing is within 1 inch of the test dummy's chest and
measure the belt contact force.
SI 1.9 Manual 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
Sll.6, place the Tjrpe 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
PART 572-PRE 65
to the lap belt. If the belt system is equipped with Issued on July 21, 1986
a 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 Diane K. bteed
device, allow the excess webbing in the shoulder belt Admmistrator
to be retracted by the retractive force of the 51 F.R. 26688
retractor. July 25,1986
PART 572-PRE 66
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies
[Doclcet No. 74-14; Notice 54]
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for
reconsideration.
SUMIWIARY: In July 1986, this agency published a
final rule mandating the use of the Hybrid III test
dummy in compliance testing under Standard
No. 208 beginning September 1, 1991. That same
rule permitted the optional use of the Hybrid III
test dummy for compliance testing beginning
October 23, 1986. Eleven organizations filed peti-
tions for reconsideration of this rule.
In response to these petitions, the agency is
making three significant and several other
changes to the final rule published in July 1986.
The first of the significant changes is the suspen-
sion of the September 1, 1991, date for mandatory
use of the Hybrid III test dummy in compliance
testing. The mandatory use date is being sus-
pended because, inadvertently, insufficient time
was permitted to address the technical questions
that may arise through the use of this new test
dummy.
The second significant change is the amend-
ment of the thorax deflection requirement to
increase the permissible deflection of the Hybrid
III thorax (chest) during compliance testing from
two to three inches. The thorax deflection limit is
being increased because it appears that most 2-
point automatic belt designs used in current vehi-
cles would not comply with the previously estab-
lished two inch thorax deflection limit. The avail-
able accident data do not show an increased risk of
thorax injuries to occupants of 2-point belt sys-
tems, as compared with occupants of 3-point belt
systems or air bags. On the other hand, some
limited biomechanical data appear to suggest that
2-point belted occupants may suffer chest injuries
more frequently than their 3-point belted or air
bag restrained counterparts. These inconsisten-
cies between the different data cannot be resolved
at the present time. The agency intends to take the
necessary steps to obtain sufficient data in this
area to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the
inconsistencies. Given the current uncertainties,
however, this rule establishes a three inch chest
deflection limit for the Hybrid III test dummy.
The available data for 2-point and 3-point belt
systems and for air bags indicate that this three
inch limit is practicable and meets the need for
safety.
The third significant change is a delay until
September 1, 1990, in the use of the Hybrid III
dummy for compliance testing of vehicles that do
not use any restraint system to provide automatic
occupant protection. Such restraint systems have
generally been called "passive interiors." Up to
this point, the agency has established the same
chest deflection limit for Hybrid III dummies
restrained by safety belts and those that are
unrestrained. However, the agency wants to
further investigate whether it is appropriate to
establish separate chest deflection limits for
unrestrained and safety-belt restrained Hybrid
III dummies. Additionally, the agency wants to
determine if the Hybrid III dummy with a three
inch chest deflection limit is equivalent to the
older type of test dummy when both are un-
restrained. The temporary delay in the use of the
Hybrid III test dummy for certain vehicles will
provide the agency with sufficient time to de-
termine whether a chest deflection limit lower
than three inches should be proposed for un-
restrained Hybrid III dummies, and, if so, which
lower limit should be proposed.
This notice also makes several other changes to
the July 1986 rule in response to the petitions for
reconsideration. These are:
1. This notice adjusts the required calibration
responses for the dummy's thorax and femur. The
thorax force response adjustment is necessary to
reflect the characteristics of the dummy's rib cage
structure when the ribs are manufactured with
new rib damping material. The femur force ad-
justment narrows the acceptable force response
range during calibration. Both of these adjust-
ments will result in more consistently repeatable
dummy impact responses during crash testing.
NHTSA has made the appropriate adjustments to
the drawing and specifications package for the
Hybrid III dummy to reflect these changes.
2. This notice makes certain clarifying amend-
ments to Standard No. 208 to perm it the use of the
Hybrid III test dummy for compliance testing
with all the requirements of Standard No. 208 and
to permit the use of both types of test dummies in
PART 572-PRE 67
any Standard No. 208 testing conducted before
the use of the Hybrid III becomes mandatory.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulatory changes made
in response to the petitions for reconsideration are
effective on March 17, 1988.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In December 1983, General Motors (GM) peti-
tioned the agency to amend 49 CFR Part 572,
Anthropomorphic Test Dumm ies, to include speci-
fications for the Hybrid III test dummy that GM
had developed. GM stated in its petition that the
Hybrid III test dummy provides more meaningful
information about the occupant protection poten-
tial of a vehicle than does the test dummy specified
in Subpart B of Part 572. GM also argued that the
Hybrid III test dummy's impact responses during
a crash are more representative of human re-
sponses. Additionally, GM stated that the Hybrid
III allows the assessment of more types of potential
injuries, with 31 total measurements as opposed to
eight measurements with the Part 572 Subpart B
test dummy. GM also claimed that the repeat-
ability and reproducibility of the Hybrid III are as
good as those of the Subpart B test dummy. In
support of these claims, GM submitted numerous
documents to the agency.
After evaluating the petition and the support-
ing documents, NHTSA published a proposal on
April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14602). That notice pro-
posed to adopt the Hybrid III test dummy as an
alternative to the Part 572 Subpart B test dummy
for compliance testing under Standard No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.208)
until September 1, 1991. After that date, the
agency proposed to use only the Hybrid III test
dummy for compliance testing under Standard
No. 20J.
The agency proposed that action because it
tentatively concluded that the Hybrid III test
dummy appeared to represent an appreciable
advance in the state-of-the-art of human simula-
tion. NHTSA was particularly interested in the
Hybrid III test dummy because of its apparently
superior biofidelity and updated anthropometry,
as compared with the Part 572 Subpart B test
dummy. Further, because the Hybrid III test
dummy has the capability of monitoring almost
four times as many injury indicating parameters
as the Subpart B test dummy, it can be used to
measure injury producing forces, accelerations,
deflections, moments, etc., for areas of the body
that are not instrumented in the Subpart B test
dummy. For instance, the Hybrid III test dummy
has instrumentation capable of measuring injury
producing forces experienced by the neck and
lower legs. Although these body areas show a high
incidence of serious and/or disabling injuries in
crashes, the agency cannot make use of the Subpart
B test dummy to evaluate the extent of the
protection afforded to these body areas by vehicle
safety systems. Because of these attributes of the
Hybrid III test dummy, NHTSA believed that it
should eventually replace the Subpart B test
dummy as the tool used to evaluate the protection
that vehicles afford occupants during frontal
crashes.
The Final Rule
After evaluating the comments on the April
1985 proposal, NHTSA published a final rule
adopting the Hybrid III test dummy on July 25,
1986 (51 FR 26688). This final rule made some
adjustments to the calibration procedures pro-
posed to be used with the Hybrid III test dummy.
The calibration procedures involve a series of
static and dynamic tests of the test dummy com-
ponents to determine whether the responses of the
dummy fall within specified ranges. These cali-
bration procedures help ensure that the test
dummy has been properly assembled and that the
assembled test dummy will give repeatable and
reproducible results during crash testing. (Re-
peatability refers to the ability of the same test
dummy to produce the same results when sub-
jected to identical tests. Reproducibility refers to
the ability of one test dummy to provide the same
results as another test dummy built to the same
specifications.)
The preamble to the final rule also stated that
the agency had concluded that the two types of test
dummies were equivalent; i.e., when both test
dummies were restrained by lap/shoulder belts or
with air bags, only minimal differences in test
results were shown by the two types of dummies.
The importance of equivalence is that vehicles,
which will pass or fail Standard No. 208 using one
type of dummy, will achieve essentially the same
result using the other dummy.
The exception to the finding of equivalence
occurred for chest acceleration measurements for
unrestrained Hybrid III test dummies. The chest
acceleration measurements for unrestrained
PART 572-PRE 68
Hybrid III dummies were consistently lower than
the chest acceleration measurements for unres-
trained Part 572 Subpart B dummies. If the two
test dummies were to be equivalent, some addi-
tional measurement of injury producing forces to
the chest of the Hybrid III test dummy would have
to be recorded to compensate for the lower chest
acceleration measurements with this test dummy.
Chest injuries generally are caused by excessive
loading on the chest, when the chest contacts the
restraint system and possibly the steering system,
if the occupant is restrained, or the steering sys-
tem or other passenger compartment components,
if the occupant is unrestrained. The agency con-
cluded that a measurement of chest deflection in
testing with the Hybrid III test dummy would
appropriately compensate for that dummy's lower
chest acceleration measurements when it was
unrestrained. Therefore, the July 1986 final rule
specified a limit on the amount of thorax deflec-
tion that could occur with the Hybrid III test
dummy, as the means of ensuring equivalence of
the two types of test dummies. See 51 FR at
26693-26694.
Having determined that a thorax deflection
limit was necessary to ensure equivalence of the
two types of test dummies, the obvious question
was what that limit should be. The agency began
by examining biomedical data on thorax deflec-
tion. Excessive chest deflection can produce rib
fractures which can impair breathing and inflict
serious damage to the internal organs within the
perimeter of the chest structure. The agency
began by examining test results to compare the
measured responses of Hybrid III test dummies
and the injuries induced in cadavers under identi-
cal impact conditions. Injuries induced in the cad-
avers were rated on the Abbreviated Injury Scale
(AIS). An AIS rating of 1 is a minor injury, while
an AIS of 3 is a serious injury. The rated cadaver
injuries were then compared with the chest de-
flection experienced by a Hybrid III test dummy
under identical impact conditions.
In tests using a relatively stiff air bag, which
was preinflated and not vented, the cadaver sus-
tained an average injury level of AIS 1.5 (minor to
moderate), while the Hybrid III test dummy
experienced a 2.7 inch chest deflection under the
same conditions. NHTSA concluded that these
results demonstrated that a system that sym-
metrically and uniformly distributes impact loads
over the entire chest can produce approximately
three inches of chest deflection, as measured on
the Hybrid III dummy, and still adequately protect
an occupant from serious injury.
However, the testing with belt restraints that
did not uniformly or symmetrically spread loads
over the entire chest and with other protective
systems where the impact loads were highly con-
centrated over a relatively small area suggested
that chest deflection in other portions of the chest
could be significantly greater than was shown by
the centrally mounted chest deflection gauge on
the Hybrid III dummy. Accordingly, it appeared
reasonable to establish a chest deflection limit of
less than three inches to ensure that those res-
traint systems would provide a level of chest pro-
tection comparable to that provided by restraint
systems that symmetrically spread the load over
the entire chest surface. When evaluating lap/-
shoulder belts in a laboratory environment, the
cadavers had moderate to serious injuries (AIS of
2.6) induced under the same conditions that the
Hybrid III experienced chest deflection of 1.6
inches. Additionally, some pendulum tests were
conducted for GM. In these tests, blunt, concen-
trated loads are intended to stimulate unrestrained
vehicle occupant impacts into the steering wheel
or other interior components. This testing showed
that the cadavers had serious chest injuries in-
duced (av rage AIS of 2.8) under the same impact
conditions in which the Hybrid III dummy mea-
sured 2.63 inches of chest deflection.
The available biomechanical data on this sub-
ject are based on a limited number of cadaver tests
that are not large enough to make statistically
significant injury projections. While the agency
could not and did not rely on these limited biome-
chanical data alone to justify a decision to estab-
lish any particular limit for chest deflection, these
data did suggest that a limit as low as 1.6 inches of
chest deflection should be considered for the
Hybrid III test dummy.
In addition to the indications from the biome-
chanical data that a chest deflection limit of less
than three inches should be adopted for impact
exposures that provide concentrated loadings over
a limited area of the chest, the agency was also
concerned that the Hybrid III test dummy could,
in many instances, underestimate actual chest
deflection. The Hybrid III measures chest deflec-
tion by a deflection sensor located near the third
rib of the test dummy, on the midsternum of the
dummy's chest. NHTSA testing has shown that
the Hybrid Ill's deflection sensor underestimates
chest displacement when a load is applied to an
area away from the deflection sensor.
The agency recognized the limitations of the
biomechanical data when it was considering what
chest deflection limit should be established for
PART 572-PRE 69
restraint systems that can provide concentrated
loadings over a limited area of the chest. Given
these limitations, NHTSA examined the chest
deflection levels that occur with current vehicle
restraint systems. To do this, NHTSA examined
the crash performance of existing restraint sys-
tems in available accident files, such as National
Accident Sampling System (NASS) and Fatal
Accident Reporting System (FARS). These data
showed that existing 2- and 3-point safety belts,
when used, offer vehicle occupants a high level of
safety protection, including protection against the
risk of serious chest injuries. Therefore, the agency
determined that the chest deflection limit could
safely be set at a level that was compatible with
the level of chest deflection that would be expe-
rienced in 30 mph tests with existing 2- and 3-
point belt designs.
Test data available to the agency at the time of
the final rule indicated that the two inch limit
could be satisfied by existing designs of 3-point
manual belts, 2-point automatic belts, and 3-point
manual belts with air bags. For instance, the data
available on 3-point manual safety belts in 30 mph
frontal impacts with the Hybrid HI test dummy
showed chest deflections ranging from an average
of 0.67 inch in NHTSA car-to-car testing to 1.89
inches in GM sled testing. For the Volkswagen
2-point automatic belts, the data showed chest
deflections ranging from 0.79 inch to 1.09 inches
in NHTSA testing. Bases on these data, the
agency concluded that a two inch chest deflection
limitwasan achievable level for existing restraint
system designs.
Thus, the decision to adopt a two inch chest
deflection limit for restraint systems that did not
generally distribute the load over the entire chest
area was based on the following factors:
1. The limited biomechanical data that were
available suggested that there was a safety need
for a chest deflection limit at a level below three
inches;
2. A chest deflection limit below three inches
would compensate for the Hybrid Hi's tendency to
underestimate chest deflection when a load is app-
lied to a small area away from the deflection sen-
sor; and
3. Existing 2- and 3-point belt systems could
comply with a two inch chest deflection limit,
based on the limited testing data available to the
agency.
Petitions for Reconsideration
The agency received petitions for reconsidera-
tion of this final rule from nine different organiza-
tions. Many of the petitions for reconsideration
raised issues involving the positioning of the
Hybrid HI dummy during compliance testing. In
its November 23, 1987, final rule establishing
dynamic testing requirements for light trucks
and light multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's)
(52 FR 44898), NHTSA permitted the use of
Hybrid HI test dummies for compliance testing of
those vehicle types. The dummy positioning issues
that were raised in the petitions for reconsideration
of the Hybrid HI dummy had to be resolved in that
rule, to allow the Hybrid HI dummies to be
properly positioned during compliance testing.
Although that rule addressed only light trucks
and MPV's, the positioning problems in those
vehicle types are similar to the positioning
problems for passenger cars. Accordingly, the
dummy positioning procedures set forth therein
are applicable to positioning the Hybrid HI test
dummy in any type of vehicle, including passenger
cars. Persons interested in reviewing the agency's
response to the Hybrid III test dummy positioning
issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration
should consult that document. This notice ad-
dresses all other issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule establishing
requirements for the Hybrid III test dummy.
Chest Deflection Limits
The chest deflection limits generated the most
requests for reconsideration. Chrysler, Ford, GM,
Honda, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associa-
tion (MVMA), Nissan, Renault, Toyota, Volks-
wagen, and Volvo all asked for some changes to
these requirements. GM stated that it uses a two
inch deflection limit as an internal design and
performance guide in its development of belt
restraint systems. However, GM stated that there
is no biomedical basis for such a limit. GM
concluded by stating that it believed a two inch
chest deflection limit was overly conservative as a
mandatory requirement and that a three inch
limit would be a more appropriate regulatory
requirement.
Toyota stated that the two inch limit was un-
reasonable. Toyota stated that it has no knowledge
of any accidents in which occupants of a Cressida
equipped with this automatic belt system have
suffered serious chest injuries. Yet, according to
this petitioner, in 30 miles per hour (mph) barrier
impact tests using the Hybrid III test dummy, the
2-point automatic belt system installed in its
Cressida model causes chest deflections that
average 2.3 inches, with a maximum of 2.9 inches.
Thus, these vehicles would not comply with the
two inch chest deflection limit. Toyota asserted
that retention of the two inch chest deflection limit
would force it to discontinue offering this 2-point
automatic belt system, even though accident data
indicate that the system offers effective occupant
protection. Toyota urged the agency to increase
the chest deflection limit to three inches for all
restraint systems. Volkswagen made a similar
point with respect to the 2-point automatic belt
system installed in its Golf models, as did Chrysler
for the 2-point automatic belt systems installed in
some of its models.
Volvo stated that the data on which NHTSA
had based the two inch deflection limit were
inadequate to provide conclusive evidence of bio-
mechanical tolerance levels. Renault requested
the agency to amend the chest deflection limit to
2.5 inches until the uncertainties associated with
the test data, which were the basis for the two inch
limit, are fully resolved. MVMA asked that the
two inch limit be suspended until the agency had
resolved the issues surrounding this aspect of
occupant protection.
Restrained Hybrid III dummies. In response to
these petitions, NHTSA has thoroughly re-
examined this subject. The agency has no basis for
questioning its previous statements that the
Hybrid III can underestimate actual chest de-
flections in certain circumstances. Further, after
again reviewing the available biomechanical data,
the agency continues to believe those data suggest
the need to establish a chest deflection limit for
restraint systems that do not evenly distribute the
load over the entire thorax surface at some level
below three inches.
If the biomechanical data were complete and
reliable, the agency could rely on these data alone
as the primary support for a particular chest
deflection limit somewhere below three inches.
However, the currently available biomechanical
data are limited. NHTSA believes that it should
not rely on these biomechanical data alone to
support a particular chest deflection limit. Even
when the agency's concern about the Hybrid III
dummy's propensity to underestimate actual chest
deflection in certain situations is combined with
the available biomechanical data, the agency
cannot demonstrate at this time that a two inch
chest deflection limit is necessary to meet the need
for safety.
The most broad-based data source available for
examination when establishing a new chest de-
flection limit is the accident files for the restraint
systems currently in production. As noted above,
those accident files show that current 2- and 3-
point safety belts, when used, afford a high level of
protection against serious thorax injuries. When
the agency adopted the two inch chest deflection
limit, the data available to the agency indicated
that existing 2- and 3-point safety belt systems
would not have to be redesigned to comply with
this requirement. In the case of 2-point automatic
belts, the available data consisted of 1982 and'
1984 Volkswagen Rabbit tests. This testing showed
chest deflections of 1.09 and 1.06 for the Hybrid
III dummy at the driver's position, and chest
deflections of 0.79 and 0.86 inch for the Hybrid III
dummy at the passenger's position. Based on these
test results, the agency had no reason to believe
that existing 2-point automatic belt systems would
have to be redesigned to comply with the two inch
chest deflection limit.
However, manufacturers of vehicles with 2-
point automatic belt systems submitted new test
results as part of their petitions for reconsidera-
tion, showing that their existing belt systems do
not comply with a two inch chest deflection limit.
As noted above, Toyota and Chrysler submitted
test results showing that their models with 2-point
automatic belt systems would not comply with a
two inch chest deflection limit. Most significantly,
Volkswagen submitted test data for its 1987 Golf
model. This vehicle uses a very similar design of
2-point automatic belts to that which was present
in the 1982 and 1984 Rabbit models that were
tested by the agency. Volkswagen's testing of this
1987 Golf showed that the Hybrid HI test dummies
at both the driver and the passenger positions
experienced chest deflections of 2.3 inches. These
chest deflections are significantly higher than
those measured in the NHTSA testing. Both
Volkswagen and MVMA alleged in their petitions
for reconsideration that a scaling error may
account for the large differences in test results for
what is essentially the same restraint system.
Both petitioners stated that the agency may have
improperly converted centimeters to inches.
Volkswagen showed that when the NHTSA results
were multiplied by 2.54 (the number of centimeters
in one inch), the NHTSA and Volkswagen data
show very good agreement.
PART 572-PRE 71
In response to these allegations, NHTSA has
begun an investigation of its previous test results.
The preliminary conclusion from that investigation
is that the discrepancy between the NHTSA and
Volkswagen test results cannot be definitely
attributed to a data processing scaling error in the
NHTSA data. However, it concluded that those
previous test results must be regarded as highly
suspect.
Subsequent sled tests by NHTSA using Volks-
wagen Golf interiors produced chest deflections
substantially greater than the results of the
previous NHTSA crash testing of Volkswagen
Rabbits. For example, this subsequent sled testing
of a Golf showed a chest deflection of 2.8 inches for
the current design of the Golf interior and restraint
system. The agency then made several modifica-
tions to the Golf interior and restraint system to
explore the sensitivity of the parameters that
influence the magnitude of measured chest deflec-
tion. One of these modifications resulted in a chest
deflection of 1.9 inches. However, this modification
increased the HIC level to 2362. None of the chest
deflections measured in these 11 tests of the Golf
were near the level of 1.09 inches measured in the
previous NHTSA testing of the Rabbit, and all but
the one modification discussed above had chest
deflections above two inches.
Additionally, the agency has also conducted
several 30 mph frontal impact tests of vehicles
equipped with 2-point automatic belts. The Chry-
sler LeBaron had a chest deflection of 2.35 inches
at the driver's position and 2.56 inches at the
passenger's position. The Subaru XT had a chest
deflection of 2.48 inches at the driver's position
and 2.61 inches at the passenger's position. The
Toyota Camry had a chest deflection of 1.66 inches
at the driver's position and 2.15 inches at the
passenger's position. These results likewise are
substantially greater than the chest deflection of
1.09 inches measured for the Volkswagen Rabbit
in the agency's previous testing.
The subsequent testing by NHTSA and by the
manufacturers has not been able to replicate the
results of NHTSA's previous testing of 2-point
automatic belts. To date, the agency has not been
able to identify the source(s) of the discrepancies
between current and previous test results. Ac-
cordingly, the agency believes that it cannot rely
on the chest deflection measurements obtained in
that previous round of testing for any purpose
until such time as the agency can explain or
replicate those results.
Data available to the agency indicate that most
of the two point belt systems currently offered and
some three point belt systems could not comply
with the two inch chest deflection limit. Moreover,
the accident data for vehicles equipped with
restraint systems that do not comply with the two
inch chest deflection limit do not show that persons
restrained by these belt systems experience a
higher level of chest injuries in crashes than those
restrained by belt systems that comply with the
two inch chest deflection limit. Given these
accident data and the acknowledged limitations of
the available biomechanical data, the agency has
concluded that it does not have an adequate basis
for imposing a two inch chest deflection limit at
this time. Accordingly, this notice amends the
chest deflection level upward.
The remaining question is what level should be
established as the limit for permissible chest
deflection. As noted above, agency sled tests have
measured a 2.8 inch chest deflection for the
Volkswagen Golf. NHTSA vehicle tests measured
chest deflections of 2.56 inches in the Chrysler
LeBaron and 2.61 inches in the Subaru XT. In one
of Toyota's tests, a chest deflection of 2.9 inches
was measured in its Cressida model. The agency
currently has no field evidence that persons
restrained by the restraint systems in these
vehicles are exposed to an unacceptable risk of
serious chest injuries. Therefore, this notice
amends the chest deflection limit for Hybrid III
test dummies to specify that the chest deflection
shall not exceed three inches for any occupant
protection system.
Unrestrained Hybrid III dummies. As noted
above, the available accident data suggest that,
when the impact forces that produce 2.9 inches of
chest deflection in the Hybrid III test dummy are
imposed on the human chest by 2-point belts, those
forces appear not to expose vehicle occupants to a
significant risk of serious chest injury. Similarly,
NHTSA has test data showing that, when the
forces that produce 2.7 inches of chest deflection
in the Hybrid III test dummy are imposed on the
human chest by air bags, those forces appear not
to expose vehicle occupants to a significant risk of
serious chest injury. Accordingly, the agency
believes that a three inch chest deflection limit for
the Hybrid III test dummy when restrained by
safety belts or air bags appears to meet the need
for motor vehicle safety.
In both the NPRM and the final rule adopting
the Hybrid HI test dummy, the agency treated all
occupant protection systems other than those that
were "gas inflated and provide distributed loading
to the torso during a crash" as a single category.
This treatment had the effect of establishing the
PART 572-PRE 72
same chest deflection limit for Hybrid III dummies
that were restrained by safety belts and those that
were unrestrained. Following this same reasoning,
one would infer that since the three inches of chest
deflection in the Hybrid HI dummy can safely be
tolerated by vehicle occupants when those forces
are imposed by safety belts, that same level of
chest deflection could be safely tolerated when it is
imposed on unrestrained vehicle occupants.
However, the accident data and the limited
biomechanical data that are currently available
for unrestrained occupants raise concerns about
the decision to assign the same chest deflection
limit to unrestrained and belt-restrained occu-
pants. To respond to these concerns, NHTSA
believes that it should reexamine the basis for its
decision to establish the same chest deflection
limit for belt-restrained and unrestrained Hybrid
III test dummies.
Moreover, the preamble to the final rule
establishing the Hybrid III test dummy expressed
the agency's concerns about the equivalence of the
Hybrid III test dummy and the Part 572 Subpart
B test dummy, relying solely on data gathered
when both types of test dummies were unre-
strained. The equivalence of the two test dummies
is essential if the agency is to ensure that per-
mitting a choice of test dummies will not lead to a
degradation in vehicle safety performance. That
is, both test dummies must reach similar con-
clusions in identifying vehicle designs that could
cause or increase occupant injury. Based on a
review of all available data comparing the test
responses of the two dummies, the agency con-
cluded that there was no consistent trend for
either test dummy to measure higher or lower
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) or femur measure-
ments than the other. With respect to chest ac-
celeration responses, however, the preamble
explained the following:
In the case of chest acceleration measure-
ments, the data again do not show higher or
lower measurements for either test dummy,
except in the case of unrestrained tests. In
unrestrained tests, the data show that the
Hybrid III generally measures lower chest g's
than the existing Part 572 test dummy. This
difference in chest g's measurement is one
reason why the agency is adopting the ad-
ditional chest deflection measurement for the
Hybrid III, as discussed further below. 51 FR
26688, at 26694; July 25, 1986.
Later, the preamble said:
In summary, the test data indicate the chest
acceleration responses between the Hybrid
III and the existing Part 572 test dummy are
about the same for restrained occupants, but
differ for some cases of unrestrained occupants.
This is to be expected since a restraint system
would tend to make the two dummies react
similarly even though they have different
seating postures. The different seating pos-
tures, however, would allow unrestrained
dummies to impact different vehicle surfaces,
which would in most instances produce dif-
ferent responses. Since the Hybrid III dummy
is more human-like, it should experience
loading conditions that are more human-like
than would the existing Part 572 test dummy.
One reason that the agency is adding chest
deflection criteria [sic] for the Hybrid III is
that the unrestrained dummy's chest may
experience more severe impacts with vehicle
structures than would be experienced in an
automatic belt or air bag collision. Chest
deflection provides an additional measure-
ment of potential injury that may not be
detected by the chest acceleration measure-
ment. Id., at 26694-95.
NHTSA's 1986 determination that the Hybrid
III and the Part 572 Subpart B test dummies were
nevertheless equivalent test devices for unres-
trained occupants was based on the addition of a
chest deflection limit for unrestrained Hybrid III
test dummies. The chest deflection limit was
established at two inches, based primarily upon
data that had been gathered for belt-restrained
occupants. However, today's notice has amended
the chest deflection limit for Hybrid III test
dummies to three inches, based in part on the
inadequate support for the two inch value. Despite
our acknowledgement of the limitations in the
support for the two inch value, NHTSA is also
concerned that none of the limited available data
indicate that a three inch chest deflection limit for
unrestrained Hybrid III test dummies is the
correct value to make the Hybrid III test dummy
equivalent to the Part 572 Subpart B test dummy.
Given the limitations of the available data to
support any particular chest deflection value for
unrestrained occupants and the concerns about
the equivalence of the Hybrid III and Subpart B
test dummies without a two inch chest deflection
limit, the agency has concluded that it should not
permit the Hybrid III dummy to be used until
September 1, 1990, to test vehicles that do not use
any restraint systems (such as automatic safety
belts or air bags) to provide automatic occupant
protection. This period of time will allow the
agency to gather and analyze additional data, so
PART 572-PRE 73
that it can determine whether a chest deflection
limit of less than three inches is necessary for
unrestrained Hybrid III test dummies, and, if so,
what specific limit should be proposed.
Furthermore, the agency has already deter-
mined that the injury criteria applicable to unres-
trained Subpart B test dummies are reasonably
correlated to the tolerance limits of unrestrained
vehicle occupants. Accordingly, mandating the
use of the Subpart B test dummy until September
1, 1990, for compliance testing of vehicles that do
not use restraints to provide occupant protection
will ensure that any such vehicles afford a level of
occupant protection equivalent to that afforded by
vehicles that use restraint systems.
The agency would like to make clear that the
available data do not establish that the three inch
chest deflection limit for unrestrained Hybrid HI
test dummies fails to meet the need for safety or
fails to ensure equivalence with the Subpart B test
dummy. To repeat, the agency has always treated
unrestrained and belt-restrained Hybrid HI
dummies as a single category for the purposes of
chest deflection throughout this rulemaking. If
the agency were to continue following this course,
there would be no reason for the temporary delay
in the use of the Hybrid III for certain types of
vehicles. However, the accident data and the
limited biomechanical data that are available
suggest that it would not be appropriate to con-
tinue to treat belt-restrained and unrestrained
Hybrid III test dummies in a single category for
purposes of the chest deflection limit. The agency
wants to investigate this subject further, to ensure
that the chest deflection limit that is established
for unrestrained Hybrid III dummies both meets
the need for safety and ensures that these dummies
are equivalent to the Subpart B test dummy in
similar conditions.
If the agency cannot substantiate its concerns
with data by the time this temporary delay in the
use of the Hybrid III dummy for some vehicles
expires, NHTSA will assume that it is reasonable
to continue imposing a single chest deflection
limit for belt-restrained and unrestrained Hybrid
III dummies. Accordingly, unless there is some
future rulemaking action in this area, this rule
provides that vehicles that do not use any restraint
systems to provide occupant protection and that
are manufactured on or after September 1, 1990,
may use the Hybrid III test dummy with the three
inch chest deflection limit in Standard No. 208
compliance testing.
The agency is not aware of any manufacturer's
plans to certify a vehicle design as complying with
Standard No. 208 without including any auto-
matic restraint system before September 1, 1990.
Hence, this temporary delay in the use of the
Hybrid III for testing vehicles without any auto-
matic restraint systems should not adversely affect
any manufacturer. After this temporary delay
has expired, the Hybrid III dummy will be avail
able for compliance testing for any type of occu-
pant protection system a manufacturer may cer-
tify as complying with Standard No. 208. This
reflects the agency's continuing belief that the
Hybrid III test dummy should eventually replace
the older Subpart B test dummy as the tool used to
evaluate the protection that all vehicles afford
occupants during frontal crashes, including vehi-
cles that do not use any restraint systems to pro-
tect the occupants, because of the Hybrid Ill's
enhanced biofidelity and capability of measuring
injury producing forces for areas of the body that
are not measured by the Subpart B test dummy.
Mandatory Use Date for Hybrid III
There are a number of questions that are cur-
rently unresolved regarding the injury criteria
that should be established for the Hybrid III
dummy. The following are some of the issues that
need to be addressed to develop sound injury
criteria for that test dummy:
1. What is the extent of the occupant chest
injury problem in real world motor vehicle
crashes? How does the problem vary by restraint
system type?
2. Is chest deflection a relevant chest injury
measure, in addition to chest acceleration, when
using the Hybrid III test dummy?
3. What process should be used to correlate
laboratory-based test data about chest injuries
with the actual accident data for chest injuries?
4. How accurate and valid are the current
chest deflection measurement technology and any
current technological alternatives for assessing
chest injury potential (such as measurements of
shoulder belt loading)?
5. To what extent should the performance
requirement limiting chest deflection differen-
tiate among the various types of restraint systems?
6. Are the responses of the Hybrid III test
dummy adequately repeatable when used to mea-
sure the chest deflection of various types of res-
traint systems?
PART 572-PRE 74
The available data are inadequate to permit the
agency to resolve these questions with a reasonable
degree of confidence. Until the agency has a
reasonable confidence in its answers to these types
of questions, NHTSA believes it would premature
to mandate the use of only this test dummy for
compliance testing under Standard No. 208. Ac-
cordingly, this notice suspends the mandatory use
date for the Hybrid III test dummy. The July 1986
final rule had established September 1, 1991, as
the date after which NHTSA would use only the
Hybrid HI test dummy for its passenger car
compliance testing under Standard No. 208.
NHTSA has already initiated further testing of
current restraint systems with the Hybrid HI test
dummy. In addition, the ag> acy intends to broaden
its biomechanical data base to fill in the gaps in
the existing data regarding the appropriateness
of limits on permissible chest deflection. NHTSA
will also attempt to correlate the biomechanical
data. Hybrid III chest deflections and/or related
injury assessments, and injuries observed in
vehicle crashes. Finally, the agency will gather
more chest deflection and injury data from vehicle
test crashes. After the agency has performed this
additional research, it will propose a new manda-
tory use date for the Hybrid III dummy in
Standard No. 208 compliance testing.
In connection with this suspension of the man-
datory use date for the Hybrid III dummy in
NHTSA's compliance testing, the agency em-
phasizes that it is aware of the need to allow all
manufacturers to obtain and gain experience with
using the Hybrid III dummy before that test
dummy is used for passenger car compliance test-
ing. NHTSA previously determined that at least
four years should be allowed for manufacturers to
gain experience with the Hybrid III, after those
test dummies were commercially available in
sufficient quantities; 51 FR 26688, at 26699, July
25, 1986. When proposing a new mandatory use
date for the Hybrid HI, NHTSA will again specify
a leadtime that is adequate to allow all manufactur-
ers to gain experience with the Hybrid III test
dummy. Because of the problems that have arisen
vis-a-vis chest deflection, NHTSA will not include
the time that has elapsed since the July 25, 1986,
final rule in its leadtime estimate.
Other Issues Raised in Petitions for Reconsidera-
tion
As noted above, all issues related to the Hybrid
III positioning procedures that were raised in
these petitions for reconsideration were addressed
in the November 23, 1987, final rule establishing
dynamic testing requirements for light trucks
and light multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR
44898). Interested persons are referred to that
rule if they wish to review the agency's response to
those issues. Besides the issues of the appropriate
chest deflection limits, the mandatory use date for
the Hybrid III test dummy, and the positioning
procedures, the following issues were raised in
petitions for reconsideration.
1 . A cceptability of the Hybrid Ill's Design and
Performance Specifications.
Ford commented that the performance require-
ments for Hybrid III test dummies that were spec-
ified in the final rule were based on versions of the
Hybrid III that reflected the proposed require-
ments. However, the version of the Hybrid III
mandated in the final rule includes new rib damp-
ing material, knee sliders, ball-joint ankles, and so
forth. Ford asserted that the performance re-
quirements in the final rule may not have taken
these changes into account. In addition to the
changes noted by Ford, the requirements for the
Hybrid III dummy specified in the final rule dif-
fered from those proposed with respect to the cali-
bration procedures to be followed.
Ford's assertion that the agency failed to account
for the changes made to the test dummy between
the proposal and the final rule is not correct. In the
case of the new rib damping material, data sub-
mitted by GM (Docket No. 74-14-N 45-027) and
testing conducted for NHTSA show that the new
rib damping material shifts the impact force
response calibration limits upward by about six
percent, but has little or no effect on the chest
deflection characteristics.
The design changes to the knee, lower leg, and
ankle were made to reduce the dummy's design
complexity which, in turn, should enhance the
dummy's reproducibility. The size, mass, mass
distribution, and rigidity of the knee, lower leg,
and ankle are identical to those which were
proposed. Additionally, NHTSA conducted its
testing of the Hybrid III dummy's knees with the
proposed knees, that is, without a shear module.
GM conducted its testing of the dummy's knees
with the knees adopted in the final rule, that is,
with the shear module. The agency and GM test
results for the knees were nearly identical. These
test results show that the addition of the knee
shear module did not significantly affect the
performance of the knees in testing.
PART 572-PRE 75
Ford did not offer any explanation of why it
believes the changes to the knee, lower leg, and
ankle would affect the performance of the Hybrid
III dummy during testing. The dummy calibration
modifications that were made between the proposal
and the final rule simply reduced the complexity
and redundancy of the calibration procedures.
The available evidence indicates that the only
effect on the performance of the Hybrid HI as a
result of the calibration modifications was to
ensure that the test dummy produces more con-
sistent impact responses. Accordingly, NHTSA
has not amended the rule in response to Ford's
concern.
2. Calibratio7i Requirements.
The calibration procedures involve a series of
static and dynamic tests of the test dummy com-
ponents to determine whether the responses of the
dummy fall within specified ranges. These cali-
bration procedures help ensure that the test
dummy has been properly assembled and that the
assembled test dummy will give repeatable and
reproducible results during crash testing.
a. Thorax calibration response requirements.
In its petition, Ford asked NHTSA to revise the
thorax calibration specifications to reflect the
characteristics of the rib cage structure with the
new United McGill rib damping material. NHTSA
changed to this new rib damping material after
proposing to use a different rib damping material.
Ford also indicated that it has experienced some
intermittent difficulties in getting its Hybrid III
dummies to comply with the thorax calibration
requirements. Honda, Volkswagen, and Toyota
also indicated they had experienced problems
with getting Hybrid III dummies to meet the
thorax calibration requirements. These three
manufacturers also indicated that they had diffi-
culties obtaining consistent thorax impact re-
sponses. GM urged the agency to revise the mid-
point of the thorax resistive forces specified in the
calibration requirements upwards by 47.5 pounds.
GM stated that this increase would more approp-
riately reflect the range of acceptable responses
for newly manufactured Hybrid III test dummies
incorporating the new rib damping material.
The agency believes that these petitions raise a
legitimate point. NHTSA confirmed in its own
testing and testing conducted by the Hybrid III
dummy manufacturers that the rib design speci-
fication set forth in the final rule is too broad. The
dimensional extremes permissible under that
specification result in the test dummy's thorax
exhibiting excessive impact response variations.
During the months of November and December
1986, a series of round robin tests were conducted
by the two dummy manufacturers and GM to
determine what rib steel and damping material
combinations would produce the most consistent
impact responses, while ensuring biofidelity with
the human rib cage. Those tests indicated that a
rib steel thickness of 0.080 inch and 0.53 inch
thickness of the new rib damping material would
yield the most consistent responses and retain
biofidelity (NHTSA Docket No. 74-14-N45-027).
However, this report also concluded that the
calibration force requirements should be adjusted
upwards by 80 pounds.
Subsequently, the agency performed a similar
series of tests of the rib cages made by both
dummy manufacturers to ensure that rib cages
that comply with these new specifications could be
calibrated within the higher force levels and that
rib cages that comply with these new specifications
and that are calibrated at the higher force levels
yield consistent impact responses. These tests
showed that both dummy manufacturers can
produce Hybrid III rib cages well within these
new specifications and that both manufacturers'
rib cages built to these new specifications gave
repeatable and reproducible impact responses.
(NHTSA Docket No. 74-14-N45-038).
Therefore, in response to the petitions and these
test results, §572.34(b) is revised to specify that
the thorax shall resist a force of 1242.5 ± 82.5
pounds. This is an increase of the midpoint force
level by 80 pounds, or about six percent, over the
previously specified level. The specifications for
rib steel thickness have been narrowed from 0.078
± 0.002 inch to 0.080 ± 0.001 inch. The specifica-
tions for rib damping material thickness are
revised from a range of 0.250-0.625 inch to a range
of 0.53 ± 0.03 inch. These changes should ensure
that the Hybrid III thorax will yield more consist-
ent impact responses.
b. Knee impact calibration responses. Ford
stated in its petition for reconsideration that the
knee impact calibration should be conducted with-
out the lower leg attached. In support of this
request. Ford stated that it is hard to accurately
measure the required angle specified for the
lower leg, using the new lower leg. Additionally,
Ford noted that §572. 35(c) requires the use of the
new lower leg for knee impact testing, while Fig-
ure 24 shows the lower leg that was proposed, but
not adopted in the final rule.
The agency was not persuaded by this argu-
ment. First, the agency has not encountered any
PART 572-PRE 76
problems in its testing with rotating tiie leg to the
specified angle and maintaining it in the correct
orientation. Ford did not explain what specific
difficulties it has encountered. Second, removal of
the lower leg would require the dummy to be dis-
assembled during the calibration procedures. This
would add time and effort to the calibration pro-
cess with no corresponding benefit. Hence, this
suggested change has not been adopted.
Additionally, Ford's suggestion that Figure 24
needs to be revised to show the version of the lower
leg adopted in the final rule is not persuasive. The
proposed lower leg included instrumentation on
the tibia, while the final rule specified a non-
instrumented tibia. There were no other differen-
ces in the lower leg. Figure 24 merely shows a
lower leg, without identifying any particular
lower leg by a part number or the like. The identi-
fication of the lower leg in §572.35 correctly iden-
tifies the leg assembly with a non-instrumented
tibia. Hence, no clarifying amendments are neces-
sary.
Both Ford and GM stated that the knee impact
calibration tolerances were overly broad in the
final rule. That rule specified a tolerance of ± 22
percent, with an acceptable variation of 44 per-
cent (not less than 996 pounds nor more than 1566,
with a midpoint of 1281 pounds),. Ford stated that
potential test variability would be significantly
reduced if the range were narrowed to ± 10 per-
cent (not less than 1153 pounds nor more than
1409 pounds, with the midpoint remaining at 1281
pounds).
Based on a series of round robin tests between
NHTSA and itself, GM also stated that the range
of acceptable knee impact force requirements is
too broad, especially when compared with the typ-
ical knee impact responses of newly manufac-
tured Hybrid HI dummies. GM recommended,
based on the round robin testing, that the calibra-
tion performance requirements be modified to be
not less than 1060 pounds nor more than 1300
pounds. This would lower the midpoint of the
acceptable range to 1180 pounds, and would fall
within the ± 10 percent tolerance limit suggested
by^Ford.
After reconsidering this issue, NHT^A agrees
with Ford and GM that the knee impact response
range specified in the final rule is too broad. The
knee response is governed primarily by the flesh
covering the knee. It is relatively simple to control
the consistency of this flesh when manufacturing
new dummies, and relatively simple to replace the
flesh on used dummies, when the response falls
out of the acceptable calibration range. Based on
the round robin testing, this notice adopts GM's
suggested calibration range of 1060-1300 pounds.
NHTSA and GM testing showed that this range is
practicable and relatively simple to attain. This
narrower range should also yield more repeatable
impact responses from the Hybrid HI dummies in
crashes.
c. Conforming changes to the drawings and
specifications package for the Hybrid III test
dummy. As a part of the amendments to the
calibration specifications and to correct errors in
the previous package, NHTSA is making some
changes to the drawings and specifications pack-
age for the Hybrid HI test dummy. These changes
consist of the following:
i) a revised rib thickness specification;
ii) a revised rib damping material specification;
iii) a revised rib cage assembly specification (to
reflect the changes in i) and ii));
iv) a new abdominal insert specification (to
eliminate possible interference by the insert with
the lever arm of the chest deflection potentio-
meter);
v) a new specification for the pelvis angle dur-
ing thorax calibration tests; and
vi) an update of the dummy assembly drawing
to reflect these changes.
3. Chest Temperature Sensitivity.
The final rule provided that the stabilized
temperature of the Hybrid HI test dummy is to be
between 69° and 72° F for the Standard No. 208
compliance testing. This narrow temperature
range is necessary, because testing has shown that
the Hybrid HI test dummy's measurements of
chest deflection and chest acceleration are tempera-
ture sensitive. The agency stated ^hat it believed
this temperature range was practicable.
Ford stated that its barrier crash facility cannot
maintain the specified temperature range. How-
ever, Ford recommended that the temperature
range could be broadened because "the new r-ib
damping material will probably exhibit some-
what different temperature sensitivity." Based on
this assumption. Ford suggested that the temper-
ature range be broadened by 2° to 5° F. As an
alternative to broadening the temperature range.
Ford suggested that this narrow temperature
range be applied only to the dummy components
that have shown great temperature sensitivity,
and that the dummy components that do not
exhibit temperature sensitivity should not be sub-
ject to tight temperature controls.
According to Mazda's petition for reconsidera-
PART 572-PRE 77
tion, the specified temperature range can only be
maintained with separate on-board air condition-
ing, and such an arrangement would limit the
number and variety of tests that were possible.
Like Ford, Mazda asserted that the reduced
temperature sensitivity of the new rib damping
material would permit the agency to expand the
permissible temperature range, which Mazda
suggested be set at 68° to 76° F. Honda stated that
its test facility could control the temperature
within 8° F and urged that the permissible
temperature range be expanded to an 8° F limit.
Volvo stated that the permissible temperature
range is practicable, but that it is excessively time
consuming and complicated, especially because
the test cycle has to be interrupted frequently for
various technical reasons unrelated to temperature.
Contrary to the assertions by some of these
petitioners, test data available in the public docket
(NHTSA Docket No. 74-14-N39-049) show that
the new rib damping material has nearly the
identical temperature sensitivity as the damping
material it replaces. Ifthe agency were to establish
a broader temperature range for the testing, it
would introduce excessive variability into the
compliance test results. The preamble to the final
rule discussed at length the several means that the
agency and its contractors have used to maintain
the temperature within the specified range (51
FR 26692). In addition, in a submission to the
docket, General Motors indicated successful use of
temperature normalization factors which a manu-
facturer may want to use to predict response
values at the exact specified mean temperature.
NHTSA has concluded that the specified temper-
ature range is practicable and necessary to reduce
variability of the test results, so this provision has
not been changed in this notice.
4. Dummy DnrabUity.
Nissan stated that in 35 mph sled tests, its
Hybrid HI test dummy had experienced damage
to the neck, rib cage, and wrists. Similarly, Volvo
stated in its petition for reconsideration that the
Hybrid HI dummy is less durable in 35 mph
impacts than the currently specified test dummy.
Additionally, Volvo stated that the thorax needs
more frequent replacement in 35 mph impacts
than was stated by the agency. In the preamble to
the final rule, the agency said that testing had
shown that Hybrid III dummies could be used for
about 17 crash tests before the ribs must be
replaced, and concluded that this level of durabil-
ity was reasonable. Volvo did not provide any data
to support its assertions.
The agency has not examined the durability of
the Hybrid HI test dummy in 35 mph impact tests.
However, the agency does not believe this issue is
relevant to the announced use of the Hybrid III
test dummy. The final rule specified that the
Hybrid III dummy would be used in compliance
testing for Standard No. 208, which requires 30
mph impacts. If and when the agency decides to
use the Hybrid III dummy in testing for the New
Car Assessment Program, which involves 35 mph
frontal impacts, the agency will examine the dur-
ability of the dummy in 35 mph frontal impacts.
Until such a decision is made, NHTSA believes
that its resources can be better spent examining
other issues related to the Hybrid III test dummy.
During extensive testing in 30 mph impacts
conducted for NHTSA and manufacturers, the
Hybrid III dummy has demonstrated adequate
durability under those conditions (NHTSA Docket
No. 74-14-GR-602). To the extent that the dura-
bility of the Hybrid III thorax may have been in
question, agency testing has shown that Hybrid
III test dummies with the new ribs and new rib
damping material show minimal changes in force
and deflection responses of the thorax after 20
consecutive pendulum impacts. After the 20th
impact, the rib cage force and deflection response
levels had changed less than 3 percent from the
mean responses ofthe first four impacts. (NHTSA
Docket No. 74-14-N45-038). Based on these test
results, NHTSA concludes that the Hybrid III
test dummy has adequate durability in 30 mph
impacts.
5. Changes to the Text of Standard No. 208 and
Part 572.
Chrysler, Ford, and MVMA all requested the
addition of text to sections S7.4.3-S7.4.5 to permit
use of the Hybrid HI test dummy to test compliance
with the comfort and convenience requirements of
S7.4. The final rule establishing dynamic testing
requirements for light trucks and multipurpose
passenger vehicles has already amended section
S7.4.4 to permit the use of either type of test
dummy for such testing. This notice makes similar
changes to sections S7.4.3 and S7.4.5.
Renault asked that Standard No. 208 be clari-
fied as to the question of whether the two dummy
types may be used interchangeably in the driver
and/or passenger positions. NHTSA has previously
concluded that both dummy types yield equival-
ent safety assessments of vehicles. Therefore,
until the time when only the Hybrid III test
dummy is used for compliance testing, NHTSA
believes manufacturers should be allowed to base
PART 572-PRE 78
their certifications of compliance on the use of
either type of test dummy in any combination and
in any of the designated seating positions. Lan-
guage to this effect has been added to Standard
No. 208.
Ford also suggested some technical changes to
clarify certain parts of Standard No. 208 and Part
572. Ford stated that section S6.2.3 of Standard
No. 208 currently provides that, "The resultant
acceleration calculated from the thoracic instru-
mentation . . . ." Ford stated that the acceleration
is calculated from the output signal of the instru-
mentation, not from the instrumentation itself,
and asked that the language be amended to state
that. The agency agrees, and has made this change.
Ford stated that the positive and negative signs
had been reversed in section 572.33(b)(l)(ii) and
(b)(2)(ii). This statement is incorrect. According to
the sign convention for the output of the Hybrid
III transducers referenced in §572. 31(a)(5) and
sign conventions adopted by the Society for
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Instrumentation
Subcommittee, the positive and negative signs
were correctly used in the sections questioned by
Ford.
Ford also asked that the definition of and refer-
ences to "time zero" be deleted from §572.34(b),
because the agency had deleted the proposed
specifications that thorax load be measured 19
milliseconds after impact and that thorax displace-
ment be measured 25 milliseconds after impact.
Because of these deletions. Ford asserted that the
references and definition of time zero were un-
necessary and potentially misleading. NHTSA
agrees with this point, and this rule has amended
§572.34 to delete the reference to "time zero."
Impact Assessments
1. Economic and Other Impacts. NHTSA has
considered the impacts of this response to the peti-
tions for reconsideration of the final rule on the
Hybrid III test dummy 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 several technical
corrections made by this notice should not signifi-
cantly affect the cost estimates set forth in the
final regulatory evaluation that was prepared in
connection with the final rule on the Hybrid HI
test dummy. Interested persons are referred to
that document, which is available in NHTSA
Docket No. 74-14, Notice 45. Copies of that regula-
tory evaluation may be obtained by writing to:
NHTSA Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, or by
calling the Docket Section at (202) 366-2992.
The most important changes made in this
response to the petitions are the amendment of the
chest deflection limit, the delay until September
1, 1990, in using the Hybrid III dummy for com-
pliance testing of vehicles that don't use restraint
systems to provide automatic occupant protection,
and the suspension of the mandatory effective
date for use of the Hybrid III dummy. The
amendment of the chest deflection limit for the
Hybrid III dummy is necessary to ensure that the
adoption of a new compliance test device does not
require the redesign of most existing designs of
2-point automatic belt systems. Amending the
chest deflection limit to three inches both recog-
nizes the effectiveness of existing 2-point auto-
matic belt systems and avoids unnecessary adverse
impacts on any party.
The temporary delay in the use of the Hybrid III
test dummy for compliance testing of vehicles that
provide automatic occupant protection without
using any restraint systems is necessary to allow
the agency to further examine its decision to
establish the same chest deflection limits for those
systems and systems that use either safety belts or
air bags. No manufacturer currently certifies any
such vehicle design, nor is the agency aware of any
plans to certify such a vehicle design before Sep-
tember 1, 1990. Hence, this temporary delay
should not adversely affect any person.
The suspension of the effective date for manda-
tory use of the Hybrid III test dummy is necessary
to permit the agency to resolve some remaining
technical issues, principally related to chest deflec-
tion. The agency does not believe that postponing
the mandatory use date for the Hybrid III test will
have any adverse impact on any person. Those
manufacturers that wish to certify their vehicles
on the basis of testing with the Hybrid III test
dummy are permitted to do so. Those manufac-
turers that wish to certify their vehicles on the
basis of testing with the Part 572 Subpart B
dummy are also permitted to do so. Once the
agency has resolved the outstanding technical
issues associated with the Hybrid HI test dummy,
a new date for the mandatory use of that test
dummy in NHTSA's compliance testing will be
proposed through the rulemaking process. That
rulemaking will consider all the impacts asso-
ciated with a new mandatory use date.
PART 572-PRE 79
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
§571.208, Occupant Crash Protection, and 49 CFR
Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, are
amended as follows:
PART 571 - [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 571 con-
tinues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
§571.208 [Amended]
2. S5 of Standard No. 208 is amended by
revising S5.1 and S5.2.1 to read as follows:
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, 1990,
that comply with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a)
by means not including any type of seat belt or
inflatable restraint shall comply with S.5.1(a).
(a) ***
(b) * * *
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 combina-
tion thereof, at the manufacturer's option; except
that vehicles manufactured before September 1,
1990, that comply with the requirements of
S4. 1.2. 1(c) by means not including any type of seat
belt or inflatable restraint shall comply with
S5.2.1(a). *****
3. S6.2 of Standard No. 208 is amended by
revising S6.2.3a and S6.2.4 to read as follows:
56.2 Injury Criteria for the Part 572, Subpart E,
Hybrid HI Test Dummy. *****
56.2.3 The resultant acceleration calculated
from the output of the thoracic instrumentation
shown in drawing 78051-218, revision R incorpo-
rated 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 instrument-
ation shown in drawing 78051-317, revision A
incorporated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E
of this Chapter, shall not exceed 3 inches. *****
4. S7.4 of Standard No. 208 is amended by
revising S7.4.3 and the first sentence of S7.4.5 to
read as follows:
S7.4 Seat belt comfort and convenience. *****
87. 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 pound of contact force when mea-
sured normal to and one inch from the chest of an
anthropomorphic test dummy, positioned in ac-
cordance with either SlOor 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. *****
S7.4.5 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 positioned 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. *****
PART 572 - [AMENDED]
5. The authority citation for Part 572 con-
tinues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
6. Section 572.31 is amended by revising para-
graphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (b) to read as follows:
§572.31 General description.
(a) The Hybrid III 50th percentile size dummy
consists of components and assemblies specified in
the Anthropomorphic Test Dummy drawing and
specifications package which consists of the fol-
lowing six items:
(1) The Anthropomorphic Test Dummy Parts
List, dated December 15, 1987, and containing 13
pages, and a Parts List Index, dated December 15,
1987, containing 8 pages.
* * *
(3) A General Motors Drawing Package iden-
tified by GM Drawing No. 78051-218, revision R,
and subordinate drawings. * * * * ♦
(b) The dummy is made up of the following
component assemblies:
PART 572-PRE 80
Drawing No.
Revision
78051-61 Head Assembly —
Complete
(T)
78051-90 Neck Assembly —
Complete
(A)
78051-89 Upper Torso Assembly —
Complete
(K)
78051-90 Lower Torso Assembly —
Without Pelvic
Instrumentation Assembly, Drawing
No. 78051-59
(D)
86-5001-001 Leg Assembly -
Complete (LH)
(E)
86-5001-002 Leg Assembly —
Complete (RH)
(E)
78051-123 Arm Assembly —
Complete (LH)
(D)
78051-124 Arm Assembly —
Complete (RH)
(D)
7. Section 572.33 is amended by revising para-
graph (b)(l)(i) to read as follows:
§572.33 Nec/c. * * * * *
(b) ***
(1) Flexion (i) Plane D, referenced in
Figure 20, shall rotate between 64 degrees and 78
degrees, which shall occur between 57 milli-
seconds (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. * * * * *
8. Section 572.34 is amended by revising para-
graphs (a), (b), and (c)(2) to read as follows:
§572.34 Thorax.
(a) The thorax consists of the upper torso
assembly in drawing 78051-89, revision K, and
shall conform to each of the drawings subtended
therein.
(b) When impacted by a test probe conforming
to §572.36(a) at 22 fps ± 0.40 fps in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section, the thorax of a
complete 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 percent but less than 85 percent. The force
measured is the product of pendulum mass and
deceleration.
(c) Test procedure. (1) * * *
(2) Seat the dummy without back and arm
supports 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 SI 1.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 (§571.208 of this
Chapter). *****
9. Section 572.35(b) is revised to read as
follows:
§572.35 Lm6s.
(a) * * *
(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 §572.36(b), the peak knee
impact force, which is a product of pendulum
mass and acceleration, shall have a minimum
value of not less than 1060 pounds and a maximum
value of not more than 1300 pounds. *****
10. Section 572.36 is amended by revising
paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (h) to read as
follows:
§572.36 Test conditions and instrumentation.
********
(b) The test probe used for the knee impact
tests is a 3 inch diameter 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 0.02 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
assembly 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 assembly
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.
PART 572-PRE 81
(f) The chest deflection transducer shall have Issued on March 11, 1988
the dimensions and response characteristics spec-
ified in drawing 78051-342, revision A, or equival-
ent, and be mounted in the chest deflection trans-
ducer assembly 78051-317, revision A, for assembly
into 78051-218, revision R. *****
(h) The femur load cell shall have the dimen-
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis Diane K. Steed
locations specified in drawing 78051-265 or its Administrator
equivalent and be mounted in assemblies 78051-
46 and -47 for assembly into 78051-218, revision R. /JZ' .!„«
******** March 17, 1988
PART 572-PRE 82
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 or
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 description of tools that measure the perform-
ance of occupant protection systems required by
the safety standards that incorporate it. It is
designed to be referenced by, and become a part
of, the test procedures specified in motor vehicle
safety standards such as Standard No. 208, Occu-
pant Crash Protection.
§ 572.4 Terminology.
(a) The term "dummy," 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 "upright position" means the posi-
tion of the dummy when it is seated in accordance
with the procedures of 572.11(1).
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 entirety 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
The drawings and specifications are incorporated in
this Part by reference to the nine headings, and are
available for examination in Docket 73-8, 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., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20005, attention Mr. Allan Goldberg and
Mr. Mark Krysinski ((202) 628-6667). The drawings
and specifications are subject to changes, but any
change will be accomplished by appropriate ad-
ministrative procedures, will be announced by
publication in the Federal Register, and will be
available for examination and copying as indicated in
the paragraph. The drawings and specifications are
also on file in the reference library of the Federal
Reigister, National Archives and Records Services,
General Services Administration, Washington, D.C.
(50 F.R. 25422-June 19, 1985. Effective: June 19,
1985)1
The drawings and specifications are on file in the
reference library of the Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Service, General Services
Administration, Washington, D.C.
(b) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner
such that throughout the range of motion and also
under crash-impact conditions there is no contact
(R«v. 6/19/85)
PART 572-1
between metallic elements except 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 vehicle
tests specified in Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208).
A specimen of the dummy is available for surface
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 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 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, t, 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 - 1 curve last crosses the 20g level, and t^ at the
point where the decaying a - 1 curve first crosses
the 5g level.
(iii) t,-tj shall be not more than 3
milliseconds.
(iv) tg - 1„ shall be not less than 25 mOliseconds
and not more than 30 milliseconds.
(v) t^-tj shall be not more than 10
milliseconds.
(vi) The average deceleration between t^ and
tj shaO be not less than 20g and not more than
24g.
(vii) Allow the neck to flex without impact of
the head or neck wdth any object other than the
pendulum 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
potentiometer 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 1 1 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 572-3
(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
Vi" cap screw holes and attach the front mount-
ing at the femur axial rotation joint. Tighten the
mountings so that the pelvic-lumbar adapter is
horizontal 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 unsup-
ported by external means.
(4) Apply a forward force perpendicular to
the thorax instrument cavity rear face in the
midsagittal plane 15 inches above the top sur-
face of the pelvic-lumbar adapter. Apply the
force at any torso deflection rate between .5
and 1.5 degrees per second up to 40° of flexion
but no further, continue to apply for 10 sec-
onds 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 para-
graph (e) of this section, the abdominal force-
deflection 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, ensuring that all component surfaces
are clean, dry, and untreated unless otherwise
specified.
(2) Place a rigid cylinder 6 inches in diam-
eter and 18 inches long transversely across the
abdomen, so that the cylinder is symmetrical
about the midsagittal plane, with its longi-
tudinal 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(1) that is
17.3 ±0.2 inches above a horizontal surface,
oriented as specified in § 572.11(1), and with the
hip joint adjustment 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
(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 midsagit-
tal plane at the specified velocity.
(5) Guide the probe during impact so that it
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or
rotational movement.
§ 572.11 Test conditions and instrumentation.
(a) The test probe used for thoracic and knee
impact tests is a cylinder 6 inches in diameter that
weighs 51.5 pounds including instrumentation. Its
impacting end has a flat right face that is rigid and
that has an edge radius of 0.5 inches.
(b) Accelerometers are mounted in the head on
the horizontal transverse bulkhead shown in the
drawings subreferenced under assembly No. SA
150 MOlO in Figure 1, so that their sensitive axes
intersect 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 accelerometer is
aligned with its sensitive axis perpendicular to the
horizonal bulkhead in the midsagittal plane and
with its seismic mass center at any distance up to
0.3 inches superior to the axial intersection
point. Another accelerometer is aligned with 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 axial intersection point
(left side of dummy is the same as that of man). A
third accelerometer is aligned with its sensitive
axis parallel to the horizontal bulkhead 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) Accelerometers are mounted in the thorax by
means of a bracket attached to the rear vertical
surface (hereafter "attachment surface") of the
thoracic spine so that their sensitive axes intersect
at a point in the midsagittal plane 0.8 inches below
the upper surface of the plate to which the neck
mounting bracket is attached and 3.2 inches
perpendicularly forward of the surface to which
the accelerometer bracket is attached. One
accelerometer 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 accelerometer 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 accelerometer
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. Accelerometers are oriented
with the dummy in the position specified in
S 572.11(1).
(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 forcesensing
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 compression— Class 180.
(5) Femur force— Class 600.
(f) The mountings for sensing devices have no
resonance frequency within a range of 3 times the
frequency range of the applicable channel class.
(g) Limb joints are set at Ig, barely restraining
the weight 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
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.
PART 572-5
(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 inches and not more than 6 inches
forward of the forward 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
removed 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.
Subpart C— Three Year Old Child
Sec.
572.15 General description.
572.16 Head.
572.17 Neck.
572.18 Thorax.
572.19 Lumbar, spine, abdomen and plevis.
572.20 Limbs.
572.21 Test conditions and instrumentation.
Subpart C— Three Year Old Child
§ 572.15 General description.
(a)(1) The dummy consists of the component
assemblies specified in drawing SA 103C 001,
which are described in their entirety by means of
approximately 122 drawings and specifications
grouped by component assemblies under the
following headings:
PART 572-6
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
The drawings and specifications are incorporated
in this part by reference to the thirteen headings
and are available for examination in Docket 78-09,
Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20590. [Copies may be obtained from
Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, attention Mr.
Allan Goldberg and Mr. Mark Krysinski ((202)
628-6667). (50 F.R. 25422-June 19,1985. Effec-
tive: June 19, 1985)1
(2) The patterns of all cast and molded parts for
reproduction of the molds needed in manufactur-
ing of the dummies are incorporated in this part by
reference. A set of the patterns 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.
(3) [An Operation and Maintenance Manual
(dated May 28, 1976, Contract No. DOT-
HS-6-01294) with instructions for the use and
maintenance of the test dummies is incorporated in
this Part by reference. Copies of the manual can be
obtained from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc.
All provisions of this manual are valid unless
modified by this regulation. This document is
available for examination in Docket 78-09. (50 F.R.
25422-June 19, 1985. Effective: June 19, 1985)1
(4) The drawings, specifications and the manual
are subject to changes, but any change will be
accomplished by appropriate administrative pro-
cedures and announced by publication in the
Federal Register and be available for examination
and copying as indicated in this paragraph.
(5) The drawings, specifications, patterns, and
manual are on file in the reference library of the
Federal Register, National Archives and Records
Service, General Services Administration,
Washington, D.C.
(b) 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 ex-
cept for contacts that exist under static condi-
tions.
(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
tests specified by Standard No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems (§ 571.213).
§ 572.16 Head.
(a) The head consists of the assembly shown in
drawing SA 103C 001 by number SA 103C 010,
and conforms to each of the drawings listed
under this number on drawing SA 103C 002,
sheet 8.
(b) When the head is impacted in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section by a test probe
conforming to § 572.21(a) at 7 fps., the peak
resultant accelerations measured at the location
of the accelerometers mounted in the headform
in accordance with § 572.21(b) shall be not less
than 95g, and not more than 115g. The recorded
acceleration-time curve for this test shall be
unimodal at, or above the 50g level and shall lie
at, or above that level for an interval not less
than 2.0 and not more than 3.0 milliseconds. The
lateral acceleration vector shall not exceed 7g.
(c) Test Procedure:
(1) Seat the dummy on a seating surface hav-
ing 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
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 mid-
sagittal 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 coin-
cides within 2 degrees with the line made by the
intersection 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.
(Rev. 6/19/85)
PART 572-7
(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.
(a) The neck consists of the assembly shown in
drawing SA 103C 001 as number SA 103C 020, and
conforms to each of the drawings listed under this
number on drawing SA 103C 002, sheet 9.
(b) When the head-neck assembly is tested in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the
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.
Chordal
Rotation
Time (ms)
Displacement
(degrees)
± (2 + .08T)
(inches ±0.8)
0
0
0
30
21
2.2
60
36
4.3
Maximum
62
5.8
60
91
4.3
30
108
2.2
0
123
0
(c) Test Procedure:
(1) Mount the head and neck on a rigid pendulum
as specified in Figure 4, so that the head's
midsagittal plane is vertical and 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, 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 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 t2 and
ts shall be not less than 20g and not more than 34g.
(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 103C 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
PART 572-8
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.
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 assembHes 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) The test probe used for head and thoracic im-
pact 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.
(b) Accelerometers are mounted in the head on
the mounting block (A/310) located on the horizon-
tal transverse bulkhead shown in the drawings
PART 572-9
subreferenced under assembly SA 103C 010 so that
their sensitive axes are orthogonal and their seismic
masses are positioned relative to the axial intersec-
tion point. Except in the case of tri-axial
accelerometers, the sensitive axes shall intersect at
the axial intersection point located at the intersection
of a line connecting the longitudinal centerlines of
the transfer pins in the sides of the dummy head with
the midsagittal plane of the dummy head. One
accelerometer is aligned with its sensitive axis
parallel to the vertical bulkhead and midsagittal
plane, and with its seismic mass center at the mid-
sagittal plane at any distance up to 0.3 inches dorsal
and 0. 1 inches inferior to the axial intersection point.
Another accelerometer is aligned with its sensitive
axis in the horizontal plane and perpendicular to the
midsagittal plane, and with its seismic mass center at
any distance up to 0.2 inches inferior to, 0.4 inches to
the right of, and 1 inch dorsal to the axial intersection
point (right side of dummy is the same as that of
child). A third accelerometer is aligned with its sen-
sitive axis parallel to the midsagittal and horizontal
planes, and wath its seismic mass center at any
distance up to 0.2 inches inferior to, 0.6 inches dorsal
to, and 0.4 inches to the right of the axial intersection
point. In the case of a tri-axial accelerometer, its axes
are aligned in the same way that the axes of three
separate accelerometers are aligned.
(c) Accelerometers are mounted in the thorax on
the mounting plate attached to the vertical
transverse bulkhead shown in the drawings
subreferenced under assembly No. SA 103C 030 in
drawing SA 103C 001 so that their sensitive axes
are orthogonal and their seismic masses are posi-
tioned relative to the axial intersection point
located in the midsagittal plane 3 inches above the
top surface of the lumbar spine and 0.3 inches
dorsal to the accelerometer mounting plate sur-
face. Except in the case of tri-axial accelerometers,
the sensitive axes shall intersect at the axial in-
tersection point. One accelerometer is aligned with
its sensitive axis parallel to the vertical bulkhead
and midsagittal planes, and with its seismic mass
center at any distance up to 0.2 inches to the right,
0.2 inches inferior and 0.1 inches ventral of the
axial intersection point. Another accelerometer is
aligned with its sensitive axis in the horizontal
transverse plane and perpendicular to the mid-
sagittal plane and with its seismic mass center at
any distance up to 0.3 inches to the left, 0.2 inches
inferior and 0.2 inches ventral to the axial intersec-
tion point. A third accelerometer is aligned with its
sensitive axis parallel to the midsagittal and
horizontal planes and with its seismic mass center
at any distance up to 0.3 inches superior, 0.6 inches
to the right and 0.1 inches ventral to the axial
intersection point. In the case of a tri-axial
accelerometer, its axes are aligned in the same
way that the axes of three separate accelerometers
are aligned.
(d) The outputs of accelerometers installed in the
dummy, and of test apparatus specified by this part,
are recorded in individual data channels that con-
form to the requirements of SAE Recommended
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.
PART 572-10
(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.
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 001) and a
construction manual which describes in detail the
materials and the procedures involved in the
manufacturing of this dummy. The drawings and
the manual are incorporated in this part by
reference and are available for examination in
Docket 78-09, 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,
attention Mr. Allan Goldberg and Mr. Mark
Krysinski ((202) 628-6667). The drawings and the
manual are subject to changes, but any change will
be accomplished by appropriate administrative
procedures and announced by publication in the
Federal Register and be available for examination
and copying as indicated in this paragraph. The
drawings and manual are on file in the reference
library of the Federal Register, National Archives
and Records Services, General Services
Administration, Washington, D.C. (50 F.R.
25422-June 19, 1985. Effective: June 19, 1985)
(b) The structural properties and dimensions of
the dummy are such that the dummy conforms to
this part in every respect, both before and after
being used in tests specified by Standard No. 213
(571.213).
[§ 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 by reference are
available for examination in the general reference
section of Docket 74-14, 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., 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 Hybird III 50th percentile size dummy
consists of components and assemblies specified in
the Anthropomorphic Test Dummy drawing 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, 1987], containing [8] pages,
(2) A listing of Optional Hybrid III Dummy
Transducers, dated April 22, 1986, contained 4
pages
(3) A General Motors Drawing package iden-
tified by GM drawing No. 78051-218 revision [RI
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,
(6) Exterior Dimensions of the Hybrid III
Dummy, dated July 15, 1986.
(Rev. 3/15fe8)
PART 572-11
(b) The dummy is made up of the following com-
ponent assemblies:
Drawing Number Revision
78051-61 Head Assembly-Complete- (T)
78051-90 Neck Assembly-Complete- (A)
78051-89 Upper Torso Assembly-Complete- I(K)1
78051-70 Lower Torso Assembly- Without
Pelvic Instrumentation Assembly,
Drawing Number 78051-59 I(D)1
86-5001-001 Leg Assembly-Complete (LH)- I(E)1
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 (Jeneral
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)
§ 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 accelera-
tion/time curve for the test shall be unimodal to the
extent that oscillations occurring after the main ac-
celeration 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 sur-
face of the impact plate with 1,1,1 Trichlorethane
or equivalent.
(3) Suspend the head, as shown in Fig^e 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 oc-
cipital condyles, referenced in Figure 20, shall be
calculated by the following formula: Moment (Ibs-
ft) = My H- 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 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.
(Rev. 3/17/88)
PART 572-12
(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 Obs-
ft) = My + 0.02875 X Fjj' 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 occiu- 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 ±.2
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 velocity
at the pendulum accelerometer centerline at the in-
stance 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 pendulum
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.
S 572.34 Thorax.
(a) The thorax consists of the upper torso
assembly in drawing 78051-89, revision (KJ 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 ^s ± .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 pwunds ± 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)
(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.
(R«v. 3/17/88)
PART 572-13
(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
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 (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.
(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.
(b) The test probe used for the knee impact tests
is a 3 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.
(R«v. 3M7/88)
PART 572-14
(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 [Rl.
(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 IRJ.
(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 IRl.
(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 IRJ.
(g) The thorax and knee impactor accelero-
meters 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 [RJ.
(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.
0) 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. (53 F.R. 8755— March
17, 1988. Effective: March 17, 1988)
(Rev. 3/17/88)
PART 572-15-16
ARM ASSY
SA 150 M070 RIGHT
SA 160 M071 LEFT
LUMBAR SPINE
ASSY
SA 150 M050
PELVIS AND
ABDOMEN ASSY
SA 1 50 M060
LEG ASSY
SA 1 50 M080 RIGHT
SA 150 M081 LEFT
HEAD ASSY
SA 150M010
NECK ASS'Y
SA I SO M020
SHOULOER'THORAX
ASSY
SA 1 60 M030
FIGURE NO. 1
' coao
COKNECTWt DIM
STEEL BLOCK C
7' X 24" X 2<"
HEAD POSITIONING FOR DROP TESTS
FIGURE NO. 2
^KNOULUM
PIVOT TOINT
HEAD ROTATION ANGLE
CHORDAL
DISPLACEMENT
HEAD POSITION
AT TIME ■•0"
nsuPE Na 1
NECK COMPONENT TEST
PART 572-ART PAGE 1
INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF PENDULUM
WITHOUT TEST SPECIMEN.
WEIGHT 66.2 LBS.
MOMENT OF INERTIA 24.5 LB-FT SEC
ABOUT PIVOT AXIS
3/16" STRUCTURAL
STEEL TUBE
PIVOT
ACCELEROMETER
CG OF PENDULUM
APPARATUS WITHOUT
TEST SPECIMEN
ALUMINUM HONEYCOMB
(HEXCELL 1.8LBS/CU. FT.)
REF.
• 3" X 6" X 3/8" PLATE (SHARP EDGES)
-3/4" "^ CG OF TEST SPECIMEN
FIGURE NO. 4
NECK COMPONENT TEST
PART 572-ART PAGE 2
LINE OF fORCE APPLICATION
FIGURE NO. 7
FIGURE NO. 6
ATTACHMENT
5/16-24 BOLTS
FIGURE NO. 8
FIGURE NO 9
ATTACHMENT 10 32 SCREWS
(FOUR PLACES!
LINK ROD (ITEMS F/04 AND G/04
DRAWING NO SA 1 5OM002 SHEET 1 )
ATTACHMENT TO BEDPLATE
WITH 3/8-24 BOLTS
FIGURE NO. 5
LUMBAR FLEXION TEST
■2-1/4
I 1-1/4-
i I
n
L
Y
tn WlOt SLOT \m >l/4 ■
(TWO PLACES)
- 3/B WIDE SLOT (TWO PLACES!
6 X e STRUCTURAL STL. ANGLE
FIGURE NO 6
SUPPORT BRACKET
LUMBAR TEST FIXTURE
1/J sa STL. STOCK 71/2 LONG
WELDED TO ANCLE
46° TYP.
TOLERANCE • 1/32"
PART 572-ART PAGE 3
13/32
19/16* 1/32
r
-6 ■ 5/8 -
a ■<>
U
• 1-3/16W
la
5/16 24 TAP THRU I 2 HOLES!
FIGURE NO. 7
MOUNTING BRACKET- LUMBAR TEST FIXTURE
7/32
_1
9/32 DRILL THRU
4 PLACES
TOLERANCE! 1/64"
MATERIAL: STEEL
WELDED CONSTRUCTION
9/16 DRILL THRU
2 PLACES
•^
3-1/2-
9/16 DRILL THRU
4 PLACES
9/16 DRILL HOLE 4-
I ] MATL STEEL 1/4 THICK PLATE &2X 2 1/4 WALL Sa TUBINO
WELDED CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE NO 8
BEDPLATE LUMBAR TEST FIXTURE
TOLERANCE t 1/32"
PART 572-ART PAGE 4
nn
T
•1.00-
IJ_I K
r-f
•* .25
CONST: ALUMINUM OR STL. WELDMENT
TOLERANCE: t .03 TWO PLACES
t .005 THREE PLACES
5-<U
.25-
■1.76-
.25 R
4 PLACES
/-
-^
' 3.000 ■
-3.50—
-(t>
r^
— r
—*4 ,50 U—
K£
.50 DIA
1.38
CLEAR DRILL
FOR 10-32 SCREW
4 PLACES
FIGURE 9
LMding Pl«t»- Lumbw T«t Fixttir*
I « 1.40— >■
.25R (4 PLACES)
1
1
!
90
—
• - — 88
BO
-
1
/^
70
""
63—^ — —
y
/^
60
^
^
" y
r
FORCE 60
(LBS.)
-
^^
^
——50
40
—
^^^^
i
30
-
^
^V^^
20
-
y^
^
10
^
0
1
1 1
1
1
0.25
0.50 a 75
1.00
1.30
. DISPLACEMENT • INCHES
FIGURE NO. 10
ABDOMEN COMPONENT TEST
PART 572-ART PAGE 5
SPACER (REF.)
(a^REF)
FIGURE No. 11
UPRIGHT SEATED POSITION FOR LINEAR MEASUREMENTS
PART 572-ART PAGE 6
Space for figures 12 thru 14
reserved for future use.
PART 572-ART PAGE 7
3/16" STRUCTURAL
STEEL TUBE
INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF PENDULUM
WITHOUT TEST SPECIMEN.
WEIGHT 65.3 LBS.
MOMENT OF INERTIA 24.5 LB-FT SEC*
ABOUT PIVOT AXIS
ACCELEROMETER
5 11/16" REF
CG OF PENDULUM
APPARATUS WITHOUT
TEST SPECIMEN
ALUMINUM HONEYCOMB
IHEXCELL 1 8LBS/CU FT.)
REF
•CG OF TEST SPECIMEN
3" X 6" X 3/8" PLATE (SHARP EDGES)
LEADING EDGE OF NECIC
MUST BE ALLIGNED WITH
LEADING EDGE OF PENDULUM
FIGURE NO. 15
NECK COMPONENT TEST
PART 572-ART PAGE 8
IMPACTOR SUPPORT WIRE
12.4-
FIGURE NO. 16
HEAD IMPACT TEST
PART 572-ART PAGE 9
IMPACTOR FACE TO BE VERTICAL + 2°
AT CONTACT OF CHEST
IMPACTOR SUPPORT WIRE
FIGURE NO. 17
CHEST IMPACT TEST
PART 572-ART PAGE 10
1.00" RADIUS
I.
DRILL .53 THRU
S
-DRILL .25
.125
2.70
yi-20SOC. HD. SCR. WELDED
TO C 328 SCR. BOLTED
THROUGH TABLE
PULL FORCE IN THE MID-SAGITTAL
PLANE PERPENDICULAR TO THE CHEST
INSTRUMENT CAVITY REAR FACE.
UPPER LEGS
SECURED BY
BOLT
THROUGH TABLE
METAL TABLE
FIGURE NO. 18
LUMBAR-SPINE FLEXION TEST
PART 572-ART PAGE 11-12
EUtctlvt: Octobti 1, 1971
PREAMBLE TO PART 573— DEFEa REPORTS
(Docket No. 69-31; Notice No. 2)
On December 24, 1969, a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled, "Defect Reports", was pub-
lished in the Federal Register (34 F.R. 20212).
The notice proposed requirements for reports
and information regarding defects in motor
vehicles, to be submitted to the National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration by manufac-
turers of motor vehicles pursuant to sections 112,
113, and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1401, 1402, and
1407).
The notice requested comments on the pro-
posed requirements. All comments received have
been considered and some are discussed below.
Several comments asked whether both the
fabricating manufacturer and the importer of
imported vehicles were required to comply with
all the proposed requirements. A similar ques-
tion was asked in regard to manufacturers of
incomplete vehicles and subsequent manufac-
turers of the same vehicles. In response to the
comments, § 573.3 provides that in the case of
imported vehicles, compliance by either the
fabricating manufacturer or the importer of the
imported vehicle with §§ 573.4 and 573.5 of this
part, with respect to a particular defect, shall be
considered compliance by both. In the case of
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages,
compliance by either the manufacturer of the in-
complete vehicle or one of the subsequent manu-
facturers of the vehicle with §§ 573.4 and 573.5
of this part, with respect to a particular defect,
shall be considered compliance by both the in-
complete vehicle manufacturer and the subse-
quent manufacturers.
Many comments requested that the time for
the initial filing of the direct information report
be increased to allow opportunity for the exten-
sive and complex testing often necessary to deter-
mine whether a defect is safety-related. As
proposed, the time for initially filing the report
was within 5 days after the discovery of a defect
that the manufacturer subsequently determined
to be safety-related. In response to these com-
ments, § 573.4(b) provides that the report shall
be submitted by the manufacturer not more than
5 days after he or the Administrator has deter-
mined that a defect in the manufacturer's ve-
hicles relates to motor vehicle safety.
Several comments requested the deletion of one
or more items of information proposed for inclu-
sion in the defect information report. Objec-
tions to providing an evaluation of the risk of
accident due to the defect, a list of all incidents
related to the defect, and an analysis of the
cause of the defect were based on the ground that
the information would be inherently speculative.
The proposed requirements for these three items
of information have been deleted. In place of
the list of incidents, § 573.4(c) (6) requires a
chronology of all principal events that were the
basis for the determination of the existence of
a safety-related defect. In accordance with the
deletion of the list of incidents, the provision in
the proposal requiring quarterly reports to con-
tain information concerning previously unre-
ported incidents has also been deleted.
Several comments stated that the requirement
in the proposal for the submission of a copy of
all communications sent to dealers and pur-
chasers concerning a safety-related defect would
create an unreasonable burden on the manufac-
turers. The comments reported that the manu-
facturers would be required to submit to the
Administration a large volume of useless cor-
respondence between the manufacturers and in-
dividual dealers or purchasers. To mitigate this
problem, § 573.4(c) (8) provides that the manu-
facturers shall submit to the Administration
only those communications that are sent to more
PART 573— PRE 1
EfFacHv*: Oclobar 1, 1971
than one dealer or purchaser. For the same rea-
son, the requirement in § 573.7 that a manufac-
turer submit a copy of all communications, other
than those required under § 573.4(c) (8), regard-
ing any defect, whether or not safety-related, in
his vehicles, is also limited to communications
sent to more than one person.
Many comments requested that a regular
schedule for submitting quarterly reports be es-
tablished. They suggested that this be accom-
plished by requiring that the first quarter for
submitting a quarterly report with respect to a
particular defect be the calendar quarter in
which the defect information report for the
defect is initially submitted. As proposed, the
first quarter began on the date on which the de-
fect information report was initially submitted.
Several of these comments also objected to the
proposed requirements for submitting both
quarterly reports and annual defect summaries
on the ground that the latter would be partially
redimdant. In response to these comments, the
proposed requirement for filing a separate series
of quarterly reports for each defect notification
campaign has been deleted. Instead, § 573.5(a)
requires that each manufacturer submit a
quarterly report not more than 25 working days
after the close of each calendar quarter. The in-
formation specified in § 573.5(c) is required to be
provided with respect to each notification
campaign, beginning with the quarter in which
the campaign was initiated. Unless otherwise
directed by the Administration, the information
for each campaign is to be included in the
quarterly reports for six consecutive quarters or
until corrective action has been completed on all
defective vehicles involved in the campaign,
whichever occurs sooner.
The proposed requirement for filing annual
summaries has been deleted. Instead, § 573.5
(d) requires that the figures provided in the
quarterly reports under paragraph (c) (5), (6),
(7), and (8) of § 573.5 be cumulative. In addi-
tion, § 573.5(b) requires that each quarterly re-
port contain the total number of vehicles pro-
duced during the quarter for which the report is
submitted.
Several changes have been made for the pur-
pose of clarification, § 573.4(c) (8) requires
that manufacturers submit three copies of the
communications specified in that section. In
response to questions concerning the use of com-
puters for maintaining owner lists, a reference to
computer information storage devices and card
files has been added to § 573.6 to indicate that
they are suitable. A reference to first purchasers
and subsequent purchasers to whom a warranty
has been transferred, and any other owners
known to the manufacturer, has been added to
the same section to make clear that the owner
list is required to include both types of pur-
chasers as well as other known owners.
Effective date: October 1, 1971.
Issued on February 10, 1971.
Douglas W. Toms,
Acting Administrator, National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration.
36 F.R. 3064
February 17, 1971
PART 573— PRE 2
Effecllva: May 6, 1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 573— DEFECT REPORTS
(Docket No. 69-31; Notice 5)
This notice amends the Defect Reports regula-
tion (49 CFR Part 573) to require manufactur-
ers to submit vehicle identification numbers as
part of the information furnished by them to the
NHTSA. A notice of proposed rulemaking re-
garding this subject was published November 7,
1972 (37F.R. 23650).
The purpose of including VIN's in defect re-
ports would be to improve the notification of
owners of vehicles involved in safety defect noti-
fication campaigns. The State Farm Insurance
Company had suggested, for example, that in-
surance companies could use VIN's to identify
vehicles which they insure, and to themselves
notify owners of record. The Center for Auto
Safety also requested the inclusion of VIN's in
defect reports, so it could more readily inform
persons who inquire whether particular vehicles
were subject to campaigns. Other possible uses,
it was noted, would be that State and local in-
spection facilities could determine, as part of
inspection programs, whether particular vehicles
had been subjected to campaigns, and if so,
whether they had been repaired.
The proposal would have required the submis-
sion in the "defect information report" (§ 573.4),
within five days of the defect determination, of
the vehicle identification number for each vehicle
potentially affected by the defect. It also pro-
posed to substitute "line" for "model" as one of
the identifying classifications describing poten-
tially affected vehicles.
The comments demonstrated that the vehicle
identification number is a useful tool for locating
second and later owners of vehicles. In a study
conducted by the Ford Motor Company and the
State Farm Insurance Company, a fairly signifi-
cant percentage of owners who either had not
received or responded to the initial notification
mailed by the manufacturer did respond to sub-
sequent letters sent on the basis of the VIN.
As a result of comments received, however, the
NHTSA has decided that vehicle identification
numbers should only be required to be supplied
in the second "quarterly report", approximately
six months after a campaign is initiated, rather
than in the defect information report as pro-
posed. Only the VIN's for vehicles not repaired
by that date are required to be provided. The
NHTSA believes this approach will provide the
safety benefits to be derived from having pub-
licly available lists of defective vehicle VIN's
and will also reduce duplication and facilitate
the agency's efforts to compile and report the
information.
The NHTSA requests that vehicle identifica-
tion numbers be submitted in a form suitable for
automatic data processing (magnetic tape, discs,
punched cards, etc.) when more than 500 num-
bers are reported for any single campaign. While
not required by this notice, the use of automatic
data processing for large campaigns will facili-
tate the dissemination of the information for the
agency. The agency may include specific re-
quirements in this regard at a later time.
The comments argued that the benefits of hav-
ing VIN's available during the initial stages of
a campaign are limited, and that the compilation
of identification numbers for every vehicle in a
campaign would create significant problems for
manufacturers related to conducting campaigns.
The NHTSA believes these comments to have
merit. It is clear that the chief use of VIN's
will be to notify other than first purchasers,
i.e., owners of older vehicles, as the names of
these owners will not be available to manufac-
turers. By delaying the furnishing of VIN's
until the filing of the second quarterly report,
the VIN's reported will represent to a greater
PART 573— PRE 3
Effettive: May 6, )974
degree the names and addresses of second and
later owners. The later reporting will also re-
duce the possibility that first purchasers will
receive duplicate notices.
Many comments challenged generally the util-
ity of the VIN in notification campaigns. Other
comments complained that insurance companies
might abuse the information; for example, by
cancelling policies on defective vehicles. Still
others believed VIN's to be privileged proprie-
tary information, both taken separately and
when combined with other information submit-
ted pursuant to Part 573.
While it is true that the effectiveness of the
requirement will depend to an extent upon the
voluntary activities of third parties, the NHTSA
does not view this as a reason not to issue the
requirement. The offers of insurance companies
and other groups to participate in notification
campaigns appear to be reasonable and properly
motivated. There has been no evidence brought
to the NHTSA's attention to support the allega-
tions of possible misuse of the information by
insurance companies.
The agency also cannot agree that information
identifying defective vehicles is or relates to pro-
prietary information. The comments on this
point seem to equate what may be embarrassing
information with notions of confidentiality.
There is no basis under existing statutory defini-
tions of confidentiality for including within
them VIN's or other information identifying
defective vehicles.
The proposed substitution of "line" for
"model" in the descriptive information for ve-
hicles was opposed in one comment because the
term "line" is apparently more suited for pas-
senger cars than other vehicle types. The com-
ment indicated that "model" is a more appro-
priate term for trucks. In light of this comment,
the terms are specified as alternatives in the
regulation.
In light of the above, Part 573 of Title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, "Defect Reports,"
is amended. . . .
Effective date : May 6, 1974.
(Sections 103, 112, 113, and 119, Pub. L. 89-
563, 80 Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1402,
1407, and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.51 Office of Management and Budget Approved
04-R5628.)
Issued on January 30, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 4578
February 5, 1974
PART 573— PRE 4
Effective: August 6,1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 573— DEFECT REPORTS
(Docket No. 69-31; Notice 6)
This notice responds to petitions for reconsid-
eration of the amendment of 49 CFR Part 573.
"Defect Reports," requiring the submission to
NHTSA of the \eliicle identification numbers
(VIN) of motor \ehicles fonnd to contain safety
rehited defects. Tlie amendment was published
February .5. 197-1: (39 F.R. 4578). Except inso-
far as fjranted by this notice, tlie requests of the
petitioners are denied.
Two petitions for reconsideration, one from
General Motors Corporation and the other from
Chrysler Corporation, were received. Both pe-
titions objected to the requirement that VIX's
be reported in the second quarterly report filed
subsequent to the initiation of the defect notifi-
cation campaign. Both pointed out that the
NHTSA had stated in the amendment published
February 5, 1974, that it was desirable to defer
reporting VIN's until six months had passed
from the time a notification campaign had begun.
Both petitioners argued that the time for filing
the second quarterly report is frequently less
than six months, and suggested that the third
quarterly report rather than the second was the
more appropriate quarterly report to contain
vehicle identification numbers, tieneral Motors
indicated that the a\erage elapsed time from the
initiation of a notification campaign to the filing
of the second quarterly report is four and one-
half months, while the elapsed time imtil the
filing of the third quarterly report is, on the
average, seven and one-half months. The
NHTSA still believes it reasonable to allow a
six-month period from the initiation of the cam-
paign to elapse before VIN's are submitted.
Accordingly, the NHTSA has granted the peti-
tions insofar as they request that VIN's be re-
ported in the third quarterly report submitted
to NHTSA by the manufacturer.
Chrysler objected to the VIN reporting re-
quirement generally, on the basis that it is un-
necessary and will not produce the desired
results. It is requested that an evaluation of the
usefulness of the requirement be conducted after
it is in effect, and that appropriate modifications
be made if the requirement fails to achieve the
desired results. General Motors requested that'
NHTSA maintain a public record of requests for
VIN's so that future consideration can be given
to the extent that the data is useful, and to whorri
it is useful. The NHTSA believes that public
a\'ailability of VIN's will facilitate locating and
repairing defective \ehicles no longer in the
hands of first purchasers. At the same time it
agrees to conduct an evaluation of the efficacy of
the requirement once it is in effect. The extent
of usage is a relevant aspect of an evaluation of .
this type, and the NHTSA sees no prohibition
against maintaining a public record of requests
for the information.
The amended regulation will be effective
August (i, 1974. and as such will require all third
quarterly reports submitted to NHTSA on or
after that date to contain appropriate vehicle
identification numbers. The effective date has
been changed from May 6, 1974, as a result of
the change requiring the third rather than the
second quarterly report to contain VIN's. As a
practical matter, VIN's will be required to be
reported in the third quarterly report for all
defect notification campaigns initiated on or
after January 1, 1974 (NHTSA campaign num-
bers 74—0001 and subsequent campaigns).
In light of the above, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect
Reports, is amended by revising § 573.5(e) ....
PART 573— PRE 5
Effective: August 6,1974
EflFective date : August 6, 1974. Issued on May 6, 1974.
(Sees. 103, 112, 113, and 119, Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1402, 1407, ^^"® ^- Mannella
and tlie delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 ; Acting Administrator
Office of Management and Budget approved 39 F R 16469
04-R5628.) ^^;,; ,,7,
PART 573— PRE 6
Effective: December 10, 1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 573— DEFECT REPORTS
(Docket No. 74-7; Notice 2)
This notice amends Part 573 — "Defect Re-
ports" by revoking: the requirement that manu-
facturers of motor vehicles re^wrt quarterly to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion production figures for \ehicles manufactured
or imported during the calendar quartei. A
notice of proposed rulemaking in which this
amendment was i)rop()sed was published January
15, 1974 (39 FR 1863).
The NHTSA is revoking the requirement for
the reporting of quarterly production figures be-
cause it has found that the value of the informa-
tion has not justified the burden on manufac-
turers of providing it. This amendment will
eliminate the need for manufacturers to file
quarterly reports unless they are conducting no-
tification campaigns during the calendar quarter.
The notice of proposed rulemaking of January
15, 1974, proposed to extend the applicability of
the Defect Reports regulations to include manu-
facturers of motor vehicle equipment, and to
modify the information required to be reported.
Since the issuance of this proposal, Congress has
amended sections of tlxe National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act which deal with manu-
facturers' responsibilities for safety related de-
fects in motor veiiicles and motor vehicle
equipment. (Pub. L. 93-492, Oct. 27, 1974)
These amendments to the Safety Act in pai-t
enlarge the responsibilities of manufacturers of
motor vehicle equipment for safety related de-
fects. Ultimately the Defect Reports regulations
will reflect completely the expanded scope of the
statutory amendments. While the language of
the proposed nde of January 15, 1974, is in most
cases sufficiently broad to reflect these statutory
changes, the scope of the proposal under the
previous language of the Safety Act is materially
different. Consequently, the NHTSA has decided
to issue a further notice, with opportunity for
public comment, that specifically reflects the ex-
panded scope of the statutory amendments. This
notice will be issued at some time following the
effective date (December 26, 1974) of the statu-
tory amendments.
The NHTSA has determined, however, that
relief from the production-figures reporting re-
quirements should not be further deferred, and
by this notice deletes those requirements from
the Defect Reports regulation.
In light of the above, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect
Reports, is amended by revoking and reserving
paragraph (b) of section 573.5 ("Quarterly re-
ports").
Effective date: December 10, 1974. This
amendment relieves a restriction and imposes no
additional burden on any person. Consequently
good cause exists and is hereby found for an
effective date less than 30 days from publication.
(Sees. 108, 112, 113, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80
Stat. 718, 15 IJ.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1402, 1408; dele-
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51)
Issued on December 4, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 43075
December 10, 1974
PART 573— PRE 7-8
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 573— DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS
(Docket No. 74-7; Notice 4)
This notice amends Part 573, Defect and Non-
complmnce Reports, by adding reporting require-
ments for equipment manufacturers and altering
somewhat the requirements for vehicle manufac-
turers as authorized by the 1974 Motor Vehicle
and Schoolbus Safety Amendments. The amended
regulation requires the submission of reports to
the agency concerning defects and noncompliance
with safety standards and specifies the informa-
tion to be included in those reports.
Effective date : January 25, 1979.
Addresses : Petitions for reconsideration should
refer to the docket number and be submitted to:
Koom 5108, Nassif Building, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Fo7' further information contact:
Mr. James Murray, Office of Defects Investi-
gation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2840)
Supplementat^ information:
This notice amends Part 573, Defect and Non-
compliance Reports. A notice of proposed rule-
making was published on September 19, 1975 (40
F.R. 43227), proposing new requirements for ve-
hicle and equipment manufacturers regarding
submittal to the NHTSA of defect and noncom-
pliance reports as authorized by the Motor Ve-
iiicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974
(the Amendments) (Pub. L. 93-492).
Sections 151 to 160, or Part B of the Amend-
ments alter the defect notification requirements
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 ("the Act") (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).
These Amendments require manufacturers of mo-
tor vehicle replacement equipment to notify
purchasers and to remedy any defects or non-
compliances following the manufacturer's or the
Administrator's determination that the equipment
contains either a defect which relates to motor
vehicle safety or a noncompliance with an ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
Prior to the enactment of these provisions, manu-
facturers of motor vehicle equipment were re-
sponsible under the Act for notification of defects
or noncompliances only following a determination
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istrator that the item of equipment contained a
safety-related defect or failed to comply (Sec.
113(e), Pub. L. 89-563, 15 U.S.C. 1402).
Comments on the proposal were received from
manufacturers, safety organizations, and manu-
facturer representatives. The Vehicle Equipment
Safety Commission did not submit comments.
All comments were consideied and the most sig-
nificant ones are discussed below.
I. Scope.
Several manufacturers objected to the scope of
the regulation indicating that it exceeded the
agency's authority to I'egulate vehicle and equip-
ment manufacturers. For example, manufactur-
ers alleged that the agency only has authority
over safety-related defects and accordingly
should restrict the defects mentioned in this sec-
tion to safety-related defects. Further, many
equipment manufacturers apparently thought
that they would be required to retain purchaser
and owner lists of all vehicles containing items
of their equipment.
The intent of this regulation is not to impose
upon equipment manufacturers recordkeeping re-
quirements for all equipment that they manufac-
ture. This regulation merely imposes limited
recordkeeping requirements for that equipment
which is determined to be defective or in
noncompliance. In other words, an equipment
manufacturer, after discovery of a defect or
PART 573— PRE
noncompliance, would ascertain from a vehicle
manufacturer the identity of the vehicles and
vehicle owners possessing the affected equipment.
Notification M'ould then be sent to those owners.
The NHTSA would require that the equipment
manufacturer retain tlie records of those sent
notice of the defect.
Several manufacturers requested that the
agency limit the applicability of this regulation
to safety-i"elated defects. They argued that the
NHTSA has no authority to require information
pertaining to non-safety-related defects. Section
158 of the Act specifically authorizes the agency
to require information on any defect, whether or
not safety-related, in oi'der to enable it to under-
take defect investigations which permit a deter-
mination regarding the safety-related nature of
the defect. Much of this regulation pertains only
to safety-related defects and each section indi-
cates whether it applies to all defects or only
those that are safety related.
II. Application.
Many manufacturers complained about the use
of the term "direct control" in Section 573.3(a).
Some manufacturers contended that the use of the
term was unnecessary. Importers contended that
they should not be required to submit reports
where a defect is identified before the vehicles
leave their direct control since the Act considers
them to be manufacturers and they would be in
direct control of vehicles being imported. The
Center for Auto Safety would have the agency
drop the term and replace it with "beyond their
place of final manufacture.''
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the
NHTSA indicated the reasoning for excluding
vehicles and equipment within the "direct con-
trol" of the manufacturer fi-om the reporting re-
quirements. Vehicles and equipment within the
direct control of manufacturers are virtually as-
sured of remedy of any defect or noncompliance,
because they ai'e still within tlie physical posses-
sion of the manufacturer. In the NPRM it was
noted that direct control does not include in the
possession of a dealer or distributor. For vehicles
and equipment possessed by those entities, reports
concerning defects or noncompliance would be
required to be submitted to the agency. The
agency declines to adopt the suggestion of the
Center for Auto Safety for reasons explained in
the NPRM. The phrase "beyond the place of
final manufacture" is not broad enough to handle
all instances where vehicles are still within the
direct control of the manufacturer. For example,
vehicles might be stored on a manufacturer's lot
far removed from the place of manufacture.
Nonetheless, these vehicles are still within the
direct control of the manufacturer. Therefore,
the agency concludes that the term "direct con-
trol" best accomplishes the objective of providing
a limited exclusion from the reporting require-
ments. The agency agrees with importers that
since they are considered manufacturers under
the Act, vehicles that manifest defects while they
are within their direct control are excluded from
the reporting requirements.
Some manufacturers apparently misunderstood
the requirements of Section 573.3(d). Manufac-
turers indicated that reports should be required
to be filed either by the brand name owner or the
manufacturer, not by both. The section as writ-
ten permits this. Compliance with the reporting
requirements b}- the brand name owner shall be
considered compliance by the manufacturer.
Either one is permitted to submit the required
reports. The Act treats tire brand name owners
as manufacturers. Therefore, the wording of this
section has been changed to reflect the responsi-
bility of tire brand name owners.
Several commenters requested that the name of
fabricating manufacturers not be submitted since
this might cause competitive disadvantage to the
brand name or trademark owner. The NHTSA
finds it a legitimate need to know the actual
manufacturer of a product. That manufacturer
could, for example, be manufacturing the same or
similar components for other brand name or
trademark owners. The agency would need this
information to ensure that all potentially defec-
tive or noncomplying equipment is remedied.
Many manufacturers complained of the re-
quirements in Section 573.3(f) that reports be
filed both by the equipment manufacturer and the
vehicle manufacturer where an equipment manu-
facturer's equipment has been used by more than
one vehicle manufacturer, ^fanufacturers stated
that this requirement is duplicative and costly,
providing identical information from both
PART 573— PRE 10
sources. The NHTSA stated in the NPRM that
this issue had been thorouo:hly considered prior
to the issuance of the XPEM. It has again been
explored by the agency in response to these com-
ments and the agency conchides that the dual
reporting requirement for the 573.5 report is nec-
essary. Reports submitted by equipment and
vehicle manufacturers will have different infor-
mation in them. In both cases, the information
is of importance to tlie agency in pui'suing its
defects and noncompliance obligations. There-
fore, this requirement has been retained. It
should be reaffirmed for clarity that where an
equipment manufacturer's equipment is used in
vehicles of only one vehicle manufacturer, reports
need only be submitted by that vehicle manu-
facturer.
On a related matter, the NHTSA agrees that
reports required under Section 573.6 need not be
filed by both vehicle and equipment manufactur-
ers. These reports need only be filed by the
manufacturer undertaking the recall. Section
573.3(f) has been amended to reflect this change.
Other commenters on this section indicated
their disapproval of the shared responsibility for
remedying defects and noncompliance between
vehicle and equipment manufacturers. Section
573.3 places certain reporting responsibilities
upon both equipment and vehicle manufacturers,
depending upon the nature of the defect. For
the most part, vehicle manufacturers are respon-
sible for reports relating to defects or noncom-
pliance in their vehicles while equipment
manufacturers are responsible for reports on their
defective or noncomplying equipment. In those
instances where a defect or noncompliance is dis-
covered in equipment installed in the vehicles of
more than one vehicle manufacturer, both the
equipment and vehicle manufacturers must re-
port. Equipment manufacturers suggested that
vehicle manufacturers should be responsible for
defects and noncompliance reports while vehicle
manufacturers want to place the burdens upon
equipment manufacturers. The XHTSA adopted
the present scheme of shared responsibility be-
tween vehicle and equipment manufacturers for
compliance with agency regulations in response
to the 1974 Amendments. Congress indicated in
those amendments that equipment and vehicle
manufacturers should share the burden of rem-
edying defects in their equipment and vehicles.
The XHTSA concludes that the reporting re-
quirements outlined in this regulation implement
the basic intent of those Amendments.
III. Definitions.
Many commenters objected to the definitions of
original and replacement equipment. Further,
some of these commenters indicated that the
XHTSA had little, if any, authority to place
responsibility on an original equipment manufac-
turer, since Section 159 of the Act makes the
vehicle manufacturers responsible for original
equipment. The X^HTSA has deleted the defini-
tions of original and replacement equipment from
Part 573 since both terms are defined in Part 579.
The XHTSA notes that with respect to the
authority to place responsibility for defects or
noncompliance upon original equipment manu-
facturers rather than the vehicle manufacturer.
Section 159 states that the Act's defect and non-
compliance scheme of responsibility shall be con-
trolling unless otherwise provided by reguJation.
Therefore, the XHTSA does have the authority
to shift the responsibility from the vehicle manu-
facturer to the equipment manufacturer if it
determines that such alteration will advance the
efficiency of enforcement actions. Part 579,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsihilify, out-
lines the responsibilities of the various manufac-
turers and defines "replacement" and "original"
equipment.
Commenters also requested that the agency de-
fine the term "safety-related defect" so as to
clarify the agency's intent in this area. The
XHTSA has in the past rejected requests to es-
tablish a specific definition of safety-related
defect. Whether or not a defect is safety-related
depends upon a variety of factors and must be
ascertained based upon the circxmistances of each
separate case. Thus, a specific definition cannot
feasibly be created.
Ford Motor Company argued that the agency's
preambular discussion tended to indicate that the
definition of "first purchaser for purposes other
than resale" would include the dealer or distrib-
utor. This was not the intent of the regulation.
"First purchaser" is based on a similar statutory
term and has been used by the agency for years
with a specific meaning. The first purchase oc-
PART 573— PRE 11
curs ■where the purchaser does not buy the vehicle
with the purpose of reselling it. Obviously, sale
of a vehicle to a dealer presupposes that the
dealer intends to resell the vehicle to the ultimate
consumer or purchaser. Therefore, sale to a
dealer would not constitute the sale to the first
purchaser for purposes other than resale. The
use of the term first -purchaser list in the pre-
amble of the proposal in reference to the lists
required to be retained by equipment manufac-
turers was a colloquial use of the term rather
than its more precise meaning under the Act.
IV. Defect and noncompliance Information reports.
Prestolite Company interpreted the require-
ments of Section 573.5(a) to mean that they
would be required to file a report with the
NHTSA every time a defective piece of equip-
ment was brought to their attention, since there
is no specific definition of safety-related defect.
This they suggested would be a burdensome re-
quirement. Such a requirement is not the intent
of this regulation. A manufacturer submits a
report to the NHTSA when either it or the
agency makes a determination under Section 151
or 152 of the Act that a defect related to motor
vehicle safety in fact exists. A failure of a single
piece of equipment may not occasion the finding
of a safety-related defect. Further, some equip-
ment failures might have no adverse safety
effects. Therefore, every failure of equipment will
not necessarily require a report to the NHTSA.
It is incumbent upon the agency and each manu-
facturer to make a good faith determination con-
cerning the safety relatedness of any defect before
a report under this paragraph is filed.
International Harvester (IH) suggested that a
manufacturer should not have to file a report if
it intends to file a petition for inconsequentiality.
The NHTSA does not agree with this position.
The agency needs to know of potential safety-
related defects or noncompliances at the earliest
possible time. If a manufacturer intends to file a
petition for inconsequentiality, it should indicate
such in the report as part of the information
supplied in accordance with subparagraph (c)
(8).
Many manufacturers objected to the 5-day re-
quirement in Section 573.5(b) under which infor-
mation must be submitted within 5 working days
after a safety-related defect or noncompliance
has been discovered. Manufacturers suggested
increasing the number of working days and
changing the word "submitted" to "mailed."
Ford requested that the 5-day period not begin
until written notification is received from the
NHTSA for agency-initiated detenninations.
The agency does not find persuasive arguments
for altering the existing 5-working day require-
ment. The NHTSA needs this information as
rapidly as possible to aid expeditious notification
and recall. Not all information need be supplied
within the 5 working days if some of it is un-
available. The regulation clearly states that any
unavailable information would be submitted later
as it becomes available. The NHTSA also con-
siders it unnecessary to change the word "sub-
mitted" to "mailed." The term "submitted" is
broader than "mailed." Information may be sub-
mitted by mailing it or delivering it to the agency
in person. If mailed, it must be mailed within
5 working days.
With respect to the alleged insufficient time to
prepare information in 5 working days, the
NHTSA notes that this requirement has existed
in Part 573 for several years. Since the require-
ment has opei'ated smoothly for that period of
time, the agency declines to adopt recommenda-
tions that would change it.
The NHTSA declines to adopt Ford's
recommendation concerning agency-initiated de-
terminations. Agency initiated defect or non-
compliance determinations are made after
thorough investigations conducted by the
NHTSA. A manufacturer is aware of these on-
going investigations, and therefore, it should not
be unnecessarily burdened or surprised when the
NHTSA makes a determination. Since the need
for expeditious action exists after an agency de-
termination and the manufacturer is aware of a
pending agency decision, the NHTSA considers
it adequate that a manufacturer submit the report
in 5 working days after receipt of either written
or oral agency notification.
Several equipment manufacturers contended
that the requirements of paragraph (c) (2) would
impose additional burdens upon tliem to mark the
equipment that they manufacture. Paragraph
(c) (2) requires defect and noncompliance reports
PART 573— PRE 12
to contain certain information that identifies the
defective or noncomplying equipment. For ex-
ample, tliey argued tliat the requirements for tlie
date of manufacture of tlie affected equipment
would be burdensome since much of their equip-
ment is not dated according to time of manufac-
ture. Therefore, they suggested that the NHTSA
only require date of manufacture information
when it is known.
It is important to remember that Part 573 is
for the most part a reporting regulation. It is
not a recordkeeping or labeling regulation. A
manufacturer, under the regulation, only sup-
plies to the XHTSA that information which is
available to it. In the case of date of manufac-
ture of equipment, the equipment manufacturer
in most instances need not label its equipment in
such a manner as to identify its date of manu-
facture. The regulation merely directs a manu-
facturer to supply such information to the
NHTSA in its reports. Obviously, if a manu-
facturer does not know the dates of manufacture,
it would be unable to supply them to the agency.
However, a manufacturer must supply the ap-
proximate dates of manufacture if that informa-
tion is available.
Manufacturers should note that the manufac-
turing date I'equirement is included in the regu-
lation for the benefit of the equipment
manufacturer. If that manufacturer knows the
approximate dates when a defective piece of
equipment was produced, then its recall can be
limited to equipment manufactured during those
dates. On the other hand, a manufacturer with-
out such information might be required to under-
take a more extensive recall of its equipment to
ensure that all defective products are recalled.
The Center for Auto Safety requested that the
XHTSA require motor vehicle manufacturers to
submit the vehicle identification numbers (VIN)
of vehicles involved in any recall activity. The
XHTSA does not require this information in the
Part 573.5 repoi'ts because the agency normally
has no need at the time of the reports issuance
for such information. The agency does require
the VIX's to be submitted in the Part 573.6 re-
ports for those vehicles that are uncorrected in a
manufacturer's recall. In these instances, the
agency uses the information to supplement a
PART 573
manufacturer's recall efforts. Until such time as
a manufacturer determines that some vehicles are
uncorrected however, the agency usually has little
use for VIX information on all recalled vehicles.
In those limited instances when VIX information
is necessary at the time of submission of the Part
573.5 report, the agency has the ability to request
it from a manufacturer.
In regard to paragraph (c)(3), several manu-
facturers objected to the requirement that the
precise number of vehicles or equipment in each
category be reported. These manufacturers
stated that often tliis infoi'mation is not known.
The XHTSA agrees and therefore modifies the
section to require the submittal of this informa-
tion when it is known. Chrysler suggested that
the agency require the numbers of affected ve-
hicles to be submitted by GVWR breakdown
rather than by model. The agency disagrees with
this recommendation since it usually undertakes
recalls based upon model classification, not upon
GVWR categories. Therefore, the submission of
information based upon a GVWR classification
would not be as useful as a classification based
upon vehicle model.
Atlas Supply Company suggested that the
agency not require the information specified in
paragraph (c) (4) since, for tire manufacturers,
tires are destroyed, making the required calcula-
tions difficult. Paragraph (c) (4) requires the
provision of information that estimates the per-
centage of defective or noncomplying equipment
on vehicles. The XHTSA considers estimates of
the amount of affected vehicles or equipment to
be necessary to obtain an idea of the scope of the
defect or noncompliance problem. Since the sec-
tion merely requires an estimate, the agency does
not consider this to place a difficult burden upon
manufacturers.
Many manufacturers complained about the re-
quirements of paragraph (c) (6) which requires
the submission of information upon which the
determination was made that a safety-related de-
fect exists. These manufacturers indicated that
it would impose unreasonable buidens upon
manufacturers by requiring them to retrieve a
large amount of information in a short period of
time and to retain vast amounts of data. The
intent of this section is to provide a summary to
the NHTSA of the information upon which a
-PRE 13
manufacturer based his defect determination.
This information, since it has been used by a
manufacturer for its determination of a defect,
should be readily available to it. The NHTSA
notes that the submission of summary informa-
tion is intended to reduce a manufacturer's bur-
dens. However, the specificity and clarity of
information must be maintained, and the agency
might require further information if the sum-
mary information is inadequate. The NHTSA
has reworded the paragraph somewhat to indicate
that it is only necessary to submit a summary of
the information upon which the determination
was based.
Several manufacturers suggested that the re-
quirement for submission of noncompliance test
data in paragraph (c) (7) would require them to
conduct tests and submit details of test proce-
dures to the agency. This paragraph requires
only that manufacturers supply the results and
data of tests, if any are conducted, upon which a
noncompliance determination was based. Test
procedures need not be submitted. If a noncom-
pliance determination is made on information
other than tests, then that information would be
submitted.
Manufacturers claimed that they would be un-
able to submit a plan for remedy as required by
paragraph (c) (8) in the required 5 working days.
The NHTSA needs to have an indication of a
manufacturer's plan for remedy as soon as pos-
sible. Like all of the information required by
this section, the plan need not be extensively de-
tailed in the initial 5-working day period and is
subject to modification if subsequent circum-
stances warrant a change. In other words, a
manufacturer is not binding itself to only those
items established in the plan submitted during
the first 5 days after a defect or noncompliance
has been determined to exist. The NHTSA has
amended the wording of this paragraph some-
what to indicate that a copy of a manufacturer's
plan for remedying a defect or noncompliance
will be made public in the NHTSA docket.
The Center for Auto Safety argued that para-
graph (c) (9) should require actual copies of the
defect or noncompliance notice bulletins or com-
munications, not representative copies. The
reason the NHTSA used the terminology con-
tained in the notice is that in some instances a
manufacturer has a multiple mailing of one com-
munication. To require actual copies of multiple
mailings would require copies of each of these
identical communications. Therefore, the agency
allows a representative copy (e.g., one actual
copy) of such information. The NHTSA con-
cludes that this requirement fulfills the agency's
need for accurate copies.
V. Quarterly defect reports.
Many manufacturers disagreed with the
agency's scheme for quarterly defect reports out-
lined in Section 576.6. Equipment manufacturers
suggested that vehicle manufacturers should be
responsible for these reports, while vehicle manu-
facturers asserted that the equipment manufac-
turers are better able to accomplish the reporting
requirements. The NHTSA requires any manu-
facturer, either vehicle or equipment, undertaking
a recall to comply with the quarterly reporting
requirement. This report tells the agency the
status of recalls, and therefore, is best accom-
plished by the party conducting the recall. The
NHTSA declines to adopt suggestions that would
change this scheme.
Subparagraph (b) (6) requires the submission
of information on the number of vehicles or
equipment that is determined to be unreachable.
Several manufacturers argued for deletion of this
information suggesting that it was impossible to
ascertain why certain vehicles or equipment are
unreachable. The manufacturer need only give
the reasons why vehicles are unreachable when
such information is available to him. This infor-
mation aids the agency in understanding the
effectiveness of a recall. The agency can deter-
mine from this data the number of vehicles still
in use that were not corrected by a manufacturer
and why.
VI. Purchaser and owner lists.
The intent of this section was misunderstood
by a number of commenters. Many manufactur-
ers, both equipment and vehicle, indicated that
this requirement burdened them with new record-
keeping requirements far beyond those currently
in existence. This is not the case. For example.
Part 573.7(a) requires vehicle manufacturei-s to
maintain lists of owners of vehicles involved in a
PART 573— PRE 14
notification campaign, not all vehicles produced.
General recordkeeping requirements for vehicle
and equipment manufacturers are found in the
Act and in the agency's regulations in Part 576.
These general recordkeeping requirements are not
affected by this regulation.
Equipment manufacturers strenuously objected
to paragraph (c) as placing huge recordkeeping
burdens upon them while acliieving little in the
way of benefits. The agency does not find these
arguments persuasive. The recordkeeping re-
quirement in this paragraph is limited. The
agency has reworded this section to clarify an
equipment manufacturer's recordkeeping require-
ments. This requirement does not mandate an
equipment manufacturer to make and retain a
list of all purchasers of its equipment as the
equipment is sold. Equipment manufacturers
will be required to retain a list of individuals,
dealers, distributors and manufacturers deter-
mined by the manufacturer or the agency to be in
possession of potentially defective or noncomply-
ing equipment. This limited requirement is
within the authority granted by Section 112(b)
of the Act. The list would be compiled during
the course of a defect or noncompliance cam-
paign. If an equipment manufacturer is unable
to find those in possession of its equipment, no
list is required to be retained. The burden im-
posed by this requirement is minimal since it
merely requires that manufacturers retain some
information that will, by necessity, be generated
should they be required to conduct either a defect
or noncompliance campaign.
With respect to paragraph (b), tire manufac-
turers indicated that each tire does not have a
different identification number and therefore the
paragraph should be amended somewhat to reflect
this. The agency agrees and has modified the
language accordingly.
VII. Notices, bulletins, and other communications.
Many manufacturers objected to the require-
ments in Section 573.8 as being too broad and
beyond the scope of the NHTSA's authority.
This section requires the submission of informa-
tion concerning defects in equipment and vehicles.
Further, the manufacturers recommended that
the parentheticals be deleted from the section and
that the term "defect" be changed to "safety-
related defect." The agency does not agree with
these comments.
First, the agency needs information concerning
any defect in a manufacturer's product, not just
those defects that a manufacturer deems to be
safety-related. The Act contemplates a two-
pi-onged approach to defects determinations.
Either a manufacturer or the agency can make
such a determination. For the agency to carry
out its half of that responsibility, it needs infor-
mation pertaining to all defects so that it can
then judge for itself whether a defect is in fact
safety related. To require only information per-
taining to manufacturer-determined safety-related
defects, would in effect mean that manufacturers
would not be required to submit defect informa-
tion to the agency until such time as that manu-
facturer had made a safety-related defect
determination. This would stymie the agency's
ability to make independent judgments concern-
ing defects that is necessai7 for proper enforce-
ment of the Act. In the past year, the NHTSA
has made several safety-related defect determina-
tions on the basis of infonnation routinely sub-
mitted by manufacturers concerning defects that
they had not considered safety-i-elated. For
example, some Airstream Trailers and White
Trucks were recalled when the agency discovered
safety-related problems that were mentioned in
those companies' technical bulletins. Therefore,
the agency needs all types of defect information,
not just information that manufacturers deter-
mine to be safety-related.
Second, the parentheticals were added to this
section to help clarify the type of information
intended to be covered by its requii-ements. These
lists are not all-inclusive. The NHTSA con-
cludes, however, that they do clarify the type of
information the agency seeks to obtain from a
manufacturer, and therefore, they will be retained
in the regulation.
The agency has deleted from Section 573.8 all
references to noncompliances. All noncompliances
must be reported to the agency under Part 573.5
(c)(9). Therefore, it is unnecessary to include
references to noncompliances in this paragraph.
In response to the allegations that the agency
has no authority to require submittal of defect
PART 573— PRE 15
information, whether or not safety related, Sec-
tion 158 of the Act specifically gi-ants the agency
that authority.
VIII. Address for submitting required reports and
other information.
The address listed in Part 573.9 has been
altered to reflect the new agency organization and
authority for enforcement actions.
In accordance with agency policy, the NHTSA
has considered the costs and benefits of this re-
quirement. The agency concludes that the regu-
lation will help enforcement of defect and
noncompliance cases by ensuring that adequate
information is submitted to the NHTSA. The
costs to both industry and government of the
regulation will be less than $5 million annually.
The principal authors of this notice are James
Murray of the Office of Defects Investigation and
Roger Tilton of the Office of Chief Counsel.
In consideration of the foregoing. Part 573,
Defect and Ncmcompluvnce Reports, of Volume
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended. . . .
(Sees. 108, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat.
718; Sees. 102, 103, 104, Pub. L. 93-492; 88 Stat.
1470; 15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1408, 1411-1420; dele-
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1,50.)
Issued on December 18, 1978.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 60165-60169
December 26, 1978
PART 573— PRE 16
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 573
Defect and Noncompliance Reports
(Docket No. 74-7; Notice 7)
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this final rule is to
amend 49 CFR Part 573— Defect and Noncompliance
Reports, to delete certain reporting requirements for
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufac-
turers conducting a defect or noncompliance noti-
fication campaign. Under this rule, motor vehicle
manufacturers no longer have to submit, in the third
quarterly report to the agency, the vehicle identifica-
tion number (VIN) for each vehicle for which cor-
rective measures have not been completed. Other
quarterly report information requirements are also
deleted or clarified, based on the agency's ex-
perience since 1974 with this portion of the defect
and noncompliance reports.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1986
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 573-
Defect and Noncompliance Reports, includes re-
quirements for manufacturers to report to NHTSA
safety-related defects and nonconformities with
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, to maintain
lists of purchasers and owners notified of defective
and noncomplying motor vehicles and items of equip-
ment, and to provide the agency with quarterly
reports on the progress of defect and noncompliance
notification campaigns. The quarterly reports must
contain specified information and be submitted for
six consecutive quarters after initiation of a cam-
paign, unless corrective action is completed earlier.
This rule amends only section 573.6 of Part 573
which sets forth the information required to be sub-
mitted to the agency in these quarterly reports. The
notice of proposed rulemaking, which was issued on
March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12056), proposed to delete
or clarify certain information requirements in the
third quarterly report. This amendment was pro-
posed in response to a petition by the Motor Vehi-
cle Manufacturers Association (MVMA). The agency
received comments on the proposal from nine motor
vehicle manufacturers and the MVMA. All com-
ments supported the proposal as lessening an ad-
ministrative and cost burden. The agency is adopt-
ing the changes as proposed.
First, the rule deletes the requirement in section
573.6(b)(7) that manufacturers submit, in the third
quarterly report to the agency, the VIN for each
vehicle for which corrective measures have not been
completed. All commenters supported this change,
stating that the deletion of these VIN's from the
third quarterly report would lessen the admin-
istrative and cost burdens of producing the informa-
tion and would not adversely affect the progress of
safety campaigns. In addition, all commenters
agreed that these VIN's would be supplied to the
agency, if requested, within a reasonable time.
As stated in the proposal, this rule will not change
the agency's practice of assisting any individual vehi-
cle owner who requests recall information about a
particular vehicle or item of equipment. The agency
will continue to provide information to enable the
owner to contact the appropriate office of the
manufacturer.
Second, this rule also deletes the requirement in
section 573.6(bX4) that each quarterly report include
the number of vehicles or items of equipment
estimated to contain the defect. This total number
is initially supplied to NHTSA under the re-
quirements of section 573.5 which states that the
manufacturer's first report must include informa-
tion specifically identifying the vehicles or items of
equipment potentially containing the defect or non-
compliance, and the percentage of those vehicles or
equipment items estimated to actually contain the
defect or noncompliance.
The agency's purpose in having this number up-
dated in the quarterly reports has been to determine
the potential size of notification campaigns. Ford
Motor Company stated that updated information
could be sent, if needed, within 10 working days.
Ford added that information requiring supplier
analysis on returned components would take longer.
The agency concludes that updated estimates in the
quarterly reports are no longer necessary. NHTSA
will continue to receive quarterly report information
on the number of vehicles or items of equipment in-
volved in the notification campaign under section
573.6(bX3). The requirement in section 573.6(b)(4)
is therefore deleted in the rule.
PART 573; PRE 17
Third, commenters also agreed with the proposed
amendment to the language in section 573.6(bX5)
which clarifies the agency's intent that the number
of vehicles and equipment items inspected and
repaired and the number inspected and determined
not to need repair should be separately reported.
The rule adopts this clarification.
Fourth, the rule deletes the requirement in sec-
tion 573.6(c) concerning the correction of errors in
quarterly reports. Under this section, manufacturers
must submit revised information in quarterly reports
when they determine that an original report con-
tained incorrect data concerning the number of
vehicles or items of equipment (1) involved in a
notification campaign, (2) estimated to contain the
defect, or (3) determined to be unreachable for in-
spection for any reason. The agency does not believe
submittal of this information on a regular basis is
necessary and commenters agreed, adding the data
could be supplied if necessary, upon request from
NHTSA.
In their comments, Ford requested that the final
sentence of section 573.6(bX6) be deleted. This sec-
tion requires that the number of vehicles or items
of equipment, which are determined to be unreach-
able for inspection due to export, theft, scrapping,
failure to receive notification, or other reasons, be
reported to NHTSA. The last sentence of the sec-
tion requires that the number of vehicles or items
of equipment in each of these categories be specified.
The agency did not propose in the March notice that
this sentence be deleted, because this information
is utilized by the agency. For example, NHTSA
keeps track of the number of owners who were
unreachable to assist the agency in determining
whether renotification to new owners is necessary
or whether additional types of notification should be
adopted. Moreover, the manufacturers currently
receive notice of whether a vehicle or equipment
item has been exported, stolen, or scrapped by
return postcard, from the person notified of the cam-
paign. Therefore, this requirement is not changed.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part
573 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 573 is revised
to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1408,
1411-20; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 573.6 is revisedto read as follows:
Section 573.6 Quarterly Reports
(a) Each manufacturer who is conducting a de-
fect or noncompliance notification campaign to man-
ufacturers, distributors, dealers, or purchasers, shall
submit to NHTSA a report in accordance with para-
graphs (b) and (c) of this section, not more than 25
working days after the close of each calendar
quarter. Unless otherwise directed by the NHTSA,
the information specified in paragraphs (bXl)
through (5) of this section shall be included in the
quarterly report, with respect to each notification
campaign, for each of six consecutive quarters begin-
ning with the quarter in which the campaign was in-
itiated (i.e., the date of initial mailing of the defect
or noncompliance notification to owners) or correc-
tive action has been completed on all defective or
noncomplying vehicles or items of replacement
equipment involved in the campaign, whichever
occurs first.
(b) Each report shall include the following
information identified by and in the order of the
subparagraph headings of this paragraph.
(1) The notification campaign number assigned
by NHTSA.
(2) The date notification began and the date
completed.
(3) The number of vehicles or items of equipment
involved in the notification campaign.
(4) The number of vehicles and equipment items
which have been inspected and repaired and the
number of vehicles and equipment items inspected
and determined not to need repair.
(5) The number of vehicles or items of equipment
determined to be unreachable for inspection due to
export, theft, scrapping, failure to receive notifica-
tion, or other reasons (specify). The number of
vehicles or items of equipment in each category shall
be specified.
(c) Information supplied in response to the
paragraphs (bX4) and (5) of this section shall be
cumulative totals.
Issued on: December 31, 1985.
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
51 F.R. 397
January 6, 1986
PART 573; PRE 18
PART 573— DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS
(Docket No. 74-7; Notice 4)
Sec.
573.1 Scope.
573.2 Purpose.
573.3 Application.
573.4 Definitions.
573.5 Defect and noncompiiance information
report.
573.6 Quarteriy report.
573.7 Owner lists.
573.8 Notices, bulletins, and other communications.
573.9 Address for submitting required reports
and other information.
lAUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1408, 1411-20;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. (51 F.R.
397— January 6, 1986. Effective: January 6, 1986)1
§ 573.1 Scope.
This part specifies requirements for manufacturers
to maintain lists of purchasers and owners of
defective and noncomplying motor vehicles and
motor vehicle original and replacement equipment,
and for reporting to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration defects in motor vehicles
and motor vehicle equipment, for reporting non-
comformities to motor vehicle safety standards,
for providing quarterly reports on defect and non-
compliance notification campaigns, and for pro-
viding copies to NHTSA of communications with
distributors, dealers, and purchasers regarding
defects and noncompliances.
§ 573.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to inform NHTSA of
defective and noncomplying motor vehicles and
items of motor vehicle equipment, and to obtain in-
formation for NHTSA on the adequacy of manufac-
turers' defect and noncompliance notification cam-
paigns, on corrective action, on owner response,
and to compare the defect incidence rate among
different groups of vehicles.
§ 573.3 Application.
(a) This part applies to manufacturers of
complete motor vehicles, incomplete motor ve-
hicles, and motor vehicle original and replacement
equipment, with respect to all vehicles and equip-
ment that have been transported beyond the di-
rect control of the manufacturer.
(b) In the case of a defect or noncompliance
determined to exist in a motor vehicle or equip-
ment item imported into the United States, com-
pliance with §§ 573.5 and 573.6 by either the
fabricating manufacturer or the importer of the
vehicle or equipment item shall be considered
compliance by both.
(c) In the case of a defect or noncompliance
determined to exist in a vehicle manufactured in
two or more stages, compliance with §§ 573.5 and
573.6 by either the manufacturer of the incom-
plete vehicle or any subsequent manufacturer of
the vehicle shall be considered compliance by all
manufacturers.
(d) In the case of a defect or noncompliance
determined to exist in an item of replacement
equipment (except tires) compliance with §§ 573.5
and 573.6 by the brand name or trademark owner
shall be considered compliance by the manufac-
turer. Tire brand name owners are considered
manufacturers (15 U.S.C. 1419(1)) and have the
same reporting requirements as manufacturers.
(e) In the case of a defect or noncompliance
determined to exist in an item of original equip-
ment used in the vehicles of only one vehicle
(Rev. 1/6/86
PART 573-1
manufacturer, compliance with §§ 573.5 and 573.6
by either the vehicle or equipment manufacturer
shall be considered compliance by both.
(f) In the case of a defect or noncompliance
determined to exist in original equipment in-
stalled in the vehicles of more than one vehicle
manufacturer, compliance w^ith § 573.5 is required
of the equipment manufacturer as to the equip-
ment item, and of each vehicle manufacturer as
to the vehicles in which the equipment has been
installed. Compliance with § 573.6 is required of
the manufacturer who is conducting a recall
campaign.
§ 573.4 Definitions.
For purposes of this part:
"Act" means the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15
U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).
"Administrator" means the Administrator of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion or his delegate.
"First purchaser" means first purchaser for
purposes other than resale.
§ 573.5 Defect and noncompliance information
report.
(a) Each manufacturer shall furnish a report
to the NHTSA for each defect in his vehicles or
in his items of original or replacement equipment
that he or the Administrator determines to be
related to motor vehicle safety, and for each
noncompliance with a motor vehicle safety stand-
ard in such vehicles or items of equipment which
either he or the Administrator determines to exist.
(b) Each report shall be submitted not more
than 5 working days after a defect in a vehicle or
item of equipment has been determined to be
safety-related, or a noncompliance with a motor
vehicle safety standard has been determined to
exist. Information required by paragraph (c)
of this section that is not available within that
period shall be submitted as it becomes available.
Each manufacturer submitting new information
relative to a previously submitted report shall
refer to the notification campaign number when
a number has been assigned by the NHTSA.
(c) Each manufacturer shall include in each
report the information specified below.
(1) The manufacturer's name: The full cor-
porate or individual name of the fabricating
manufacturer and any brand name or trademark
owner of the vehicle or item of equipment shall
be spelled out, except that such abbreviations as
"Co." or "Inc.," and their foreign equivalents,
and the first and middle initials of individuals
may be used. In the case of a defect or noncom-
pliance determined to exist in an imported vehicle
or item of equipment, the agent designated by
the fabricating manufacturer pursuant to section
110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)) shall be also
stated. If the fabricating manufacturer is a cor-
poration that is controlled by another corporation
that assumes responsibility for compliance with
all requirements of this part the name of the
controlling corporation may be used.
(2) Identification of the vehicles or items of
motor vehicle equipment potentially containing
the defect or noncompliance.
(i) In the case of passenger cars, the identifi-
cation shall be by the make, line, model year, the
inclusive dates (month and year) of manufacture,
and any other information necessary to describe
the vehicles.
(ii) In the case of vehicles other than passen-
ger cars, the identification shall be by body style
or type, inclusive dates (month and year) of
manufacture, and any other information necessary
to describe the vehicles, such as GVWR or class
for trucks displacement (cc) for motorcycles,
and number of passengers for buses.
(iii) In the case of items of motor vehicle
equipment, the identification shall be by generic
name of the component (tires, child seating sys-
tems, axles, etc.), part number, size and function
if applicable, the inclusive dates (month and
year) of manufacture, and any other information
necessary to describe the items.
(3) The total number of vehicles or items of
equipment potentially containing the defect or
noncompliance, and where available the number
of vehicles or items of equipment in each group
identified pursuant to paragraph (c) (2) of this
section.
PART 573-2
(4) The percentage of vehicles or items of
equipment specified pursuant to paragraph
(c) (2) of this section estimated to actually con-
tain the defect or noncompliance.
(5) A description of the defect or noncompli-
ance, including both a brief summary and a de-
tailed description with graphic aids as necessary,
of the nature and physical location (if appli-
cable) of the defect or noncompliance.
(6) In the case of a defect, a chronology of all
prinicipal events that were the basis for the de-
termination that the defect related to motor ve-
hicle safety, including a summary of all warranty
claims, field or service reports, and other infor-
mation, with their dates of receipt.
(7) In the case of a noncompliance, the test
results or other data on the basis of which the
manufacturer determined the existence of the
noncompliance.
(8) A description of the manufacturer's pro-
gram for remedying the defect or noncompliance.
The manufacturer's program will be available for
inspection in the public docket. Room 5109, Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, D.C.
20950.
(9) A representative copy of all notices, bulle-
tins, and other communications that relate di-
rectly to the defect or noncompliance and are sent
to more than one manufacturer, distributor,
dealer, or purchaser. These copies shall be sub-
mitted to the NHTSA not later than 5 days after
they are initially sent to manufacturers, distribu-
tors, dealers, or purchasers. In the case of any
notification sent by the manufacturer pursuant to
Part 577 of this chapter, the copy of the notifica-
tion shall be submitted by certified mail.
§ 573.6 Quarterly reports.
((a) Each manufacturer who is conducting a
defect or noncompliance notification campaign to
manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or purchas-
ers, shall submit to NHTSA a report in accord-
ance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
not more than 25 working days after the close of
each calendar quarter. Unless otherwise directed
by the NHTSA, the information specified in
paragraphs (b) (1) through (b) (5) of this sec-
tion shall be included in the quarterly report,
with respect to each notification campaign, for
each of six consecutive quarters beginning with the
quarter in which the campaign was initiated (i.e.,
the date of initial mailing of the defect or noncom-
pliance notification to owners) or corrective action
has been completed on all defective or noncomply-
ing vehicles or items of replacement equipment in-
volved in the campaign, whichever occurs first.
(b) Each report shall include the following infor-
mation identified by and in the order of the sub-
paragraph headings of this paragraph.
(1) The notification campaign number assigned
by NHTSA.
(2) The date notification began and the date
completed.
(3) The number of vehicles or items of equip-
ment involved in the notification campaign.
(4) The number of vehicles and equipment items
which have been inspected and repaired and the
numbe of vehicles and equipment items inspected
and determined not to need repair.
(5) The number of vehicles or items of equip-
ment determined to be unreachable for inspection
due to export, theft, scrapping, failure to receive
notification, or other reasons (specify). The
number of vehicles or items of equipment in each
category shall be specified.
(c) Information suppled in response to the
paragraphs (b) (4) and (b) (5) of this section shall be
cumulative totals. (51 F.R. 397~January 6, 1986.
Effective: January 6, 1986)1
§ 573.7 Purchaser and owner lists.
(a) Each manufacturer of motor vehicles shall
maintain, in a form suitable for inspection such as
computer information storage devices or card files,
a list of the names and addresses of the registered
owners, as determined through State motor vehi-
cle registration records or other sources, or the
most recent purchasers where the registered
owners are unknown, for all vehicles involved in a
defect or noncompliance notification campaign in-
itiated after the effective date of this part. The list
shall include the vehicle identification number for
each vehicle and the status of remedy with respect
to each vehicle, updated as of the end of each
quarterly reporting period specified in § 573.6.
Each list shall be retained, beginning with the date
on which the defect or noncompliance information
report required by § 573.5 is initially submitted to
the NHTSA, for 5 years.
(Rev. 1/6/86)
PART 573-3
(b) Each manufacturer (including b;and name
owners) of tires shall maintain, in a form suitable
for inspection such as computer information stor-
age devices or card files, a list of the names and ad-
dresses of the first purchasers of his tires for all
tires involved in a defect or noncompliance notifi-
cation campaign initiated after the effective date
of this part. The list shall include the tire identifica-
tion number of all tires and shall show the status of
remedy with respect to each owner involved in
each notification campaign, updated as of the end
of each quarterly reporting period specified in
§ 573.6. Each list shall be retained, beginning
with the date on which the defect information
report is initially submitted to the NHTSA, for 3
years.
(c) For each item of equipment involved in a
defect or noncompliance notification campaign in-
itiated after the effective date of this part, each
manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment other
than tires shall maintain, in a form suitable for
inspection, such as computer information storage
devices or card files, a list of the names and ad-
dresses of each distributor and dealer of such
manufacturer, each motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment manufacturer and most recent pur-
chaser known to the manufacturer to whom a
potentially defective or noncomplying item of
equipment has been sold, the number of such items
sold to each, and the date of shipment. The list
shall show as far as is practicable the number of
items remedied or returned to the manufacturer
and the dates of such remedy or return. Each list
shall be retained, beginning with the date on which
the defect report required by § 573.5 is initially
submitted to the NHTSA for 5 years.
§ 573.8 Notices, bulletins, and other
communications.
Each manufacturer shall furnish to the
NHTSA a copy of all notices, bulletins, and other
communications (including warranty and policy ex-
tension communiques and product improvement
bulletins), other than those required to be sub-
mitted pursuant to § 573.5(c) (9), sent to more than
one manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or pur-
chaser, regarding any defect in his vehicles or
items of equipment (including any failure or
malfunction beyond normal deterioration in use, or
any failure of performance, or any flaw or unin-
tended deviation from design specifications),
whether or not such defect is safety-related. Copies
shall be submitted monthly, not more than 5 work-
ing days after the end of each month.
§ 573.9 Address for submitting required reports
and other information.
All required reports and other information, ex-
cept as otherwise required by this part, shall be
submitted to the Associate Administrator for
Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.
43 F.R. 60169
December 26, 1978
PART 573-4
EffacHv*: May 22, 1971
PREAMBLE TO PART 574— TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING
(Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 5)
On November 10, 1970, the National Highway
Safety Bureau (now the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA) pub-
lished the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
Regulations (35 F.R. 18116). Thereafter, pur-
suant to § 553.35 of the rulemaking procedures
(49 CFR Part 553, 35 F.R. 5119), petitions for
reconsideration or petitions for rulemaking were
filed by the American Retreaders' Association,
Inc., the Armstrong Rubber Co., Bandag Inc.,
the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Associa-
tion, Inc., the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the
Lee Tire and Rubber Co., Chrysler Corp., the
Rubber Manufacturers Association, Ford Motor
Co., the Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., Pirelli Tire
Corp., the B. F. Goodrich Co., Uniroyal Tire Co.,
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., Michelin Tire Corp.,
the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., White Motor
Corp., Bert Schwarz-S&H Inc., and the Truck
Trailer Manufacturers Association. Several pe-
titioners requested the opportunity to demonstrate
difficulties they were having meeting the regula-
tion as issued, and as a r^ult a public meeting
was held December 21, 1970. Notice of the meet-
ing was published in the Federal Register (35
F.R. 19036) and the transcript of the meeting
is in the public docket. The substance of the
petitions and comments made at the meeting have
been considered. Certain parts of the Tire Iden-
tification and Recordkeeping Regulation are
hereby amended.
The definition of "Tire brand name owner" in
§ 574.3(c) is changed to make it clear that a
person manufacturing a brand name tire that he
markets himself is not a brand name owner for
the purposes of this regulation.
The regulation is amended to except from its
requirements tires manufactured for pre-1948 ve-
hicles. This exception is consistent with the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for pas-
senger car tires (Standard No. 109).
After consideration of the comments in the
petitions concerning the tire identification num-
ber requirements, several changes have been made.
1. Section 574.5 is amended to specify the num-
bers and letters to be used in the identification
number.
2. Figures 1 and 2 are modified to allow three-
quarters of an inch, instead of one-half inch,
between the DOT symbol and the identification
number and 'between the second and third group-
ing. Tires "vith cross section width of 6 inches
or less may use %2-inch letters. The DOT sym-
bol may be located to the right of the identifica-
tion number as well as above, below, or to the
left of the identification number. Retreaders,
as well as new tire manufacturers, may locate the
DOT symbol above, below, to the left, or to the
right of the identification number. The mini-
mum depth of the identification number has been
changed from 0.025 inch to 0.020 inch, measured
from the surface immediately surrounding the
characters.
3. The second grouping, identifying the tire
size, has been changed with respect to retreaded
tires to provide that if a matrix is used for
processing the retreaded tire the code must iden-
tify the matrix used. The change requiring re-
treaded tire identification numbers to contain a
matrix code rather than a size code was made
because, in the event of a defect notification, the
matrix would be a more meaningful method of
identifying the suspect tires and it was consid-
ered impracticable to require retreaders to in-
clude the tire size in the tire-identification
number.
4. The third grouping, for identifying the
significant characteristics of the tire, has been
changed to provide that if a tire is manufactured
PART 574— PRE 1
EfFactlvt: May 22, 1971
for a brand name owner the code shall include
symbols identifying the brand name owner,
which shall be assigned by the manufacturer
rather than by the NHTSA. Manufacturers are
required to provide the NHTSA with the s}Tn-
bols assigned to brand name owners upon the
NHTSA's request. This change should result in
a shorter identification number and allow manu-
facturers greater flexibility in the use of the
third grouping.
Standard No. 109 presently requires that pas-
senger car tires contain a DOT symbol, or a
statement that the tire complies with the stand-
ard, on both sidewalls of the tire between the
section width and the bead. The requirement
in Standard No. 109 is being changed by notice
published in this issue (36 F.R. 1195 to provide
that the DOT symbol may be on either sidewall,
in the location specified by this regulation. The
requested change that the DOT symbol be allowed
on tires for which there is no applicable standard
in effect is denied, since such use would tend to
give consumers the impression those tires were
covered by a Federal standard.
Several petitioners requested that other DOT
symbols (located as required by the present
Standard No. 109) be permitted to remain on
the tire along with the three-digit manufactur-
er's code number assigned pursuant to that
standard. The Tire Identification and Record-
keeping regulation does not prohibit the con-
tinued use of the symbol and code number pro-
vided the numbers are not close enough to the
identification number to be confused with it.
In no event should the three-digit number, for-
merly required by Standard No. 109, immediately
follow the tire identification number.
As a result of petitions by vehicle manufac-
turers the requirement in § 574.10 that vehicle
manufacturers maintain the record of tires on
each vehicle shipped has been changed to elim-
inate the requirement that this information be
maintained by identification number. It would
evidently be 3xtremely difficult and expensive for
the vehicle manufacturer to record each tire iden-
tification number. Vehicle manufacturers have
stated that their present system provides records
that enable them to notify the purchaser of a
vehicle that may contain suspect tires.
Several petitioners requested that the effective
date of the regulation be extended beyond May 1,
1971. The 1970 amendment to the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires
that the provisions relating to maintaining rec-
ords of tire purchasers shall be effective not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of these
amendments (May 22, 1971). It has been deter-
mined that in view of the complexities involved
in establishing the recordkeeping system re-
quired and the effect of the same on existing
processes, good cause exists for making the regu-
lations effective on the latest date manufacturers
are required by statute to maintain records. It
is further determined that a May 22, 1971, effec-
tive date is in the public interest.
Effective date : May 22, 1971.
Issued on January 19, 1971.
Douglas W. Toms,
Acting Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration.
36 F.R. 1196
January 26, 1971
PART 574— PRE 2
EffMHv*: May 22, 1971
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 574— TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND
RECORDKEEPING
(Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 9)
Amendment to Figure 2 Concerning the Location of the Tire Identification Number
for Retreaded Tires
The purpose of this amendment is to provide
retreaders with an alternative location for the
placement of the tire identification number.
On January 26, 1971, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration published Docket
No. 70-12, Notice No. 5, a revised version of the
Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regula-
tion, 49 CFR Part 574 (36 F.R. 1196). Section
574.5 requires retreaders to permanently mold or
brand into or onto one sidewall a tire identifica-
tion number in the manner specified in Figure
2 of the regulation. Figure 2 requires that the
tire identification number be located in the area
of the shoulder between the tread edge and the
maximum section width of the tire. The regula-
tion specified this location because, generally, it
is the area upon which retreaders apply new re-
tread material.-"
Bandag, Inc., has petitioned for rulemaking to
allow the tire identification to be below the sec-
tion width of the tire. The petition requests this
relief because the Bandag process only affects
the tread surface, a comparatively smooth surface
is needed for application of the identification
number, and many casings have no smooth area
between the tread edge and the maximum section
width.
Therefore, in view of the above. Figure 2 of
Part 574 (36 F.R. 1200) is hereby amended as
set forth below to require that the tire identifica-
tion number be on one sidewall of the tire, either
on the upper segment between the maximum sec-
tion width and the tread edge, or on the lower
segment between the maximum section width
and bead in a location such that the number will
not be covered by the rim flange when the tire is
inflated. In no event should the number be on
the surface of the scuff rib or ribs.
Eifective date: May 22, 1971.
Because this amendment relieves a restriction
and does not impose any additional burden on
any person it is found that notice and public
procedure thereon are unnecessary and imprac-
ticable, and that, for good cause shown, an effec-
tive date less than 30 days after the date of
issuance is in the public interest.
Issued on May 21, 1971.
Douglas W. Toms
Acting Administrator
PART 574^PRE 3-4
t
EffaOlv*: Nev«mb«r a, 19n
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 574— -TIRE IDENTIFECATION AND RECORD KEEPING
(Docket No. 70-14; Notice 15)
The purpose of this araondment to Part 574
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is to
provide that the second group of symbols within
the tire identification number shall, in the case
of new tires, be assigned at the option of the
manufacturer rather than conforming to the tire
size code presently found in Table I of the regu-
lation.
Under the present system, even if the presently
unassigned symbols "O" and "R" are used, a
maximum of 900 tire size codes can be assigned.
Due to the many new tire sizes being introduced,
it is necessary to change the system to allow
more flexibility. Therefore, Table I is herewith
deleted, new tire manufacturers are allowed to
assign their own two-digit code for the tire size,
and retreaders are allowed to use either a self-
assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size
code. Each new tire manufacturer will still be
required to use a two-symbol size code and to
maintain a record of the coding system used,
which shall be provided to the National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration upon written
request. It is recommended but not required
that manufacturers use the code sizes previously
assigned by this agency for active sizes, and re-
use the codes for obsolete sizes when additional
size codes are needed.
A notice of proposed rulemaking on this sub-
ject was published on June 16, 1972 (37 F.R.
11979). The comments received in response to
the notice have been considered in the issuance
of this final rule. The rule is issued as it ap-
peared in the proposal including the letter "T"
inadvertently omitted from the proposal.
Three of the tire manufacturers who com-
mented favored the proposed change, and the
National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Associa-
tion, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Asso-
ciation and The European Tyre and Rim
Technical Organisation commented without ob-
jection to the proposed change.
Bandag, Inc., a retreader of tires, objected to
the proposed change on the grounds that allow-
ing tire manufacturers to assign their own tire
size code would remove one of the methods a
retreader has to determine the tire size of a
casing to be retreaded.
Mercedes-Benz of North America and Volks-
wagen of America did not favor the change
because of the possibility of confusion for the
vehicle manufacturer that equips its vehicle with
several manufacturers' tires.
The principal objection raised by Bandag
should be considerably alleviated by an amend-
ment tx) Standard No. 109 (36 F.R. 24824) under
consideration, which would require tire manu-
facturers to place the actual tire size, as well as
other pertinent information, between the section
width and the bead of the tire so that the infor-
mation will be less susceptible to obliteration
during use or removal during the retreading
process.
With respect to the comment by Mercedes-
Benz of North America and Volkswagen of
America, it was concluded that because the exist-
ing system does not provide enough symbols to
meet the anticipated introduction of new tire
sizes, the proposed change is necessary. Mer-
cedes' recommendation that "G", "Q", "S", and
"Z" be added or that a three-digit size code be
used was rejected, because the additional symbols
suggested are difficult to apply to the tire, and
the addition of a third symbol would, according
to the tire manufacturers, be impractical and
inefficient.
A list of the tire size codes assigned up to this
time is published in the general notice section of
this issue of the Federal Register (37 F.R. 23742).
The NHTSA urges tire manufacturers to use
PART 574^PRE 5
Efftctiva: November 8, 1972
these existing codes for tire sizes presently being
produced and to work within their tire and rim
associations to make code assignments for new
tire sizes on an industry-wide basis and reuse
obsolete size codes wherever possible. In this
way the usefulness of the tire size code to the
vehicle manufacturer will be maintained.
In consideration of the foregoing, in Part 574
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Table
I is deleted and § 574.5 is amended ....
Elective date : November 8, 1972.
Because this amendment relieves a restriction,
and because of the immediate need for the intro-
duction of new tire size codes, it is foimd for
good cause shown that an effective date less than
30 days from the date of issuance is in the public
interest.
Issued under the authority of sections 103,
112, 113, 119 and 201 of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401,
1402, 1407 and 1421, and the delegation of au-
thority at 49 CFR 1.51.
Issued on October 31, 1972.
Charles H. Hartman
Acting Administrator
37 F.R. 23727
November 8, 1972
PART 574^PRE 6
Effacllv*: April 3, 1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 574— TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING
(Docket No. 71-18; Notice 7)
This notice amends Standard No. 119, New
pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger
cars, 49 CFR 571.119, to specify lettering sizes
and modified treadwear indicator requirements
for tires. In addition, it amends Part 574, Tire
Identification, 49 CFR 574, to permit the labeling
of certain tires with the symbol DOT prior to
the effective date of the standard. This notice
also responds to petitions for reconsideration of
Standard 119's effective date by maintaining the
present date of March 1, 1975.
To avoid a costly production shutdown on the
effective date to engrave tire molds with the
DOT compliance symbol required by the stand-
ard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration (NHTSA) proposed a modification
of the Part 574 prohibition on the symbol's use
prior to the effective date (39 F.R. 3967, Jan-
uary 31, 1974). The Rubber Manufacturers
Association and five tire manufacturers agreed
that the DOT should be engraved on tire molds
prior to the effective date, but objected to the
expense of covering the DOT with a label stating
that "no Federal motor vehicle safety standard
applies to this tire," when the DOT appears on
tires which (presumably) satisfy Standard 119
requirements. Firestone pointed out that the
large label size could obscure other label infor-
mation. Goodrich noted that, as proposed, the
DOT could be molded on tires which met no
standard and could mislead a user if the label
fell off.
The NHTSA will not permit the appearance
of the DOT compliance symbol on any item of
motor vehicle equipment to which no standard
is applicable. The terms "applicability" and
"applies" have only one meaning for Federal
motor vehicle safety standards : that the vehicle
or equipment concerned is subject to a safety
standard. To permit use of the DOT symbol on
vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment to
which no standard applies would confuse the
meaning of the symbol and the concept of com-
pliance.
In response to Firestone and Goodrich, the
NHTSA has modified the lettering size on the
label and limited use of the DOT symbol to tires
for which a standard has been issued. With the
small lettering size, the rubber labels used on
retread tires can be applied over the DOT symbol
in fulfillment of the requirement. Another
method which manufacturers did not mention
but which would be permissible is the removal
of the DOT at the same time imperfections are
buffed off the tire.
All comments on the proposal objected to the
specific location requirements for treadwear in-
dicators based on the concept of even tread wear
across the tread width. Goodyear demonstrated
in a meeting with the NHTSA Tire Division on
February 13, 1974, and detailed in its submission
to the Docket, the difficulty in equating ideal tire
wear with actual road experience. They recom-
mended the simpler concept that a tire has worn
out when any major tread groove has only %2 in
tread remaining. The NHTSA has concluded
that treadwear indicators must be placed at the
discretion of the manufacturer to give a person
inspecting the tire visual indication of whether
the tire has worn to a certain tread depth. Ac-
cordingly, the lateral location requirements for
treadwear indicators have been deleted from the
standard.
There was no discussion of the lettering size
and depth proposal, and these proposals are
adopted as proposed.
The comments requested reconsideration of the
standard's March 1, 1975, effective date (pub-
lished February 1, 1974, 39 F.R. 4087), asserting
the need for 18 months of lead time following
PART 574— PRE 7
iffacNv*: April 3, 1974
publication of this notice to engrave tire molds
as required by the standard. The NHTSA has
found that 11 months is sufficient leadtime to
accomplish these changes, and accordingly these
petitions are denied.
To correct an inadvertent omission in the
amendment of Standard No. 119 in response to
petitions for reconsideration (39 F.R. 5190,
February 11, 1974), superscripts are added to
Table III entries for "All other, A, B, C, D
range tires".
In consideration of the foregoing. Parts 571
and 574 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
are amended. ...
Ejfective date: Standard No. 119 amendments:
March 1, 1975. Part 574 amendment: April 3,
1974. Because the Part 574 amendment creates
no additional burden, and because modification
of tire molds must begin immediately, it is found
for good cause shown that an effective date less
than 180 days after issuance is in the public
interest.
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, 201, Pub. L. 89-563, 80
Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421; dele-
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on March 28, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 12104
April 3, 1974
PART 574— PRE 8
Effective: September 3, 1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 574 —
TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING
(Docket No. 70-12; Notice 19)
This notice araends the Tire Identification and
Recordkeeping regulation, 49 CFR Part 574, to
establish an optional univei'sal registration for-
mat for tire registration forms. It also requires
manufacturers of new tires to redirect registra-
tion forms of other manufacturers of new tires
which have been forwarded to them in error.
On :March 9, 1973, the NHTSA issued a notice
of proposed rulemaking (38 F.R. 6398) propos-
ing a uni\ersal registration form for tire identi-
fication and record keeping. The notice was
issued in response to requests from multi-brand
tire dealers who were faced with a multiplicity
of different forms and procedures for tire regis-
tration. Currently, the regulation rnerelj- re-
quires manufacturers and retreaders to supply a
"means" of registration. The proposed rule also
envisioned that a copy of the form would be
provided to the first purchaser and that manu-
facturers and retreaders would be required to
redirect registration forms which had been for-
warded to them in error.
All comments received in response to the notice
were sympathetic to the problems faced by the
multi-brand dealers, and the majority were will-
ing to provide a ''universal form" if requested
by a dealer.
Most manufacturers, however, pointed out that
their exclusive dealerships had received training
in the use of the current form, as had their own
personnel, and that a total oliange-o\er woidd
work a hardship without a concomitant benefit
for single-brand dealers. In view of these com-
ments, XHTSA has decided to promulgate the
universal registration format, wliich appears as
Fig. 3, as an optional format to be followed if
requested by a dealer and as a guide if a dealer
prefers to supply his own forms.
The proposal to require tire manufacturers
and retreaders to forward all misdirected regis-
tration forms within 30 days was universally
opposed by new-tire manufacturers, who stated
that they are currently participating in a volun-
tary but limited program for forwarding these
misdirected forms. Furthermore, new-tire manu-
facturers believe tliey sliould not be responsible
for misdirected retreaded tire registration forms,
as there are over 5,000 tire retreaders in the
country and such a task would be formidable.
One new-tire manufacturer indicated that he had
received over 15,000 misdirected retreaded tire
registration forms during January 1973. The
docket contained only one submission from the
retreading industry, and it did not deal with the
problem of misdirected forms.
It also appears from the comments received
and other inform.ation available to NHTSA that
new -tire manufacturers maintain a computer-
based registration process, while only approxi-
mately 25% of the retreading industry utilizes
computers for this purpose. Thus, the require-
ment for forwarding all misdirected forms would
fall heavily on both segments of the industry,
new-tire manufacturers in that most misdirected
forms appear to be sent to them and retreaders
in that a majority are ill-equipped to carry out
the forwarding functions.
Therefore, rather than issue an all-inclusive
forwarding requirement at this time, NHTSA
has decided to require only that new-tire manu-
facturers redirect new tire registraiton forms
erroneously forwarded to them. Further, the
NHTSA has determined that a 90-day forvward-
ing period will be sufficient, rather than the 30
days originally proposed. It is expected that
the use of the manufacturer's logo on the uni-
versal reffistration format and increased vigilance
PART 574— PRE 9
Effective: September 3, 1974
on the part of the industry will substantially
curtail the number of misdirected forms. If it
later appears that tire registrations are not being
properly received, the NHTSA intends to take
further action in this area.
The notice projjosed that tire manufacturers
furnish their dealers with duplicate copies of the
registration form so that a copy could be given
to consumers at tlie time of purchase. This pro-
vision was objected to by all new-tire manufac-
turers and the retreaders" association. In their
view, the increased expense served no viable
function as Part 574 currently requires all pur-
chasers to be notified by certified mail of safety
defects. They argued that the possession of a
duplicate registration form would not aid the
purchaser in the case of recall. The manufac-
turers also said that the completion of registra-
tion forms is often reserved until the end of the
day or other slack time, and further that the
consumer automatically receives a copy of his
tire identification number on the guarantee if
one is given.
The NHTSA finds these arguments to Jiave
merit, and the requirement to give the purchaser
a copy of the registration form is deleted from
the final rule.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
574.7 is amended. . . .
Effective date : September 3, 1974.
(Sees. 103, 112, 113, 119, 201, Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1402, 1407,
1421; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on May 28, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 19482
June 3, 1974
PART 574— PRE 10
Effective: November I, 1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 574-TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING
(Docket No. 70-12; Notice 21)
This notice amends 49 CFR Part 574 to pro-
vide that the Universal Registration Forms
supplied by dealers must conform in size and be
similar in format to Figure 3 of the regulation.
On June 2, 1974, 49 CFR Part 574 was
amended to require a Universal Registration
Format when tire registration forms are supplied
by manufacturers to dealers (39 F.R. 19482).
Three petitions for reconsideration were received
in response to this notice. All three, Michelin
Tire Corporation, Rubber Manufacturers Asso-
ciation, and the Firestone Tire and Rubber Com-
pany, requested that the regulation be amended
to require that dealer-supplied registration forms
also conform in size and be similar in format to
Figure 3 of the regulation. The petitioners
pointed out that registration handling method-
ology has been standardized throughout the in-
dustry, and that the use of different sizes and
formats would be costly and inefficient. The
NHTSA concurs in this assessment, and there-
fore amends 49 CFR 574.7(a) to require that the
dealer-supplied forms must conform in size and
be similar in format to Figure 3.
In addition, Firestone petitioned to revise
Figure 3 slightly and to extend the effective date
of the amendment to 120 days after the response
to the petitions for reconsideration. Since 49
CFR 574.7 currently requires only that the forms
be "similar" to Figure 3, Firestone's proposed
modification is authorized by the regulation and
no amendment to the standard is needed. Fire-
stone's request to extend the effective date of the
standard is denied, as NHTSA has determined
sufficient lead time was available from the date
the amendment was issued to prepare forms.
In consideration of the foregoing, the last sen-
tence of 49 CFR 574.7(a) is amended. . . .
Effective date: November 1, 1974.
(Sees. 103, 112, 113, 119, 201, Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1402, 1407,
1421; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on October 29, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 38658
November 1, 1974
PART 574— PRE 11-12
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 574— TIRE IDENTIFICATION
AND RECORDKEEPING
(Docket No. 70^12; Notice 22)
This notice corrects the authority citations
to Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeep-
ing, and makes other small corrections of cita-
tions in the text of the regulation to reflect statu-
tory amendments. This correction is being made
to conform the statutory authority citations to
the existing statute.
Effective dates: Since these technical corrections
do not affect the responsibilities under the regu-
lation, they are made effective December 26, 1978.
For further information contact:
Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2992).
Supplementary information: Since issuance of
the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regu-
lation, several changes have been made to the
agency's authorizing statute that require
NHTSA to correct the authority citations of the
regulation. While authority citatoins found in
NHTSA's regulations and standards are not
parts of the rules, they are useful to those who
wish to review the legislative background of the
iiilemaking action. Therefore, NHTSA cor-
rects the authority citations for clarity and to
provide information to those who are interested.
The agency also corrects Part 574.2 and 574.8
by altering the existing reference to section 113.
Section 113 was the safety defect and noncom-
pliance notification section of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Pub. L.
89-563). Section 102 of the 1974 Motor Vehicle
and Schoolbus Safety Amendments (Pub. L.
93-492) transferred the notification provisions
from section 113 to section 151 and 152 of the
Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1411 and
1412). Since the regulation currently refers to
the old Act rather than the Act as amended, the
agency is correcting the affected provisions of
the regulation to bring them up to date.
Since this notice simply corrects references in
the regulation and its authority citations with-
out altering any of its substantive provisions, the
Administrator finds that notice is unnecessary
and that an immediate effective dat« is in the
public interest.
In consideration of the foregoing. Volume 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 574,
Tire Identif cation and Recordkeepvng, is
amended. . . .
(Sees. 103, 108, 112, 119, 201, Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1401, 1407,
1421); Sees. 102, 103, 104, Pub. L. 93-492, 88
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1411-1420);
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50).
Issued on December 18, 1978.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 60171
December 26, 1978
PART 574— PRE 13-14
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 574— TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING
(Docket No. 70-12; Notice 23)
Action: Amendment of rule.
Swmmary : Congress has recently amended the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 (the Safety Act) to exempt manufacturers
of retreaded tires from the re^stration require-
ments of the Act. This notice makes conforming
amendments to the regulations implementing the
tire registration requirements of the Act. The
amendment is being published as a final rule
without notice and opportunity for comment and
is effective immediately, rather than 180 days
after issuance, since the agency lacks discretion
on the manner implementing this Congressional
mandate.
Effective date : February 8, 1979.
For further information contact :
Arturo Casanova, Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 426-1715.
Supplementary information: Congress has re-
cently enacted the Surface Transportation Assist-
ance Act of 1978, P.L. 95-599. Section 317 of
that Act amends the Safety Act by exempting
manufacturers of retreaded tires from the regis-
tration requirements of section 158(b) of the
Safety Act.
This amendment modifies the requirements of
Part 574 to specify that manufacturers of re-
treaded tires are not subject to the mandatory
registration requirements set forth in that Part.
Manufacturers of retreaded tires are free to con-
tinue voluntarily registering the tires, and the
agency encourages these manufacturers to pro-
vide some means for notifying purchasers in the
event of a recall of tires that do not comply with
federal safety standards or contain a safety-
related defect. However, this choice will be left
to the individual retreaders.
The remaining obligations of retreaders under
Part 574 are set forth in §§ 574.5 and 574.6, which
provisions are not affected by this amendment.
Those sections require that the retreader label
contain certain infonnation on its tires. These
provisions allow a retreader who determines that
some of its tires do not comply with a Federal
safety standard or contain a safety-related defect
to warn the public of that fact, and indicate the
label numbers of the affected tires.
Since Congress has amended the Safety Act to
exempt the manufacturers of retreaded tires from
the registration i-equirements, this amendment of
Part 574 is published without notice and oppor-
tunity for comment. The Administrator finds
good cause for foregoing these procedures in this
instance, because Congress has specifically man-
dated this action, and the agency has no author-
ity to disregard a legislative mandate. For the
same reason, this amendment is effective imme-
diately, rather than 180 days after issuance.
The agency has reviewed the impacts of this
amendment and determined that they will reduce
costs to the manufacturers. Further, the agency
has determined that the amendment is not a sig-
nificant regulation within the meaning of Execu-
tive Order 12044.
The program official and attorney principally
responsible for the development of this amend-
ment are Arturo Casanova and Stephen Kratzke,
respectively.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping,
is amended ....
PART 574— PRE 15
AUTHORITY : Sections 103, 108, 112, 119, 201, Issued on January 31, 1979.
Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, Joan Claybrook
1397, 1401, 1407, 1421) ; sees. 102, 103, 104, Pub. Administrator
L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) ;
Stat. 2689 (15 U.S.C. 1418) ; delegation of au- 44 p.R. 7963
thority at 49 CFR 1.51. February 8, 1979
PART 574— PRE 16
^
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 574
Tire Identification and Recordl<eeping;
Interim Final Rule and Request for Comments
(Docket No. 70-12; Notice 24)
ACTION: Interim final rule and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: In October 1982, Congress adopted
an amendment to the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Safety Act) regard-
ing tire registration requirements of 49 CFR Part
574, Tire identification and recordkeeping. Those
requirements are intended to provide tire manu-
facturers and brand name owners with the names
of tire purchasers so that the purchasers can be
notified in the event that their tires are determined
to contain a safety defect or to fail to comply with a
safety standard.
The amendment prohibits this agency from re-
quiring independent tire dealers and distributors
(i.e., those whose business is not owned or con-
trolled by a tire manufacturer or brand name
owner) to comply with the existing tire registra-
tion requirements in Part 574. All other tire
dealers and distributors must continue to comply
with those requirements.
The prohibition regarding independent dealers
and distributors is self-executing and became ef-
fective on the date of enactment, October 15, 1982.
In place of the existing requirements, the amend-
ment directed the Secretary of Transportation to
require each of those dealers and distributors to
furnish a registration form to each tire purchaser
after the dealer or distributor has first filled in the
tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold on
the form. Purchasers wishing to register their tires
may then do so by filling in their name on the form
and mailing the completed form to the tire manu-
facturer or brand name owner. Because the new
statutory requirements regarding registration of
tires sold by independent dealers and distributors
are not self-executing, they do not affect those
dealers and distributors until this agency has
issued and put into effect a rule adopting those re-
quirements. This rule accomplishes that result.
The Safety Act amendment also requires that
the agency specify the format and content of the
forms to be used in complying with the new
requirements. This rule sets forth those specifica-
tions.
DATES: This rule is effective beginning June 20,
1983.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior to the
enactment of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost
Savings Authorization Act of 1982 (hereinafter
referred to as the Authorization Act) (Pub. L.
97-311), all tire dealers and distributors were re-
quired by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and
recordkeeping, to register all sales of new tires.
Under that regulation, NHTSA required dealers
and distributors to write specified information
(i.e., the purchaser's name and address, the
dealer's name and address, and the identification
numbers of the tires) on a registration form and
send the completed form to the tire manufacturer,
brand name owner (hereinafter referred to as "tire
manufacturer") or its designee.
Tire registration provisions of the Authorization
Act. Compliance with the requirement for man-
datory registration was uneven. While virtually all
tires on new vehicles were registered, slightly less
than half of all replacement tires were registered.
In its report on the Authorization Act, the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce found that
PART 574-PRE 17
dealers and distributors whose business was owned
or controlled 'by a tire manufacturer registered
between 80 and 90 percent of the replacement tires
they sold. However, dealers and distributors whose
businesses were not owned or controlled by a tire
manufacturer (hereinafter collectively referred to
as "independent dealers") registered only 20 per-
cent of the replacement tires that they sold {Id. at
8).
In an effort to improve the registration rate for
the tires sold by independent dealers, Congress in-
cluded a tire registration provision in the Authori-
zation Act. That provision amended section 158(b)
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "Safety
Act") (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to prohibit the
Secretary of Transportation from requiring inde-
pendent dealers to comply with the Part 574 re-
quirements for mandatory registration. (The
Secretary's authority under the Safety Act has
been delegated to the NHTSA Administrator, 49
CFR 1.50.) Dealers and distributors other than
independent dealers (hereinafter collectively re-
ferred to as "non-independent dealers") remain
subject to these requirements.
The prohibition concerning independent dealers
was self-executing (i.e., its effectiveness was not
conditioned on prior action by this agency) and
became effective on the date of enactment of the
Authorization Act, October 15, 1982. Thus, even
without any amendment by the agency to Part 574,
its requirements for mandatory registration
ceased on October 15 to have any effect insofar as
they apply on their face to independent dealers.
In place of the mandatory registration process.
Congress directed that a voluntary process be
established for independent dealers. Section
158(b) (2) (B) provides
The Secretary shall require each dealer and distributor
whose business is not owned or controlled by a manufac-
turer of tires to furnish the first purchaser of a tire with
' As explained in the House Report on the Authorization Act,
" 'company owned and controlled' means a significant compo-
nent of direct equity ownership of the dealer or distributor
which gives that party, as a factual matter, effective control of
the business. Thus, it would not encompass buy-sell agreements,
mortgages, notes, franchise agreements or similar financial ar-
rangements which a tire company may have with a dealer or
distributor." H.R. Rep No. 576, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 8-9 (1982).
a registration form (containing the tire identification
number of the tire) which the purchaser may complete
and return directly to the manufacturer of the tire. The
contents and format of such forms shall be established by
the Secretary and shall be standardized for all tires. Suf-
ficient copies of such forms shall be furnished to such
dealers and distributors by manufacturers of tires.
Under the voluntary process, the primary
responsibility for registering tires sold by inde-
pendent dealers is shifted from the dealer to the
purchaser. NHTSA is mandated by section
158(b) (2) (B) to require the independent dealer to
(1) fill in the identification number(s) of the tire(s)
sold to a purchaser on a registration form and then
(2) hand the form to the purchaser. If the pur-
chaser wishes to register the tires, he or she may
do so by filling in his or her name and address, add-
ing postage and sending the completed form to the
tire manufacturer or its designee.
In addition, NHTSA is required by section
158(b) (3) to evaluate the effect of the switch to
voluntary tire registration on the registration rate
for tires sold by independent dealers. That evalua-
tion must be conducted at the end of the two year
period following the effective date of the Authori-
zation Act, i.e., October 15, 1984. In the evalua-
tion, the agency is required to assess the efforts of
the independent dealers to encourage consumers
to register their tires and the extent of the dealers'
compliance with the voluntary registration pro-
cedures established by this notice. NHTSA is
required also to determine whether to impose any
additional requirements on dealers for the purpose
of promoting higher registration levels.
The agency has received several telephone in-
quiries from independent dealers as to whether,
notwithstanding the amendments to section
158(b), they could elect to continue following the
requirements for mandatory registration. It does
not appear that the independent dealers have this
option. Section 158(b) (2) (B) specifies that the
agency "shall require each . . . (independent
dealer) to furnish the first purchaser of a tire with
a registration form (containing the tire identifica-
tion number of the tire) which the purchaser may
complete and return directly to the manufacturer
of the tire." However, nothing in the section ap-
pears to preclude the purchaser from voluntarily
giving the form back to the dealer for transmission
to the manufacturer or his designee. Comments
are requested on the issues raised by these inde-
PART 574-PRE 18
pendent dealers as well as on the reasons why
some independent dealers desire the opportunity
to continue mandatory registration.
Congress made no provision for immediate
replacement of mandatory registration by volun-
tary registration. Unlike the amendment pro-
hibiting the agency from requiring independent
dealers to follow the mandatory registration proc-
ess, the amendment concerning voluntary regis-
tration is not self-executing. Before voluntary
registration can be initiated, the agency must first
issue a rule requiring participation by the indepen-
dent dealers in the voluntary registration process
and put that rule into effect.
New standardized registration forms. In addition
to setting forth such a requirement, this rule also
specifies the content, format and size of the
registration forms to be used by the independent
dealers. This aspect of the rule responds to the
directive in section 158(b) (2) (B) for the stand-
ardization of such forms. NHTSA wishes to em-
phasize that this rule does not require standardiza-
tion of the forms used by nonindependent dealers.
Tire manufacturers need not make any change in
the forms which they have been providing those
dealers.
In selecting interim requirements standardizing
the content, format and size of registration forms
to be provided to or used by independent dealers,
NHTSA has made the minimum changes to Part
574 necessary to comply with section 158(b) (2).
This approach will minimize both the burdens of
this rulemaking and the period during which in-
dependent dealers are not subject to any registra-
tion requirements.
The new standardized forms would be very
similar to the forms which the manufacturers have
been providing dealers over the last eight years.
Since 1974, Part 574 has specified the type of infor-
mation for which blanks and titles are to appear on
registration forms. (§ 574.7(a) (l)-(3)). This infor-
mation includes the name and address of the tire
purchaser, the tire identification number, and the
name and address of the dealer or other means by
which the manufacturer could identify the dealer.
This rule would require the new registration forms
for independent dealers to have blanks and titles
for the same information.
This rule also adopts as mandatory the format
specifications which have appeared as a suggested
guide in Part 574. Those specifications have been
generally followed since 1974 without any com-
plaints from either manufacturers or dealers.
In recognition of the shift of primary respon-
sibility for registering tires from the independent
dealer to the purchaser, this rule substitutes a new
reminder on the form. The old reminder warned
the dealer that registration of tires was required
by Federal law. The new reminder informs the pur-
chaser that completing and mailing the form will
enable the tire manufacturer to contact him or her
directly in the event that the tire is recalled for
safety reasons, i.e., if the tire is determined to con-
tain a safety defect or to fail to comply with an ap-
plicable safety standard.
Both a mailing address and a statement about
appropriate postage must be printed on each form.
The House report states that the form is to be
presented to the purchaser in a manner suitable for
mailing. (H.R. Rep. No. 576, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 8
(1982)). Thus, the form itself must be mailable
without the necessity of the purchasers providing
an envelope. Forms provided by the manufacturers
must be preaddressed to either the manufacturer
or its designee. As to postage, the form must bear
the statement that first class postage is required.
This notation will ensure that the purchaser
realizes that post card postage is not sufficient. If
insufficient postage were placed on the form, it
would not be delivered and the tire would not be
registered. The need for first class postage is ex-
plained below.
This rule standardizes the size of the form so that
all forms will be mailable using a single stamp of
the same class of postage. The suggested guide in
Part 574 specifies dimensions of 3V4 inches in
width and 7^/8 inches in length. This rule does not
adopt those dimensions because, imder existing
postal regulations, a form 3V4 inches by 73/g inches
is too small to be mailed imless enclosed in an
envelope. Since NHTSA does not wish to require
manufacturers to provide self-addressed
envelopes, the agency has adopted the dimensions
in the postal regulations for cards mailable without
envelopes under first class postage as the dimen-
sions for the registration forms. Thus, the forms
must be rectangular; not less than .007 inches
thick; more than 3V2 inches, but not more than 6Vg
inches wide; more than 5 inches, but not more than
IIV2 inches long. If any of those maxima were ex-
ceeded, a single, first class stamp would not be suf-
PART 574-PRE 19
ficient postage. The agency has not adopted a post
card-sized form due to uncertainty whether such a
form would be large enough to permit the easy,
legible recording of all of the necessary informa-
tion.
Finally, the mandatory format requirements in-
clude a requirement that the form must show the
manufacturer's name to prevent confusion of
dealers and purchasers. This will enable the in-
dependent dealer to determine the brand of tire for
which a particular form is to be used for registra-
tion purposes. This requirement is necessary since
independent dealers often sell several different
brands of tires. Since the dealer will have as many
different types of registration forms as it has dif-
ferent brands of tires for sale, the dealer must have
some way of identifying the appropriate form. The
name may appear either in the maUing address or
anywhere else on the form.
Continued use of old registration forms. During
the limited period that this interim rule is in effect,
the agency will provide the option of using existing
forms instead of the new standardized ones. Elec-
tion of that option is conditioned upon the tire pur-
chaser's being provided not only with a form bear-
ing the tire identification numbers and the dealer's
name and address, but also with an envelope that is
suitable for mailing the form, bears the same
reminder to consumers required on the new forms,
and is addressed to the tire manufacturer or its
designee.
Source of registration forms. Under the require-
ments for mandatory registration requirements
which previously applied to independent dealers,
those dealers were permitted to use either the
registration forms provided by the tire manufac-
turers or use forms obtained from other sources.
The latter type of form was typically one pur-
chased from a clearinghouse. The clearinghouse
forms were not manufacturer specific (i.e., did not
bear any mark or information identifying a par-
ticular tire manufacturer or brand name) and thus
could be used to register any manufacturer's tires.
When the forms of a clearinghouse were com-
pleted, they were returned to the clearinghouse.
The clearinghouse would then forward them to ap-
propriate manufacturers.
Except under the circumstances described above
in the discussion of the temporary continued use of
existing forms, the amendments to section 158(b)
and their legislative history compel an end to the
practice of using forms which are not addressed to
the manufacturer or its designee. Forms may con-
tinue to be addressed to an intermediary such as a
clearinghouse if that intermediary has been desig-
nated by a tire manufacturer to serve as an initial
recipient or as an ultimate repository for registra-
tion forms. Further, the amendments require
standardization of the forms to be used by indepen-
dent dealers. Hence, while independent dealers are
still permitted to obtain registration forms from a
source other than the tire manufacturers, those
forms must comply with all of the requirements ap-
plicable to forms provided by manufacturers.
Responsibility for filling out and mailing
registration form. The responsibility for com-
pleting the registration forms would be divided
between independent tire dealers and piu-chasers.
The tire dealer would be required to fill in the iden-
tification number of each tire sold and his name
and address or some other unique identifier like a
code number. The necessity for having the dealer's
name and address arises from the statutorily-
required evaluation of the voluntary registration !
requirements. In order to conduct that evaluation,
the agency will need information on the registra-
tion rates for tires sold by individual independent
dealers. This information will aid NHTSA in identi-
fying different levels of registration among dealers
and evaluate the reasons underlying those dif-
ferences. The simplest and most effective way of
ensuring the recording of the dealer's names and
addresses is to require the recording of the infor-
mation by the party who can most accurately pro-
vide it. A dealer's proper name and address are ob-
viously better known to that dealer than to his
customers. Further, through the use of an inexpen-
sive rubber stamp, the dealer can record that infor-
mation on a form much more easily and quickly
than a tire purchaser can.
After the dealer has filled in this information and
handed the card (and envelope under the option for
using existing forms) to the tire purchaser, it is the
purchaser's responsibility to complete the registra-
tion process. If a purchaser wishes to register his
new tire, he must fill in his name and address,
place the appropriate postage on the form (or
envelope) and mail it.
Other issues. Any questions concerning the
classification of a particular dealer as independent
PART 574-PRE 20
or otherwise should be addressed in writing to the
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given
above. The legislative history cited early in this
notice provides some guidance on this point.
NHTSA notes that it is possible for motor vehicle
dealers to be considered tire dealers in certain
situations, as specified in 49 CFR 574.9. Whether a
new motor vehicle dealer is required to follow the
procedures for mandatory or voluntary registra-
tion depends on whether the dealer is owned or
controlled by a tire manufacturer. The agency
beheves that most motor vehicle dealers would be
considered independent dealers for the purposes of
Part 574. These motor vehicle dealers are re-
minded that they should provide the motor vehicle
purchaser with a voluntary tire registration form
at the time they deliver the new vehicle to the pur-
chaser, and with the identification number(s) of all
of the vehicle's tires and the dealer's name and ad-
dress entered on the form.
Enforcement of the new provisions of Part 574
would be carried out imder sections 108-110 of the
Safety Act. Failure to comply with the new provi-
sions would be a violation of section 108(a) (2) (D)
which prohibits failure to comply with any order or
other requirement applicable to any manufacturer,
distributor or dealer pursuant to Part B of the
Safety Act. Section 109(a) provides that a civil
penalty of $1,000 may be assessed for each viola-
tion of section 108. Under section 110(a), the
agency could seek an injunction against a violator
of section 108 to prevent further violations.
The information collection requirements con-
tained in this rule have been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (0MB) for its
approval, pursuant to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). A notice will be published in the Federal
Register when 0MB approves this information col-
lection.
As noted above, this rule is being issued as an in-
terim final rule, without prior notice and oppor-
tunity for comment. NHTSA believes that there is
good cause for finding that notice and comment
rulemaking is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest in this instance. The absence of any
tire registration requirements for independent
dealers has created an emergency necessitating
immediate action.
The agency is concerned that, until a rule re-
garding voluntary registration can be imple-
mented, registration of tires sold by independent
dealers may fall well below the 20 percent rate
which existed prior to the enactment of the
Authorization Act on October 15. As long as this
situation lasts, substantial numbers of tire pur-
chasers may be unable to register their tires.
Although some efforts are being made by indepen-
dent dealers to continue to follow the mandatory
registration process, the agency does not have any
indication how widespread or successful those ef-
forts are. Purchasers whose tires are unregistered
will not receive direct notification from the
manufacturer of those tires in the event that the
tires are found to contain a safety defect or to fail
to comply with an applicable standard. Ignorant of
the safety problem, the purchasers will continue to
drive on tires presenting a threat to their safety
and that of other motorists.
Providing opportunity for comment is also un-
necessary to a substantial extent. Many of the new
provisions of Part 574 were expressly mandated by
Congress.
Nevertheless, this agency is providing an oppor-
tunity to comment on this notice diuing the 45
days following its publication in the Federal
Register. Those comments will be carefully con-
sidered since the agency does not intend to main-
tain this rule as the permanent final rule on volun-
tary registration. A permanent final rule will be
issued not later than October 14, 1983.
NHTSA seeks comments from all interested
parties on what requirements should be included in
the permanent final rule. Pursuant to a contract
with the agency, American Institutes for Research
in the Behavioral Sciences has explored ways of
more effectively structuring and wording the
voluntary registration forms to induce as many
purchasers as possible to complete their forms and
send them to the manufactiu"ers. Copies of the
results of the Institute's work have been placed in
the docket. Comments are requested on that work.
Comments are also requested on the feasibility of
using post card sized forms. The agency is uncer-
tain whether those forms would provide sufficient
space to permit the easy, legible recording of the
requisite information. If so, then this alternative
appears attractive since the lower postal rate for
such cards could induce a higher rate of registra-
tion by purchasers.
PART 574-PRE 21
The results of the contract study on registration
forms and all comments submitted in response to
this notice will be considered by the agency in
selecting the provisions to include in the perma-
nent final rule. If, after examining the study, the
agency determines that the registration forms for
independent dealers should be significantly
altered, a notice of proposed rulemaking will be
issued to ensure full comment on those changes.
The requirements of this rule become effective
30 days after the date on which it is published in
the Federal Register. The 30-day period provides
adequate time for tire manufacturers to print and
distribute the new voluntary registration forms (or
envelopes, under the option for using existing
forms) to the independent dealers. Since this rule
requires no change to the forms provided to or
used by nonindependent dealers, manufacturers
and nonindependent dealers may continue to use
their current forms.
NHTSA has analyzed the impacts of this action
and determined that it is neither "major" within
the meaning of Executive Order 12291 nor
"significant" within the meaning of the Depart-
ment of Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures. The requirements concerning the
registration forms for independent dealers will im-
pose minimally higher costs on tire manufacturers.
Compared to the costs and administrative burdens
to independent dealers of complying with the Part
574 requirements for mandatory registration, in-
dependent dealers should achieve slight savings
under this rule. Requirements for nonindependent
dealers are not changed by this rule. Consumers
purchasing tires from independent dealers will
now have to pay 20 cents for postage if they wish
to register those tires. The bearing of this cost by
consumers has been mandated by Congress. For
these reasons, a full regulatory evaluation has not
been prepared.
The agency has also considered the impacts of
this action on small entities, and determined that
this rule will not have a significant economic im-
pact on a substantial number of those small en-
tities. The agency believes that few if any of the
tire manufacturers are small entities. Although
many dealers are considered to be small entities,
this rule will not have a significant impact on them.
The requirements for tire manufacturers are un-
changed except that the size, content and cost of
the registration forms they supply to independent
dealers would be slightly different. No change at
all is made in the requirements for nonindependent
dealers. Independent dealers will realize minimal
savings from this rule. Small organizations and
governmental units which purchase tires from in-
dependent dealers will have to pay postage to
register those tires. However, those costs will not
be significant.
All interested persons are invited to comment on
this interim final rule. It is requested but not re-
quired that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must be limited not to exceed 15
pages in length. Necessary attachments may be ap-
pended to these submissions without regard to the
15 page limit. This limitation is intended to en-
courage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain infor-
mation under a claim of confidentiality, three
copies of the complete submission, including pur-
portedly confidential information, should be sub-
mitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street
address given above, and seven copies from which
the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section.
A request for confidentiality should be accom-
panied by a cover letter setting forth the informa-
tion specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
All comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated
above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent
possible, comments filed after the closing date will
also be considered. However, the rulemaking ac-
tion may proceed at any time after that date, and
comments received after the closing date and too
late for consideration in regard to the action will be
treated as suggestions for future rulemaking. The
NHTSA will continue to file relevant material as it
becomes available in the docket after the closing
date, and it is recommended that interested per-
sons continue to examine the docket for new
material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon
receipt of their comments in the rules docket
should enclose, in the envelope with their com-
ments, a self-addressed stamped post card. Upon
PART 574-PRE 22
receiving the comments, the docket supervisor will
return the post card by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR 574
Consumers protection, Motor vehicle safety.
Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
PART 574— (Amended)
In consideration of the foregoing, the following
amendments are made to Part 574, Tire Identifica-
tion and Recordkeeping, of Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations:
1. Section 574.1 is revised to read as follows:
§574.1 Scope.
This part sets forth the method by which new tire
manufacturers and new tire brand name owners
shall identify tires for use on motor vehicles and
maintain records of tire purchasers, and the
method by which retreaders and retreaded tire
brand name owners shall identify tires for use on
motor vehicles. This part also sets forth the
methods by which independent tire dealers and
distributors shall record, on registration forms,
their names and addresses and the identification
number of the tires sold to tire purchasers and pro-
vide the forms to the purchasers, so that the pur-
chasers may report their names to the new tire
manufacturers and new tire brand name owners,
and by which other tire dealers and distributors
shall record and report the names of tire pur-
chasers to the new tire manufacturers and new tire
brand name owners.
2. Section 574.3 is amended by adding a new
paragraph (c) (1) immediately after "Definitions
used in this part." and redesignating existing
paragraphs (c) (1) through (c) (4) as paragraphs
(c) (2) through (c) (5):
§ 574.3 Definitions.
• * « • •
(c) * * *
(1) "Independent" means, with respect to a
tire distributor or dealer, one whose business is
not owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer
or brand name owner.
*****
3. Section 574.7 is revised to read as follows:
§574.7 Information requirements— new tire
manufacturers, new tire brand name
owners.
(a) (1) Each new tire manufacturer and each
new tire brand name owner (hereinafter referred
to in this section and § 574.8 as "tire manufac-
turer") or its designee, shall provide tire registra-
tion forms to every distributor and dealer of its
tires 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
paragraph (a) (1) of this section shall comply with
either paragraph (a) (2) (A) or (B) of this section.
(A) Each form shall contain space for re-
cording the information specified in para-
graphs (a) (5) (A) through (a) (5) (C) of this sec-
tion and shall conform 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 G'/g inches wide; and
(iv) Greater than 5 inches, but not greater
than IIV2 inches long.
(B) Each form shall comply with the same
requirements specified in paragraph (a) (4) of
this section for forms provided to distributors
and dealers other than independent distrib-
utors and dealers.
(3) Each tire manufacturer or designee which
does not give an independent distributor or
dealer forms complying with paragraph
(a) (2) (A) of this section shall give that
distributor or dealer envelopes for mailing forms
complying with paragraph (a) (2) (B) of this sec-
tion. Each envelope shall bear the name and ad-
dress of the tire manufacturer or its designee
and the reminder set forth in Figure 3a.
(4) Each tire registration form provided to
distributors and dealers, other than independent
distributors and dealers, pursuant to paragraph
(a) (1) of this section shall be similar in format
and size to Figure 4 and shall contain space for
recording the information specified in paragraph
(a) (5) (A) through (a) (5) (C) of this section.
(5) (A) Name and address of the tire pur-
chaser.
(B) Tire identification number.
PART 574-PRE 23
(C) Name and address of the tire seller or
other means by which the tire manufacturer
can identify the tire seller.
(b) Each tire manufacturer shall record and
maintain, or have recorded and maintained for it
by a designee, the information from registration
forms which are submitted to it or its designee. No
tire manufacturer shall use the information on the
registration forms for any commercial purpose
detrimental to tire distributors and dealers. Any
tire manufacturer to which registration 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 purchasers, 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 in-
dependent 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 or its
designee, and the total number of tires sold by the
manufacturer.
(d) The information that is specified in para-
graph (a) (5) of this section and recorded on
registration forms submitted to a tire manufac-
turer 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 manufac-
turer or its designee.
4. Section 574.8 is revised to read as follows:
§ 574.8 Information requirements— tire distributors
and dealers.
(a) Independent distributors and dealers. (1)
Each independent distributor and each indepen-
dent dealer selling or leasing new tires to tire pur-
chasers or lessors (hereinafter referred to in this
section as "tire purchasers") 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
manufacturers pursuant to § 574.7(a) or
registration forms obtained from another
soiu*ce. Forms obtained from other sources shall
comply with the requirements specified in
§ 574.7(a) for forms provided by tire manufac-
turers 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:
(A) The entire tire identification number of
the tire(s) sold or leased to the tire purchaser;
and
(B) The distributor's or dealer's name and
address 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
registration form.
(b) Other distributors and dealers. (1) Each
distributor and each dealer, other than an indepen-
dent distributor or dealer, selling new tires to tire
purchasers shall submit the information specified
in § 574.7(a) (5) to the manufacturer of the tires
sold, or to its designee.
(2) Each tire distributor and each dealer, other
than an independent distributor or dealer, shall
submit registration forms containing the infor-
mation specified in § 574.7(a) (5) to the tire
manufacturer, or person maintaining the infor-
mation, not less often than every 30 days.
However, a distributor or dealer which sells less
than 40 tires, of all makes, types and sizes during
a 30-day period may wait until he or she sells a
total of 40 new tires, but in no event longer than
six months, before forwarding the tire informa-
tion to the respective tire manufacturers or their
designees.
(c) Each distributor and each dealer selling new
tires to other tire distributors or dealers shall sup-
ply to the distributor or dealer a means to record
the information specified in § 574.7(a) (5), unless
such a means has been provided to that distributor
or dealer by another person or by a manufacturer.
(d) Each distributor and each dealer shall im-
mediately stop selling any group of tires when so
directed by a notification issued pursuant to sec-
tions 151 and 152 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 and
1412).
Issued on April 21, 1983.
Raymond A. Peck, Jr.,
Administrator
48 F.R. 22572
May 19, 1983
PART 574-PRE 24
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 574
Tire Code Marks Assigned to New Tire iVIanufacturers
ACTION: Publication of tire code marks assigned
to new tire manufacturers.
SUMMARY: The NHTSA last published a com-
plete listing of the tire code marks assigned to new
tire manufacturers in 1972. Since that time, there
have been several additions and changes in names
and addresses for the assigned code marks. This
publication will inform the public of those additions
and changes.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 574.5
of the Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, re-
quires tire manufacturers to mold a tire identifica-
tion number onto or into the sidewall of each tire
they manufacture. In the case of new tires, the
first two digits of the tire identification number are
the code mark assigned to the manufacturer. This
code mark identifies the manufacturer and the
plant where the tire was manufactured.
The NHTSA published a complete listing of the
tire codes at 37 FR 342, January 11, 1972. This list
enables interested members of the public to iden-
tify the manufacturer and place of manufacture of
any new tire.
Since 1972, there have been several changes in
the names of the manufacturers and the plant ad-
dresses for the assigned code marks. Further,
there have been some 150 additional code marks
assigned for new tires since the 1972 publication.
Accordingly, this updated listing of the assigned
code marks for new tires is being published to
bring the public up-to-date with the revisions and
new code numbers which have been assigned since
the publication of the 1972 list.
Issued on June 8, 1983.
Kennerly H. Digges,
Acting Associate Administrator
for Rulemaking
48 F.R. 27635
June 16, 1983
PART 574-PRE 25-26
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 574
Tire Identification and Recordlceeping
[Docl<et No. 70-12; Notice 25]
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth the re-
quirements relating to the registration of new
tires sold by independent dealers and
distributors. Recording the names and addresses
of the first purchasers and transmitting this in-
formation to the manufacturers will make it possi-
ble for those purchasers to be contacted in the
event that the tires are recalled by the manufac-
turers for safety reasons. These requirements
supersede those contained in the interim final
rule on this subject published in the May 19, 1983,
edition of the Federal Register.
This rule primarily clarifies some aspects of the
provisions of the interim final rule concerning the
tire registration form to be provided by the tire
manufacturers to the independent dealers. These
changes, which were made to maximize the regis-
tration of tires sold through independent dealers,
are as follows:
(1) The size of the registration form to be given
to the consumer by independent dealers has been
reduced, so that only a 13-cent postcard stamp
need be affixed to the registration form. The in-
terim final rule had specified that a first-class-
mail-sized card be used for the registration form.
This change was made to minimize the costs for
consumers to register their tires.
(2) The statement in the upper left corner of
that registration form, informing the tire pur-
chaser of the importance of completing and
returning the form, has been modified so as to be
more comprehensible and more effective at mo-
tivating the purchaser to register his or her tires.
(3) Instructions to the tire purchaser have been
added, so that the purchaser will print instead of
write his or her name on the registration form.
(4) That portion of the registration form which
is to be filled in by the independent dealer (i.e.,
the portion for filling in suitable Identification of
the dealer and the tire identification number(s) of
the tire(s) sold) must be shaded with a 10-percent
screen tint. This change was made to emphasize
to the tire purchaser the limited amount of infor-
mation which the purchaser must fill in to
register his or her tires.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The changes made by this
notice become effective March 25, 1984. As of that
date, the tire manufacturers will be required to
provide registration forms in compliance with
this rule, and they must cease their distribution
of the forms specified by the interim final rule. In-
dependent dealers may continue to use the forms
specified by that rule until their existing supplies
of that form are exhausted or until April 1, 1984,
whichever comes first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background
Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings
Authorization Act of 1982
The Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings
Authorization Act of 1982 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Authorization Act") amended the Na-
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Safety Act")
by requiring this agency to change its tire regis-
tration requirements insofar as they applied to in-
dependent tire dealers and distributors. (This
class of dealers and distributors is defined below.)
These requirements are set forth in 49 CFR Part
574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.
Before the Authorization Act became effective,
Part 574 required all tire dealers and distributors
PART 574; PRE 27
to comply with the mandatory registration sys-
tem. Under the system, dealers and distributors
were required to record certain information (i.e.,
the tire purchaser's name and address, seller's
name and address, and the identification
number(s) of the tire(s) sold) on a registration
form and send the completed form to the tire
manufacturer or the brand-name owner (herein-
after collectively referred to as "tire manufac-
turers") or a designee of the tire manufacturer.
The tire registration requirements were
adopted pursuant to requirements in the Safety
Act intended to insure that tire purchasers could
be notified if their tires are recalled for safety
reasons, either because they contain a safety-
related defect or because they do not comply with
an applicable safety standard. The purchasers of
unregistered tires would not be directly notified
in those instances and would instead unknowing-
ly continue to drive on unsafe tires.
On examining the rate of tire registration. Con-
gress found a substantial difference between the
rates for tires sold by independent dealers
(dealers and distributors whose business is not
owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer) and
those sold by nonindependent dealers (dealers
and distributors whose business is owned or con-
trolled by a tire manufacturer). Independent
dealers, who handle slightly less than half of the
replacement tires sold annually, registered about
20 percent of the tires they sold. Nonindependent
dealers, whose sales account for the balance of an
nual replacement tire sales, registered between
80 and 90 percent of their tires.
Given the importance of tire registration to
safety. Congress determined that an alternative
method of registration should be instituted for
tires sold by independent dealers. Accordingly, it
included provisions in the Authorization Act pro-
hibiting the Secretary of Transportation from re-
quiring independent dealers to comply with the
mandatory registration requirements. (In view of
the high rate of registration of tires sold by non-
independent dealers. Congress did not mandate
any change in the application of the mandatory
registration requirements to those dealers.) The
prohibition regarding independent dealers was
self-executing (i.e., its effectiveness was not con-
ditioned on any prior rulemaking or other im
plementing action by this agency) and became ef
fective on the date that the Authorization Act
became law, October 15, 1982.
In lieu of requiring independent dealers to com-
ply with the mandatory registration process, Con-
gress directed that they comply with a voluntary
registration process to be established by the
Secretary. Under the voluntary process, the
primary responsibility for registering tires sold
by independent dealers is borne by the purchaser
instead of the dealer. NHSTA is mandated by the
Safety Act, as amended by the Authorization Act,
to require that independent dealers (1) fill in the
tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold to a
purchaser on a registration form and then (2) give
the form to the purchaser. If the purchaser
wishes to register the tires, he or she may do so
by filling in his or her name and address, adding
postage, and sending the form to the tire manu-
facturer or its designee.
To ascertain whether the changes mandated by
the Authorization Act have the desired effect of
increasing the registration rate of tires sold by in-
dependent dealers. Congress directed NHTSA to
conduct an evaluation covering the 2-year period
ending October 14, 1984. Upon completion of the
evaluation, NHTSA must determine the extent to
which independent dealers have encouraged pur-
chasers to register their tires and the extent to
which those dealers have complied with the
voluntary tire registration procedures. Further,
the agency is required to determine whether to
impose any additional requirements on the in-
dependent dealers or the manufacturers for the
purpose of promoting higher levels of tire
registration.
The provision in the Authorization Act man-
dating a voluntary registration system for in-
dependent dealers was not self-executing. Thus,
the voluntary system could not become effective
until NHTSA issued a rule establishing that
system. An interim final rule doing so was
published at 48 Fed. Reg. 22572, May 19, 1983,
and became effective June 20, 1983.
Interim Final Rule
The interim final rule imposed the following re-
quirements on the various parties:
Tire manufacturers. Except as noted, new
registration forms had to be provided for in-
dependent dealers. All of those forms were re-
quired to be identical in format and content and
within the size range specified in the interim final
rule. Alternatively, the manufacturer could pro-
vide independent dealers with preaddressed
PART 574; PRE 28
envelopes in which tire purchasers could mail the
mandatory registration forms. In either case, the
manufacturer would have to maintain a record of
all returned registration forms for at least 3
years after receipt.
No change was made in the requirements
regarding forms provided to nonindependent
dealers.
Tire dealers and distributors which sell tires to
other dealers and distributors. These parties are
required to give the purchasing dealer or dis-
tributor the registration forms provided by the
tire manufacturers so that that dealer or distribu-
tor can comply with the applicable tire registra-
tion requirements. The new forms must be pro-
vided to independent dealers.
Nonindependent dealers. No changes were
made to the tire registration requirements ap-
plicable to these parties. They are still required
to follow the mandatory tire registration system
formerly applicable to all tire dealers. Thus, the
nonindependent dealers must record the pur-
chaser's name and address, the tire identification
number(s) of the tire(s) sold, and a suitable iden-
tification of themselves as the selling dealer on a
tire registration form, and return the completed
forms to the tire manufacturers or their
designees.
Independent dealers. These dealers were re-
quired by the interim final rule to record the tire
identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold, along
with their name and address, on a registration
form and give the form to the tire purchaser.
The interim final rule sought comments on the
issues raised by the requirements specified
therein, and specifically asked commenters to ad-
dress the issue of adopting the registration form
devised by the American Institute for Research
in the Behavioral Sciences pursuant to a contract
with the agency.
Final Rule
After considering the comments on the interim
final rule, NHTSA has decided to retain most of
the requirements in that rule. Several changes
have been made to the requirements regarding
the forms to be provided to independent dealers.
These changes are relatively minimal and do not
disturb the essential continuity of the voluntary
registration requirements. Accordingly, both the
tire manufacturers and the independent dealers
should be able to implement the voluntary
registration system as amended by this rule with
minimal disruption to the practices they have
been following since the interim final rule became
effective.
Voluntary Tire Registration Procedures
Several commenters stated that independent
dealers that wish to continue following the man-
datory tire registration requirements should be
permitted to do so. The premise underlying these
comments is that mandatory registration, when
properly implemented, is the most effective
means of insuring that virtually all replacement
tires are registered.
While NHTSA does not disagree with the
premise of these commenters, the agency is not
free to adopt their suggestion. Section 158(b)(2MB)
of the Safety Act specifies that this agency
. . . shall require each . . . (independent dealer)
to furnish the first purchaser with a registra-
tion form (containing the tire indentification
number of the tire) which the purchaser may
complete and return directly to the manufac-
turer of the tire. (Emphasis added.)
This mandate to the agency is completely in-
clusive, directing the agency to make the volun-
tary registration procedures applicable not simp-
ly to independent dealers in general, but to
"each" independent dealer. Further, this mandate
is not offset by any express authority to make ex-
ceptions.
As a practical as well as a legal matter, in-
dependent dealers may nevertheless register the
tires they sell if they first comply with the volun-
tary registration procedures. Independent
dealers are not prohibited from filling in the infor-
mation required by the voluntary procedures on
the forms specified by those procedures, furnished
the forms to tire purchasers, and then offering to
fill in the balance of the information and mail the
form to the manufacturer.
Based on the comments, it appears that some
commenters are confused about the status of
motor vehicle dealers under the mandatory and
voluntary registration procedures. The preamble
to the interim final rule mentioned motor vehicle
dealers only very briefly because they are
minimally affected by the voluntary registration
procedures. The preamble stated that there are
two situations in which motor vehicle dealers are
considered to be tire dealers and are required to
register the tires on the vehicles as specified in
PART 574; PRE 29
section 574.9. In these situations, the preamble
noted that whether the motor vehicle dealer
would be required to follow the mandatory or
voluntary registration procedures would depend
on whether the motor vehicle dealer's business
was owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer.
Since such ownership or control seems highly im-
probable, the preamble stated that the motor
vehicle dealer would in all likelihood have to
follow the voluntary registration procedures.
The discussion in that notice left some com-
menters uncertain whether the original equip-
ment tires on new vehicles were subject to man-
datory or voluntary registration procedures. This
uncertainty apparently arose because the interim
final rule made no mention of the mandatory tire
registration requirements that have been ap-
plicable to original-equipment tires since 1971. No
mention of these requirements was made, since
the notice did not propose to amend section
574.10, which specifies the actions to be taken by
motor vehicle manufacturers to register their
original-equipment tires.
The two situations to which the interim final
rule's preamble referred are those situations in
which the motor vehicle dealer, as opposed to the
motor vehicle manufacturer, is responsible for
registering tires. These situations, which are
relatively infrequent, are set forth in section
574.9. First, if a motor vehicle dealer sells a used
vehicle or leases a vehicle for more than 60 days,
and the vehicle is equipped with new tires, the
dealer must register the tires on the vehicle. Sec
ond, if a motor vehicle dealer sells a new vehicle
and the vehicle is equipped with tires other than
those shipped with the vehicle by the motor vehi
cle manufacturer, the motor vehicle dealer must
register the tires on the vehicle. The interim final
rule was intended to make clear that motor vehi-
cle dealers whose business is not owned or con
trolled by a tire manufacturer should follow the
voluntary registration procedures in those two
rare types of situations, when the vehicle dealer
is responsible for registering the tires on the
vehicle.
One commenter urged that NHTSA delete the
requirement that independent dealers record
their name and address on the registration form
before giving that form to the tire purchaser.
This commenter noted that Congress stated the
Authorization Act's voluntary registration provi-
sions had been adopted partially for the purpose
of reducing the burdens which mandatory regis-
tration procedures paced on independent dealers.
Further, the commenter asserted that the Autho-
rization Act requires only that the independent
dealers record the tire identification number on
the registration form, and that the absence of any
mention of further specific information to be
filled in by independent dealers is evidence that
Congress did not intend those dealers to have to
fill in any information other than the identifica-
tion number. Finally, this commenter noted that
NHTSA had indicated in the preamble to the in-
terim final rule that the dealer's name and ad-
dress was needed on the registration form to aid
the agency in evaluating the voluntary registra-
tion process. This commenter stated that it would
be sufficient for evaluation purposes for the
registration forms used by independent dealers
to show simply that they came from that class of
dealers, instead of identifying a specific indepen-
dent dealer. It was further suggested that this in-
formation would be all that was needed for the
agency to determine the extent to which volun-
tary registration had been successful at increas-
ing the rate of tire registration for tires sold by
independent dealers.
Similarly, two tire manufacturers commented
that a manufacturer should not be required any
longer to maintain records which show, for each
of its tires sold by an independent dealer, the
identity of that particular dealer. They argued
that manufacturers should only be required to
maintain registration for independent dealers as
a group. These commenters also asserted that
this information was all that the agency needed to
determine whether or not voluntary registration
had successfully increased the registration rate
for tires sold by independent dealers.
The preamble to the interim final rule may not
have adequately explained the full breadth of the
evaluative task which Congress instructed the
agency to perform. In order to conduct a proper
evaluation which not only reports the aggregate
results of the voluntary registration program but
also attempts to explain those results, the agency
will need to be able to determine registration
rates for individual dealers. With that ability, the
agency can differentiate dealers with high rates
from dealers with low ones and then proceed to
attempt to assess the reasons for those differ-
ences. Having performed that analysis, the agen-
cy would be in a position to provide Congress
PART 574: PRE 30
with insight about the impact of the voluntary
registration program. It would also enable the
agency to determine what additional require-
ments, if any, should be adopted to improve the
registration program. NHTSA may find that
those improvements can be more effectively ob-
tained by enforcing the requirements established
by this notice than by imposing additional re-
quirements on all independent dealers.
NHTSA believes that it has authority under
the Authorization Act to require independent
dealers to record not only the tire identification
numbers but also their names and addresses on
registration forms. There is no express prohibi-
tion against the agency's requiring dealers to fill
in more than the tire identification numbers.
While the Authorization Act makes no mention of
requiring dealers to fill in their names and ad-
dresses, the agency does not regard that fact as
dispositive. The Authorization Act does not, in
fact, specify that the dealer's name and address is
to be filled in by either the dealer or the pur-
chaser. Since there isn't any clear indication that
it was Congress' intent that this information no
longer be required, the agency will not infer such
intent from Congress' decision not to assign that
task expressly to any particular party. It appears
that Congress has left the question of that assign-
ment to NHTSA's discretion. Since the names
and addresses of dealers have long been recorded
on registration forms and since that information
is needed to enable the agency to conduct an ef-
fective evaluation, this agency believes that it
should continue to be recorded. In view of the fact
that dealers are more likely than purchasers to
provide this information accurately, and since
dealers can easily resort to the expandiency of a
stamp bearing their name and address, NHTSA
reaffirms its decision to assign the task of filling
in that information to the dealers.
As to the tire manufacturers, the burden on
them regarding the identity of specific indepen-
dent dealers is simply to continue doing what
they have been doing since 1971, i.e., maintaining
registration records for each dealer. The agency
believes that continued maintenance of these
records is warranted by the value of dealer-
specific information to the evaluation and to tire
recall campaigns. In fact, the agency recently
issued a special order to nine tire manufacturers
to obtain information on the registration rates for
individual independent dealers. The agency will
continue to monitor those rates.
Several commenters suggested that the agen-
cy, when conducting its evaluation of the effect of
the voluntary registration program on the regis-
tration rate, determine its own baseline for regis-
tration of tires sold by independent dealers
before that program began. The commenters
urged that the agency not adopt the 20-percent
rate mentioned in the legislative history of the
Authorization Act. In lieu of that figure, the com-
menters offered several lower ones, including a
figure of 7 percent. The agency intends to deter-
mine its own baseline. The special order men-
tioned above will provide the information neces-
sary for that determination.
Registration Forms
In selecting the registration form to be used by
independent dealers under the interim final rule,
the agency consciously sought to find a form that
would satisfy all of the statutory requirements
for the voluntary registration system, while mak-
ing as few changes as possible to existing forms
being used under the mandatory registration sys-
tem. This conservative approach was necessary
because the amendments to the Vehicle Safety
Act did not provide adequate time to follow nor-
mal rulemaking procedures and seek comments
on more far-reaching changes.
To determine outside the strictures of a rigid
time schedule what type of form would be most
effective in inducing tire purchasers to register
their tires, NHTSA contracted with American In-
stitute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences
(AIRES) to conduct a study. AIRES designed a
postcard-size registration form separated into
two parts by a line of perforation. The top part,
which would be detached and retained by the pur-
chaser, would contain a message explaining the
importance of tire registration to the purchaser
and motivating the purchaser to register the tires
by sending the form to the manufacturer. On the
reverse of the top side, there would be a space
where the purchaser could record the registra-
tion information and save it for his or her per-
sonal records.
The bottom part of the AIRES registration
form would be the part that would be sent to the
tire manufacturer. On one side would be the
manufacturer's preprinted address. On the other
would be space for filling in the tire registration
information.
PART 574; PRE 31
The agency placed the AIRES study and form
in the public docket and requested in the interim
final rule that interested persons comment on the
contractor's recommendations. Several commen-
ters addressed the desirability of adopting the
AIRES form as the registration form to be used
by independent dealers. Many commenters stated
that a postcard-sized form was too small to allow
the necessary information to be legibly recorded.
One commenter argued that the AIRES form
would not be any more effective at encouraging
consumers to register their tires than the simple
one-part card mandated in the interim final rule,
and that the AIRES form might actually be more
confusing. Another commenter objected to the
AIRES form because the perforated edge of the
portion of the form to be returned to the manufac-
turer could not be automatically fed through a
microfilming machine. The same commenter also
argued that the printing costs for the AIRES
form would be about 12 percent higher than those
for the form mandated in the interim final rule.
After considering these comments, NHTSA
has decided not to adopt the AIRES form. That
form poses a number of potential problems which
neither AIRES nor the agency foresaw. Further,
NHTSA does not believe that use of a two-part
form is necessary. AIRES stated in its study that
the reason for its recommending a two-part form
was its belief that the space available on a single-
part form was insufficient to allow the printing of
the motivational message to the consumer, the in-
structions, and the necessary registration infor-
mation with type and spacing large enough to
permit easy reading. In the agency's own judg-
ment, the single-part form mandated by this final
rule will not be overly crowded, will avoid the
potential problems which commenters attributed
to the two-part form, and will be almost as suc-
cessful in motivating consumers to register their
tires as would the two-part form.
However, the agency has adopted the AIRES
recommendation that the registration forms pro-
vided to consumers be postcard size. It will be
less expensive for tire purchasers to use 13-cent
postcard stamps to mail registration forms of that
size, and this low cost might motivate some pur-
chasers who would not otherwise do so to register
their tires. The maximum dimensions permitted
by the U.S. Postal Service for a postcard are 4 'A
by 6 inches. This area is, in NHTSA's judgment,
sufficient to permit the motivational message and
the space for recording the required information
to appear on the same size of the card, without be-
ing overly crowded or difficult to read. Given the
importance of encouraging consumers to return
the completed tire registration forms, and the
likely effectiveness of lower postage costs at en-
couraging consumers to return the forms, this
rule specifies that the registration forms be of the
dimensions permitted for using postcard stamps.
Some other minor changes are made in this
notice to the registration form required by the in-
terim final rule. First, the motivational message
has been changed so that it is now identical to
that recommended by AIRES. The AIRES mes-
sage provided stronger encouragement to send
the form to the manufacturer and will be readily
understood by consumers.
Second, the agency has decided to require the
form to include instructions to the tire purchaser
to print his or her name and address on the form.
Those instructions were inadvertently omitted
from the interim final rule. They have now been
added at the urging of several of the commenters.
One commenter requested that tire manufac-
turers be allowed to divide the spaces for record-
ing the purchaser's name and address into little
boxes so that each letter or number would be
printed in a separate box. According to this com-
menter, this approach would help insure accurate
transcription by the manufacturer of the informa-
tion on the registration forms. Eased on its
assessment of the AIRES study, the agency has
decided not to adopt this change. AIRES in-
dicated to this agency that the use of boxes
discourages people from filling in information on
forms and that the return rate for the registra-
tion forms would therefore be higher if boxes
were not used.
Third, NHTSA is adopting a requirement that
contrasting shading be used for the area of the
form containing the blanks to be completed by the
independent dealer and that a white background
be used for the areas to be completed by the tire
purchasers. AIRES recommended this require-
ment in its study as a means of emphasizing to the
tire purchaser the minima! quantity of informa-
tion which he or she must record in order to
register his or her tires. AIRES indicated that
the shading could be achieved by using a
10-percent screen tint. The tinted forms would be
inexpensive to produce and still easily readable
by data processors.
PART 574; PRE 32
One manufacturer commented that independ-
ent dealers should be required to enter both their
name and address and their dealer identification
number assigned by the manufacturer on the
registration form. The dealer identification
number is a unique identifier assigned by a tire
manufacturer to each dealer selling that manufac-
turer's tires. This commenter asserted that re-
quiring the dealer identification number to be
placed on the registration forms would greatly
simplify the data-processing task for the manufac-
turer as it recorded the information from the
registration forms sent in by tire purchasers.
NHTSA agrees that such a requirement would
simplify the manufacturers' task, but only at the
cost of significantly complicating the registration
responsibilities of the independent dealers. The
dealer identification numbers assigned to a par-
ticular dealer are not coordinated among the
various tire manufacturers. Thus, an independent
dealer which sells tires produced by seven dif-
ferent manufacturers would have seven different
dealer identification numbers assigned to it. The
interim final rule required independent dealers to
record their name and address on the registration
form. This could be done simply by purchasing
and using a rubber stamp with the dealer's name
and address on it. If the final rule were amended
to require the dealer to also record its dealer
identification number, and the independent
dealer sold seven different manufacturers' tires
(as in the example above), the dealer would either
have to fill in its name, address, and identification
number by hand on each registration form or buy
seven different rubber stamps. If it chose to pur-
chase seven different rubber stamps, the dealer
would also have to be certain that it used the ap-
propriate stamp for each manufacturer's registra-
tion form. If the dealer used the wrong dealer
identification number on a manufacturer's
registration form, it would complicate the manu-
facturer's data-processing task. After considering
these facts, NHTSA has decided not to adopt this
comment, and the independent dealers remain
subject to the requirement that they record their
name and address on the registration form before
giving the form to the tire purchaser.
Other Issues
Several commenters objected to the language
in the interim final rule stating that enforcement
of this regulation would be under the authority of
sections 108-110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
1397-99) and that each violation could subject the
violator to a penalty of $1,000. These commenters
noted that the Committee report on the Authori-
zation Act stated an expectation that indepen-
dent dealers which failed to comply with the
voluntary registration requirements would not
have to pay the maximum penalty unless there
was a clear, continuous pattern of violations.
The statutory provisions recited in the interim
final rule are consistent with the committee
report. Section 109 of the Safety Act provides
that the amount of any penalty imposed by the
agency should reflect consideration of the size of
the business which committed the violation and of
the gravity of the violation. As a matter of prac-
tice, the agency makes a distinction in its enforce-
ment activities between isolated violations and
continuous patterns of violations. The agency will
continue to make this distinction and thus will be
following the guidance in the committee report.
Some commenters urged that the agency per-
mit continued use of registration forms addressed
to clearinghouses. These forms, which were per-
mitted under mandatory registration, were
generic inst ^ad of manufacturer-specific (i.e., they
did not bear any mark or information identifying
them for use in registering a particular manufac-
turer's tires) and thus could be used to register
any manufacturer's tires. The tire dealer would
fill in the manufacturer or brand-name owner
identified on the tire to be registered, and send
the forms to a clearinghouse. The clearinghouse
would then forward the information to the ap-
propriate manufacturer or brand-name owner.
As explained in the preamble to the interim
final rule, the amendments to section 158(b) of the
Safety Act and their legislative history compel an
end to the practice of using forms which are not
addressed to a specific manufacturer or its
designee. Section 158(b) requires that the pur-
chaser be able to send the form directly to the
manufacturer of the tire, and that the forms used
by independent dealers be standardized for all
tires. Hence, the agency cannot permit continued
use of forms which are not manufacturer-specific
and which are not addressed to a particular manu-
facturer or its designee.
One commenter asked that dealers be allowed
to continue to use the forms mandated by the in-
terim final rule until the supply was exhausted.
The interim final rule permitted the continued
PART 574; PRE 33
use of the forms used under mandatory registra-
tion as long as the manufacturers provided pre-
addressed envelopes in which to enclose those
forms. To minimize the expenses and disruption
associated with the transition from the interim
final rule to this final rule, independent dealers
will be permitted to continue using the forms
specified by the interim final rule until their
existing supplies are exhausted, or until April 1,
1984, whichever comes first. As of the effective
date of this rule, the manufacturers will be re-
quired to provide registration forms in com-
pliance with this rule, and distribution of the
forms specified under the interim final rule must
be ended.
A related issue was raised in a petition which
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company ("Cooper") sub-
mitted for reconsideration of the interim final
rule. Cooper currently has a no-charge warranty
program for two tire lines. As part of that pro-
gram, Cooper has printed a booklet and registra-
tion form. The form, which was developed and
printed before the interim final rule was issued,
contains a different motivational statement than
was mandated by the interim final rule. Further,
it does not contain a notation to affix first-class
postage on the reverse side. Cooper reported that
it had achieved a 66-percent registration rate for
the two tire lines, using its own registration
forms.
After considering these minor variations, the
agency has decided that this Cooper registration
form can be considered as complying with the re-
quirements of the interim final rule. It is signifi-
cant that Cooper prepared and began distributing
these forms in December 1982, before the interim
final rule had been published. From the interval
of January 1, 1983, to June 20, 1983, Cooper
achieved a 66-percent registration rate for tires
sold by independent dealers, when there were no
registration requirements applicable to inde-
pendent dealers. This suggests that the Cooper
form has been effective at motivating consumers
to return that form, and achieving higher tire
registration rates is the goal of the change in tire
registration procedures.
NHTSA wishes to emphasize that Cooper was
in a unique postion, and that permitting the varia-
tions in the Cooper form from that mandated by
the interim final rule does not mean that the
agency will countenance variations from the form
prescribed by this final rule. This form has been
developed after considering the AIRES study,
and it is important that it be used in connection
with tire registration, to insure that the NHTSA
evaluation of the voluntary tire registration sys-
tem is conducted with an effective standardized
registration form.
One commenter suggested that there would be a
stronger incentive for consumers to register
their tires if the agency were to require the
manufacturers to prepay the postage for the
registration forms. Adopting such a requirement
was one of the actions which the House commit-
tee report indicated could be adopted after the
2-year evaluation period if the agency determined
that further steps were necessary to achieve ade-
quate registration rates. The implication of this
discussion in the report is that the requirement
may not be adopted at an earlier time. Accord-
ingly, the agency is not adopting a requirement
for prepaid postage.
Several commenters stated that the 30-day
period between the publication of the interim
final rule and its effective date was inadequate to
allow the necessary registration forms to be
printed and distributed to all of the manufac-
turer's independent dealers. Accordingly, they
asked that a longer leadtime period be estab-
lished for this final rule. The agency understands
that it is asking the manufacturers to move very
expeditiously to print and distribute the volun-
tary registration forms. NHTSA believes that
short leadtime periods are necessary due to the
importance of registration and to the require-
ment to conduct an evaluation of voluntary regis-
tration 2 years after passage of the Authorization
Act. At the same time, the agency wishes to make
some accommodation of the request for additional
leadtime. Accordingly, the agency is specifying
an effective date of 45 days after publication of
this notice. This date will still require expeditious
action by the manufacturers, but does provide 2
more weeks than were allowed for the interim
final rule.
The information-collection requirements con-
tained in this rule have been submitted to and ap-
proved by the Office of Management and Budget
(0MB), pursuant to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Those requirements have been approved
through May 31, 1985 (0MB #2127-0050). All
printed registration forms must display this 0MB
clearance number and expiration date in the up-
PART 574; PRE 34
per right-hand corner of the form.
NHTSA has analyzed the impacts of this rule
and determined that it is neither "major" within
the meaning of Executive Order 12291 nor "sig-
nificant" within the meaning of the Department
of Transportation regulatory policies and pro-
cedures. The changes in the requirements for the
registration forms to be provided by tire manu-
facturers to independent dealers will impose
minimally higher costs on those manufacturers.
Compared to the costs and administrative burdens
imposed on independent dealers under man-
datory registration, those dealers should achieve
a slight savings under this rule. Consumers pur-
chasing tires from independent dealers will now
have to pay for postage if they wish to register
their new tires. The assumption of that cost by
consumers was mandated by Congress. For this
reason, a full regulatory evaluation has not been
prepared.
The agency has also considered the impacts of
this rule on small entities, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. NHTSA believes that
few, if any, of the tire manufacturers are small
businesses. Although many of the dealers could
be considered small businesses, this rule will not
have a significant impact on them. As noted
above, they may experience a slight savings as
compared to the mandatory registration re-
quirements. The requirements for tire manufac-
turers are unchanged, except for some minor
changes which they must make to the registra-
tion forms to be provided to independent dealers.
Small organizations and governmental units will
have to bear the minor expense of paying postage
for any new tires they register. Based on the
foregoing, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
In consideration of the foregoing, the following
amendments are made to Part 574, Tire Identifi-
cation and Recordkeeping, of Title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations.
1. Section 574.3 is amended by adding a new
paragraph (c)(1) immediately after "Definitions
used in this part. " and redesignating existing
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) as paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(5):
§ 574.3 Definitions.
* i^ ^l: Ht It
(C) * * *
(1) "Independent" means, with respect to a tire
distributor or dealer, one whose business is not
owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer or
brand name owner.
3. Section 574.7 is revised to read as follows:
§ 574.7 Information requirements— new tire
manufacturers, new tire brand name owners.
(a)(1) Each new tire manufacturer and each new
tire brand name owner (hereinafter referred to in
this section and § 574.8 as "tire manufacturer") or
its designee, shall provide tire registration forms
to every distributor and dealer of its tires which
offers new tires for sale or lease to tire pur-
chasers.
(2) Each tire registration form provided to in-
dependent distributors and dealers pursuant to
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall contain space
for recording the information specified in para-
graphs (a)(4)(A) through (a)(4)(C) of this section and
shall conform in content and format to Figures 3a
and 3b. Each form shall be:
(A) Rectangular;
(B) Not less than .007 inches thick;
(C) Greater than 3V2 inches, but not greater
than 6% inches wide; and
(D) Greater than 5 inches, but not greater than
6 inches long.
(3) Each tire registration form provided to
distributors and dealers, other than independent
distributors and dealers, pursuant to paragraph
(a)(1) of this section shall be similar in format and
size to Figure 4 and shall contain space for record-
ing the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(4)(A) through (a)(4)(C) of this section.
(4)(A) Name and address of the tire purchaser.
(d) The information that is specified in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section and recorded on
registration forms submitted to a tire manufac-
turer 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.
4. Section 574.8 is revised to read as follows:
§ 574.8 Information requirements— tire dis-
tributors and dealers.
(b) Other distributors and dealers. (1) Each dis-
tributor and each dealer, other than an indepen-
dent distributor or dealer, selling new tires to
tire purchasers shall submit the information
PART 574; PRE 35
specified in § 574.7(a)(4) to the manufacturer of
the tires sold, or to its designee.
(2) Each tire distributor and each dealer, other
than an independent distributor or dealer, shall
submit registration forms containing the informa-
tion specified in § 574.7(a)(4) to the tire manufac-
turer, or person maintaining the information, not
less often than every 30 days. However, a distrib-
utor or dealer which sells less than 40 tires, of all
makes, types and sizes during a 30-day period
may wait until he or she sells a total of 40 new
tires, but in no event longer than six months,
before forwarding the tire information to the
respective tire manufacturers or their designees.
(c) Each distributor and each dealer selling
new tires to other tire distributors or dealers
shall supply to the distributor or dealer a means to
record the information specified in § 574.7(a)(4),
unless such a means has been provided to that
distributor or dealer by another person or by a
manufacturer.
Issued on February 3, 1984.
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
49 FR 4755
February 8, 1984
PART 574; PRE 36
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 574
Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
[Docl(et No. 84-07; Notice 2]
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends Part 574 to give
retreaders of tires for motor vehicles other than
passenger cars an option during the retreading
process of either removing the original manufac-
turer's DOT symbol from the sidewall of the
finished retread or leaving that symbol on the tire.
This action is taken because NHTSA has deter-
mined that no significant safety interest is served
by requiring that retreaders remove the original
manufacturer's DOT symbol as part of the re-
treading process. That requirement, which did not
expressly appear in Part 574, resulted from un-
foreseen events and from unexpected effects of
the language in Part 574. This rule avoids im-
posing unnecessary costs on these retreaders
without degrading the safety of the tires or the
safety value of the information available to
consumers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 1985.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require that a
DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of most new
and retreaded tires as a means of certifying com-
pliance with the performance requirements of the
applicable safety standard. Thus, the DOT symbol
must appear on new tires for use on passenger
cars which are subject to Standard No. 109, new
tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars
which are subject to Standard No. 119, and
retreaded passenger-car tires which are subject to
Standard No. 117. (For the sake of easy reference,
tires for use on motor vehicles other than passen-
ger cars will be referred to as "non-car tires"
throughout the rest of this preamble.)
Regulations issued under the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act expressly prohibit
the presence of the DOT symbol on tires not sub-
ject to a Federal safety standard. 49 CFR Part 574,
Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, provides,
in pertinent part: "The DOT symbol shall not ap-
pear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard is applicable ..." (574.5). Since
retreaded non-car tires are the only new or
retreaded tires not subject to a Federal safety
standard, they are the only tires subject to that
prohibition.
NHTSA adopted the language in § 574.5 because
of its concern that the appearance of the DOT sym-
bol on tires to which no safety standard was ap-
plicable would confuse consumers. That is,
NHTSA believed that consumers could mistakenly
conclude that the tires in question met some ap-
plicable Federal requirements, when, in fact, there
were no such requirements.
However, although the agency's concern in
adopting the prohibition in § 574.5 was with the
addition of a DOT symbol to a tire that was not
subject to any Federal safety standard, the
language of the prohibition was broader. It did not
simply state that manufacturers cannot add the
DOT symbol to tires to which no Federal safety
standard is applicable. It stated that the DOT sym-
bol "shall not appear" on such tires. The breadth of
that language gave rise to a duty not only to re-
frain from adding a DOT symbol to tires to which
no safety standard was applicable, but also to
remove an original manufacturer's symbol when,
as in the case of retreaded non-car tires, the tires
were subject to a safety standard when new but
are not subject to any standard when retreaded.
PART 574 -PRE 37
In no other circumstances under the Safety Act,
such as in the remanufacturing of a vehicle, is a
person required to remove a previous manufac-
turer's certification. Additionally, the agency
learned that most non-car tire retreaders had not
been removing the original manufacturer's DOT
symbol.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that there was no
safety or informational value associated with the
requirement that non-car tire retreaders remove
the original manufacturer's DOT symbol. Accord-
ingly, the agency published a notice of proposed
rulemaking on this subject at 49 FR 20880, May 17,
1984. That notice explained in detail the origins of
the prohibition in § 574.5, and the bases for the
agency's tentative conclusions that no safety or in-
formational purposes were served by the require-
ment that retreaders of non-car tires remove the
original manufacturer's DOT symbol from the side-
wall of the tire. Further, the notice noted that
although NHTSA had received over 10,000 con-
sumer complaints regarding non-car tires since
1976, not one of those complaints related to the
presence or absence of the DOT symbol on a re-
treaded non-car tire. The hypothetical consumer
confusion which NHTSA thought might occur has
in fact not occurred with respect to retreaded non-
car tires. Accordingly, NHTSA proposed that the
prohibition in § 574.5 be replaced by language
which would give non-car tire retreaders the op-
tion of removing the original manufacturer's DOT
symbol or leaving it on the finished retread, while
emphasizing the those retreaders were still pro-
hibited from adding a new DOT symbol to the side-
wall of retreaded non-car tires.
Three commenters responded to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. All three supported the
agency's proposal to eliminate the requirement
that non-car tire retreaders remove the original
manufacturer's DOT symbol. One of the com-
menters suggested that the agency move beyond
its proposed option for these retreaders to remove
or not remove the original manufacturer's DOT
symbol, and instead require that any non-car tires
with a DOT symbol on the sidewall retain that
DOT symbol after the retreading is completed.
The agency has not been persuaded by this com-
ment, for the reasons expressed in the proposal.
To repeat, the value of the DOT symbol on a worn
tire carcass in assessing the probable performance
capabilities of a retreaded tire is not very signifi-
cant. Intervening factors, such as latent problems
with the carcass, inadvertent damage to the car-
cass during the retreading process, the amount of
old tread not buffed off during the retreading, and
the application and design of the new tread are of
far greater significance in determining the per-
formance of the retread than is the condition of the
carcass when the tire was new. Those retreaders
which choose to retain the original manufacturer's
DOT symbol on the sidewall are free to do so, and
those retreaders which choose to remove the
original manufacturer's DOT symbol are also free
to do so, since NHTSA has concluded that the sym-
bol has so little significance for purchasers of
retreaded non-car tires. Hence, the proposed
change to the language in § 574.5 is hereby
adopted, for the reasons set forth in the proposal.
NHTSA has analyzed this rule and determined
that it is neither "major" within the meaning of
Executive Order 12291 nor "significant" within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. The impact of
this rule is simply to authorize a practice which
has been followed by most non-car tire retreaders
for the last 7 years (i.e., not removing the original
manufacturer's DOT symbol). No additional paper-
work or costs will be imposed as a result of this
rule. No cost savings are expected, either, since
this rule merely authorizes existing practices.
Since the impacts associated with the rule are so
minimal, a full regulatory evaluation has not been
prepared.
NHTSA has also analyzed this rule in accord-
ance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on
that analysis, I certify that this amendment will
not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule
does not impose any additional burden on tire
retreaders, because it merely authorizes a practice
most of them have followed, i.e., leaving the
original manufacturer's DOT symbol on the side-
wall of the finished retread. Those retreaders
which have not followed that practice will be able
to reduce their costs slightly by leaving that sym-
bol on the sidewall, if they choose. Small organiza-
tions and small governmental jurisdictions which
purchase retreaded non-car tires will not be af-
fected by this rule. To the extent that this rule
might produce some cost savings for the re-
treaders by allowing them not to buff off the ori-
ginal manufacturer's DOT symbol, those savings
are already reflected in the prices charged for
most retreaded non-car tires. Hence, no significant
PART 574 -PRE 38
; (
savings are expected for small entities as a result
of this rule. A full Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
has not been prepared for this rule.
Finally, the agency has considered the en-
vironmental implications of this rule in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act and
determined that this rule will have no effect on the
human environment.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 49 CFR PART 574:
Labeling, motor-vehicle safety, motor vehicles,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements, rub-
ber and rubber products, tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR § 574.5
is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
574.5 Tire identification requirements.
Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously
label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures,
except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage-
contract purchasers, by permanently molding into
or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location
specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number
containing the information set forth in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section. Each tire retreader,
except tire retreaders who retread tires solely for
their own use, shall conspicuously label one side-
wall of each tire it retreads by permanently
molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, in
the manner and location specified in Figure 2, a
tire identification number containing the informa-
tion set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section. In addition, the DOT symbol required by
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards shall be
located as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The DOT sym-
bol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable, ex-
cept that the DOT symbol on tires for use on motor
vehicles other than passenger cars may, prior to
retreading, be removed from the sidewall or al-
lowed to remain on the sidewall, at the retreader's
option. The symbols to be used in the tire iden-
tification number for tire manufacturers and
retreaders are; "A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K, L, M, N,
P, R, T, U. V, W, X, Y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0." Tires
manufactured or retreaded exclusively for
mileage-contract purchasers are not required to
contain a tire identification number if the tire con-
tains the phrase "for mileage contract use only"
permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall
in lettering at least V4 inch high.
m * * * *
Issued on January 10, 1985.
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
50 FR 2287
January 16, 1985
PART 574-PRE 39-40
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 574
Tire Code Marks Assigned to New Tire Manufacturers
ACTION: Publication of tire code marks assigned
to new tire manufacturers.
SUMMARY: The agency first published a complete
listing of the tire code marks assigned to new tire
manufacturers in 1972. The second publication of
this listing in June 1983 added an additional 150
code marks. Since that last publication, there have
been several additions and changes in names and
addresses for the assigned code marks. This
publication will inform the public of those addi-
tions and changes as reported to the agency.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
574.5 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, re-
quires tire manufacturers to mold a tire identifica-
tion number into or onto the sidewall of each tire
they manufacture. In the case of new tires, the
first two digits of the tire identification number
are the code mark assigned to the manufacturer.
This code mark identifies the tire manufacturer
and the plant where the tire was manufactured.
The NHTSA first published a complete listing of
the tire codes at 37 FR 342, January 11, 1972. This
list enables interested members of the public to
identify the manufacturer and place of manufac-
ture of any new tire. The NHTSA published an up-
dating of the tire codes at 48 FR 27635, June 16,
1983, adding some 150 additional code marks
assigned to new tire manufacturers since the 1972
publication.
This update listing of the assigned code marks
for new tire manufacturers is being published to
bring the public up to date with the revisions and
new code numbers which have been assigned since
the publication of the 1983 list.
Issued on March 11, 1985.
Barry Felrice
Associate Administrator
for Rulemaking
50 FR 10880
March 18, 1985
PART 574-PRE 41-42
ADDITIONAL TIRE CODES ASSIGNED
New Tire Manufacturers
M8 Premier Tyres Limited, Kalamassery, Kerala State, India
Y8 Bombay Tyres International Limited, Hay Bunder Road, Bombay, Maharaslitra, India 400 033
C9 Seven Star Rubber Company, Ltd., 2-1 Chang-Swei Road, Pin-Tou Hsiang, Chang-Hua,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
F9 Dunlop New Zealand, Limited, P.O. Box 40343, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
H9 Reifen-Berg, 5000 Koln 80 (Mulheim), Clevischer Ring 134, West Germany
J9 P.T. Intirub, 454 Cililitan, P.O. Box 2626, Besar, Jakarta, Indonesia
K9 Natier Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., 557, Shan Ctiiao Road, Sec. 1, Shetou, Changhua, Taiwan,
R.O.C. 511
M9 Uniroyal Tire Corporation, Uniroyal Research Center, Middlebury, CT 06749
N9 Cia Pneus Tropical, Km105/BR, 324, Centro Industrial Desubae 44100, Feira de Santana,
Bahia, Brazil
P9 MRF, Ltd., P.B. No. 1 Ponda, Goa 403 401, India
T9 MRF, Ltd., Thiruthani Road, Ichiputhur 631 060, Arl<onam, India
U9 Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, 1689 South Green Street, Tupelo, MS 38801
V9 M & R Tire Co., 309 Main Street, Watertown, MA 02172
Reported Name Change
New Tire Manufacturers
Code Old Name
AA General Tire & Rubber Co.
One General Street
Akron, Ohio 44329
BB B.F. Goodrich Tire Company
5400 E. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90022
LK Uniroyal Croyden, S.A.
Carrera 7A, No. 22-1
Call, Colombia
WT Madras Rubber Factory, Ltd.
175/1 Mount Road
Madras, India
H2 Sam Yang Tire Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Song Jung Eup
Junnam, Korea
New Name
GenCorp Inc.
One General Street
Akron, OH 44329
B.F. Goodrich Tire Company
Department 6517
P.O. Box 31
Miami, OK 74354
Productora Nacional de Llantas, S.A.
Carrera 7A, No. 22-1
Call, Colombia
Madras Rubber Factory, Ltd.
Tiruvottiyur High Road
Madras 600 019 India
Kumho & Co., Inc.
555 Sochon-Ri
Songjung-Eup
Kwangsan-Kun
Chonnam, Korea
PART 574-PRE 43
MISCELLANEOUS NEW TIRE MANUFACTURERS TRANSACTIONS
As Reported to NHTSA
Manufacturer
Code
Armstrong Rubber Company
CE
Bridgestone Tire Company
LH
Ceat, S.p.A.
HU
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
U9
Dayton Tire & Rubber Company
DC
Dunlop Olympic Tyres
DT,DU,WM,W4
Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.
DF, DH,DJ,DP,V\
ditto
DT, DU, WM W^
ditto
DC
Firestone Tire & Rubber
DC
ditto
VV
General Tire & Rubber Company
B.F. Goodrich Company
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
Nitto Tire Company, Ltd.
Olympic Tire & Rubber Co., Pty.,
Ltd.
ditto
Remark
Plant closed 4/3/81
Purchased from UNIROYAL as of 6/13/82
Sold to Pirelli Tire Corp. in May 1984
Purchased from Pennsylvania Tire &
Rubber on 1/25/84
Purchased from Dunlop on 11/1/75
Merger of Dunlop and Olympic on
4/29/81
LV
BJ
BK
BM
BN
BP
N3
WM, W4
WN
4/29/81
Plant sold to Firestone T&R on 11/1/75
Purchased from Dunlop T&R on 11/1/75
Plant sold to Viskafors Gummifabrik
in April 1980
Purchased from Mansfield-Denman
on 11/30/78
Plant sold 12/79
Plant sold 1/80
Plant sold to Olympic in 7/75
Plant sold 8/81
Plant sold 5/78
Plant sold to Ryoto Tire Co., Ltd., on
1/23/80
Sold to Dunlop Olympic on 4/29/81
Plant closed in 1978
PART 574-PRE 44
MISCELLANEOUS NEW TIRE MANUFACTURERS TRANSACTIONS
As Reported to NHTSA
(Continued)
Manufacturer
Pennsylvania Tire & Rubber of
Mississippi
Pirelli Tire Corporation
Ryoto Tire Company
SAMYAND Tire, Inc.
UNIROYAL, Inc.
Viskafors Gummifabrik AB
Code
WK
HU
N3
XU
LH
VV
Remark
Plant sold to Cooper T&R on 1/24/84
Plant purchased from Ceat, 8. p. A. in
May 1984
Plant purchased from Nitto Tire
Company on 1/23/80
Plant closed in 1976
Plant sold to Bridgestone Tire Company
on 6/13/82
Plant purchased from Firestone T&R in
April 1980
PART 574-PRE 45-46
PART 574-TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDKEEPING
Sec.
574.1 Scope.
574.2 Purpose.
574.3 Definitions.
574.4 Applicability.
574.5 Tire identification requirements.
574.6 Identification mark.
574.7 Information requirements— tire manufac-
turers, brand name owners, retreaders.
574.8 Information requirements— tire distribu-
tors and dealers.
574.9 Requirements for motor vehicle dealers.
574.10 Requirements for motor vehicle manufac-
turers.
§ 574.1 Scope.
This part sets forth the method by which new
tire manufacturers and new tire brand name
owners shall identify tires for use on motor
vehicles and maintain records of tire purchasers,
and the method by which retreaders and retreaded
tire brand name owners shall identify tires for use
on motor vehicles. This part also sets forth the
methods by which independent tire dealers and
distributors shall record, on registration forms,
their names and addresses and the identification
number of the tires sold to tire purchasers and pro-
vide the forms to the purchasers, so that the pur-
chasers may report their names to the new tire
manufacturers and new tire brand name owners,
and by which other tire dealers and distributors
shall record and report the names of tire pur-
chasers to the new tire manufacturers and new tire
brand name owners.
§ 574.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to facilitate notifica-
tion to purchasers of defective or nonconforming
tires, pursuant to sections 151 and 152 of the Na-
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1411 and 1412)
(Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 5)
(hereafter the Act), so that they may take ap-
propriate action in the interest of motor vehicle
safety.
§ 574.3 Definitions.
(a) Statutory definitions. All terms in this part
that are defined in section 102 of the Act are used
as defined therein.
(b) Motor vehicle safety standard definitions.
Unless otherwise indicated, all terms used in this
part that are defined in the Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, part 571 of this subchapter (hereinafter
the Standards), are used as defined therein.
(c) Definitions used in this part. (1) "Mileage
contract purchaser" means a person who pur-
chases or leases tire use on a mileage basis.
1(2)1 "Independent" means, with respect to a
tire distributor or dealer, one whose business is
not owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer
or brand name owner.
[(3)1 "New tire brand name owner" means a
person, other than a new tire manufacturer, who
owns or has the right to control the brand name
of a new tire or a person who licenses another to
purchase new tires from a new tire manufacturer
bearing the licensor's brand name.
[(4)1 "Retreaded tire brand name owner"
means a person, other than a retreader, who
owns or has the right to control the brand name
of a retreaded tire or a person who licenses
another to purchase retreaded tires from a
retreader bearing the licensor's brand name.
[(5)1 "Tire purchaser" means a person who
buys or leases a new tire, or who buys or leases
for 60 days or more a motor vehicle containing a
new tire for purposes other than resale.
§ 574.4 Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers, brand
name owners, retreaders, distributors, and deal-
(Rev. 3/25/84)
PART 574-1
ers of new and retreaded tires for use on motor
vehicles manufactured after 1948 and to manufac-
turers and dealers of motor vehicles manufactured
after 1948. However, it does not apply to persons
who retread tires solely for their own use.
§ 574.5 Tire identification requirements.
[Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously
label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures,
except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage-
contract purchasers, by permanently molding into
or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location
specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number
containing the information set forth in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section. Each tire retreader,
except tire retreaders who retread tires solely for
their own use, shall conspicuously label one
sidewall of each tire it retreads by permanently
molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, in
the manner and location specified in Figure 2, a
tire identification number containing the informa-
tion set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section. In addition, the DOT symbol required by
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards shall be
located as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The DOT sym-
bol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable, ex-
cept that the DOT symbol on tires for use on motor
vehicles other than passenger cars may, prior to
retreading, be removed from the sidewall or al-
lowed to remain on the sidewall, at the retreader's
option. The symbols to be used in the tire iden-
tification number for tire manufacturers and
retreaders, are: "A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K, L, M,
N, P, R, T, U, V, W, X, Y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0."
Tires manufactured or retreaded exclusively for
mileage-contract purchasers are not required to
contain a tire identification number if the tire con-
tains the phrase "for mileage contract use only"
permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall
in lettering at least one-quarter inch high. (50 F.R.
2288-January 16, 1985. Effective: February 15,
1985)1
(a) First grouping. The first group, of two or
three symbols, depending on whether the tire is
new or retreaded, shall represent the manufac-
turer's assigned identification mark (see § 574.6).
(b) Second grouping. For new tires, the second
group, of no more than two symbols, shall be used
to identify the tire size. For retreaded tires, the
second group, of no more than two symbols, shall
identify the retread matrix in which the tire was
processed or a tire size code if a matrix was not
used to process the retreaded tire. Each new tire
manufacturer and retreader shall maintain a
record of each symbol used, with the correspond-
ing matrix or tire size and shall provide such record
to NHTSA upon written request.
(c) Third grouping. The third group, consisting
of no more than four symbols, may be used at the
option of the manufacturer or retreader as a
descriptive code for the purpose of identifying
significant characteristics of the tire. However, if
the tire is manufactured for a brand name owner,
one of the functions of the third grouping shall be
to identify the brand name owner. Each manufac-
turer or retreader who uses the third grouping
shall maintain a detailed record of any descriptive
or brand name owner code used, which shall be
provided to the Bureau upon written request.
(d) Fourth grouping. The fourth group, of three
symbols, shall identify the week and year of
manufacture. The first two symbols shall identify
the week of the year using "01" for the first full
calendar week in each year. The final week of each
year may include not more than 6 days of the
following year. The third symbol shall identify the
year. (Example: 311 means the 31st week of 1971,
or Aug. 1 through 7, 1971; 012 means the first
week of 1972, or Jan. 2 through 8, 1972.) The sym-
bols signifying the date of manufacture shall im-
mediately follow the optional descriptive code
(paragraph (c) of this section). If no optional
descriptive code is used the symbols signifying the
date of manufacture shall be placed in the area
shown in Figures 1 and 2 for the optional descrip-
tive code.
§ 574.6 Identification marl(.
To obtain the identification mark required by
§ 574.5(a), each manufacturer of new or retreaded
motor vehicle tires shall apply after November 30,
1970, in writing to Tire Identification and Record-
keeping, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20590, identify himself as a
manufacturer of new tires or retreaded tires, and
furnish the following information:
(a) The name, or other designation identifying
the applicant, and his main office address.
(Rev. 1/16/85)
PART 574-2
(b) The name, or other identifying designation,
of each individual plant operated by the manufac-
turer and the address of each plant, if applicable.
(c) The type of tires manufactured at each plant,
e.g., passenger car tires, bus tires, truck tires,
motorcycle tires, or retreaded tires.
3. Section 574.7 is revised to read as follows:
§ 574.7 Information requirements— new tire manu-
facturers, new tire brand name owners.
(a) (1) Each new tire manufacturer and each
new tire brand name owner (hereinafter referred
to in this section and § 574.8 as "tire manufac-
turer") or its designee, shall provide tire registra-
tion forms to every distributor and dealer of its
tires which offers new tires for sale or lease to tire
purchasers.
r
TIRE IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER
SPACING-,
1/4" MIN I
3/4" MAXl ,,[
OPTION 1
REF SYMBOL
I DATE OF MANUFACTURE
TIRE SIZE
TIRE TYPE CODE
MANUFACTURER'S (OPTIONALI
IDENTIFICATION MARK
OPTION 2
TIRE IDENTIFICATION
•NUMBER ■
SPACING-,
1/4" MIN
3/4" MAxJi
(2) Each tire registration form provided to
independent distributors and dealers pursuant
to paragraph (a) (1) of this section shall contain
space for recording the information specified
in paragraphs (a) ((4)1 (A) through (a) [(4)1 (C)
of this section and shall conform in content
and format to Figures 3a and 3b. Each form
shall be:
[(a) Rectangular;
(b) Not less than .007 inches thick;
(c) Greater than 3V2 inches, but not
greater than G'/s inches wide; and
(d)l Greater than 5 inches, but not greater
than (61 inches long.
((3)1 Each tire registration form provided to
distributors and dealers, other than independent
distributors and dealers, pursuant to paragraph
(a) (1) of this section shall be similar in format and
size to Figure 4 and shall contain space for
Notes:
1 . Tire identification number shall
be in Futura Bold, Modified
Condensed or Gothic characters
permanently molded (0.020 to
0.040" deep, measured from the
surface immediately surrounding
characters! into or onto tire at
indicated location on one side.
(See Note 4)
2. Groups of symbols in the identification
number shall be in the order indicated.
Deviation from the straight line arrange
ment shown will be permitted if required
to conform to the curvature of the tire
3. When Tire Type Code is omitted, or par
tially used, place Date of Manufacture in
the unused area
4 Other print type will be permit
ted if approved by the administration.
SPACING
1/4" MIN
3/4" MAX
-X
ABOVE, BELOW OR TO THE LEFT P^r^T
OR RIGHT OF TIRE IDENTIFICATION U U I
NUMBER
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
•5/32" LETTERING FOR TIRES OF LESS THAN
6.00 INCH CROSS SECTION WIDTH AS WELL AS
THOSE LESS THAN 13" BEAD DIAMETER MAY BE
USED
FIGURE 1 -IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR NEW TIRES
(Rev. 3/25/84)
PART 574-3
SPACING
1/4" MIN
3/4" MAX
OPTION 1
^'
TIRE IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER
^r
REF MVSS
No 117, S6.1
DOT-R XXX XX XXX XXX
MANUFACTURER'S
IDENTIFICATION
MARK
TIRE SIZE
TIRE
TYPE CODE
(OPTIONAL)
DATE OF
MANUFACTURE
*USE 5/32" LETTERING FOR TIRES OF LESS
THAN 6.00 INCH CROSS SECTION WIDTH AS
WELL AS THOSE LESS THAN 13" BEAD DIAMETER
LOCATE
TIRE IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER IN THIS AREA
BUT NOT ON THE
SCUFF RIB(S).
NOTES:
SPACING
1/4" MIN
3/4" MAX
OPTION 2
TIRE IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER
SPACING
1/4" MIN ■
3/4" MAX
XXXXX XXX XXX
T" DOT-R
ABOVE, BELOW OR TO THE LEFT
OR RIGHT OF TIRE IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER.
Tire identification number shall be in "Future
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 in the order indicated. Deviation
from the straight line arrangement shown will
be permitted if required to conform to the
curvature of the tire.
When Tire Type Code is omitted, or partially
used, place Date of Manufacture in the unused
area.
Other print type will be permitted if approved
by the Administration.
FIGURE 2-IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR RETREADED TIRES
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
OTY
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11
CUSTOMER'S NAME (Please Print)
CUSTOMERS ADDRESS
OTV STATE aPCOOE
NAME OF DEALER WHICH SOLO TIflE
DEALERS AOPraSS
10%
Screen
Tint
A Preprinted tire manufacturer's name— unless the manufacturer's
name appears on reverse side of the form.
Fig. 3a— Registration form for independent distributors and dealers-
tire identification number side
Affix a
postcard
stamp
Name and address of
tire manufacturer or
Its designee
(Preprinted)
Fig. 3b— Registration form for independent distributors and dealers-
address side
(Rev. 2/8/84)
PART 574-5
h
7 3/8" t 1/8"
/ IMPORTANT FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES
' TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS MUST
BE REGISTERED
IPLEASE PRINT!
RETU
=1N TO
(D
CUSTOMERS NAME
ADDRESS
QTV
TIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 1
1
-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
SELLERS NAME AND/OR MANUFACTURER SELLER NUMBER
ADDRESS
MINI
_J
CITY STATE ZIP
(a) PREPRINTED TIRE MANUFACTURERS'
LOGO OR OTHER IDENTIFICATION
AND MAILING ADDRESS
(B) MICROFILM NUMBER
LOCATION IF NECESSARY
A-B AREAS TO SUIT TIRE
MANUFACTURERS
REQUIREMENTS
Fig. 4— UNIVERSAL FORMAT
recording the information specified in
paragraphs (a) [(4)1 (A) through (a) ((4)1 (C) of
this section.
[(4)1 (A) Name and address of the tire pur-
chaser.
(B) Tire identification number.
(C) Name and address of the tire seller or
other means by which the tire manufacturer
can identify the tire seller.
(b) Each tire manufacturer shall record and
maintain, or have recorded and maintained for it
by a designee, the information from registration
forms which are submitted to it or its designee. No
tire manufacturer shall use the information on the
registration forms for any commercial purpose
detrimental to tire distributors and dealers. Any
tire manufacturer to which registration 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 purchasers, 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 in-
dependent 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 or its
designee, and the total number of tires sold by the
manufacturer.
(d) The information that is specified in para-
graph (a) [(4)1 of this section and recorded on
registration forms submitted to a tire manufac-
turer 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 manufac-
turer or its designee.
§ 574.8 Information requirements— tire distributors
and dealers.
(a) Independent distributors and dealers. (1)
Each independent distributor and each indepen-
dent dealer selling or leasing new tires to tire pur-
(Rev. 3/25/84)
PART 574-6
chasers or lessors (hereinafter referred to in this
section as "tire purchasers") 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
manufacturers pursuant to § 574.7(a) or regis-
tration forms obtained from another source.
Forms obtained from other sources shall comply
with the requirements specified in § 574.7(a) for
forms provided by tire manufacturers to in-
dependent 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:
(A) The entire tire identification number of
the tire(s) sold or leased to the tire purchaser;
and
(B) The distributor's or dealer's name and
address 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
registration form.
(b) Other distributors and dealers. (1) Each
distributor and each dealer, other than an indepen-
dent distributor or dealer, selling new tires to tire
purchasers shall submit the information specified
in § 574.7(a) [(4)] to the manufacturer of the tires
sold, or to its designee.
(2) Each tire distributor and each dealer, other
than an independent distributor or dealer, shall
submit registration forms containing the infor-
mation specified in § 574.7(a) |(4)1 to the tire
manufacturer, or person maintaining the infor-
mation, not less often than every 30 days. How-
ever, a distributor or dealer which sells less than
40 tires, of all makes, types and sizes during a
30-day period may wait until he or she sells a
total of 40 new tires, but in no event longer than
six months, before forwarding the tire informa-
tion to the respective tire manufacturers or their
designees.
(c) Each distributor and each dealer selling new
tires to other tire distributors or dealers shall sup-
ply to the distributor or dealer a means to record
the information specified in § 574.7(a) [(4)1, unless
such a means has been provided to that distributor
or dealer by another person or by a manufacturer.
(d) Each distributor and each dealer shall im-
mediately stop selling any group of tires when so
directed by a notification issued pursuant to sec-
tions 151 and 152 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 and
1412).
§ 574.9 Requirements for motor vehicle dealers.
(a) Each motor vehicle dealer who sells a used
motor vehicle for purposes other than resale, or
who leases a motor vehicle for more than 60 days,
that is equipped with new tires or newly retreaded
tires is considered, for purposes of this part, to be a
tire dealer and shall meet the requirements speci-
fied in S 574.8.
(b) Each person selling a new motor vehicle to
first purchasers for purposes other than resale,
that is equipped with tires that were not on the
motor vehicle when shipped by the vehicle manu-
facturer is considered a tire dealer for purposes of
this part and shall meet the requirements specified
in § 574.8,
§ 574.10 Requirements for motor vehicle manufac-
turers.
Each motor vehicle manufacturer, or his desig-
nee, shall maintain a record of tires on or in each
vehicle shipped by him to a motor vehicle distribu-
tor or dealer, and shall maintain a record of the
name and address of the first purchaser for pur-
poses other than resale of each vehicle equipped
with such tires. These records shall be maintained
for a period of not less than three years from the
date of sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser for
purposes other than resale.
Interpretation
Under section 113(f) of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(f)) and
Part 574, it is the tire manufacturer who has the
ultimate responsibility for maintaining the records
of first purchasers. Therefore, it is the tire
manufacturer or his designee who must maintain
these records. The term "designee," as used in the
regulation, was not intended to preclude multiple
designees; if the tire manufacturer desires, he may
designate more than one person to maintain the re-
quired information. Furthermore, neither the Act
nor the regulation prohibits the distributor or
dealer from being the manufacturer's designee,
nor do they prohibit a distributor or dealer from
selecting someone to be the manufacturer's
designee provided the manufacturer approves of
the selection.
(R«v. 3/25/84)
PART 574-7
With respect to the possibility of manufac- 36 F.R. 4783
turers using the maintained information to the March 12, 1971
detriment of a distributor or dealer, NHTSA
will of course investigate claims by distributors ^® ^■"- ''3757
or dealers of alleged misconduct and, if the ^^ '
maintained information is being misused, take 36 F.R. 16510
appropriate action. August 21, 1971
PART 574-8
PREAMBLE TO TIRE CODE MARKS ASSIGNED TO NEW TIRE MANUFACTURERS
The purpose of this notice is to publish the
code numbers assigned to new-tire manufacturers
imder the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
Regulation, 49 CFR Part 574 (36 F.R. 1196).
The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
Regulation (hereafter Part 574) requires that
new .tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, be
marked with a two-symbol manufacturer's code,
and that retreaded tires be marked with a three-
symbol manufacturer's code. The manufactur-
er's code is the first grouping within the tire
identification number (after the symbol "DOT"
or "R" where required).
Under Part 574 a separate code number is
assigned to each manufacturer's plant. Table 1
of the notice lists the code numbers assigned and
the manufacturer that received each code num-
ber. Table 2 lists the same information by
manufacturer. Codes assigned to retreaders will
be available for inspection in the Docket Section,
Room 5217, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,
D.C. 20590.
The codes assigned to new-tire manufacturers
replace the three-digit code numbers required on
new brand-name passenger car tires manufac-
tured prior to May 22, 1971, under Standard No.
109. (The list of numbers assigned under
Standard No. 109 was published in the Federal
Register of July 2, 1968, 34 F.R. 11158.)
Issued on April 14, 1971.
Rodolfo A. Diaz,
Acting Associate Administrator,
Motor Vehicle Programs.
36 F.R. 7539
April 21, 1971
PART 574; (TIRE CODE)— PRE 1-2
PREAMBLE TO TIRE SIZE CODES
The purpose of this notice is to publish an
updated list of tire size codes assigned by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
in accordance with the Tire Identification and
Record Keeping regulation, 49 CFR Part 574
(36F.R. 1196).
The Tire Identification and Record Keeping
regulation requires that a tire identification num-
ber be placed on new and retreaded tires, and
that the second grouping of the number be a
code that identifies the tire size or, in the case
of a retreaded tire, the tire matrix. New tire
manufacturers have up to now been required to
use a specific tire size code assigned to the tire
size by the NHTSA. Because of the number of
new tire sizes being introduced into the market,
the possible combinations of letters and numbers
have been virtually exhausted.
In order to accommodate new tire sizes the
regulation is being amended by notice published
elsewhere in this issue (37 F.R. 23727), to allow
each tire manufacturer to assign a two-symbol
size code of his own choice, rather than having ,
the number assigned by the agency. However,
it is urged that manufacturers maintain the as-
signed tire size code for existing tire sizes, and
that they reuse obsolete tire size codes for new
sizes wherever possible.
For convenience of reference, an updated list
of the tire size codes assigned by the NHTSA is
published below for the information and guid-
ance of tire manufacturers.
This notice is issued under the authority of
sections 103, 113, 119, 201 and 1402, 1407, 1421
and 1426; and the delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.51 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued on October 26, 1972.
Robert L. Carter
Associate Administrator
Motor Vehicle Programs
38 F.R. 23742
Novembers, 1972
PART 574; (TIRE CODE)— PRE 3-4
Table 1. List of Alpha-Numeric Code Assignments to New Tire Manufacturers
(Based on the following Alpha-numeric code with letters: ABCDEFHJKLMNPTUVWXY
and Nos. 123456789)
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
AA The General Tire Co.
AB The General Tire Co.
AC The General Tire Co.
AD The General Tire Co.
AE The General Tire Co. (Spain).
AF The General Tire Co. (Portugal).
AH The General Tire Co. (Mexico).
AJ Uniroyal, Inc.
AK Uniroyal, Inc.
AL Uniroyal, Inc.
AM Uniroyal, Inc.
AN Uniroyal, Inc.
AP Uniroyal, Inc.
AT Avon Rubber Co. (England).
AU Uniroyal, Ltd. (Canada).
AV The Sieberling Tire & Rubber Co.
AW Samson Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. Gsrael).
AX Phoenix Gummiwerke A.G. (Germany).
AY Phoenix Gummiwerke A.G. (Germany).
Al Manufacture Francaise Pneumatiques Michelin,
Poitiers, France.
A2 Lee Tire & Rubber Co., Anhanguera Highway,
Kilometer 128, Sao Paulo, Brasil.
A3 General Tire & Rubber Co., Mount Vernon,
Illinois 62864.
A4 Hung-A Industrial Co., Ltd., 42 JyonPo-Dong
Pusanjin-Ku, Pusan, Korea.
A5 Debickie Zaklady Opon Samochodowych "Stomil,"
Al.l Maja 1, 39-200 Debica, Poland.
A6 Apollo Tires Ltd., Jos. Anne M.C.Road, Cochin
682016, Kerala, India.
A7 Thai Bridgestone Tire Co. Ltd., Tambol Klong-1,
Amphur Klong Luang. Changwad Patoom,
Thani, Thailand.
A8 P.T. Bridgestone Tire Co. Ltd., Desa Harapan
Jaya-BeKasi, Kni27-Jawa Barat, Indonesia.
A9 „„ General Tire & Rubber Co., 927 S. Union, St.,
Bryan, Ohio 44350.
BA The B. F. Goodrich Co.
BB _ The B. F. Goodrich Co.
BC The B. F. Goodrich Co.
BD The B. F. Goodrich Co.
BE The B. F. Goodrich Co.
BF The B. F. Goodrich Co.
BH The B. F. Goodrich Co. (Canada).
BJ The B. F. Goodrich Co. (Germany).
BK The B. F. Goodrich Co. (Brazil).
BL The B. F. Goodrich Co. (Colombia).
BM The B. F. Goodrich Co. (Australia).
BN The B. F. Goodrich Co. (PhUipines).
BP The B. F. Goodrich Co. riran).
BT Semperit Gummiwerke A.G. (Austria).
BU Semperit Gummiwerke A.G. (Ireland).
BV IRI International Rubber Co.
BW_ __ The Gates Rubber Co.
BX The Gates Rubber Co.
BY The Gates Rubber Co.
Bl Manufacture Francaise Pneumatiques Michelin,
LaRoche Sur Yon, France.
B2 Dunlop Malaysian Industries Berhad, Selangor,
Malaysia.
B3 Michelin Tire Mfg. Co. of Canada Ltd., Bridge-
water, Nova Scotia.
B4 Taurus Hungarian Rubber Works, 1965 Budapest,
Kerepesi UT17, Hungary.
B5 Olsztynskie Zaklady Opon Samochodowych
"STOMIL," Al.Zwyciestwa 71, Olsztyn, Poland.
B6_ Michelin Tire Corp., P.O. Box 5049, Spartanburg,
S. Carolina 29304.
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
B7 Michelin Tire Corp., 2306 Industrial Road,
Dothan, Alabama 36301.
B8 Cia Brasiliera de Pneumaticos Michelin Ind.,
Estrada Da Cachamorra 5000, 23000 Campo
Grande, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
B9 Michelin Tire Corp., 2520 Two Notch Road, P.O.
Box 579, Lexington, S. Carolina 29072.
CA The Mohawk Rubber Co.
CB The Mohawk Rubber Co.
CC The Mohawk Rubber Co.
CD Alliance Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. (Israel).
CE The Armstrong Rubber Co.
CF The Armstrong Rubber Co.
CH The Armstrong Rubber Co.
CJ Inoue Rubber Co., Ltd. (Japan).
CK Not assigned.
CL Not assigned.
CM Continental Gummiwerke A.G. (Germany).
CN Continental Gummiwerke A.G. (France).
CP Continental Gummiwerke A.G. (Germany).
CT Continental Gummiwerke A.G. (Germany).
CU Continental Gummiwerke A.G. (Germany).
CV ._ The Armstrong Rubber Co.
CW The Toyo Rubber Industry Co., Ltd. (Japan).
CX ■ The Toyo Rubber Industry Co., Ltd. (Japan).
CY McCreary Tire & Rubber Co.
CI Michelin (Nigeria) Ltd., Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
C2 Kelly Sprinpield Companhia Goodyear Do Brasil,
Km-128 Americana, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
C3 McCreary Tire & Rubber Co., 3901 Clipper Road,
Baltimore, Maryland 21211.
C4 Armstrong Rubber Co., Eagle Bend Industrial
Park, Clinton, Tennessee.
C5. Poznanskie Zaklady Opon Samochodowych
"STOMIL," ul. Starolecka 18, Poznan, Poland.
C6 Mitas NP Praha 10-Zahradni Mesto, Komarovova
1900, Praque, Czechoslovakia.
C7 Ironsides Tire & Rubber Co., 2500 Grassland
Drive, Louisville, Ky 40299.
C8 Bridgestone Hsin Chu Plant, Chung Yi Rubber In-
dustrial Co. Ltd., No. 1 Chuang Ching Road,
Taiwan.
IC9 Seven Star Rubber Company, Ltd, 2-1 Chang-
Swei Road, Pin-Tou Hsiang, Chang-Hua,
Taiwan, R.O.Cl
DA . _ The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.
DB _ The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.
DC The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (Canada).
DD. .. The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (England).
DE . The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (England).
DF _ The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (England).
DH _ The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (Scotland).
DJ The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (Ireland).
DK .. The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (France).
DL _ The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (France).
DM The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (Germany).
DN . __ The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (Germany).
DP The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (England).
DT _ The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (Australia).
DU The Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. (Australia).
DV Vredestein (The Netherlands).
DW Vredestein (The Netherlands).
DX Vredestein Radium (The Netherlands).
DY Denman Rubber Manufacturing Co.
Dl _ _ Viking-Askim-1800 Askim, Norway.
D2 Dayton Tire & Rubber CO., P.O. Box 1000,
La Vergne, Tennessee 37086.
D3 _ United Tire & Rubber Co., Northam Ind. Park
Cobourg, Ontario, Canada K9A 4K2.
(Rev. 1/16/B5)
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-1
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
D4 Dunlop India Ltd., P.O. Box Sahaganj, Dist.
Hooghly, West Bengal, India.
D5 Dunlop India Ltd., Ambattur, Madra&«00053, India.
D6 Borovo, Ygoslavenski Kombinat Gume i Obose,
Borovo, Yugoslavia.
D7 Dunlop South Africa Ltd., Ladvsmith plant 151,
Helpmekaar Road, Danskraal Ind. sites, Rep. of
S Africa
D8 Dunlop South Africa Ltd., Durban Plant 265,
Sydney Road, 4001 Durban, Rep. of S. Africa.
D9 United Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., 275 Belfield
Road, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, M9 W 5C6.
EA . . Metzeler A.G. (Germany).
EB Metzeler A.G. (Germany).
EC Metzeler A.G. (Germany).
ED Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd. (Japan).
EE Nitto Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan).
EF Hung Ah Tire Co., Ltd. (Korea).
EH Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan).
EJ Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan).
EK Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan).
EL Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan).
EM Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan).
EN Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan).
EP Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. (Japan).
ET Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. (Japan).
EU Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. (Japan).
EV Kleber-Colombes Co. (France).
EW Kleber-Colombes Co. (France).
EX Kleber-Colombes Co. (France).
EY Kleber-Colombes Co. (France).
El Chung Hsin Industrial Co. Ltd., Taichong Hsin,
Taiwan.
E2 Industria de Pneumatico Firestone SA, Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
E3 Seiberling Tire & Rubber Co., P.O. Box 1000,
La Vergne, Tennessee 37086.
E4 Firestone of New Zealand, Papanuvi, Christ
Church 5, New Zealand.
E5 Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd., P.O. Box 992,
Port Elizabeth 6000, S. Africa.
E6 Firestone Tunisie SA, Boite Postale 55, Menzel-
Bourguiba, Tunisia.
E7 Firestone East Africa Ltd., P.O. Box 30429,
Nairobi, Kenya.
E8 Firestone Ghana Ltd., P.O. Box 5758, Accra,
Ghana.
E9 Firestone South Africa (Pty), P.O. Box 496, Brits
0250, South Africa.
FA The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. (Japan).
FB The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. (Japan).
FC The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. (Japan).
FD The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. (Japan).
FE The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. (Japan).
FF Michelin Tire Corp. (France).
FH Michelin Tire Corp. (France).
FJ Michelin Tire (iorp. (France).
FK Michelin Tire Corp. (France).
FL Michelin Tire (jorp. (France).
FM Michelin Tire Corp. (France).
FN Michelin Tire Corp. (France).
FP Michelin Tire Corp. (Algeria).
FT Michelin Tire (iorp. (Germany).
FU Michelin Tire Corp. (Germany).
FV Michelin Tire Corp. (Germany).
FW Michelin Tire Corp. (Germany).
FX Michelin Tire Corp. (Belgium).
FY Michelin Tire Corp. (The Netherlands).
Fl Michelin Tyre Co. Ltd., Baldovie Dundee, Scotland.
F2 CA Firestone Venezolana, Valencia, Venezuela.
F3 Manufacture Francaise Des Pneumatic Michelin,
Roanne, P>ance.
F4 Fabrica De Pneus Fapobol, Sari Rua Azevedo
Coutinho 39-1.0, Oporto, Portugal.
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
F5 Fate S.A.I.C.I., Avda Alte Blanco Encalada 3003,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
F6 General Fabrica Espanola (Firestone Owned)
Torrelavega Plant, Spain.
F7 General Fabrica Espanola (Firestone Owned)
Puente San Miguel Plant, Spain.
F8 Vikrant Tyres Ltd., K.R.S. Road, Mysore
(Karnataka State) India.
IF9 Dunlop New Zealand, Limited, P.O. Box 40343,
Upper Hutt, New Zealand|
HA Michelin Tire Corp. (Spain).
KB Michelin Tire Corp. (Spain).
HC Michelin Tire Corp. (Spain).
HD . Michelin Tire Corp. (Italy).
HE Michelin Tire Corp. (Italy).
HF . . Michelin Tire Corp. (Italy).
HH Michelin Tire Corp. (Italy).
HJ Michelin Tire Corp. (United Kingdom).
HK Michelin Tire Corp. (United Kingdom).
HL Michelin Tire Corp. (United Kingdom).
HM Michelin Tire Corp. (United Kingdom).
HN Michelin Tire Corp. (Canada).
HP Michelin Tire Corp. (South Vietnam),
HT CEAT (Italy).
HU CEAT (Italy).
HV CEAT (Italy).
HW Withdrawn.
HX The Dayton Tire & Rubber Co.
HY The Dayton Tire & Rubber Co.
HI De La SAFE Neumaticos Michelin, Valladolid,
Spain.
H2 SamYang Tire Mfg. Co. Ltd., Song Jung Pit.,
Junnam, Korea.
H3 Sava Industrija Gumijevih, 64,000 Kranj, Yugo-
slavia.
H4 Bridgestone-Houfu, Yamaguchi-ken, Japan.
H5 Hutchinson-Mapa, 45120 Chalette Sur Loing,
France.
H6 Shin Hung Rubber Co. Ltd., 156 Sang Pyong-Dong
Junju, Kyung Nam, Korea.
H7 Li Hsin Rubber Industrial Co. Ltd., 42 Yuan Lu
Road, Sec. 1, Taiwan, China.
H8 Firestone, 2600 South Council Road, Oklahoma
City, OK. 73124.
|H9 Reifen-Berg, 5000 Koln 80 (Mulheim), Clevischer
Ring 134, West Germany!
JA The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JB__ The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JC The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JD_ The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JE The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JF The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JH . ,_ The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JJ The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JK ^ _ The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JL The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JM The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JN The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JP The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JT The Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
JU The Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
JV The Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
JW The Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
JX Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
JY Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Argentina).
Jl Phillips Petroleum Co., Bartlesville, OK 74004.
J2 Bridgestone Singapore Co. Ltd., 2 Jurong Port
Road, Jurong Town, Singapore 22, Singapore.
J3 Gumarne Maja, Puchov, Czechoslovakia.
J4 Rubena N.P., Nachod, Czechoslovakia.
J5 Lee Tire & Rubber Co., State Rt. 33, Box 799,
Logan, Ohio 43138.
J6 Jaroslavl Tire Co., Jaroslavl, USSR.
J7 R&J Mfg. Corp., 1420 Stanley Dr., Plymouth,
Indiana 46563.
(Rev. 1f16/85)
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-2
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
J8 DaChung Hua Rubber Ind. Co., Shanghai Tire
Plant, 839 Hanyshan Rd., Shanghai, China.
|J9 P.T. Intirub, 454 Cililitan, P.O. Box 2626, Besar,
Jaltarta, Indonesial
KA Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Australia).
KB Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Australia).
KG Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Brazil).
KD Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Colombia).
KE Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Republic of Congo).
KF Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (France).
KH Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Germany).
KJ Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Germany).
KK Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Greece).
KL Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Guatemala).
KM Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Luxembourg).
KN Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (India).
KP Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Indonesia).
KT Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (\ta.\y).
KU Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Jamaica).
KV Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Mexico).
KW Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Peru).
KX Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Philippines).
KY Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Scotland).
Kl Phillips Petroleum Co., 1501 Commerce Drive,
Stow, Ohio 44224.
K2 Lee Tire & Rubber Co., Madisonville, KY 42431.
K3 Kenda Rubber Industrial Co. Ltd., Yuanlin, Taiwan.
K4 Uniroyal S.A., Queretaro, Qte. Mexico.
K5 VEB Reifenkombinat Furstenwalde, GDR-124
Furstenwalde-Sud, Trankeweg Germany.
K6 Lee Tire & Rubber Co., One Goodyear Blvd.,
Lawton, Qklsihoma.
K7 Lee Tire & Rubber Co., Camino Melipilla KM16,
Maipu Box 3607, Santiago, Chile.
K8 Kelly Springfield Tire Co., Peti Surat 49, Shah,
Alam, Sehngor, Malaysia.
IK9 Natier Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., 557 Shan Chiao
Road, Sec. 1, Shetou, Changhua, Taiwan, R.O.C.
5111
LA Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (South Africa).
LB Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Sweden).
LC Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Thailand).
LD Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Turkey.)
LE Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Venezuela.)
LF Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (England).
LH Uniroyal, Inc. (Australia).
LJ Uniroyal, Inc. (Belgium).
LK Uniroyal, Inc. (Columbia).
LL Uniroyal, Inc. (France).
LM Uniroyal, Inc. (Germany).
LN Uniroyal, Inc. (Mexico).
LP Uniroyal, Inc. (Scotland).
LT Uniroyal, Inc. (Turkey).
LU Uniroyal, Inc. (Venezuela).
LV Mansneld-Denman-General Co., Ltd.
(Canada).
LW Trelleborg Rubber Co., Inc. (Sweden).
LX Mitsuboshi Belting, Ltd. (Japan).
LY Mitsuboshi Belting, Ltd. (Japan).
LI (joodyear Taiwan Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan, Rep. of
China.
L2 Wuon Poong Industrial Co., Ltd., 112-5 Sokong-
Dong, Chung-Ku, Seoul, Korea.
L3 Tong Shin Chemical Products Co., Ltd., Seoul,
Korea.
L4 Cipcmp Intreprinderea De Anvelope, Danubiana,
Romania.
L5 Lassa Lastik Sanayi VeTicaret, A.S. Fabnkas,
Kosekoy, P.K. 250 Izmit, Turkey.
L6 Modi Rubber Limited, Modipurnam Plant, Meerut
UP250110, India.
L7 Cipcmp Intreprinderea De Anvelope, Zalau,
Romania.
L8 Dunlop Zimbabwe Ltd., Donnington, Bulawayo,
Zimbabwe.
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
MA The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MB The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MC The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MD The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
ME The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MF The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MH The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MJ The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MK The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
ML The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MM The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MN The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MP The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MT The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
MU The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Argentina)
MV The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., (Australia)
MW The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Australia).
MX The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Brazil).
MY The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Colombia).
Ml (k)odyear Maroc S.A. Casablanca, Morocco.
M2 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Madisonville, KY 42431.
M3 Michelin Tire Corp., 730 S. Pleasantburg Drive,
Greenville, S. Carolina 29602.
M4 Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co., Logan, Ohio 43138.
M5 Michelin Tire Mfg. Co. of Canada Ltd., P.O. Box
5000, Kentville, Nova Scotia B4NV36.
M6 (Joodyear Tire & Rubber Co., One Goodyear Blvd.,
Lawton, OK 73504.
M7 Goodyear DeChile S.A.I.C. Camino Melipilla
K.M.16 Maipu, P.O. Box 3607, Santiago, Chile.
|M8 Premier Tyres Limited, Kalamassery, Kerala
State, Indial
IM9 Uniroyal Tire Corporation, Uniroyal Research
Center, Middlebury, CT 067491
NA The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Republic
of Congo).
NB The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (England).
NO The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (France).
ND The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Germanv).
NE The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Germany).
NF_.. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Greece).
NH The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
NJ The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Luxem-
bourg).
NK The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Ondia.)
NL The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Indonesia).
NM The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Otaly).
NN The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Jamaica).
NP The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Mexico).
NT The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Peru).
NU The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co (Philippines).
NY The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Scotland).
NW The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (South
Africa).
NX The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Sweden).
NY The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Thailand).
Nl Maloja AG Pneu Und Gummiwerke, Ormalinger-
strasse Gelterkinden, Switzerland, CH 4460.
N2 Hurtubise Nutread, 525 Vickers Street, Tona-
wanda, N.Y. 14150.
N3 Ryoto Tire Co., Ltd., Kuwana Plant, 2400 Arano
Nakagami, Tohin-Cho Inabe-Gun, Mie-ken, Japan.
N4 Cipcmp Intreprinderea De Anvelope, Victoria,
Romania.
N5 Pneumant, VEB Reifenwerk Riesa, Paul-Greifzu-
Strasse 20, 84 Riesa, Germany.
N6 Pneumant VEB Reifenwerk Heidenau Haudtstrass.
44 GDR, 8312 Heidenau, Germany.
N7 Cipcmp Intrepinderea De Anvelope, Caracal,
Romania.
N8 Lee Tire & Rubber Co. (Goodyear, Malaysia Ber-
had), Peti Surat 49, Shah Alam, Selengor,
Malaysia.
(Rev. 1/16/85)
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-3
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
IN9 Cia Pneus Tropical, Kml05/BR, 324, Centre In-
dustrial Desubae 44100, Feira de Santana,
Bahia. Brazil]
PA The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Turkey).
PB The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Venezuela).
PC The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
PD The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
PE The (Joodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
PF The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
PH The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PJ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PK The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PL The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PM The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PN . . The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PP The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PT The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PU The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PV The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PW . . The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PX The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PY _ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
PI Gislaved Gummi Fabriken, 33200 Gislaved, Sweden.
P2 Kelly Springfield, Madisonville, Ky. 42431.
P3 _ Skepplanda Gummi AB, 440-40 Alvangen, Sweden.
P4 Kelly Springfield, Route 33, Logan, Ohio 43138.
P5 General Popo S.A., Central Camionera, Zona In-
dustrial, San Luis Potosi S.L.P., Mexico.
P6 Kelly Springfield Tire Co., One Goodyear Blvd.,
Lawton, OK 73504.
P7 _ Kelly Springfield, Camino Melipilla K.M.16, Maipu,
P.O. Box 3607, Santiago, Chile.
P8 China National (jhemicals Import & Export Corp.,
Shandong Branch, Quingdao 97 Cangtai Rd.,
China.
|P9. MRF, Ltd., P.B. No. 1 Ponda, Goa 403401, India]
TA_ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
TB The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Argentina).
TC ,. The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Australia).
TD The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Australia).
TE The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Brazil).
TF The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Colombia).
TH The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Republic of
Congo).
TJ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (England).
TK The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (France).
TL _ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Germany).
TM _ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Germany).
TN The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Greece).
TP The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Guatemala).
XT The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Luxembourg).
TU __ _ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (India).
TV The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Indonesia).
TW_ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Italy).
TX The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Jamaica).
TY The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Mexico).
Tl Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea.
T2 Ozos (Uniroyal) A.G., Olsztyn, Poland.
T3 Debickie Zattldy C)pon Samochodowych, Stomil,
Debica, Poland (iJniroyal).
T4 S.A. Carideng (Rubber Factory), Jan Rosierlaan
114, B 3760 Lanaken, Belgium.
T5 Tigar Pirot, 18300 Pirot, Yugoslavia.
T6 Hulera Tomel S.A., Sta. Lucia 198 Fracc. Ind.
San Antonio, Mexico, 16, D.F.
T7 Hankook Tire Mfg. Co. Inc., Daejun Plant, 658-1
Sukbong-RI, Daeduk-kun, Choongchung Namdo,
Korea.
T8 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Goodyear Malaysia
Berhad, Peti Surat 49, Shah Alam, Selangor,
Malaysia.
IT9 MRF, Ltd., Thiruthani Road, Ichiputhur 631 060,
Arkonam, India]
UA The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Peru).
UB The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Philippines).
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
UC The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Scotland).
UD The Kelly-Spnngfield Tire Co. (South Africa).
UE _ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Sweden).
UF The Kelly-Soringfield Tire Co. (ThaUand).
UH The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Turkey).
UJ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Venezuela).
UK . The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Canada).
UL The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Canada).
UM The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Canada).
UN _ __ The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. (Canada).
UP .. Copper Tire & Rubber Co.
UT Copper Tire & Rubber Co.
UU Carnsle Tire & Rubber Division of Carlisle
Corp.
UV Kyowa Rubber Industry Co., Ltd. (Japan).
UW Not assigned.
UX Not assigned.
UY . _ Not assigned.
Ul Lien Shin Tire Co. Ltd., 20 Chung Shan Road,
Taipei, Taiwan.
U2 Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd., Shirakawa City,
Fukoshima Pref. Japan (Dunlop).
U3 Miloje Zakic, 3700 Krusevac, Yugoslavia.
U4 _ Geo. Byers Sons, Inc., 46 East Town Street, Co-
lumbus, Ohio 43215.
U5 Farbentabriken Bayer GMBH, D 5090 Leverkusen,
West Germany.
U6 Pneumant-VEB Reifenwerk Dresden, GDR-8040
Dresden, Mannheimer Strasse Germany.
U7 Pneumant-VEB Reifenwerk Neubrandenburg
GDR-20 Neubrandenberg, Germany.
U8 _ Hsin Fung Factory of Nankang Rubber Corp.
Ltd., 399 Hsin Shing Road, Yuan San, Taiwan.
IU9 _ Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, 1689 South
Green Street, Tupelo, MS 38801]
VA The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VB The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VC The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VD The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VE The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VF The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VH The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VJ The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VK The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
VL_ . The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
VM The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
VN The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Canada).
VP The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Italy).
VT The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Spain).
VU _ Withdrawn.
VV The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Sweden).
VW The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Japan).
VX . The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (England).
VY The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (WJes).
VI __ Livingston Tire Shop, North Main Street, Hubbard,
Ohio 44425.
V2 Volzhsky Tire Plant, Volzhsk 404103, USSR.
V3 Tahsin Rubber Tire Co. Ltd., Tuchen Village
Taipei, Hsieng, Taiwan.
V4 Ohtsu Tire & Rubber Co., Miyakonojo City, Miya-
zaki Pref., Japan (Firestone).
V5 Firestone Tire <st Rubber Co., Mexico City, Mexico.
V6 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Cuernavaca, Mexico.
V7 Voronezhsky Tire Plant, Voronezh 494034 USSR.
V8 Boras Gummi Fabrik A.B. Dockvagenl, S502 38
Boras, Sweden (Mac Ripper Tire and Rubber
Company).
|V9 M & R Tire Co., 309 Main Street, Watertown, MA
02172]
WA The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (France).
WB The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Costa Rica).
WC ___ The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Australia).
WD The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
(Switzerland).
(Rev. 1/16/85)
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-4
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
WE __ Withdrawn.
WF The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Spain).
WH _ The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Sweden).
WJ The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Australia).
WK Pennsylvania Tire & Rubber Company
of IVIississippi.
WL _ The Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co.
WM Olympic Tire & Rubber Co. Pty., Ltd.
WN Olympic Tire & Rubber Co Pty., Ltd.
(Australia).
WP Schenuit Industries, Inc.
WT Madras Rubber Factory, Ltd. (India).
WU Not Assigned.
WV Not Assigned.
WW Not Assigned.
WX Not Assigned.
WY Not Assigned.
Wl Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., P.O. Box 1000, La
Vergne, Tennessee 37086.
W2 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Wilson, N. Carolina
27893.
W3 Vredestein Doetinchem B.V., Doetinchem, The
Netherlands (B.F. Goodrich).
W4 Dunlop Tyres, Somerton, Victoria, Australia.
W5 Firestone Argentina SAIC, Antartida, Argentina,
2715 Llavollol, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
W6 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., P.O. Box 1355,
Commerce Center, Makati, Risal, Philippines.
W7 Firestone Portuguesa S.A.R.L., Apartado 3, Alco-
chete, Portugal.
W8 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Ltd., P.O. Box Pra-
kanong 11/118, Bangkok, Thailand.
W9 Industrie De Pneumaticos Firestone S.A., Caixa
Postal 2505, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
XA Pirelli Tire Corp. (Italy).
XB Pirelli Tire Corp. (Italy).
XC Pirelli Tire Corp. (Italy).
XD Pirelli Tire Corp. (Italy).
XE Pirelli Tire Corp. (Italy).
Code No. New Tire Manufacturers
XF Pirelli Tire Corp. (Spain).
XH Pirelli Tire Corp. (Greece).
XJ Pirelli Tire Corp. (Turkey).
XK Pirelli Tire Corp. (Brazil).
XL Pirelli Tire Corp. (Brazil).
XM Pirelli Tire Corp. (Argentina).
XN Pirelli Tire Corp. (England).
XP Pirelli Tire Corp. (England).
XT Veith-Pirelli A.G. (Germany).
XI Tong Shin Chemical Products, Co. Inc., Seoul,
Korea.
X2 Hwa Fong Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd., 45 Futsen Road,
Yuanlin, Taiwan.
X3 Belotserkovsky Tire Plant, Belaya Tserkov,
256414, U.S.S.R.
X4 Pars Tyre Co., (Pirelli), Saveh, Iran.
X5 JK Industries Ltd., Kankroli, Udaipur District,
Rajasthan, India.
X6 Bobruysky Tire Plant, Bobruysk 213824 U.S.S.R.
X7 Chimkentsky Tire Plant, Chimkent 486025 U.S.S.R.
X8 Dnepropetrovsky Tire Plant, Dnepropetrovsk
320033 USSR
X9 Moscovsky Tire' Plant, Moscow 109088 U.S.S.R.
XO Nizhnekamsky Tire Plant, Nishnekamsk 423510
U.S.S.R.
Yl Companhia Goodyear DoBrasil, KM-128 Ameri-
cana, Sao Paulo, Brasil.
Y2 Dayton Tire Co., Wilson, N. Carolina 27893.
Y3 Seiberling Tire & Rubber Co., Wilson, N. Carolina
27893.
Y4 Dayton Tire & Rubber Co., 345- 15th St. S.W.,
Barberton, Ohio (Firestone).
Y5 Tsentai Rubber Factory, 27 Chung Shan Rd., E.I.
Shanghai, China.
Y6 I.T. International Sdn. Bhd., P.O. Box 100 Alor
Setar Kedah, Malaysia.
Y7 Bridgestone Tire Co., (U.S.A.) Ltd., 1-24 Waldron
Dr., La Vergne, Tenn.
IY8 Bombay Tyres International Limited, Hay Bunder
Road, Bombay, Maharashtra, India 400 0331
(Rev. 1/16/85)
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-5
Miscellaneous New Tire Manufacturers Transactions
As Reported to NHTSA
Manufacturer
Armstrong Rubber Company
Bridgestone Tire Company
Ceat, S.p.a.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
Dayton Tire & Rubber Company
Dunlop Olympic Tyres
Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.
ditto
ditto
Firestone Tire & Rubber
ditto
General Tire & Rubber Company
B.F. Goodrich Company
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
Nitto Tire Company, Ltd.
Olympic Tire & Rubber Co., Pty., Ltd.
ditto
Pennsylvania Tire & Rubber of Mississippi
Pirelli Tire Corporation
Ryoto Tire Company
SAMYAND Tire, Inc.
UNIROYAL. Inc.
Viskafors Gummifabrik AB
Code
CE
LH
HU
U9
DC
DT, DU, WM, W4
DF, OH, DJ, DP, WN
DT. DU, WM, W4
DC
DC
VV
LV
BJ
BK
BM
BN
BP
N3
WM, W4
WN
WK
HU
N3
XU
LH
VV
Rermark
Plant closed 4/3/81
Purchased from UNIROYAL as of 6/13/82
Sold to Pirelli Tire Corp. in May 1984
Purchased from Pennsylvania Tire & Rubber on
1/24/84
Purchased from Dunlop on 11/1/75
Merger of Dunlop and Olympic on 4/29/81
Plants closed
Plants sold to Dunlop Olympic on 4/29/81
Plant sold to Firestone T&R on 11/1/75
Purchased from Dunlop T&R on 11/1/75
Plant sold to Viskafors Gummifabrik in April 1980
Purchased from Mansfield-Denman on 1 1/30/78
Plant sold 12/79
Plant sold 1/80
Plant sold to Olympic in 7/75
Plant sold 8/81
Plant sold 5/78
Plant sold to Ryoto Tire Co., Ltd. on 1/23/80
Sold to Dunlop Olympic on 4/29/81
Plant closed in 1978
Plant sold to Cooper T&R on 1/24/84
Plant purchased from Ceat, S.p.a. in May 1984
Plant purchased from Nitto Tire Company on
1/23/80
Plant closed in 1976
Plant sold to Bridgestone Tire Company on
6/13/82
Plant purchased from Firestone T&R in April
1980
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-6
TABLE 3. TIRE SIZE CODES
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
AA 4.00-4
AB 3.50-4
AC 3.00-5
AD 4.00-5
AE 3.50-5
AF 6.90-6
AH 3.00-8
AJ 3.50-6
AK 4.10-6
AL 4.50-6
AM 5.30-6
AN 6.00-6
AP 3.25-8
AT 3.50-8
AU 3.00-7
AV 4.00-7
AW 4.80-7
AX 5.30-7
AY 5.00-8
Al H60-14
A2 4.00-8
A3 4.80-8
A4 5.70-8
A5 16.5X6.5-8
A6 18.5X8.5-8
A7 CR70-14
A8 2.75-9
A9 4.80-9
BA 6.00-9
BB 6.90-9
BC 3.50-9
BD 4.00-10
BE 3.00-10
BF 3.50-lOv
BH 5.20-10
BJ 5.20 R 10
BK 5.9-10
BL 5.90-10
BM 6.50-10
BN 7.00-10
BP 7.50-10
BT 9.00-10
BU 20.5 X 8.0-10
BV 145-10
BW 145 RIO
BX 145-10/5.95-10
BY 4.50-10 LT «
Bl 5.00-10 LT
B2 3.00-12
B3 4.00-12
B4 4.50-12
B5 4.80-12
B6 5.00-12
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
B7 5.00 R 12
B8 5.20-12
B9 5.20-12 LT
CA 5.20 R 12
CB 5.30-12
CC 5.50-12
CD 5.50-12 LT
CE 5.50 R 12
CF 5.60-12
CH 5.60-12 LT
CJ 5.60 R 12
CK 5.9-12
CL 5.90-12
CM 6.00-12
CN 6.00-12 LT
CP 6.2-12
CT 6.20-12
CU 6.90-12
CV 23.5 X 8.5-12
CW 125-12
CX 125 R 12
CY 125-12/5.35-12
CI 135-12
C2 135 R 12
C3 135-12/5.65-12
C4 145-12
C5 145 R 12
C6 145-12/5.95-12
C7 155-12
C8 155 R 12
C9 155-12/6.15-12
DA 4.80-10
DB 3.25-12
DC 3.50-12
DD 4.50-12 LT
DE 5.00-12 LT
DF 7.00-12
DH 5.00-13
DJ 5.00-13 LT
DK 5.00 R 13
DL 5.20-13
DM 5.20 R 13
DN 5.50-13
DP 5.50-13 LT
DT 5.50 R 13
DU 5.60-13
DV 5.60-13 LT
DW 5.60 R 13
DX 5.90-13
DY 5.90-13 LT
Dl 5.90 R 13
D2 6.00-13
D3 6.00-13 LT
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
D4 6.00 R 13
D5 6.2-13
D6 6.20-13
D7 6.40-13
D8 6.40-13 LT
D9 6.40 R 13
EA 6.50-13
EB 6.50-13 LT
EC 6.50-13 ST
ED 6.50 R 13
EE 6.70-13
EF 6.70-13 LT
EH 6.70 R 13
EJ 6.9-13
EK 6.90-13
EL 7.00-13
EM 7.00-13 LT
EN 7.00 R 13
EP 7.25-13
ET 7.25 R 13
EU 7.50-13
EV 135-13
EW 135 R 13
EX 135-13/5.65-13
EY 145-13
El 145 R 13
E2 145-13/5.95-13
E3 150 R 13
E4 155-13
E5 155 R 13
E6 155-13/6.15-13
E7 160 R 13
E8 165-13
E9 165 R 13
FA 165-13/6.45-13
FB 165/70 R 13
FC 170 R 13
FD 175-13
FE 175 R 13
FF 175-13/6.95-13
FH 175/70 R 13
FJ 185-13
FK 185 R 13
FL 185-13/7.35-13
FM 185/70 R 13
FN 195-13
FP 195 R 13
FT 195/70 R 13
FU D70-13
FV B78-13
FW BR78-13
FX C78-13
FY 7.50-12
iThe letters "H", "S", and "V" may be included in the tire size designation adjacent to or in place of a dash
without affecting the size code for the designation.
2 As used in this table the letters at the end of the tire size indicate the following: LT-Light Truck, ML-
Mining & Logging, MH-Mobile Home, ST-Special Trailer.
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-7
TABLE 3. TIRE SIZE CODES— Continued
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
Fl 140 R 12
F2 6.5-13
F3 185/60 R 13
F4 A70-13
F5 A78-13
F6 CR78-13
F7 2.25-14
F8 2.75-14
F9 3.00-14
HA 6.70-14 LT
HB 165-14 LT
HC 2.50-14
HD 5.00-14 LT
HE 5.20-14
HF 5.20 R 14
HH 5.50-14 LT
HJ 5.60-14
HK 5.90-14
HL 5.90-14 LT
HM 5.90 R 14
HN 6.00-14
HP 6.00-14 LT
HT 6.40-14
HU 6.40-14 LT
HV 6.45-14
HW 6.50-14
HX 6.50-14 LT
HY 6.70-14
HI 6.95-14
H2 7.00-14
H3 7.00-14 LT
H4 7.00 R 14
H5 7.35-14
H6 7.50-14
H7 7.50-14 LT
H8 7.50 R 14
H9 7.75-14
JA 7.75-14 ST
JB 8.00-14
JC 8.25-14
JD 8.50-14
JE 8.55-14
JF 8.85-14
JH 9.00-14
JJ 9.50-14
JK 135-14
JL 135 R 14
JM 135-14/5.65-14
JN 145-14
JP 145 R 14
JT 145-14/5.95-14
JU 155-14
JV 155 R 14
JW 155-14/6.15-14
JX 155/70 R 14
JY 165-14
Jl 165 R 14
J2 „ 175-14
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
J3 175 R 14
J4 185-14
J5 185 R 14
J6 185/70 R 14
J7 195-14
J8 195 R 14
J9 195/70 R 14
KA 205-14
KB 205 R 14
KC 215-14
KD 215 R 14
KE 225-14
KF 225 R 14
KH 620 R 14
KJ 690 R 14
KK AR78-13
KL 195-14 LT
KM 185-14 LT
KN A80-22.5
KP B80-22.5
KT C80-22.5
KU D80-22.5
KV E80-22.5
KW F60-14
KX C60-14
KY J60-14
Kl L60-14
K2 F80-22.5
K3 G80-22.5
K4 H80-22.5
K5 J80-22.5
K6 A80-24.5
K7 B80-24.5
K8 BR78-14
K9 D70-14
LA DR70-14
LB E70-14
LC ER70-14
LD F70-14
LE FR70-14
LF G70-14
LH GR70-14
LJ H70-14
LK HR70-14
LL J70-14
LM JR70-14
LN L70-14
LP LR70-14
LT C80-24.5
LU D80-24.5
LV E80-24.5
LW F80-24.5
LX G77-14
LY B78-14
LI C78-14
L2 CR78-14
L3 D78-14
L4 DR78-14
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
L5 E78-14
L6 ER78-14
L7 F78-14
L8 FR78-14
L9 G78-14
MA GR78-14
MB H78-14
MC HR78-14
MD J78-14
ME JR78-14
MF 205-14 LT
MH G80-24.5
MJ H80-24.5
MK 7-14.5
ML 8-14.5
MM 9-14.5
MN 6.60 R 15
MP 2.00-15
MT 2.25-15
MU 2.50-15
MV 3.00-15
MW 3.25-15
MX 5.0-15
MY 5.20-15
Ml 5.5-15
M2 5.50-15 L
M3 5.50-15 LT
M4 5.60-15
M5 5.60 R 15
M6 5.90-15
M7 5.90-15 LT
M8 6.00-15
M9 6.00-15 L
NA 6.00-15 LT
NB 6.2-15
NC 6.40-15
ND 6.40-15 LT
NE 6.40 R 15
NF 6.50-15
NH 6.50-15 L
NJ 6.50-15 LT
NK^ 6.70-15
NL 6.70-15 LT
NM 6.70 R 15
NN 6.85-15
NP 6.9-15
NT 7.00-15
NU 7.00-15 L
NV 7.00-15 LT
NW 7.10-15
NX 7.10-15 LT
NY 7.35-15
Nl.. 7.50-15
N2 7.60-15
N3 7.60 R 15
N4 7.75-15
N5 7.75-15 ST
N6 8.00-15
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-8
TABLE 3. TIRE SIZE CODES— Continued
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
N7 8.15-15
N8 8.20-15
N9 8.25-15
PA 8.25-15 LT
PB 8.45-15
PC 8.55-15
PD 8.85-15
PE 8.90-15
PF 9.00-15
PH 9.00-15 LT
PJ 9.15-15
PK 10-15
PL 10.00-15
PM 7.50-15 LT
PN 7.00-15 TR
PP 8.25-15 TR
PT 9.00-15 TR
PU 7.50-15 TR
PV 125-15
PW 125 R 15
PX 125-15/5.35-15
PY 135-15
PI 135 R 15
P2 135-15/5.65-15
P3 145-15
P4 145 R 15
P5 145-15/5.95-15
P6 155-15
P7 155 R 15
P8 155-15/6.35-15
P9 165-15
TA 165-15 LT
TB 165 R 15
TC 175-15
TD 175 R 15
TE 175-15/7.15-15
TF 175/70 R 15
TH 180-15
TJ 185-15
TK 185 R 15
TL 185/70 R 15
TM 195-15
TN 195 R 15
TP 205-15
TT 205 R 15
TU 215-15
TV 215 R 15
TW 225-15
TX 225 R 15
TY 235-15
Tl 235 R 15
T2 J80-24.5
T3 ER60-15
T4 D78-13
T5 A78-15
T6 DR70-13
T7 HR60-15
T8 E60-14
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation >
T9 205/70 R 14
UA 215/70 R 14
UB H60-15
UC E60-15
UD F60-15
UE FR60-15
UF G60-15
UH GR60-15
UJ J60-15
UK L60-15
UL 4.60-15
UM 2.75-15
UN 2.50-9
UP 2.50-10
UT 5.00-9
UU 6.7-10
UV C70-15
UW D70-15
UX DR70-15
UY E70-15
Ul ER70-15
U2 F70-15
U3 FR70-15
U4 G70-15
U5 _ GR70-15
U6 H70-15
U7 HR70-15
U8 J70-15
U9 JR70-15
VA K70-15
VB KR70-15
VC L70-15
VD LR70-15
VE 17-400 TR
VF 185-300 TR
VH 185-300 LT
VJ AR78-15
VK BR78-15
VL C78-15
VM D78-15
VN E78-15
VP ER78-15
VT F78-15
VU FR78-15
VV G78-15
VW GR78-15
VX H78-15
VY HR78-15
VI J78-15
V2 JR78-15
V3 L78-15
V4 LR78-15
V5 N78-15
V6 17-15 (17-380 LT)
V7 17-400 LT
V8 11-15
V9 11-16
WA L84-15
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
WB 11.00-15
WC 2.25-16
WD 2.50-16
WE 3.00-16
WF 3.25-16
WH 3.50-16
WJ 5.00-16
WK 5.10-16
WL 5.50-16 LT
WM 6.00-16
WN 6.00-16 LT
WP 6.50-16
WT 6.50-16 LT
WU 6.70-16
WV 7.00-16
WW 7.00-16 LT
WX 7.50-16
WY 7.50-16 LT
Wl 8.25-16
W2 9.00-16
W3 10-16
W4 8.25-16 LT
W5 9.00-16 LT
W6 11.00-16
W7 19-400 C
W8 165-400
W9 235-16
XA 185-16
XB 19-400 LT
XC G45C-16
XD E50C-16
XE F50C-16
XF 7.00-16 TR
XH 7.50-16 TR
XJ 8.00-16.5
XK 8.75-16.5
XL 9.50-16.5
XM 10-16.5
XN 12-16.5
XP 185 R 16
XT 4.50-17
XU 2.00-17
XV 2.25-17
XW 2.50-17
XX 2.75-17
XY 3.00-17
XI 3.25-17
X2 3.50-17
X3 6.50-17
X4 6.50-17 LT
X5 7.00-17
X6 7.50-17
X7 8.25-17
X8 7.50-17 LT
X9 225/70 R 14
YA G50C-17
YB H50C-17
YC 195/70 R 15
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-9
TABLE 3. TIRE SIZE CODES-Continued
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
YD 4.20-18
YE 8-17.5 LT
YF 11-17.5
YH 7-17.5
YJ 8-17.5
YK 8.5-17.5
YL 9.5-17.5
YM 10-17.5
YN 14-17.5
YP 9-17.5
YT 205/70 R 15
YU 2.25-18
YV 2.50-18
YW 2.75-18
YX 3.00-18
YY 3.25-18
Yl 3.50-18
Y2 4.00-18
Y3 4.50-18
Y4 6.00-18
Y5 7.00-18
Y6 7.50-18
Y7 8.25-18
Y8 9.00-18
Y9 10.00-18
lA 11.00-18
IB 6.00-18 LT
IC 6.00-20 LT
ID L50C-18
IE 7.00-18 LT
IF 12-19.5
IH 2.00-19
IJ 2.25-19
IK 2.50-19
IL 2.75-19
IM 3.00-19
IN 3.25-19
IP 3.50-19
IT 4.00-19
lU 11.00-19
IV 9.5-19.5
IW 10-19.5
IX 11-19.5
lY 7-19.5
11 7.5-19.5
12 8-19.5
13 9-19.5
14 14-19.5
15 15-19.5
16 16.5-19.5
17 18-19.5
18 19.5-19.5
19 6.00-20
2A 6.50-20
2B 7.00-20
2C 7.50-20
2D 8.25-20
2E 8.5-20
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
2F 9.00-20
2H 9.4-20
2J 10.00-20
2K 10.3-20
2L 11.00-20
2M 11.1-20
2N 11.50-20
2P 11.9-20
2T 12.00-20
2U 12.5-20
2V 13.00-20
2W 14.00-20
2X 6.50-20 LT
2Y 7.00-20 LT
21 13/80-20
22 14/80-20
23 2.75-21
24 3.00-21
25 2.50-21
26 , 2.75-20
27 10.00-22
28 11.00-22
29 11.1-22
3A 11.9-22
3B 12.00-22
3C 14.00-22
3D 11.50-22
3E 4.10-18
3F 4.10-19
3H 7-22.5
3J 8-22.5
3K 8.5-22.5
3L J 9-22.5
3M 9.4-22.5
3N 10-22.5
3P 10.3-22.5
3T 11-22.5
3U. 11.1-22.5
3V„. 11.5-22.5
3W 11.9-22.5
3X 12-22.5
3Y 12.5-22.5
31 15-22.5
32 16.5-22.5
33 18-22.5
34 215/70 R 15
35 225/70 R 15
36 '. 185/60 R 13
38 9.00-24
38 10.00-24
39 11.00-24
4A 12.00-24
4B 14.00-24
4C 3.50-7
4D 3.00-4
4El 12.5-24.5
4F 11-24.5
4H 12-24.5
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
4J 13.5-24.5
4K 7.00-20 ML
4L 7.50-20 ML
4M 8.25-20 ML
4N 9.00-20 ML
4P : 10.00-20 ML
4T 10.00-22 ML
4U 10.00-24 ML
4V 11.00-20 ML
4W 11.00-22 ML
4X 11.00-24 ML
4Y 11.00-25 ML
41 12.00-20 ML
42 12.00-21 ML
43 12.00-24 ML
44 12.00-25 ML
45 13.00-20 ML
46 13.00-24 ML
47 13.00-25 ML
48 14.00-20 ML
49 14.00-21 ML
5A 14.00-24 ML
5B 14.00-25 ML
50 10.3-20 ML
5D 11.1-20 ML
5E 12.5-20 ML
5F 9-22.5 ML
5H 9.4-22.5 ML
5J 10-22.5 ML
5K 10.3-22.5 ML
5L 11-22.5 ML
5M 11-24.5 ML
5N 14-17.5 ML
5P 15-19.5 ML
5T 15-22.5 ML
5U 16.5-19.5 ML
5V 16 5-22.5 ML
5W 18-19.5 ML
5X._ 18-22.5 ML
5Y 19.5-19.5 ML
51 23-23.5 ML
52 18-21 ML
53 19.5-21 ML
54 23-21 ML
55 6.00-13 ST
56 7.35-14 ST
57 8.25-14 ST
58 7.35-15 ST
59 8.25-15 ST
6A 12.00-22 ML
6B 4.30-18
6C 3.60-19
6D 3.00-20
6E 4.25-18
6F MP90-18
6H 3.75-19
6J MM90-19
6K 3.25-7
PART 574; (TIRE CODE)-10
TABLE 3. TIRE SIZE CODES— Continued
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
6L 2.75-16
6M 4.00-16
6N 7.9
6P 25X 7.50-15
6T 27X 8.50-15
6U 27X9.50-15
6V 29X12.00-15
6W 31X 13.50-15
6X 31X15.50-15
6Y C70-14
61 Not Assigned
62 Not Assigned
63 Not Assigned
64 Not Assigned
65 Not Assigned
66 3.40-5
67 4.10-4
68 4.10-5
69 175-14 LT
7A 11-14
7B E78-14LT
7C G78-15LT
7D H78-15LT
7E 180 R 15
7F 185-16 LT
7H 205-16 LT
7J 215-16 LT
7K F78-16LT
7L H78-16LT
7M L78-16LT
7N 135 RIO
7P 6.95-14 LT
7T 7-14.5 MH
7U 8-14.5 MH
7V 9-14.5 MH
7W 4.25/85-18
7X A78-14
7Y 7.50-18 MPT
71 10.5-18 MPT
72 12.5-18 MPT
73 12.5-20 MPT
74 14.5-20 MPT
75 10.5-20 MPT
76 10.5-20
77 8.25-10
78 150 R 12
79 150 R 14
8A iy4-19
8B 174-19%
8C 2-12
8D 2-16
BE 2-17
8F 2-17 R
8H 2-18
8J 2-19
8K 2-19 R
8L 2-19%
8M 2-22
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
8N 2-22)^
8P 2/4-15
8T 2^4-16
8U 2/4-17
8V 2/4-18
8W 2/4-19
8X 2/4-19 R
8Y 2/4-20
81 2^-8
82 2^-9
83 2^-16
84 2%-17
85 2%-18
86 2%-19
87 2%-19R
88 2%-9
89 2%-16
9 A 2%-17
9B 2y4-17R
9C 3-10
9D 3-12
9E 21 X 4
9F 22x4i^
9H 15.50-20
9J 18.50-20
9K 19.50-20
9L 2/4-14
9M 2^-20
9N 2%-16R
9P 2%-18
9T 10-20
9U 11-24
9V 11.25-24
9W 15x4^-8
9X 14.75/80-20
9Y 23x5
91 25x6
92 15x4%-8
93 18x7-8
94 21x8-9
95 23x9-10
96 27 X 10-12
97 2.00-15 TR
98 2.50-15 TR
99 3.00-15 TR
OA GR60-14
OB 560 X 165-11
OC 680 X 180-15
OD 8.55-15 ST
OE 3.50-14
OF 3.25-14
OH 3.50-15
OJ AR70-13
OK B60-13
OL 245/60 R 14
OM 255/60 R 15
ON 2%-15
OP 2.50-20
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
OT Not Assigned
OU BR60-13
OV 15.00-20
OW 16.00-20
OX 12/80-20
OY 14/80-24
01 15.5/80-20
02 13-22.5
03 21-22.5
04 9/70-22.5
05 10/70-22.5
06 11/70-22.5
07 12/70-22.5
08 13/70-22.5
09 7.25/75-17.5
10 8.00/75-17.5
20 8.75/75-17.5
30 9.50/75-17.5
40 7.25/75-16.5
50 8.00/75-16.5
60 8.75/75-16.5
70 9.50/75-16.5
80 6.70-14 C
90 7-17.5 C
RA 125-12 C
RB 125-13 C
RC 125-14 C
RD 125-15 C
RE 135-12 C
RF 135-13 C
RH 135-14 C
RJ 135-15 C
RK 145-10 C
RL 145-12 C
RM 145-13 C
RN 145-14 C
RP 145-15 C
RT 155-12 C
RU 155-13 C
RV 155-14 C
RW 155-15 C
RX A60-13
RY C60-15
Rl 155-16 C
R2 165-13 C
R3 165-16 C
R4 175-13 C
R5 175-15 C
R6 175-16 C
R7 185-13 C
R8 185-15 C
R9 195-15 C
AO 195-16 C
BO 205-15 C
CO 215-14 C
DO 215-15 C
EO 225-14 C
FO 225-15 C
PART 574; (TIRE CODE)- 11
TABLE 3. TIRE SIZE CODES— Continued
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
HO 225-16 C
JO 235-14 C
KO 235-15 C
LO 235-16 C
MO 21-400 C
NO 3.50-20
PO 3.75-15
TO 3.60-18
UO 3.00-10 C
VO 4.00-10 C
WO 4.00-8 C
XO 4.50-8 C
YO 265/60 R 14
AR 215/60 R 15
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
BR LR60-15
CR ER60-15
DR D60-13
ER C60-13
FR D60-14
HR 175/70 R 14
JR MN90-18
KR MR90-18
LR 4.25-19
MR 230-15
NR 5.4-10
PR ER60-13
TR FR60-14
UR C60C-15
Tire Size Tire Size
Code Designation '
VR 13/80-24
WR 175-16 C
XR 195-16 C
YR BR70-13
IR 185-15 LT
2R 13-22.5 ML
3R MR70-15
4R E60-26.5
5R 6.7-12
6R 5.4-14
7R 7.4-14
8R 5.4-16
9R 4.60-18
36 F.R. 7539
April 21, 1971
V
PART 574; (TIRE C0DE)-12
^
Efhctiv*: January 1, 1970
PREAMBLE TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFOR/WATION
Action on Petitions for Reconsideration — -Amendment
Regulations requiring manufacturers of pas-
senger cars and motorcycles to provide informa-
tion on vehicle stopping distance (§ 375.101), tire
reserve load (§375.102), and acceleration and
passing ability (§ 375.106) were issued by the
Federal Highway Administrator and published
in the Federal Register on January 25, 1969 (34
F.R. 1246). Several petitions for reconsideration
of these regulations were received. In response
to these petitions, and in order to clarify and
simplify the requirements and the information
to be provided to purchasers, these regulations
are hereby amended and reissued in the form set
forth below.
9 375.101 Vehicle stopping distance. This sec-
tion required that manufacturers state the tire
size, type and size of brakes, method of brake
actuation and auxiliary brake equipment, and
maximum loaded and lightly loaded vehicle
weights. The effect of stating these requirements
was to greatly restrict the grouping of vehicles
and options that was permitted for the pur-
poses of furnishing information. It has been de-
termined that in order to reduce the required
number of different information documents, man-
ufacturers should be permitted to group vehicles
at their discretion, as long as each vehicle in the
group can meet or exceed the performance levels
indicated, and the vehicles in each group are
identified in the terms by which they are nor-
mally described to the public. The requirement
for specific descriptive information is therefore
deleted.
Since the information must be valid for all
vehicles in the group to which it applies, the re-
quirement that it refer to the smallest tire size
offered has been found unnecessary, and deleted.
It has also been determined that variations in
stopping distances between different vehicles at
30 mph are not as meaningful for comparison
purposes as those at 60 mph, and therefore in-
formation is required only for the latter speed.
It should be noted that the regulations estab-
lish the conditions under which the performance
level represented by the information provided
can be met or exceeded by every vehicle to which
the information applies. They do not establish
the procedures by which manufacturers should
generate the information, although those pro-
cedures are to be inferred from the regulations.
For example, both sections contain the condi-
tion that wind velocity is zero. This does not
mean that manufacturers' tests must be con-
ducted under still air conditions; it means that
the performance level established must be attain-
able by all vehicles in the group under those
conditions. One obvious method of satisfying the
condition from the manufacturer's standpoint is
to conduct verification tests under adverse wind
conditions (tailwind for braking, headwind for
acceleration). As another example, the condition
that ambient temperature be between 32°F and
100°F means that the information presented must
be attainable by all vehicles in the group at all
temperatures within that range (when other con-
ditions are as stated).
The amended section requires that stopping
distances be those attainable without lock-up on
any wheel. This condition is the most mean-
ingful from a safety standpoint, since steering
control tends to be lost when wheels are locked.
Several petitioners submitted data showing min-
imal differences in maximum and lightly loaded
vehicle weight stopping distances to support
their request for substitution of a single test
weight. Their results, however, were apparently
derived from tests conducted with locked wheels,
under which conditions stopping distance be-
comes a function largely of vehicle velocity and
the friction coefHcient between the tire and the
PART 575— PRE 1
Eff*ctiv«: January 1, 1970
road, and has no relationship to vehicle weight.
It is believed that the condition of no wheel
lock-up will result in data showing meaningful
differences in stopping distances test weights.
Accordingly, the requirement of information cov-
ering these two vehicle weight conditions is re-
tained, and petitions on this point are denied.
The section as issued required performance in-
formation for a partially failed service brake
subsystem ("emergency brake system") only at
maximum loaded vehicle weight. It has been de-
termined that in some cases the most adverse
condition may occur at lighter loads. The
amended rule therefore requires information for
"the most adverse combination of maximum or
lightly loaded vehicle weight and complete loss
of braking in one or the other of the vehicle
brake subsystems."
Several petitioners suggested that information
be limited to one test weight, instead of requiring
it for both lightly loaded and maximum loaded
vehicle weight. It has been determined, how-
ever, that information on both conditions may-
reveal vehicles having superior brake balance, and
the advantage of anti-skid or load proportioning
devices, and also aid purchasers who travel mainly
in one or the other of the loading conditions. The
petitions to that effect are therefore denied.
S 375.102 Tire reverse load. The section re-
quired that manufacturers state the number of
passengers and the cargo and luggage weight
for two different loading conditions, and the ac-
tual vehicle weight within a range of no more
than 100 pounds under those conditions. These
requirements restricted the grouping of vehicles
and options that was permitted for the purposes
of furnishing information. It has been deter-
mined that in order to reduce the required num-
ber of different information documents, manu-
facturers should be permitted to group vehicles
by recommended tire size designations regard-
less of weight, as long as the reserve load figure
is met or exceeded by every vehicle in the group.
The requirements for providing weight and load-
ing information are therefore deleted.
Section 375.102 as issued required that reverse
load figures be provided for the vehicle at nor-
mal vehicle weight (2 or 3 persons and no lug-
gage )as well as maximum loaded vehicle weight.
It also required the furnishing of a "tire over-
load percentage", the percentage difference be-
tween the load rating of a tire at recommended
inflation pressures for normal vehicle weight
and the load on the tire at maximum loaded
vehicle weight. Several petitions suggested that
the providing of these various percentage figures
would tend to confuse persons to whom the in-
formation is furnished, and therefore decrease
its usefulness to the consumer. Representatives
of consumer groups have also suggested, in earlier
proceedings concerning the consumer information
regulations, that for maximum usability the in-
formation should be as simple and clear as pos-
sible. In light of these considerations, it has
been determined that the tire reserve load figure
provided should be limited to a single percentage
for each recommended tire size designation, at
maximum loaded vehicle weight and the manu-
facturer's recommended inflation pressure. The
requirements for tire reserve load at normal ve-
hicle weight and for tire overload percentage ac-
cordingly are deleted.
Two further changes in the calculation methods
have been made for simplicity and clarity. In-
stead of using the actual load on each wheel as
the basis for calculation, the wheel load figure is
changed to one-half of each axle's share of the
maximum loaded vehicle weight. This reflects
the method used in Standard No. 110 for de-
termining the vehicle maximum load on the tire.
Also, the denominator of the fraction repre-
senting the tire reserve load percentage is changed
from the load on the wheel to the load rating of
the tire. A tire with a load rating of 1500
pounds, for example, used with a wheel load of
900 pounds, would have a reserve load percentage
of 40% (600/1500 X 100) rather than 66%%
(600/900 X 100). The former figure has been
determined to be somewhat more meaningful in
cases of large reserve loads.
§ 375.106 Acceleration and passing ability.
The section as issued required that times be pro-
vided for acceleration from 20 to 35 mph and
from 50 to 80 mph, and times and distances for
prescribed passing maneuvers involving two lane
changes. On the basis of petitions submitted,
and further consideration of the need for sim-
plicity and clarity in the information presented,
it has been determined that the most useful in-
formation would be in the form of passing dis-
PART 575— PRE 2
Effactiv*: Jonuofy I, 1970
tances and times for a simple straight-line pass-
ing maneuver at lo%y and high speeds. In order
to eliminate the difficulties of conducting a uni-
form passing maneuver involving a long pace
vehicle and a limiting of the passing speed pre-
cisely to a specified level, the information re-
quired is to be derived on the basis of a time-
distance plot of vehicle performance at maximum
acceleration from 20 to 35 and 50 to 80 miles per
hour.
For reasons discussed above in regard to section
375.101, the requirement of providing the weight
of the vehicle is deleted from this section.
Because the amended section does not require
information relating to an actual passing maneu-
ver, but only that based on two straight-line
acceleration maneuvers with a simple graphic
computation, the exception of manufacturers of
500 or fewer vehicles annually from certain of the
requirements is removed from this section.
Several petitioners contended that the re-
quirement that information be provided under
the condition of full-power operation of a vehicle
air conditioner would lead to variable, non-
repeatable results. This may be true of the re-
sults achieved in manufacturers' tests. The in-
formation presented is not, however, to be simply
the results of manufacturers' tests, but rather a
minimum level of performance that can be met
or exceeded by every vehicle to which the in-
formation applies. Manufacturers are free, there-
fore, to adjust the data to account for any varia-
tion in results that might be encountered. The
degradation of acceleration ability by the use of
an air conditioner may be significant in some
cases, and therefore it is important from the
standpoint of safety that it be reflected in the in-
formation provided. The petitions to the con-
trary are accordingly denied.
Some petitioners objected to the required use of
a correction factor to ambient conditions in ac-
cordance with SAE Standard J816a, pointing out
that the factor was designed to be applicable ex-
clusively to engine dynamometer testing and not
to road testing of vehicles. The contention has
been found to have merit. In the section as
amended, ranges of ambient conditions of tem-
perature, dry barometric pressure, and relative
humidity are provided, and the information is
required to be valid at all points within those
ranges.
In addition to the above, a new paragraph (c),
containing specific definitions, is added to section
375.2, Definitions.
In order to allow adequate time for manufac-
turers to prepare the information, the three sec-
tions are effective for vehicles manufactured on
or after January 1, 1970.
In consideration of the above, 49 CFR
§§ 375.101, 375.102, and 375.106 are amended, and
a new paragraph (c) is added to § 375.2, to read
as set forth below. This notice of action on
petitions for reconsideration is issued under the
authority of sections 112 and 119 of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
1401, 1407) and the delegation of authority by
the Secretary of Transportation to the Federal
Highway Administrator. 49 CFR 1.4(c).
Issued : May 19, 1969.
F. C. Turner
Federal Highway Administrator
Sec.
375.1
375.2
375.3
375.4
375.5
375.6
SUBPART A— GENERAL
Scop*.
Definitions.
Matter Incorporateci by reference.
Applicability.
Separability.
Requirements.
SUBPART B— CONSUMER INFORMATION ITEMS
375.101 Vehicle Stopping Distance.
375.102 Tire reserve load.
375.103 Reserved.
375.104 Reserved.
375.105 Reserved.
365.106 Acceleration and passing ability.
May 23, 1969
34 F.R. 8112
PART 575— PRE 3-4
EITkHv*: January 1, 1970
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Amended regulations concerning the furnishing
of consumer information for motor vehicles, 49
CFR §§ 375.101, 102, 106, were published in the
Federal Register of May 23, 1969 (34 F.R. 8112).
Sections 375.101, Vehicle Stopping Distance, and
375.106, Acceleration and Passing Ability, in sub-
sections (d)(7) and (d)(1) (vii) respectively,
specified that the information provided shall be
valid for road surfaces with a skid number of
70, as measured in accordance with American
Society for Testing and Materials Method E-274
at 40 miles per hour, omitting water delivery as
specified in paragraph 7.1 of that Method.
Several petitions for reconsideration have been
received, requesting that the skid number condi-
tion be set at higher level because there are only
a limited number of test tracks presently with
surfaces of that low a skid number. It is recog-
nized that the level of 70 may be somewhat lower
than many existing test track and road surfaces.
It has been determined, in light of the petitions
received, that the skid number condition can be
set at a somewhat higher level without detracting
from the value of the information provided or
the enforceability of the regulations. Accord-
ingly, the figure "70" in sections 375.101(d)(7)
and 375.106(d) (1) (vii) is hereby changed to
"75".
One petitioner requested a delay in the effec-
tive date of the regulation because of difficulties
in obtaining equipment for the measurement of
skid number. In light of the relaxation of the
skid number requirement embodied in this notice,
and the possibility of temporarily leasing either
measuring equipment or test facilities, evidenced
by fact that only one such request was received,
the request for a delay in effective date is denied.
Since this amendment relaxes a requirement
and imposes no additional burden on any person,
notice and opportunity for comment thereon are
urmecessary and the amendment is incorporated
into the above-referenced regulations without
change in the effective date. This notice of
amendment in response to petitioners for recon-
sideration is issued under the authority of sec-
tions 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402, 1407)
and the delegation of authority by the Secretary
of Transportation to the Federal Highway Ad-
ministrator, 49 CFR § 1.4(c).
Issued on July 14, 1969.
F. C. Turner
Federal Highway Administrator
34 F.R. 11974
July 16, 1969
PART 576— PRE 6-«
Eff*cllv«: DK*mb«r 1, 1969
January 1, 1970
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Regulations requiring manufacturers of motor
vehicles to provide information to consumers con-
cerning performance characteristics of their ve-
hicles were published on January 25, 1969 (34
F.R. 1246), and amended on May 23, 1969 (34
F.R. 8112). By notice of July 11, 1969 (34 F.R.
11501) it was proposed that the regulations be
amended to require manufacturers to provide the
information to prospective purchasers, as well as
those who have already bought a vehicle, and also
to provide the information to the Administrator
30 days before the information is required to be
provided to purchasers.
No general objections to the proposed amend-
ment were received. One manufacturer objected
to the requirement of providing copies to the
Administrator 30 days in advance, on the basis
that this did not allow sufficient lead time from
the date of the proposal. In light of the fact
that the information required to be provided
consists only of performance figures that the
manufacturer is certain can be exceeded by its
vehicles, that the information must be provided
in large quantities to dealers by January 1, 1970,
and that no other manufacturers evidenced dif-
ficulty in meeting the December 1 date, the objec-
tion is found not to be meritorious.
The Automobile Manufacturers Association
made two suggestions for changes to the regula-
tion, both of which have been accepted and in-
corporated into the regulation. One change adds
language to make it clear that the locations at
which the information is to be provided are out-
lets with which the manufacturer has some legal
connection. The other is that the date on which
information relating to newly introduced vehicles
is required is the "announcement date", on which
dealers are authorized to display and sell the
vehicles.
The proposal stated that three copies should be
submitted to the Administrator by December 1,
1969. It has been determined that in light of
the need for immediate processing and the large
amount of information that will be received at
that time, a somewhat larger number of copies
will be needed. The number of copies has been
changed, accordingly, from three to t«n. Since
the additional burden on automotive manufac-
turers of providing these copies appears to be
insubstantial, a further notice of proposed rule-
making is found to be unnecessary. Other minor
changes in wording are made for clarity.
Ejfective Dates: Subsections (a) and (b) of
§ 375.6, Requirements, are effective January 1,
1970. Subsection (c) of that section is effective
December 1, 1969.
In light of the foregoing, Subpart A — General,
of 49 CFR Part 375 is amended to read as set
forth below. This amendment is issued under
the authority of sections 112 and 119 of the Na-
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15
U.S.C. 1401, 1407), and the delegation of au-
thority from the Secretary of Transportation
to the Federal Highway Administration, 49 CFR
§ 1.4(c).
Issued on October 16, 1969.
E. H. Holmes, Acting
Federal Highway Administrator
34 F.R. 17108
October 22, 1969
PART 575— PRE 7-8
EffxHv*: Nevcmbar 26, 1969
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Motorcycle Brake Burnishing Requirement
On May 23, 1969, the Federal Highway Ad-
ministration published 49 CFR § 375.101, Vehicle
Stopping Distance, of the Consumer Information
Regulations (34 F.R. 8112). Paragraph (e)-
(1) (ii) of that section, describing the burnishing
procedures for motorcycles, is as follows: "Same
as for passenger cars, except substitute 30 m.p.h.
for 40 m.p.h. and 150° F. for 250° F., and main-
tain hand lever force to foot lever force ratio
of approximately 1 to 2."
A manufacturer has stated that such a burnish-
ing procedure, which was drawn from a draft
SAE Recommended Practice, would be inappro-
riate for its vehicles, and suggests that the re-
quired burnishing procedures should be that rec-
ommended by tlie manufacturer. Since it appears
that a uniform burnishing procedure suitable for
all motorcycles has not yet been developed, the
suggestion is found to have merit, to the extent
that manufacturers have recommended such pro-
cedures. A general burnishing procedure must
still be specified, however, for the purpose of
determining compliance of those vehicles for
which the manufacturers have not made a proce-
dure publicly available. Accordingly, subpara-
graph (e)(1) (ii) of section 375.101 is hereby
amended to read as follows :
^'•Motorcycles. Adjust and burnish brakes in
accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.
Where no burnishing procedures have been rec-
ommended by the manufacturer, follow the pro-
cedure specified above for passenger cars, except
substitute 30 m.p.h. for 40 m.p.h. and 150° F.
and 250° F., and maintain hand lever force to
foot lever force ratio of approximately 1 to 2."
The Consumer Information regulations require
manufacturers to submit information to the
FHWA by December 2, 1969, and it is important,
therefore, that this amendment to the regulations
be made effective without delay. The regulations
require only that the manufacturers submit in-
formation to purchasers (and to the FHWA)
as to performance levels that can be met or ex-
ceeded by their vehicles, and it is not necessary
that vehicles be retested as long as they perform
as well under the manufacturers' own burnishing
procedures as under the previously specified ones.
Manufacturers are, of course, free to provide new
performance figures at any time, under the pro-
cedures specified in Part 375. If in a particular
case a manufacturer determines that its vehicles
may not be able to meet the performance figures
provided when its own recommended burnishing
procedures are utilized, and is not able to provide
new and appropriate figures within the time
specified, it should include a notation to that effect
at the time that the figures are first provided to
the FHWA. The vehicles in question will not
be considered to be in violation of the regulations
if they meet the performance figures provided
under the previously specified burnishing pro-
cedures, and if new and corrected figures are pro-
vided under section 375.101, as amended, not lat«r
than September 1, 1970.
Because of the importance of providing to con-
sumers by January 1, 1970, the probability that
few if any manufacturers will be adversely
affected by the amendment, and the provisions
for relief included herein, notice and public pro-
cedure thereon are found to be impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest,
and the amendment described above is made effec-
tive on publication in the Federal Regute.r.
(lav. 11/26/69)
PART 576 -PRE 9
IffKNv*: N«v«mb«r 36, 1969
This amendment is issued under the authority Issued on November 24, 1969.
of sections 112 and 119 of the National Traffic _ ^ _
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. * ' , , ^^^ . , • • , ,
^Af^-, ■,A^n\ J i.1. J 1 ^- i! i.1. 1. ^ Federal Highway Admmistrator
1401, 1407), and the delegation of authority from " ■'
the Secretary of Transportation to the Federal 34 F.R. 18865
Highway Administrator, 49 CFR § 1.4(c). Nov«mb«r 26, 1969
(R«v. n/26/69) PART 575— PRE 10
EffccHv*: January 1, 1972
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Availability Requirements)
The purpose of this notice is to amend section
575.6 of the Consumer Information Regulations
(49 CFR Part 575) to require that the informa-
tion supplied pursuant to Subpart B of the Reg-
ulations be provided in sufficient quantity to
permit retention by prospective customers or
mailing to them upon request. A notice of pro-
posed rulemaking was published on January 14,
1971 (36 F.R. 557), proposing to carry out the
legislative mandate of P.L. 91-625 (84 Stat. 262).
That legislation was designed to remedy diffi-
culties resulting from the current practice of
making consumer information available only in
the showroom, by permitting the Secretary to
require that the information be provided in a
printed format which could be retained by cus-
tomers who visit the showroom or mailed to
others upon their request.
A limited number of comments were received
in response to the Notice, some of which merely
expressed support for the additional require-
ment. The Chrysler Cororation requested that
the amendment be clarified to provide that tem-
porary unavailability would not constitute a
failure to comply with the regulations. As is
noted in the Notice of proposed rulemaking, the
uncertainty of demand makes it difficult to estab-
lish precise standards as to what is "sufficient."
It has been determined, therefore, that any fur-
ther specification of this provision would be in-
appropriate at this time. It is intended that
manufacturers and dealers will cooperate to take
all reasonable steps to ensure that a continuous
supply of the information is available.
The Chrysler Corporation further requested
that the regulation clearly indicate that a rea-
sonable charge can be made for the materials.
The legislative history of P.L. 91-625 indicates
that a major purpose of the amendment was
to make consumer information more easily avail-
able to consumers in making their purchase. A
charge for consumer information on several
makes and models of vehicles could present the
car shopper with as great an obstacle to avail-
ability of information as is the case with the
present system. In view of this purpose and the
general aim of the consumer information regu-
lations to provide for as wide a dissemination
of information as possible, it has been deter-
mined that the retention copies should be pro-
vided without charge.
In consideration of the above, 49 CFR
576.6(b) is amended. . . .
Elective date: January 1, 1972.
Issued on September 28, 1971.
Douglas W. Toms
Administrator
36 F.R. 19310
October 2, 1971
PART 575— PRE 11-12
EffKHva: Mardi 1, 1973
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575 — CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Truck-Camper Loading)
(Docket No. 71-7; Notice 5)
This notice reissues the portion of 49 CFR
§571.126, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
126, Trucker-Camper Loading, that was pre-
viously applicable to tnick manufacturers as
a consumer information regulation, 49 CFR
§ 575.103, Truck-Camper Loading. It also re-
sponds to petitions for reconsideration of Stand-
ard No. 126 on issues that are not addressed in
Notice 4, which is published in this issue (37 F.R.
26605).
Petitions for reconsideration of Standard No.
126 (37 F.R. 16497) were filed by Chrysler Cor-
poration (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company
(Ford), General Motors Corporation (GM), Jeep
Corporation (Jeep), Motor Vehicle Manufac-
turers Association (MVMA) Recreational Vehicle
Institute, Inc. (RVI) and Toyota Motor Sales
USA, Inc. (Toyota).
In response to information contained in some
of the petitions, the portions of the standard
previously applicable to truck manufacturers are
being reissued under this notice as a consumer
information regulation for the reasons stated in
Notice 4. Minor amendments are also made to
the regulation on the basis of some of the peti-
tions while the Administrator has declined to
grant requested relief from other requirements
of the regulation.
1. Effective date. GM has petitioned for a de-
layed effective date. As a truck manufacturer,
GM feels that additional lead time is required
"to develop, process, and print the necessary in-
formation on an orderly basis." The Admin-
istration has found for good cause shown that
an effective date earlier than 180 days after
issuance of Standard No. 126 was in the public
interest; however, to allow truck manufacturers
sufficient time for testing to determine cargo
center of gravity locations the effective date of
the requirements applicable to truck manufac-
turers is being extended 2 months, until March
1, 1973.
2. Definitions and information. As discussed
in Notice 4 Ford objected to the definition of
"cargo weight rating" and the term "total load".
Standard No. 126 has been amended to meet
Ford's objections, and similar changes are made
in the terminology of the new truck consumer
information regulation.
Ford also suggests that the phrase "any addi-
tional weight carried in or on the camper" should
be substituted for "the weight of camper cargo,
and the weight of passengers in the camper" in
paragraph S5.2.1(d) of Standard No. 126, now
§ 575.103(e) (3). It believes the suggested lan-
guage would be more meaningful to the average
user and that the present language could be con-
strued as endorsing the carrying of passengers in
campers. Ford's request is denied. The NHTSA
considers that the specificity of references to
cargo and passengers is more meaningful to con-
sumers than the general reference to "any addi-
tional weight". Further, given the prevalence of
carrying passengers in campers, the NHTSA
does not believe that the present language can
realistically be considered to have a significant
effect on this practice.
Both Ford and GM objected to the paragraph
requiring the manufacturer to furnish trailer
towing recommendations, on the grounds of
vagueness and lack of prior notice and oppor-
tunity to comment. The NHTSA concurs, and
is deleting this requirement.
Ford suggests that paragraph S5.2.1(a) of
Standard No. 126 (now § 575.103(e) (1) should
be revised to make clear that the slide-in camper
PART 575— PRE 13
Efhcflve: March 1, 1973
also has a center of gravity designation deter-
mined in accordance with the regulation, which
falls within the boundaries specified by the ve-
hicle manufacturer. Since campers manufactured
before the effective date of the regulation may
be mounted on trucks manufactured after March
1, 1973, Ford's suggestion has not been adopted.
GM has petitioned that a warning be required
to accompany the regulation's information, stat-
ing that the longitudinal center of gravity is only
one of the many factors affecting the overall per-
formance of a vehicle and that other factors con-
cerning vehicle handling should be considered
by the operator. The NHTSA denies GM's pe-
tition on this point. Proper loading and load
distribution in truck-camper combinations is a
highly significant handling factor, and such a
warning might cause a truck operator to feel
the loading information presented is of little
significance. The regulation does not, however,
prohibit GM or other manufacturers from fur-
nishing such additional warnings if they see fit.
GM has also asked for a confirmation of its
assumption that "the pictorial representation of
the recommended longitudinal center of gravity
zone for the cargo weight rating need not be to
scale but can be generalized so long as the lon-
gitudinal boundaries of the zone are clearly set
forth.'" The XHSTA agrees with this inter-
pretation.
Eifective Date: March 1, 1973.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
Part 575 is amended by adding a new § 575.103,
Truck-camper Loading. . . .
This notice is issued pursuant to the authority
of sections 112 and 119 of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC
1401, 1407) and the delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.51.
Issued on December 6, 1972.
Douglas W. Toms
Administrator
37 F.R. 26607
December 14, 1972
PART 575— PRE 14
Effactiv*: April 1, 1973
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Truck-Camper Loading
(Docket No. 71-7; Notice 6)
This notice responds to petitions for reconsid-
eration of 49 CFE § 575.103, Truck-camper load-
ing, -with amendments extending the effective
date to April 1, 1973, and allowing optional
wording of certain statements until October 1,
1973.
On December 14, 1972, Part 575 of Title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, was amended by
adding § 575.103 Truck-camper loading (37 F.R.
26607). The amendment was in essence that
portion of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand-
ard No. 126, Truck-camper loading that applied
to manufacturers of trucks accommodating slide-
in campers, as originally published on August 15,
1972 (37 F.R. 16497). Pursuant to 49 CFR
§ 553.35, petitions for reconsideration of § 575.103
have been filed by General Motors Corporation
and International Harvester Company. Ford
Motor Company has asked for a clarification.
In response to information contained in these
petitions the regulation is being amended in cer-
tain respects, and a new effective date of April 1,
1973 adopted. Requested changes in other re-
quirements of the regulation are denied.
1. Effective date: Both petitioners request de-
lay of the effective date of the regulation for at
least 60 days, until May 1, 1973 at the earliest.
One reason for the request is that petitioners had
printed their manuals on the basis of the notice
of August 15, 1972, and that the additional time
is needed to print new materials conforming to
modified texts published on December 14, 1972.
Greneral Motors also states that the additional
time is needed to prepare and disseminat* data
in a manner meeting the requirement that it be
available to prospective purchasers. While data
has been prepared for each truck, it has not yet
been consolidated into a single sheet or pamphlet
suitable for showroom display and availability.
The requests of both petitioners reflect the prob-
ability that the material will not be submitted
to the Administrator at least 30 days before it is
available to prospective purchasers, as required
by § 575.6(c), and the possibility that the data
will not be ready by March 1, 1973.
The NHTSA has determined that good cause
has been shown for postponement of the effective
date until April 1, 1973. This agency recognizes,
however, that the minor textual changes made in
the December notice create problems of conform-
ity for those manufacturers who in good faith
relied on the August notice in ordering materials.
Accordingly, the regulation is being amended to
allow the earlier wording on an optional basis
until October 1, 1973. These amendments permit
use of the phrase "total load" instead of "total
cargo load" in paragraph (e) (3) where it twice
appears, and the legend "Aft End of Cargo Area"
for "Rear End of Truck Bed" in Figure 1, Truck
Loading Information. The word "rating" ap-
pearing on the last line of paragraph (e) (5) is
properly "ratings" as printed in the August
notice, and a correction is made. Further, the
NHTSA considers it important that a manufac-
turer fulfill the requirements of § 575.6(b) by
making information available to prospective pur-
chasers when trucks manufactured on or after
April 1, 1973 are placed on sale. Considering the
short lead time between December 14, 1972 and
February 1, 1973 and the intervening holidays,
the NHTSA will not take enforcement action
with respect to the furnishing of information
under §§575.103 and 575.6(c) prior to April 1,
1973, if manufacturers provide information to
this agency as required by those sections not later
than the date by which the information must be
provided to prospective purchasers.
PART 575— PRE 15
EffacHva: April I, 1973
2. Administrative Procedure Act. Harvester
believes that the Administrative Procedure Act
was violated in that interested persons were not
provided an opportunity to comment upon pro-
viding information under Part 575 prior to
enactment of §575.103. The NHTSA views
Harvester's comment as a narrow construction of
the requirements of the Act, and disagrees with
petitioner's conclusion. The content of § 575.103
was proposed on April 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 6837)
and adopted as a safety standard on August 15,
1972 (37 F.R. 16497). Pursuant to petitions for
reconsideration from Chrysler Corporation, Ford
Motor Company, Greneral Motors, Jeep Corpora-
tion, and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Associa-
tion that Standard No. 126 would be more
appropriate as a consumer information regula-
tion, the NHTSA adopted § 575.103 on December
14, 1972 with content virtually identical to that
issued in the previous August. Thus the agency
considers it has met 5 USC § 553 by providing
notice of the terms and substance of the rule, and
an opportunity to comment. It is true that notice
was not provided on the specific issue that dis-
tinguishes the consumer information regulation
from a motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., avail-
ability of information to a prospective purchaser
and the agency at specified time periods), but the
NHTSA considers this issue a minor one in rela-
tion to the regulation as a whole for which ade-
quate notice was given. In view of the weight
of comment that the standard should properly
be a consumer information regulation, no further
notice was deemed necessary. The NHTSA has
already in this notice indicated its willingness to
liberally interpret § 575.6(c) because of the time
factor involved.
3. Clarification. Ford Motor Company has
asked for a clarification of the term "weight of
occupants" used to compute "cargo weight rat-
ing", as defined by the regulation. Specifically,
Ford inquires whether the weight is that of a
95th percentile male — that of an "occupant" as
defined by § 571.3(b) — or that of a person weigh-
ing 150 pounds, the figure applicable to other
consimier information regulations and used in the
safety standards.
The NHTSA intended "weight of occupants"
to be the "normal occupant weight" figure of
150 pounds specified in Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 110 rather than that of a 95th
percentile male, which is greater. To clarify this,
the phrase, "computed as 150 pounds times the
number of designated seating positions," is addod
to the regulation.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
§ 575.103, Truck-camper loading, is amended ....
Effective date : April 1, 1973.
(Sec. 112 and 119, Pub. L. 89-563; 80 Stat. 718,
15 USC 1401, and 1407 ; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on February 12, 1973.
Douglas W. Toms
Administrator
38 F.R. 4400
February 14, 1973
PART 57&— PRE 16
Effocttve: Ftbruary 28, 1973
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORAAATION
Subpart A — General
(Docket No. 73-5; Notice 1)
This notice amends the definition section of the
regulation on Federal motor vehicle consumer
information reflecting previous amendments to
definitions in the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
The definitions of "brake power unit" and
"lightly loaded vehicle weight" in 49 CFR
§ 675.2(c) have been obsoleted by recent amend-
ments to these terms in Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems
(37 F.R. 17970). "Brake power unit" has been
redefined to more accurately describe the char-
acteristics of the component concerned. The
term "curb weight" used in defining "lightly
loaded vehicle weight" has been replaced by "un-
loaded vehicle weight" (as defined in §571.3) as
a more precise description of vehicle condition.
Finally, "Maximiun sustained vehicle speed"
should be grammatically a speed "attainable"
rather than "obtainable".
Elective date : February 28, 1973. Since these
amendments are primarily a matter of form and
have no significant eflFect on substantive require-
ments, it is found for good cause that notice and
public procedure thereon is unnecessary, and an
immediate effective date is in the public interest.
(Sec. 112, 119 Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15
U.S.C. 1401, 1407 ; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.51.)
Issued on February 21, 1973.
Douglas W. Toms
Administrator
38 F.R. 5338
February 28, 1973
PART 575— PRE 17-18
Effecllvt: Junt 1), 1973
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Subpart A — General
(Docket 72-24; Notice 2)
This notice amends 49 CFR 575, Consumer
Information, to require manufacturers to iden-
tify specially-configured vehicles not available
for purchase by the general public as "special
vehicles" in the information submitted to the
NHTSA under § 575.6(c).
A notice of proposed rulemaking to this effect
was published on November 8, 1972 (37 F.R.
23732). As noted in that proposal, inclusion of
these vehicles in compilations or rankings pub-
lished by this agency as consumer information
serves no beneficial purpose, and could confuse
the consumer.
No comments opposed the proposal. General
Motors Corporation commented that the amend-
ment should more clearly indicate that the spe-
cial vehicle identification requirements only
apply to the information supplied to NHTSA
under § 575.6(c). The new section reflects this
suggestion.
Ford Motor Company agreed with GM that
the special vehicle identification is useful in in-
formation supplied to NHTSA. Ford also sug-
gested, however, that consumer information on
special vehicles need not be included at all in the
information supplied "on location" to prospec-
tive purchasers in accordance with § 575.6(b).
The NHTSA does not have information at pres-
ent to support or repudiate this suggestion, which
is beyond the scope of the proposal. If Ford or
any other person wishes to petition for rule-
making on this subject, the agency will consider
it for possible future rulemaking.
In response to an implied question by Truck
Body and Equipment Association, Inc., the
amendment does not change the applicability of
the Consumer Information regulations, as set
forth in Subpart B of Part 575.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
Part 575, Consumer Information, is amended
Effective date: June 11, 1973.
(Sees. 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718,
15 U.S.C. 1401, 1407 ; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on May 1, 1973.
James E. Wilson
Acting Administrator
38 F.R. 11347
May 7, 1973
PART 575— PRE 19-20
EffacHve: Sepiembar 1, 1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Docket No. 25, Notice 8)
This notice establishes a Consumer Informa-
tion regulation on Uniform Tire Quality Grad-
ing. The notice is based on proposals published
March 7, 1973 (38 F.R. 6194), and August 14,
1973 (38 F.R. 21939). An earlier proposal,
published September 21, 1971 (36 F.R. 18751)
was later withdrawn (April 21, 1972; 37 F.R.
7903). Comments submitted in response to these
proposals have been considered in the prepara-
tion of this notice.
The regulation will require tire manufacturers
and brand name owners to provide relative grad-
ing information for 13-, 14- and 15-inch tire size
designations for tire traction, treadwear, and
high speed performance. The respective grades
will be molded into or onto the tire sidewall,
contained in a label affixed to each tire, and
provided for examination by prospective pur-
chasers in a form retainable by them at each
location where tires are sold. The requirements
are effective with respect to passenger cars when
they are equipped with new tires bearing quality
grades.
Treadwear : The regulation requires each tire
to be graded for treadwear performance using
numbers which indicate the percentage of tread-
wear the tire will produce when compared to the
treadwear obtained from a "control tire" speci-
fied in the regulation. Each tire will be graded
with either the number "60", representing tread-
wear performance less than 80 percent of the
control tire's, or the number "80", "120", "160"
or "200", representing at least that percentage
of control tire wear. The grades are fewer in
number and represent broader performance
ranges than those proposed, as a result of com-
ments that the proposed grades were too numer-
ous and would not take into account inherent
differences in tire performance.
The method for obtaining treadwear grades is
essentially that proposed in the notice of March 7,
1973. Treadwear grades will be determined by
using a convoy of up to four identical passenger
cars with one vehicle equipped with four identi-
cal control tires, and each of the remaining ve-
hicles equipped with four identical manufactur-
er's tires (candidate tires) having the same
nominal rim diameter as the control tire. The
NHTSA intends that the convoy vehicles be
driven as similarly as possible with respect to
such factors as steering and braking. The ve-
hicles are run for 16,000 miles over a surface
that will produce control tire wear equal to be-
tween 65 and 85 percent of original tread depth.
The proposal had suggested that the tires be
worn to 90 percent of tread depth. This per-
centage has been reduced to prevent the tires
from being worn below their treadwear indi-
cators. The proposal had further suggested that
candidate tires be loaded to 100 percent of the
load specified for their inflation pressure in the
1972 Tire and Rim Association Yearbook. In
response to comments that vehicles are rarely
loaded to that extent in practice, the load has
been changed to 90 percent of the load specified
for the inflation pressure in the 1972 Tire and
Rim Association Yearbook. The NHTSA be-
lieves the road test method for measuring tread-
wear to be the most satisfactory that is presently
available. Moreover, the method has been used
for many years by tire manufacturers to eval-
uate the treadwear potential of newly developed
tire designs and compounds.
Many comments agreed that a 16,000-mile
road test was appropriate for grading the tread-
wear of radial tires. Some comments urged,
however, that only a 12,000-mile test be specified
for bias and bias/belted tires. The NHTSA has
PART 576— PRE 21
Efftcllv*: Scptimbcr 1, 1974
not accepted this recommendation as it believes
the comparative data for candidate tires of dif-
ferent construction types will necessarily be
more accurate if the comparisons are based on
the same degree of control tire wear.
Certain comments referred to the existing na-
tional energy shortage, requesting that the
agency take into account the problems presented
by the shortage in the final requirements. The
NHTSA recognizes the degree of energy that
will be necessary to perform the appropriate
grading tests, particularly with respect to the
test for treadwear grading. Research has been
undertaken and will continue with a view to
reducing the energy needs to establish treadwear
performance without adversely affecting the va-
lidity of test results. The NHTSA invites sug-
gestions or proposals in this regard, including
supportive data, directed to the establishment of
alternative methods or tests for grading tire
treadwear.
Traction; Each tire will bear a traction grade
of "90", "105", or "120", representing at least
that percentage of control tire performance. The
test for obtaining traction grades is similar to
that proposed on March 7, 1973. It utilizes a
two-wheeled test trailer built essentially to speci-
fications in American Society of Testing and
Materials E-274-70, Skid Resistance of Paved
Surfaces Using a Fidl-Scale Tire. The test con-
sists of towing the trailer over specified wet test
surfaces, equipped first with identical control
tires, and then with identical candidate tires of
the same rim diameter as the control tire. The
average coefficient of friction is computed when
one trailer wheel is locked on each of the two
surfaces at 20, 40, and 60 miles per hour. The
grade, similarly to the treadwear grade, is the
comparative difference between candidate and
control tire performance. The final rule differs
from the notice in that the proposed traction
grade representing less than 90 percent of control
tire performance has not been included. This
results from the notice proposing to amend
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49
CFR 571.109) (38 F.R. 31841; November 19,
1973) to require all passenger car tires to achieve
at least this level of control tire performance.
The NHTSA expects that this requirement will
become effective on the effective date of this
regulation, thereby necessitating the deletion of
the grade. The other grades specified differ from
those proposed to the extent that the range be-
tween grades has been increased to better allow
for inherent gradations in actual tire perform-
ance.
Many comments urged that grading for tire
traction not be established at this time. The
comments argued that the current state of the
art has not advanced to the point where reliable
and reproducible results can be obtained using
the proposed two-wheel trailer method.
The NHTSA believes the traction test issued
by this notice, utilizing the two-wheeled trailer,
is an objective procedure, capable of producing
repeatable results, and is therefore satisfactory
for the purpose of measuring and grading
straight-line, wet-surface braking traction. In
this regard, on the basis of information received
from General Motors, that company is presently
using the identical methodology in the specifica-
tions for tire traction for its "TPC" specification
tire. This tire is presently manufactured by
numerous domestic tire companies. Moreover,
grading fire traction is a necessary adjunct, in
the view of NHTSA, to grading tire treadwear,
for it is commonly known that treadwear and
traction performance result from diverse tire
properties. The two tests, therefore, serve as a
check that manufacturers will not design tires
that perform well in one area at the expense of
performance in the other. The minimum trac-
tion performance requirement recommended by
the comments as a substitute for traction grading
is insufficient, in the view of NHTSA, to serve
this function alone.
Many comments stated that traction test sur-
faces should be defined by test surface composi-
tion and skid number, rather than by skid
number alona as proposed. It was argued that
without a surface specification, reversals in tire
performance may occur. The NHTSA agrees
that the inclusion of precise surface specifications
may improve the reliability of traction test re-
sults. It has not adopted such specifications in
this notice as they have not been previously pro-
posed. However, recent developments have been
made in the establishment of test surfaces by the
Federal Highway Administration of the Depart-
ment of Transportation. Test surfaces developed
PART 575— PRE 22
Effacliva: Saptambar 1, 1974
by that agency are proposed in a notice issued
concurrently with this notice (1061) for later
inclusion in the regulation.
Some comments argued that the description of
this grading parameter as ''traction" was mis-
leading, as the proposed test dealt only with wet
braking traction and not dry pavement or cor-
nering traction. They suggested therefore that
the grading parameter be referred to as braking
or stopping traction, or as "wet-surface traction."
The NHTSA does not dispute that these other
traction properties are important aspects of tire
traction, and expects to add these performance
aspects to the traction grading scheme when ap-
propriate test procedures are developed. The
NHTSA does not believe, however, that the de-
scription of the existing test as "traction" is
misleading. The terminology suggested by the
comments, in the view of NHTSA, would be
over technical and unnecessary.
High speed performance: High speed per-
formance grades of "A", "B", or "C" are required
to be affixed to each tire based on its performance
on the high speed laboratory test wheel which is
presently used in testing for conformity to Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The test
utilized is as proposed — an extension of the
Standard No. 109 high speed performance test.
A tire will be graded "C" if it only passes the
Standard No. 109 test. In order to achieve a
grade of "B", the tire must run without failure
an additional i/^ hour at 425 rpm and two addi-
tional hours, one at 450 rpm and the other at
475 rpm. To achieve a grade of "A" the tire
must be run without failure an additional hour
at 500 rpm and another hour at 525 rpm. The
NHTSA has recently revised the criteria for tire
failure in Standard No. 109 (38 F.R. 27050;
September 28, 1973) and the revised criteria are
the criteria included in this rule.
The principal comment regarding the proposed
high speed grading format was that it should
consist of only two grades — one recommended
for general use and the other for use by emer-
gency vehicles. The comments argued that fur-
ther grading of high 'speed performance was
unnecessary and would promote high speed driv-
ing. The NHTSA views the suggested 2-grade
scheme as rendering any high speed grade mean-
ingless for most consumers. Essentially, it pro-
vides no information other than conformity to
Standard No. 109. The NHTSA believes driv-
ing habits with respect to speed do differ among
the driving population and that the grading
scheme should be based on that consideration.
Control Tires: Both treadwear and traction
grades are based on comparative results using a
control tire specified in the rule. The control
tires are 2-ply, rayon tires of bias construction,
in sizes 6.50 x 13, 7.75 x 14, and 8.55 x 15. The
control tire in each specified rim diameter will
be used in testing all candidate tires having that
rim diameter. The precise specifications for the
tires are identical to those proposed.
Control tires will be manufactured pursuant
to NHTSA contract and will be used in NHTSA
compliance testing. They will be made available
to the industry for testing purposes, and the
NHTSA will accept, for purposes of compliance
tests, results based upon their performance. The
agency may consider manufacturers who use dif-
ferent test devices to have failed to exercise the
due care contemplated by the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act should their tires
fail to perform to the specified grades when
subject to agency tests.
The final rule modifies certain aspects of the
proposed rule apart from the grading tests. In
response to several comments, labels are not re-
quired to be affijced to the tread surface of tires
which are furnished as original equipment on
new vehicles. These vehicles are generally driven
before sale, and labels on the tire tread surface
are therefore of questionable value. Information
on these tires will still be required to be otherwise
furnished with the vehicle, and available for re-
tention by prospective purchasers. The NHTSA
did not, however, agree with comments recom-
mending that the affixed label requirement be
deleted entirely. Tires are frequently on display
in sales outlets, and the affixed label will provide
consumers with the clearest understanding of the
grades applicable to a particular tire.
The grades molded onto the tire sidewall are
required to be placed between the shoulder and
the maximum section width, rather than between
the maximum section width and the bead as pro-
posed. The NHTSA believes the grades should
apply only to the original tire, and the placement
of grades above the maximum section width
PART 575— PRE 23
EllacHv*: Saptombar 1, 1974
increases the likelihood that grades will be re-
moved if the tire is retreaded.
Certain comments expressed the view that
providing information for tires placed on new
vehicles and furnishing that information to the
NHTSA 30 days before the vehicles are available
to the public is difficult to accomplish because of
the variety of tire and vehicle combinations in-
volved. The NHTSA does not believe sufficient
justification has been shown for deleting these
requirements. While some modification may be
necessary to existing manufacturer practices, the
NHTSA cannot agree that the regulation pre-
sents unmanageable problems for manufacturers.
Effective date: September 1, 1974. The
NHTSA has issued this notice pursuant to an
order of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. That order specifies that
the regulation take effect on September 1, 1974.
In light of the above, sections 575.4 and 575.6
are revised, and a new section 575.104 "Uniform
Tire Quality Grading", is added in Chapter V,
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. . . .
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203; Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421,
1423; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on December 28, 1973.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 1037
January 4, 1974
PART 575— PRE 24
Effective: May 9, 1974
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
(Docket No. 25; Notice 11)
This notice revokes the Uniform Tire Quality
Grading regulation published January 4, 1974
(39 F.R. 1037), and responds to petitions for
reconsideration received with respect to the
regulation.
The Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation
specified the use of "control tires" in the estab-
lishment of grades for treadwear and traction.
The NHTSA expected that control tires would
be manufactured by an industry source pursuant
to NHTSA contract, and would be available for
both industry and government use. A solicita-
tion for a proposal to manufacture control tires
was advertised to the domestic tire industry.
Two proposals were received. Each, however,
has been determined to be nonresponsive to the
solicitation, which has accordingly been can-
celled.
Due to the failure of NHTSA to procure a
control tire, the agency must revoke the Uniform
Tire Quality Grading regulation in its present
form. The revocation of the regulation renders
moot the petitions for reconsideration received.
On May 2, 1974, an order was entered by the
United States District Court for the District of
Columbia in the case of Nash v. Brinegar (Civil
Action No. 177-73) requiring the NHTSA to
issue, by June 15, 1974, a notice of proposed
rulemaking for a revised Uniform Tire Quality
Grading regulation having a proposed effective
date of May 1, 1975.
In light of the above, § 575.104 "Uniform Tire
Quality Grading" of Chapter V, Title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, is revoked, effective
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203; Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421,
1423; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on May 6, 1974.
Gene G. Mannella
Acting Administrator
39 F.R. 16469
May 9, 1974
PART 575— PRE 25-26
Effective: March 13, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Docket No. 74-18; Notice 2)
This notice amends Part 575, Consumer In-
formation, so that the requirement that manu-
facturers have consumer informaiion available
in showrooms does not apply to special vehicles
not available to the general public.
On April 26, 1974, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration proposed to amend
Part 575 to provide consumers with information
for only those vehicles which they were eligible
to purchase (39 F.R. 14728). The proposal,
which was in response to a petition from Ford
Motor Company, stated that information con-
cerning special vehicles would continue to be
made available to eligible purchasers. Com-
ments concerning the proposal were received
from American Motors Corporation, General
Motors Corporation and Chrysler Corporation.
All comments favored the proposal.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
575.7 is amended. . . .
Ejfective date: March 13, 1975. Because the
amendment relieves a restriction, it is found for
good cause shown that an effective date imme-
diately upon publication is in the public interest.
(Sees. 103, 112, 114, 203, Pub. L. 89-563, 80
Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1423; dele-
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on March 7, 1975.
Noel C. Bufe
Acting Administrator
40 F.R. 11727
March 13, 1975
PART 575— PRE 27-28
Effectrve:
January 1 , 1 976
July I, 1976
January I, 1977
July 1, 1977
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Docket No. 25; Notice 17)
This notice establishes Uniform Tire Quality
Grading Standards. The notice is based on pro-
posals published June 14, 1974 (39 F.K. 20808,
Notice 12), August 9, 1974 (39 F.R. 28644,
Notice 14), and January 7, 1975 (40 F.R. 1273,
Notice 15). Comments submitted in response to
these proposals have been considered in the prep-
aration of this notice.
A rule on this subject was issued on January
4, 1974 (39 F.R. 1037). It was revoked on May
9, 1974 (39 F.R. 16469), due to the inability of
the NHTSA to obtain from the tire industry
"control tires" which were to have been used as
the basis for determining the comparative per-
formance grades for treadwear and traction.
The rule issued today requires manufacturers
to provide grading information for new passen-
ger car tires in each of the following perform-
ance areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance. The respective grades are to be
molded into or onto the tire sidewall, contained
in a label affixed to each tire (except for OEM
tires) , and provided for examination by prospec-
tive purchasers in a form retainable by them at
each location where tires are sold.
TREADWEAR
Treadwear grades are based on a tire's pro-
jected mileage (the distance which it is expected
to travel before wearing down to its treadwear
indicators) as tested on a single, predetermined
test run of approximately 6400 miles. A tire's
treadwear grade is expressed as the percentage
which its projected mileage represents of a
nominal 30,000 miles, rounded off to the nearest
lower 10% increment. For example, a tire with
a projected mileage of 24,000 would be graded
"80", while one with a projected mileage of 40,000
would be graded "130".
The test course has been established by the
NHTSA in the vicinity of San Angelo, Texas,
as described in Appendix A. It is the same as
that discussed at the public briefings on this sub-
ject which took place July 23 and July 29, 1974,
except that the direction of travel has been re-
versed on the northwest loop to increase safety
by reducing the number left turns. The course
is approximately 400 miles long, and each
treadwear test will require 16 circuits. It is
anticipated that both the industry, at each manu-
facturer's option, and the agency will perform
treadwear tests on this course; the former for
establishing grades, and the latter for purposes
of compliance testing, i.e., testing the validity
of the grades assigned. To arrange for alloca-
tions of test time at the site, industry members
should contact the NHTSA facility manager,
P.O. Box 6591, Goodfellow Air Force Base, San
Angelo, Texas 76901; telephone (915) 655-0546.
While manufacturers are not required to test on
the site, it would be to their advantage to do so,
since the legal standard against which com-
pliance with the rule will be measured is a tire's
performance in government tests on that course.
The method of determining projected mileages
is essentially that proposed in Notice 12 as modi-
fied by Notices 14 and 15 in this docket. The
treadwear performance of a candidate tire is
measured along with that of course monitoring
tires (CMTs) if the same general construction
type (bias, bias-belted, or radial) used to monitor
changes in course severity. The CMTs are tires
procured by the NHTSA — one group each of
the three general types — which are made avail-
able by the agency for purchase and use by regu-
lated persons at the test site. To obtain course
monitoring tires, regulated persons should con-
tact the NHTSA facility manager at the aboVe
address.
PART 575— PRE 29
Effective: January 1, 1976
July 1, 1976
January 1, 1977
July 1, 1977
Each test convoy consists of one car equipped
with four CMTs and three or fewer other cars
equipped with candidate tires of the same con-
struction type. (Candidate tires on the same
axle are identical, but front tires on a test vehicle
may differ from rear tires as long as all four
are of the same size designation.) After a two-
circuit break-in period, the initial tread depth of
each tire is determined by averaging the depth
measured at six equally spaced locations in each
groove. At the end of every two circuits (800
miles), each tire's tread depth is measured again
in the same way, the tires are rotated, vehicle
positions in the convoy are rotated, and wheel
alignments are readjusted if necessary. At the
end of the 16-circuit test, each tire's overall wear
rate is calculated from the nine measured tread
depths and their corresponding mileages-after-
break-in as follows: The regression line which
"best fits" these data points is determined by
applying the method of least squares as described
in Appendix C; the wear rate is defined as the
absolute value of tlie slope of the regression line,
in mils of tread depth per 1000 miles. This
wear rate is adjusted for changes in course se-
verity by a multiplier consisting of the base wear
rate for that type of course monitoring tire
divided by the measured average of the wear
rates for the four CMTs in that convoy. A
candidate tire's tread depth after break-in
(minus 62 mils to account for wearout when the
treadwear indicators are reached) divided by its
adjusted wear rate and multiplied by 1000, plus
800 miles, yields its projected mileage. The pro-
jected mileage is divided by 30,000 and multiplied
by 100 to determine the percentage which, when
rounded off, represents the candidate tire's tread-
wear grade.
A discussion of the NHTSA response to the
comments on treadwear grading follows.
Duration of break-in period and test. The 400
mile break-in period originally proposed in Notice
12 was extended in Notice 15 to 800 miles, to
permit the rotation of each tire between axles
after 400 miles. The Rubber Manufacturers
As.sociation (RMA) suggested that a 1600-mile
break-in, by permitting each tire to be rotated
once through each position on the test car, would
provide more reliable results. An analysis of var-
iance in a study conducted by the NHTSA showed
no significant variations in wear from one side of
a car to the other. Further, a review of data
from extensive testing on the San Angelo course
showed no anomalies or consistent variations in
wear rate occurring after the first 800 miles.
The NHTSA is convinced that the 800-mile
break-in period is sufficient to allow a tire to
establish its equilibrium inflated shape and stabi-
lize its wear rate. Therefore, the RMA sugges-
tion has not been adopted.
Many of the comments to Notice 12 suggested
that testing distances greater than 6400 miles
are necessary for accurate tread life projections.
Testing to 40%, 50%, and even 90% of wearout
was urged. Unfortunately, only the submission
of North American Dunlop was accompanied by
substantive data. These data, showing non-linear
wear rates, were of questionable validity because
the tires were not broken in prior to testing and
because the data were collected by different test
fleets in different parts of the country. None-
theless, as a result of the large number of adverse
comments, the NHTSA requested further in-
formation from all knowledgeable and concerned
parties to document and substantiate the position
that a longer treadwear test is necessary. The
additional data were requested in a written in-
quiry to the RMA and in Notice 15. Because
of the need to limit test time, test cost, and fuel
consumption, the objective was to de*^ermine the
minimum test distance which can reliably pre-
dict ultimate tire treadwear life.
The responses to these requests have been re-
viewed and analyzed. Again, the NHTSA finds
the industry data and conclusions that greater
testing distances are necessary lacking in rigor
and completeness. In most cases, the conditions
of the industry tests were not disclosed or "did
not coincide with the prescribed control proce-
dures. Serious doubt is cast upon the conclusions
because of inadequate information on one or more
of the following test conditions: changes in
weather and season, course severity, conformity
with prescribed break-in period, mileage between
PART 575— PRE 30
readinfrs, method of projected milea<!;e, size of
convoy, number of tires tested, and uniformity
and frequency of tread depth measurement.
A controlled test proprain recently completed
by the NHTSA was designed to test the hypoth-
esis that the rate of wear of tires is constant after
an 800-mile break-in. The design and conclu-
sions of the test are discussed in detail in a paper
by Brenner, Scheiner, and Kondo ("Uniform
Tire Quality Grading; Effect of Status of Wear
on Tire Wear Rate," NHTSA Techncial Note
T-lOU, March, 1975 — General Reference entry
no. 42 in this docket.) The general conclusions
of the test are: (1) that the inherent rate of
wear of tires, after an 800 mile break-in period,
is constant and (2) that the projected tread life
for a tire estimated from a 6,400-mile test after
800-mile break-in is accurate for all three tire
types. Accordingly, the 6,400 mile test period
has been retained.
Grading based on minimum ferformance. The
RMA expressed strong disagreement with any
system in which treadwear grades are based on a
tire line's miniinum projected mileage on the San
Angelo test course, urging instead that the aver-
age performance of a line is a more appropriate
grade. The RMA suggested further that the
proposed grading system "ignores the bell-shaped
distribution curve which describes any perform-
ance characteristics and would require the down-
grading of an entire line of tires until no portion
of the distribution curve fell below any selected
treadwear grade, notwithstanding that the large
bulk of a given group of tires was well above
the grade."
The NHTSA rejects the arguments and the
position taken by the industry on this issue. It
is precisely the fact that, in industrial processes
involving production of large numbers of items,
the products group themselves into the so-called
bell-shaped or normal distribution which allows
for measurement of central tendency and varia-
tion and forms the basis of scientific quality
control.
Tests performed by the NHTSA and described
in the paper cited above have sliown conclusively
that different production tii'es exhibit considerable
Effective: January 1, 1976
July 1, 1976
January 1, 1977
July 1, 1977
differences in their variability about their respec-
tive average values. Thus, two different tire
brands might have identical average values for
treadwear, but differ markedly in their variance
or standard deviation. These diffeernces would
probably be attributable to differences in process
and quality control.
Recognition of differences in inherent variabil-
ity among tire manufacturers and tire lines is
of the utmost importance to the consumer. The
average or mean measure of a group of tires does
not provide sufficient information to enable the
consumer to make an informed choice. If one
tire on a user's car wears out in 10,000 miles,
the fact that the "average" tire of that type
wears to 25,000 miles in the same driving environ-
ment does not alter his need to purchase a new
tire. Ideally, the consumer might be provided
with more information if he were given a meas-
ure of the mean (central tendency) and standard
deviation (variability) for each tire type, but the
complexity and possible confusion generated by
such a system would negate its advantages. In
the NHTSA's judgment, the most valuable single
grade for the consumer is one corresponding to
a level of performance wihch he can be reason-
ably certain is exceeded by the universe popula-
tion for that tire brand and line.
As with the other consumer information regu-
lations issued by this agency, a grade represents
a minimum performance figuie to which every
tire is expected to conform if tested by the gov-
ernment under the procedures set forth in the
rule. Thus, any manufacturer in doubt about
the performance capabilities of a line of his tires
is free to assign a lower grade than what might
actually be achieved, and he is expected to ensure
that substantially all the tires marked with a
particular grade are capable of achieving it.
Homogeneity of course 7nonitoring tires.
Another aspect of the Notice 12 proposal which
generated much controversy is the adoption by
the NHTSA of production tires for use as course
monitoring tires. The commenters suggested that
changes in course severity be monitored instead
by tires manufactured under rigidly specified
conditions to ensure homogeneity. Because varia-
PART 575— PRE 31
Effective: January 1, 1976
July 1, 1976
January 1, 1977
July 1, 1977
tions in the performance of course monitoring
tires are reflected in treadwear projections for
all candidate tires, it follows that the more lioino-
geneous the universe of the monitoring tires, the
more precisely the performance of the candidate
tires can be graded. The NHTSA is in complete
accord with the industry's desire to minimize the
variability of tires chosen for course monitoring.
The development of specifications for special
"control tires", in which materials, processing,
and other conditions are rigidly controlled to a
degree beyond that possible for mass production,
will continue. The NHTSA hopes to work with
the tire industry to reduce the variability of
course monitoring tires to the maximum extent
possible. However, it should be noted that an
earlier version of this regulation had to be re-
voked due to the difficulty in obtaining such
"control tires." Recent tests (summarized in tlie
paper cited above) demonstrate that implementa-
tion of a viable treadwear grading system need
not be delayed further, pending development of
special tires. In these tests, the current radial
CMTs — Goodyear Custom Steelgards chosen from
a single, short production run — show a coeflicient
of variation (standard deviation of wear rate
divided by mean) of 4.9%. This degree of uni-
formity is commensurate with universally ac-
cepted criteria for test control purposes. Hence,
grading of radial tires may be started imme-
diately. The tentatively adopted bias and bias-
belted CMTs showed coefficients of variation of
7.3% and 12.4%, respectively. Existing test data
indicate that the NHTSA will be able to identify
and procure other tires of these two construction
types, exhibiting homogeneity comparable to the
current radial CMTs, in time for testing in
accordance with the implementation scliedule set
out below. In any event, the variability of course
monitoring tires will be taken into account by the
NHTSA in connection with its compliance test-
ing. At worst, the degree of grading imprecision
associated with CMT variability will be no
greater than one-half the levels measured for
the current bias and bias-belted tire lots, because
the standard deviation for the average of a set of
four tires is equal to one-half that of the universe
standard deviation. It is the NHTSA's judg-
ment that treadwear grades of this level of preci-
sion will pi-ovide substantially more meaningful
information to the prospective tire buyer than is
currently available.
To make efficient use of the available CMTs,
the NHTSA expects to conduct treadwear tests
with used CMTs, as well as with new ones. This
will not affect any mileage projections, because
the inherent wear rate of tires is constant after
break-in. Test results will be discarded if the
treadwear indicators are showing on any of the
CMTs at the end of a test.
The need for three separate course monitoring
tires. Many commenters suggested that a single
CMT of the bias-ply type be used, arguing that
the use of a different CMT for each general con-
struction type would create three separate tread-
wear rating systems. These suggestions appear
to result from a misunderstanding of the role of
the course monitoring tires. They are not used
as yardsticks against which candidate tires are
graded. Instead, they are used to monitor
changes in tlie severity of the test course. Ex-
periments performed by the NHTSA (Brenner,
F.C. and Kondo, A., "I-^lements in the Road
Evaluation of Tire Wear", Tire Science and
Technology, Vol. I, No. 1, Feb. 1973, p. 17— Gen-
eral Reference enti-y no. 17 in tliis docket) show
that changes in test course severity will affect
tires of differing construction types to differing
degrees. For example, the improvement in pro-
jected tread life from the severest to the mildest
test coui-scs in tlie experiments was 12% for bias
tires, yet it was 91% for bias-belted tires and
140% for radial tires. In fact, a variety of
factors influence course severity, each liaving
different relative effects on tlic various tire types.
Tlicrefore, tlu- use of a single course monitoring
tire on courses of viiiying severity, or even on a
given course wliose severity is subject to varia-
tion duo to weatlicr and road wear, would not
permit the correct adjustment of measured wear
rates for environmental influences. Only with
a CMT for each construction type can a single,
uniform treadwear grading system be established.
PART 575— PRE 32
Expression of treadwear grades. The system
of treadwear grading proposed in Notice 12 spec-
ified six grades, as follows:
Grade X (projected mileage less than 15,000)
Grade 15 (projected mileage at least 15,000)
Grade 25 ( " " " " 25,000)
Grade 35 ( " " " " 35,000)
Grade 45 ( " " " " 45,000)
Grade 60 ( " " " " 60,000)
Among the objections to this proposal was that
small differences in actual treadwear in the vi-.
cinity of grade boundaries would be misrepre-
sented as large differences because of the breadth
of the predetermined categories. The NHTSA
was also concerned that the broad categories
could in some cases reduce the desirable competi-
tive impact of the treadwear grading system if
tires of substantially differing treadwear per-
formance were grouped in the same grade. For
these reasons, a relatively continuous grading
system was proposed in Notice 15, in which tires
would be graded with two digit numbers repre-
senting their minimum projected mileages in
thousands of miles as determined on the San
Angelo test course. The major objection to both
of these proposals was that grades expressing
projected mileages would lead consumers to ex-
pect every tire to yield its indicated mileage.
The manufacturers were especially concerned
that this would subject them to implied warranty
obligations, despite the disclaimer on tlie label.
The NHTSA remains convinced that treadwear
grades which are directly related to projected
mileages are the most appropriate way of ex-
pressing treadwear performance. To overcome
any possible misinterpretation by consumers, the
grading system established today is changed
from that of Notice 15 to indicate relative per-
formance on a percentage basis, as described
above. This decision is based in part upon the
fact that testing performed to date on the Sa"n
Angelo course has given projected mileages that
are generally higher than those the average user
will obtain ; i.e., it appears to be a relatively mild
course.
Effective: January 1, 1976
July \, 1976
January I, 1977
July 1, 1977
Wheel align7nent procedure. Test vehicle
wheel alignment procedures received considerable
comment. Notice 12 proposed alignment to ve-
hicle manufacturer's specifications after vehicle
loading. Notice 15 proposed that this be done
before loading, and that the measurements taken
after loading be used as a basis for setting align-
ment for the duration of the test. The majority
of the commenters strongly favored a return to
Mie original procedure. The NHTSA takes par-
ticular cognizance of the fact that those com-
menters who have actually tried both procedures
in testing at San Angelo find tlie procedure of
Notice 12 to be satisfactory and practicable, and
tliat of Notice 15 to be unusable. NHTSA repre-
sentatives at San Angelo have reported satis-
factory operation on a variety of vehicles using
the originally proposed procedure, and have not
observed any uneven tire wear that would indi-
cate alignment problems. For these reasons, the
final rule prescribes alignment procedures which
are identical with those proposed in Notice 12.
Tire rotation procedure. Several commenters
objected to using the proposed "X" rotation
procedure for testing radial tires. The NHTSA
is aware that this procedure differs from that
recommended by many groups for consumers'
use. While some veliicle and tire manufacturers
recommend that radial tires be rotated only fore-
aft, others recommend no rotation at all and
yet others are silent on tlie subject. The primary
reason for these other metliods appears to be to
improve passenger comfort by reducing vibra-
tion. No data have been submitted, however, to
suggest that the proposed method has any adverse
or uneven effect on radial tire wear. Further,
this metliod has the advantage, for treadwear
testing, of balancing out any side-to-side or axle
wear differences attributable to the vehicle or to
the course. Accordingly, the pi'oposed tire rota-
tion metliod has been adopted wnthout change.
Choice of grooves to be measured. Some com-
menters suggested that treadwear projections be
calculated from measurements of the most worn
grooves on candidate tires, rather than from the
averages of measurements made in all grooves.
PART 575— PRE 33
Effective: January 1 , 1 976
July 1, 1976
January 1, 1977
July 1, 1977
It was argued that, because many States require
replacement of passenger car tires when tread-
wear indicators appear in any two adjacent
grooves, the proposed method of calculation
would yield misleadingly liigh projections. Anal-
ysis of projections based on both methods
(Brenner, F.C. and Kondo, A., "Patterns of
Tread Wear and Estimated Tread Life," Tire
Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1973 —
General Reference entry no. 27 in this docket)
shows a high correlation between the resulting
tire rankings. Because the treadwear grading
system established today is based on relative
performance, there is no disadvantage in adopting
the proposed method. On a related issue, the
E.T.R.T.O. pointed out that some grooves near
the tire shoulder which are designed only for
esthetic reasons exhibit practically no wear, and
suggested that measurements be made only in
those grooves which contain treadwear indicators.
This suggestion has been adopted.
Calculation of projected mileage. Several
methods for calculating the tire wear rates to be
used in determining projected mileages were con-
sidered. Notice 12 proposed calculating the
geometric mean of the wear rates measured for
each 800-mile increment. This approach was
rejected because the geometric mean is extremely
sensitive to inaccurate readings in any single
measurement. Use of the arithmetic mean of
the incremental wear rates appears to be the
general industry practice. Unfortunately, how-
ever, the intermediate readings have no effect on
such a calculation, because the result is a func-
tion only of the initial tread depth (after
break-in) and that measured 6,400 miles later.
Therefore, a wear rate calculated by the industry
method is extremely sensitive to errors in these
two measurements. In Notice 15, the NHTSA
proposed that wear rate be calculated by the
least-squares regression method, as described
above. This approach has the advantage of
weighting all measurements and minimizing the
effect of inaccurate readings, so it has been
adopted.
Differing tires on a single test vehicle. Uni-
royal and the E.T.R.T.O. argued that each test
convoy vehicle should be equipped with four iden-
tical tires; the reason given was that otherwise,
the performance of a candidate tire would be a
function of the tires chosen by the NHTSA for
use on the other axle of the test vehicle during
compliance testing. The NHTSA is unaware of
any data that support this position. The rule
adopted today requires that all vehicles in a single
convoy be equipped with tires of the same general
construction type, and that all tires on a single
vehicle be of the same size designation. In exten-
sive testing at San Angelo with this procedure,
none of the suggested undesirable variations has
been observed.
Differing test vehicles in a single convoy. Sev-
eral commenters suggested that the rule specify
that all vehicles in a given convoy be identical,
to reduce variations in projected treadlife. The
NHTSA is in complete agreement with the
premise that those variables which can be iden-
tified and which can affect treadwear results
should be controlled as closely as is feasible.
Variations in vehicle type, however, do not ap-
pear to produce significant variations in tread-
wear projections. Nevertheless, to minimize
such variations, tires will be tested for compliance
only on vehicles for which they ai'e available as
original equipment or recommended replacement
options. Where practical, all vehicles in a given
convoy will be of the same make. However, to
test tires designed for the range of wheel sizes
available, the suggested method would require a
proliferation of course monitoring tires, one for
each combination of wheel size and construction
type. Therefore, the suggestion has not been
adopted.
Accuracy of tread depth measurements. The
RMA suggested that the interval between meas-
urements be increased to 1,600 miles to reduce the
effects of measurement error. However, if this
interval were used instead of 800 miles, only five
readings would be obtained in the 6,400 mile
treadwear test, so errors in any one reading
would result in a greater overall error. A re-
cently completed study (Kondo, A. and Brenner,
PART 575— PRE 34
F.C., "Report on Round-Robin Groove Deptli
Measuring Experiment," NHTSA Technical Note
T-1012, March 1975— General Reference entry
no. 44 in this docket) shows that variations
among measurements of the same tread depth by
different operators do not present a serious prob-
lem. The study found that the only significant
variations in measurement results occur as a re-
sult of differences in measuring techniques
between different laboratories. Since these tech-
niques are consistent within a given laboratory,
the different laboratories arrive at the same re-
sults in terms of the slope of the tread depth
regression line that is the basis of the treadwear
grade.
TRACTION
Traction grades are based on a tire's traction
coefficient as measured on two wet skid pads, one
of asphalt and one of concrete. Because a method
for producing identical skid test surfaces at dif-
ferent sites has not yet been developed, the
NHTSA has established two skid pads, described
in Appendix B, near the treadwear test course in
San Angelo. These pads represent typical high-
way surfaces. The asphalt surface has a traction
coefficient, when tested wet using the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
E 501 tire, of 0.50 ±0.10. The concrete surface
was described in Notice 12 as having a traction
coefficient, when similarly tested, of 0.47 ± 0.05.
Due to surface polishing, this coefficient has de-
clined and stabilized at 0.35 ± 0.10. xVs with
the treadwear course, these pads are available
for use by manufacturers as well as the agency.
For allocations of test time, industry members
should contact the NHTSA facility manager at
the above address.
Before each candidate tire test, the traction
coefficient of each surface is measured with two
ASTM tires to monitor variations in the surface,
using a two-wheeled test trailer built in ac-
cordance with ASTM Method E-274-70. The
candidate tire's traction coefficient is similarly
measured on each surface, and then adjusted by
adding a fixed coefficient (0.50 for asphalt, 0.35
Effective: January 1, 1976
July 1, 1976
January 1, 1977
July 1, 1977
for concrete) and subtracting the average co-
efficient obtained from measurements with the
two ASTM tires.
The tire industry's major objection to the pro-
posed rule was tliat, witli four possible grades
for traction, two tires might be graded differently
without a meaningful difference in their per-
formance. The RMA suggested a scheme with
two grade categories above a minimum require-
ment. The rule issued today, by setting two
threshold levels of performance, establishes three
grades: "0", for performance below the first
threshold; "*", for performance above the first
threshold ; and "**"", for performance above the
second threshold. The NHTSA is convinced that
the grades thus defined reflect significant differ-
ences in traction performance.
Firestone suggested that further testing may
demonstrate that only one pad is necessary to
give the best and most consistently repeatable
results. However, the ranking of a group of
tires based on their performance on one surface
can differ from their ranking on another surface.
In fact, one tire manufacturer suggested that an
additional surface of low coefficient be included
in the testing scheme for this reason. The
NHTSA agre«s that an additional surface may
increase the utility of the traction grading sys-
tem, and anticipates a proposal to implement this
suggestion in the future.
The suggestion of Pirelli, that measurements
be made during the period between 0.5 and 1.5
seconds after wheel lockup instead of the period
between 0.2 and 1.2 seconds, has been adopted.
To permit more efficient use of the skid pads, the
rule specifies a test sequence which differs sliglitly
from that originally proposed : instead of being
tested repeatedly on the asphalt pad and then
repeatedlj' on tlie concrete pad, eacli tire is run
alternately over the two pads. A change in
paragraph (f ) (2) (i) (A) permits tires to be con-
ditioned on tlie test trailer as an alternative to
conditioning on a passenger car. Another change
facilitates the use of trailers with instrumenta-
tion on only one side, which had been inad-
vertently precluded by the wording of the
proposed rule.
PART 575— PRE 35
Effective: January 1, 1976
July 1, 1976
January 1, 1977
July 1, 1977
TEMPERATURE RESISTANCE
The major objection to the proposed hi^h
speed performance grading scheme was that it
was neither necessary nor beneficial to the con-
sumer. Several commenters pointed out that
Standard No. 109 specifies testing a tire against
a laboratory wheel at a speed corresponding to
85 mph, and argued that certification of a tire
to this minimum requirement provides the con-
sumer with adequate information about its per-
formance at all expected driving speeds. They
suggested that only one higher grade be estab-
lished, for tires designed to be used on emergency
vehicles. Some commenters indicated that, as
proposed, the rule seemed to condone or even
encourage the unsafe operation of motor vehicles
above legal speed limits. To preclude this mis-
interpretation, the third tire characteristic to be
graded has been renamed "temperature resist-
ance". The grade is indicative of the running
temperature of the tire. Sustained high tem-
perature can cause the material of the tire to
degenerate and reduce tire life, and excessive
temperature can lead to sudden tire failure.
Therefore, the distinctions provided by three
grades of temperature resistance are meaningful
to the consumer. Except for the name change,
this aspect of quality grading has been adopted
as proposed. A grade of "C" corresponds to the
minimum requirements of Standard No. 109.
"B" indicates completion of the 500 rpm test
stage specified in paragraph (g)(9), while "A"
indicates completion of the 575 rpm test range.
PROVISION OF GRADING INFORMATION
Several commenters objected to the proposed
tread label requirement, suggesting that point-
of-sale material such as posters and leaflets could
provide the consumer with adequate information
about tire grades. For the reasons discussed in
Notice 12, the NHTSA is convinced that labels
affixed to the tread of the tire are the only satis-
factory method of providing complete informa-
tion to replacement tire purchasers. Therefore,
the scheme for transmitting quality grading in-
formation to consumers, combining sidewall mold-
ing, tread labels, and point-of-sale materials, has
been adopted substantially as proposed. A
change in paragraph (d) (1) (ii) clarifies the
respective duties of vehicle manufacturers and
tire manufacturers to provide information for
prospective purchasers.
Several vehicle manufacturers requested that
new vehicles not be required to be equipped with
graded tires until six months after the date that
tires must be graded. These commenters appear
to have misunderstood the scope of the quality
grading standard. The NHTSA expects that
tires which comply with the standard will appear
on new vehicles as inventories of ungraded tires
are depleted. Part 575.6 requires of the vehicle
manufacturer only that he provide the specified
information to purchasers and prospective pur-
chasers when he equips a vehicle with one or
more tires manufactured after the applicable
effective date of this rule.
The NHTSA has determined that an Infla-
tionary Impact Statement is not required pur-
suant to Executive Order 11821. Industry cost
estimates and an inflation impact review are filed
in public Docket No. 25. This review includes
an evaluation of the expected cost of the rule.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new
§ 575.104, "Uniform Tire Quality Grading Stand-
ards" is added to 49 CFR Part 575. . . .
Effective dates. For all requirements other
than the molding requirement of paragraph
(d)(l)(i)(A) : January 1, 1976, for radial ply
tires; July 1, 1976, for bias-belted tires; January
1, 1977, for bias ply tires. For paragraph
(d) (1) (i) (A) : July 1,1976, for radial ply tires;
January 1, 1977, for bias-belted tires; July 1,
1977, for bias-ply tires.
(Sex;s. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203; Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421,
1423) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on May 20, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
40 F.R. 23073
May 28, 1975
PART 575— PRE 36
Effective: January 1, 1976
July 1, 1976
January 1, 1977
July 1, 1977
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Docket No. 25; Notice 18)
This notice republishes, with minor changes,
paragraphs (e) (1) (v) and (f) (2) (i) (B), Figure
2, and the appendices of § 575.104, Uniform Tire
Quality Grading Standards, which was published
May 28, 1975 (40 F.E. 23073; Notice 17).
In describing the rims on which candidate tires
are to be mounted. Notice 17 inadvertently re-
ferred to the Appendix to Standard No. 110.
On February 6, 1975, the definition of "test rim"
in Standard No. 109 was amended and the Ap-
pendix to Standard No. 110 was deleted (Docket
No. 74-25; Notice 2; effective August 5, 1975).
Under the new definition, a "test rim" may be
any of several widths, only one of which is equal
to that listed under the words "test rim width"
in Table I of the Appendix to Standard No. 109.
Paragraphs (e)(1) (v) and (f ) (2) (i) (B) are
corrected to specify the rim mounting scheme in
terms of the new definition.
As Figure 2 was published in the Federal Reg-
ister, the words "DOT Quality Grades" appeared
as the Figure's title. In fact, the words are a
part of the text which must appear on each tread
label required by paragraph (d)(1)(B), and
accordingly the figure is republished with the
correct title.
The treadwear test course described in Ap-
pendix A is changed so that the loops are traveled
in the following order: south, east, and north-
west. This change is designed to increase safety
by reducing the number of left turns. The table
of key points and mileages is revised to reflect
the change. Corresponding changes are made in
the numbers used to designate these points in the
text and in Figure 3.
To prevent the bunching of test vehicles at
STOP signs and thereby increase safety, the
speed to which vehicles must decelerate when
abreast of the direction sign is changed in Ap-
pendix A to read "20 mph".
The reference to Figure 2 in the second para-
graph of Appendix B is corrected to indicate
that the asphalt skid nad is depicted in Figure
4. The shading of the skid pads is corrected to
correspond to the description in the text.
The first two paragraphs of Appendix C,
Method of Least Squares, were omitted. Those
paragraphs are now inserted and the graph is
designated as Figure 5.
In consideration of the foregoing, paragraphs
(e) (1) (v) and (f) (2) (i) (B), Figure 2, and the
appendices to § 575.104 of Title 49, Code of Fed-
eral Regulations, are republished. . . .
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203; Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421,
1423) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on June 25, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
40 F.R. 28071
July 3, 1975
PART 575— PRE 37-38
Effective: January 6, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Docket No. 75-27; Notice 2)
This notice amends Standard No. 105-75, Hy-
draulic Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.105-75, to
revise the parking brake test procedure (S7.7).
In addition, this notice amends Subpart B of
Part 575, Consumer Information, 49 CFR
§ 575.101, by replacing the present test procedures
in that section for passenger car testing with
equivalent procedures from Standard No. 105-75.
The NHTSA proposed a modification of the
parking brake test procedures in Standard No.
105-75 to permit a reapplication of the parking
brake if the first application of the brake failed
to hold the vehicle stationary on the t«st in-
cline. Toyo Kogyo requested the modification as
representative of normal driver action (in cases
where the application appears to be insufficient
to hold the vehicle), justifying the change as
necessary to permit new vehicle components to
stretch or "set" during the initial application as
occurs in any vehicle delivered to a purchaser.
The NHTSA agreed that reapplication would be
a reasonable test procedure and proposed a re-
vision of S7.7.
Comments were received from Toyo Kogyo,
General Motors, American Motors Corporation,
and Chrysler Corporation in support of the
change. No comments were received that ob-
jected to the proposal. The standard is amended
accordingly.
The NHTSA also proposed that the consumer
information item requiring publication of the
stopping ability of passenger cars and motor-
cycles (49 CFR §575.101) be modified for pas-
senger cars so that test data developed under
Standard No. 105-75 could be the basis for the
required consumer information. The existing
test procedures of the consumer information item
would be replaced by Standard No. 105-75 test
procedures, and a transition period until Jan-
uary 1, 1977, would be provided to allow manu-
facturers latitude in adopting the new procedures.
The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
(MVMA), Chrysler Corporation, American Mo-
tors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and
General Motors Corporation supported the mod-
ifications. The MVMA and Ford pointed out an
inadvertent omission in the proposal of a required
change in the present loading specification (max-
imum loaded vehicle weight) to the Standard
No. 105-75 loading specification (gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR)). No comments op-
posed the modification, and the consumer in-
formation item is therefore amended as proposed,
with the additional modification noted by the
MVMA and Ford. The transition period for
use of either loading specification conforms to
the transition period for use of either test pro-
cedure (until January 1, 1977). The MVMA
asked for a June 1, 1977, date for transition to
the new loading specification but did not explain
the need for more time. The NHTSA will con-
sider any data on this subject submitted by the
MVMA.
With regard to test loading, Chrysler Cor-
poration repeated a request for revision of the
loading conditions of Standard No. 105-75. The
request was earlier submitted improperly as a
petition for reconsideration of an NHTSA ac-
tion which did not deal with test loading (40
F.R. 24525, June 9, 1975). Section 553.35 of
NHTSA regulations (49 CFR 553.35) allows
petitions for reconsideration of rules issued by
the NHTSA, but in this case no rule was issued
on test loading that could form the basis for re-
consideration. The NHTSA discussed Chrysler's
request at a meeting with Chrysler officials on
August 21, 1975. Based on the limited informa-
tion presented by Chrysler at that meeting, the
PART 575— PRE 39
Effective: January 6, 1976
NHTSA has concluded that a reduction in test
weight would not be justified. At the meeting it
was agreed that Chrysler would submit any addi-
tional data it had in support of the request. To
date no data have been received, and the NHTSA
cannot meaningfully reconsider Chrysler's re-
quest without further data.
The NHTSA also proposed modification of the
means for establishing the skid number of the
surface on which stopping distance tests are con-
ducted in Standard No. 105-75, Standard No.
121, Air Brake Systems, Standard No. 122, Mo-
torcycle Brake Systems, and the Consumer
Information Item on brake performance. Com-
ments received were not in agreement on how to
accomplish the transition from the former ASTM
method to the new one. The skid number pro-
posal will therefore be treated separately at a
later date so that its resolution will not delay
this amendment of the parking brake and con-
sumer information item test procedures.
In consideration of the foregoing, amendments
are made in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Fed-
eral Kegulations. . . .
Effective date : January 6, 1976. Because these
amendments, to the extent that they impose new
substantive requirements, are made optional for
an interim period, and because manufacturers
must plan future testing based on the test pro-
cedures as they exist in the present standard, it
is found for good cause shown that an immediate
effective date is in the public interest.
(Sec. 103, 119 Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (16
U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.51).
Issued on December 31, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
41 F.R. 1066
January 6, 1976
PART 575— PRE 40
Effective: April 1, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Docket No. 76-1; Notice 2)
This notice amends 49 CFR 567 and 575 to
allow manufacturers an alternative method of
referring purchasers to appropriate consumer
information tables.
On January 22, 1976, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration issued in the
Federal Register (40 FR 3315) a notice which
proposed amending 49 CFR 575, Consumer In-
formation, and 49 CFR 567, Certification, to allow
the consumer information document provided to
the purchaser of a vehicle to refer the reader to
the vehicle's certification label to determine which
information applied to that vehicle. This infor-
mation, which relates to the perfonnance char-
acteristics of the vehicle, is required to be made
available to purchasers by 49 CFR 575.6(a).
Currently, if the document containing this infor-
mation also contains information relating to other
vehicles, the document itself must clearly indi-
cate which information is applicable to the ve-
hicle purchased. The NHTSA proposal was
made in response to a petition from the General
Motors Corporation which suggested that the
proposed alternative procedure would for some
companies be a more efficient and less costly
method of accomplishing the purposes of the
regulation.
Comments in support of the proposal were re-
ceived from General Motors Corporation, Amer-
ican Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation
and Ford Motor Company. No comments in
opposition were received.
Based on the petition of General Motors and
the comments concerning the notice of proposed
rulemaking, the NHTSA concludes that allowing
an alternative method of designating the appro-
priate consumer information tables would reduce
the possibility of error and lessen the cost to the
manufacturer.
In consideration of the foregoing. Parts 567
and 575 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
are amended. . . .
E-ffective date : April 1, 1976. Because the pro-
cedures established herein are optional and im-
pose no increased burden on any party, it is
found for good cause shown that an immediate
effective date is in the public interest.
(Sec. 103, 112, 114, 119, Pub. L. 80-563, 80
Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407);
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on : March 26, 1976.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
41 F.R. 13923
April 1, 1976
PART 575— PRE 41-42
Effective: June 14, 1976
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
(Docket No. 75-27; Notice 4)
This notice amends Standard No. 105-75,
Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard No. 122,
Motorcycle Brake Systems, to modify the means
for establishing the frictional resistance of the
surface on which stopping distance tests are con-
ducted. A similar amendment is made to Part
575, Consumer Information, of Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration (NHTSA) proposed the change in
Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75),
Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR
571.121), Standard No. 122 (49 CFR 571.122),
and the Consumer Information Regulations (49
CFR 575.101) in response to a petition from
British-Leyland Motors Limited (40 FR 45200,
October 1, 1975). The existing test procedure
in these regulations has specified use of the
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) E-274-65T procedure, using an ASTM
E249 tire that is no longer manufactured.
Responses were received on the proposed
ASTM change from Wliite Motor Corporation
(White), Mack Trucks, Inc. (Mack), Freight-
liner Corporation (Freightliner), Ford Motor
Company (Ford), General Motors Corporation
(GM), Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler), Amer-
ican Motors Corporation (AMC), and Interna-
tional Harvester (IH). The National Motor
Vehicle Safety Advisory Council made no com-
ment on the proposal.
Most commenters supported use of the new
test procedure and tire, although they differed in
recommendations for correlating the reading
produced under the new procedure with that
produced under the old procedure. Manufactur-
ers are presently certifying compliance to brake
standards on test surfaces with a satisfactory
reading under the old procedure, and they should
be able to continue testing and certifying com-
pliance on the same surface without any increase
in the severity of the tests. To accomplish this
transition, the correlation in readings between
the procedures has been determined, and the dif-
ference is reflected in a change of the dry surface
value from "skid number" 75 to "skid number"
81.
Freightliner urged postponement of any action
until it could be supported by "adequate and
statistically reliable test data." AMC also rec-
ommended that the NHTSA do nothing "until
the industry has had sufficient time to evaluate
and verify the performance of the ASTM E501
test tire on all types of surfaces."
The change in procedure is prompted by the
ASTM decision to utilize a new tire in ascertain-
ing the frictional coefficient of test surfaces. As
a result the old tire is no longer manufactured
and only the new tire is available for skid num-
ber measurement. Manufacturers have conducted
comparative tests with the new tire to determine
the correlation between the readings given by the
two tires. Neither Freightliner nor AMC sub-
mitted data showing that the agency's proposal
to adjust the dry surface skid number upwards
is unjustified. Only Mack submitted data and it
supported the NHTSA and Federal Highway
Administration test data that have been placed
in the docket. General Motors considered the
agency's proposed upward adjustment to be the
maximum desirable based on its data. Interna-
tional Harvester, Chrysler, and Ford supported
the change in dry surface skid number without
qualification, and White suggested that a skid
number of 85 be utilized. The agency finds that
the AMC and Freightliner requests for further
delay are unjustified.
Ford and Freightliner asked that the skid
number for the lower coefficient (wet) surface
also be adjusted. The agency's purpose in pro-
PART 575— PRE 43
Effective: June 14, 1976
posing the adjustment is limited to changes nec-
essary to avoid a modification of the test surfaces
or an increase in the severity of performance
levels specified under the safety standards. The
NHTSA earlier concluded that change of the wet
surface specification was unnecessaiy, and no evi-
dence has been supplied that would modify the
earlier determination.
General Motors noted that an editorial change
to the newer ASTM procedure does not appear
in early publications of that procedure. To put
all interested persons on notice of the editorial
change, the NHTSA has included the change in
its references to the ASTM E274-70 procedure.
Freightliner asserted that the newer procedure
included modification of a formula that justified
a larger upwards adjustment than that proposed
by the agency. Actually, the modifications only
corrected an error in the earlier formula which
had no effect on the determination of frictional
coefficient. Manufacturers either utilized a test
trailer that obviated the need for calculations
using the foiTnula, or were aware of the error
and corrected for it in their calculations. Thus
the adjustment requested by Freightliner is not
warranted.
In accordance with recently-enunciated De-
partment of Transportation policy encouraging
adequate analysis of the consequences of regula-
tory action (41 FR 16201, April 16, 1976), the
agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of the
economic and other consequences of this amend-
ment on the public and private sectors, including
possible loss of safety benefit. Because the new
references to procedures and a test tire are ex-
pected to accord with existing practices, the
amendment is judged not to have any significant
impact on costs or benefits of the standards and
consumer information item that are modified by
the change.
Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, is pres-
ently subject to judicial review under Section
105(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1394(a)). The
U.S. Court of Appeals hearing the petition for
review has indicated that it prefers to review the
standard as it presently exists, without unneces-
sary amendment. To the degi'ee possible, the
agency is complying with that request and there-
fore, in the case of Standard No. 121, will delaj^
the update of ASTM procedure until review is
completed.
It is noted that this change in procedure for
ascertaining the frictional resistance of the test
surface does not invalidate data collected using
the older procedure, and manufacturers can pre-
sumably certify on the basis of stopping distance
tests conducted on surfaces measured by the old
tire.
In consideration of the foregoing, amendments
are made in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations. . . .
Effective date: June 14, 1976. Because the
older test tire is no longer nianufactui'ed, and
because the amendment of procedure and test tire
is intended only to duplicate the existing proce-
dure and tire, this amendment creates no addi-
tional requirements for any person, and an
immediate effective date is found to be in the
public interest.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on June 8, 1976.
James B. Gregorj-
Administrator
41 F.R. 24592
June 17, 1976
PART 575— PRE 44
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS
Uniform Tire Quality Grading
(Docket No. 25; Notice 24)
Action; Final rule.
Summary: This notice announces the effective
dates for implementation of a uniform tire qual-
ity grading regulation with respect to bias and
bias-belted tires, as authorized by Section 203 of
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966. This notice also responds to com-
ments on, and makes final, proposals concerning
course monitoring tires and labeling as well as to
petitions for reconsideration of the rule.
Effective date: For all requirements, other than
the molding requirement of paragraph (d) (1)
(i) (A), the effective dates are: March 1, 1979 for
bias ply tires, and September 1, 1979 for bias-
belted tires.
For paragraph (d) (1) (i) (A), the molding re-
quirement, the effective dates are: September 1,
1979 for bias ply tires, and March 1, 1980 for
bias-belted tires. No effective date is established
at this time for radial tires.
Addresses: Petitions for reconsideration of the
tire labeling amendments should refer to the
docket number and be submitted to: Room 5108,
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20590.
For further information contact :
Dr. F. Cecil Brenner, Office of Automotive
Ratings, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 426-1742.
Supplementary information: On May 28, 1975
(40 FR 23073), the NHTSA published as a final
rule a regulation pertaining to Uniform Tire
Quality Grading (UTQG) as authorized by the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). The
purpose of this regulation is to alleviate confusion
in the purchase of passenger car tires and to
provide simple comparative data upon which an
informed tire selection can be made by consum-
ers. Under the regulation, tires will be graded
in three areas of performance: treadwear, trac-
tion, and temperature resistance.
Implementation of the regulation was delayed
pending litigation of the validity of its grading
procedures. In B.F. Goodrich et al v. Depart-
ment of Transportation, 541 F.2d 1178 (6th Cir.,
1976), the court upheld for the most part the
agency's approach to tire quality grading. The
court remanded for further agency consideration,
however, two aspects of the regulation. First, the
court suggested that the NHTSA reexamine the
labeling requirements of the regulation to ensure
that sufficient warnings would be provided to
consumers to avoid the misapplication of the
label information. Second, the court remanded
to the agency the matter of the selection of course
monitoring tires, for the agency to complete its
testing and selection of the three course monitor-
ing tires or, if this had already been accom-
plished, for reopening of the record to permit a
brief period of industry comment on the selec-
tions. The court upheld the rule in all other
respects.
Pursuant to the remand in the B. F, Goodrich
decision, the agency issued two proposals; one to
modify labeling requirements and the other an-
nouncing the selection of the course monitoring
tires. Comments were received from several
manufacturers and manufacturer representatives.
This notice responds to those comments.
In response to the publication of the UTQG
regulation (May 28, 1975) (40 FR 23073), the
agency received several petitions for reconsidera-
PART 575— PRE 45
tion. The agency announced that these petitions
would not be immediately answered owing to the
ongoing litigation involving the regulation (40
FR 57806). Since the challenge to the regulation
has now be«n disposed of by the court, this notic«
responds fully to those petitions for reconsidera-
tion.
/. Labeling (Notice 21).
On December 13, 1976, the NHTSA published
a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the
traction and temperature resistance labeling re-
quirements of UTQG (49 CFR 575.104). That
notice was in response to the decision in the B. F.
Goodrich case.
The petitioners in the B. F. Goodrich case
argued that the then existing labeling require-
ments would be misleading in several respects
pertaining to traction testing and temperature
resistance. The court remanded those issues to
the agency for further consideration, suggesting
the addition to the labels of clarifying warnings.
The agency's December 13, 1976 notice proposed
warnings in accordance with the court's decision
that would ensure that UTQG label information
would not be misconstrued.
The NHTSA received seven comments in re-
sponse to the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Most of these comments favored the warnings
proposed by the agency with several comments
proposing minor editorial changes for clarity.
The agency has altered somewhat the final version
of these warnings in consideration of the com-
ments. The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commis-
sion did not submit comments.
Treadwear Labeling
The Rubber Manufacturers Association
(RMA) recommended in its comments that the
agency modify the treadwear example in Figure 2
which explains that tires rated at 200 will achieve
twice the mileage as tires rated at 100. RMA
indicated that few if any commercially available
tires could achieve such a rating. Accordingly,
they suggested that the example show that a tire
rated 150 would wear \y<> times as well as a tire
graded 100.
The agency considers RMA's suggestion to
have merit. Initially, the 200 figure was selected
for the example because it facilitates understand-
ing of the treadwear grading concept since it
speaks in terms of I'ound numbers (e.g., a tire
grade 200 wears twice as well as a tire grade
100). However, since few tires can achieve such
a rating, the example would have little practical
application. Therefore, the agency nuxlifies the
example to reflect that 150 represents a treadlife
11/^ times as good as that represented by the
grade of 100.
Traction Labeling
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Firestone
Tire and Rubber Company, and the RMA sug-
gested in their comments that the XHTSA amend
the traction information in Figure 2 of the label
to indicate that the tires were tested under con-
trolled conditions on specified government test
surfaces. The agency believes that this informa-
tion is useful to prevent misleading the consumer
and amends Figure 2 accordingly.
General Motors Corporation (GM) recom-
mended that the agency add furtlier warnings to
the traction infonnation that would indicate that
actual traction results would differ depending
upon tread depth, road surface, and speed. GM
contended that the proposed warning did not
sufficiently detail the extent of the limitations
upon the use of these traction data.
The NHTSA is concerned that the warnings
printed in the tire information be kept to the
absolute minimmn in length while ensuring ade-
quate consumer infonnation. If warnings and
tire information become so lengthy as to become
burdensome upon the consumer to read, it is pos-
sible that the infonnation would go unused. The
agency has detennined that the statement in the
warning that a tire was "measured under con-
trolled conditions on specified government test
surfaces" indicates that the test results were
achieved under highly specified conditions.
Clearly, changes in any of the test conditions
could affect the traction results. This meaning
is obvious from the present wording of the warn-
ing and further elaboration would needlessly
lengthen the tire information. Therefore, the
agency declines to adopt GM's suggested modifi-
cation.
The agency has reached the position tliat the
clarity of the traction grading infonnation might
PART 575— PRE 46
be enhanced by the use of the letters A, B, and C
in place of the symbols **, *, and O presently
employed to denote traction grades. A proposal
to modify the traction grading system by substi-
tution of the letters A, B, and C for the present
traction symbols is published concurrently with
this notice in the proposed rule section of the
Federal Register.
Temperature Resistance Labeling
Several commenters suggested that the tire tem-
perature warning be clarified to indicate that ex-
cessive speed, underinflation, or excessive loading,
either alone or in combination, can result in tem-
perature increases and possible tire failure. The
commenters suggested this change because heat
build-up can occur at nonnal speeds when there
is tire underinflation or overloading. The current
proposal, however, implies that heat build-up
would only occur at excessive speeds. The
NHTSA agrees with this suggestion and modifies
the temperature warning accordingly.
The RMA suggested that the label elaborate
on the meaning of the temperature grades C, B,
and A. The grades C, B, and A represent com-
parative differences in a tire's ability to with-
stand the generation of heat witliout suffering
structural degeneration and potential tire failure.
Although the grades C, B, and A in themselves
do not inform a consumer of the specific amount
of difference between tires in the three grades,
the grades do convey to the consumer the fact
that one tire performs better than the other in
this specific test. To specify more exactly the
amount of difference in heat dissipation repre-
sented by each grade or the technical nature of
the test involved would merely confuse many
people not versed in the technical nature of the
test. Therefore, the agency has determined that
the temperature grading method should be re-
tained as it is. The NHTSA notes further that
the court in the B. F. Goodrich case examined
this aspect of temperature grading and found it
to be adequate.
Miscellaneous Labeling
Several commenters requested that the agency
implement a labeling system similar to that em-
ployed by the Federal Trade Conimission (FTC)
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Pub.
L. 93-637). The FTC in its regulations (16 CFR
Part 702) permits the display of warranty infor-
mation in any of four locations. The commenters
to Notice 21 suggested that the agency should
adopt the FTC's approach since Congress could
not have intended that our regulations be more
burdensome than those imposed under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Warranty Act).
The purpose of the Warranty Act is to ensure
the open display of warranty data in order to
provide consumers an opportunity to make buy-
ing choices based upon available warranties. The
purpose of UTQG is similar but not identical to
the Warranty Act. UTQG, like the Warranty
Act, is intended to provide information to the
consumer permitting him or her to make a ra-
tional choice in the selection of a product —
specifically tires. Beyond the warranty data,
however, the UTQG will dispel some of the in-
accuracies and otherwise misleading information
currently extant in the tire marketine business.
Congress considered tire retailing procedures
to be a substantial problem. Accordingly, the
Congress enacted a special provision in the Na-
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 to provide information to consumers on
these products. The agency considers this spe-
cific mandate to justify the requirement that
grading information be provided in several loca-
tions. At present, grading information must be
contained on the tire sidewall (49 CFR 575.104
(d) (1) (i) (A) ), on a label affixed to the tread
surface (49 CFR 575.104(d) (1) (i) (B)), and in
the information furnished under CFR 575.6(a)
and (c) to motor vehicle purchasers and to pro-
spective purchasers of vehicles or tires (49 CFR
575.104(d) (l)(ii) and (iii)). The provision of
UTQG information in several locations will en-
sure the broadest possible dissemination of this
information to consumers.
Further, unlike many other consumer goods
that can be adequately handled by the Warranty
Act, tires deserve additional consumer safeguards
owing to their varied methods of marketing and
their importance to traffic safety. Many con-
sumer goods are purchased only as a single final
unit from a retail outlet (e.g., small appliances).
Tires, on the other hand, can be purchased indi-
vidually or can come, as in the case of original
equipment, as a component of another retail
PART 575— PRE 47
product (a motor vehicle). Accordingly, the
need for maximum dissemination of information
through several labeling locations is increased by
the varied methods of tire retailing. The crucial
role of tires in motor vehicle safety makes it
imperative that information on tire quality be
brought to the attention of consumers regardless
of the marketing method employed.
The agency has previously carefully assessed
its requirements for labeling in compliance with
UTQG. In that assessment the agency deter-
mined that the Congressional mandate coupled
with the unique nature of tire marketing war-
ranted the labeling requirements established by
the NHTSA. Further, the court in the B. F.
Goodrich case upheld this labeling approach.
Therefore, the agency declines to adopt the modi-
fication suggested by the commenters concerning
the establishment of alternative labeling rather
than mandatory labeling in several locations.
With regard to the wisdom of the UTQG
labeling system in comparison with Warranty
Act provisions, it is instructive that the FTC
Chairman concluded in a September 16, 1977
letter to Goodyear that "it is apparent that the
Uniform Tire Quality Grading System will pro-
duce useful, reliable information for the buying
public." The letter contained no suggestions for
improvement of the UTQG regulation, or that
the UTQG regulation is in conflict with the
Warranty Act.
On a matter of general application to the infor-
mation label issue, Goodyear recommended that
the agency ensure that the tire grading informa-
tion will be presented to the tire purchaser. To
achieve this goal, Goodyear suggested that the
tire retailer be required to display the informa-
tion. Without such a requirement they argued,
tire grading information would not be useful.
The agency agrees that the provision of infor-
mation in an easily identifiable and readily ac-
cessible location is necessary to the success of the
tire grading concept. This is one of the reasons
that the agency has been insistent about requiring
the display of this information in a uniform
fashion. The NHTSA encourages the open dis-
play of this information but remains convinced
that the requirement that tires contain a label on
the tire tread explaining the grading system is
necessary for purposes of informing the public of
tire grading. This label cannot be removed from
the tire prior to sale. It is noted that a proposal
to modify the requirements for this label is pub-
lished concurrently with this notice in the pro-
posed rule section of the Federal Register.
II. Cowrse Monitoring Tires
On February 14, 1977, the agency issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking that tentatively
selected the course monitoring tires (CMT's) to
be used for treadwear testing (42 FR 10320;
February 22, 1977). The CMT's are run on the
treadwear test course simultaneously with candi-
date tires in order to provide an index of course
variability that allows the adjustment of tread-
wear results for such variability. The agency
had previously selected the CMT's for radial
tires. The court in B. F. Goodrich suggested that
the NHTSA select all three of the CMT's con-
currently including bias ply and bias-belted
CMT's which the agency had previously not se-
lected. The court further suggested that the
agency permit a short comment period to receive
responses on the agency CMT selections.
Most of the comments to this proposal did not
question the selection of tires chosen by the
NHTSA. Rather, the comments focused upon
alleged inadequacies in the NHTSA rulemaking
procedures and the statistical analysis employed
by the agency to determine the coefficients of
variation (COV) for the tires selected. Several
commenters criticized aspects of the UTQG pro-
cedures previously determined to be valid by the
court in the B. F. Goodrich case.
Adequacy of NHTSA Data
B. F. Goodrich and several other commenters
argued that the agency did not provide ample
time for meaningful comment to the notice an-
nouncing the selection of CMT's. These com-
menters alleged that the agency did not submit
data to the docket in a timely fashion nor in
complete form. For example, they argued that
over 2,000 pages of data were docketed on Feb-
ruary 14, 1977, which could have been placed in
the docket as it was generated through the
months of testing.
The agency placed in the public docket on
February 14, 1977, more than 2000 pages of data
PART 575— PRE 48
accumulated through tests of the course monitor-
ing tires. The notice announcing the CMT selec-
tions was issued simultaneously, and both the
data and the notice were promptly brought to the
industry's attention, even though the notice was
not published by the Federal Register until
February 22. Thus, the industry was given
somewhat more than the 30-day comment period
to analyze and evaluate the data. Commenters
should note that the court in the B. F. Goodrich
case considered that a 30-day comment period
would be sufficient to permit adequate comment
on the agency announcement of the CMT selec-
tions.
The agency did not submit the data pertaining
to the CMT selections to the docket in a piece-
meal fashion as the commenters suggested should
be done for several reasons. First, until all the
data were generated and reviewed by the agency
no decision could be made concerning the ade-
quacy, in light of the court's mandate, of the
CMT's initially selected by the agency. Only
after accumulating a mass of data from many
tests could the agency be sure of its selections and
accordingly go forward with a notice making
public its selections. To have released this infor-
mation prior to the actual detennination of the
adequacy of the chosen tires would have been
premature.
A second reason for waiting to release the in-
formation was the ongoing litigation on the sub-
ject of UTQG. The court's remand did not
formally reach the agency until the mandate is-
sued on December 3, 1976. Since further agency
rulemaking action depended upon the outcome of
the B. F. Goodrich case, the NHTSA considered
it necessary to receive the final mandate of the
court prior to continuing with its rulemaking
effort with respect to UTQG. Upon receipt of
the mandate of the court, the agency began rule-
making in compliance with the remand. Rule-
making proceeded expeditiously even though
petitioners in the B. F. Goodrich case had filed
a petition for certiorari.
A further criticism by the commenters con-
cerned an alleged continued withholding by the
agency of data necessary for informed comments
on the CMT selections. Several commenters
stated that the data in the docket contain omis-
sions. For example, the numbered data do not
progress in a serial manner.
The agency has not withheld relevant informa-
tion from the docket as the commenters suggest.
The extent that the numbered data (test num-
bers) do not proceed in a serial manner re-
sults from the inclusion of the docket only of
those tests involved with the computation of the
coefficients of variation (COV) . The COV's were
computed from the first 6,400-mile cycle (after
an 800-mile break-in) of the CMT, as prescribed
in the UTQG regulation. Subsequent cycles run
on the same CMT were not run for purposes of
computing the COV. Therefore, subsequent test
cycles of the same tires were deleted from the
docketed data so as not to be confused with the
computation of the COV's. All of the data upon
which the agency based its detenninations per-
taining to the COV's were placed in the docket.
A further argument of the commenters was
that the agency failed to include an analysis of
the data indicating how our conclusions concern-
ing COV's were achieved. The agency has used
an established method for the detennination of
the coefficients of variation. The method chosen
is an accepted statistical technique. The NHTSA
does not consider it necessary to reproduce under-
lying, routine computations when each set of data
is put into the docket.
In connection with the alleged lack of informa-
tion in the docket, several commentei-s suggested
that the NHTSA make further submissions to
the docket concerning the test procedures used
by the agency in testing the CMT's. The existing
rule on UTQG contains the test procedures for
conducting treadwear tests, and the B. F. Good-
rich case upheld these test procedures. "Wlien the
agency tests CMT's, the procedures outlined in
the rule are, of course, rigidly followed. No
other infomiation relevant to the conduct of these
tests exists to be placed in the docket.
Some commenters argued that the NHTSA
should make public some of the test variables in
existence on the days tests were conducted. For
example, they suggested that weather could have
an impact upon test results and, therefore, rec-
ords of such weather conditions should be made
available to them. The agency did not maintain
such records, for the simple reason that the CMT
procedure is specifically intended to account for
PART 575— PRE 49
all such variables. Of course, data such as
weather conditions, can be determined from the
infonnation contained in the docket. The test
data list the date each test was iim. If parties
care to gather extraneous data for their own
purposes, weather information for the days in
question can be obtained by contacting a weather
service. It should be noted that many major tire
manufacturers test in Southwest Texas. Indeed,
Goodyear has stated in a brochure which de-
scribes its San Angelo proving ground, that "the
San Angelo area presents the most ideal condi-
tions for tire testing in the United States."
(Docket 25, GK 86.)
The KMA requested as part of their comments
that, since further information should in their
opinion be placed in the docket, the agency ex-
tend the comment period. The agency, as stated
above, placed all pertinent information in the
docket, obviating the need for an extended com-
ment period. Further, NHTSA procedures for
requesting extensions, 49 CFK 553.19, require that
such a request be submitted not less than 10 days
before expiration of the conmient period in ac-
cordance with those procedures. Instead, the
KMA included a request for extension in the
body of their docket comment. It should be
noted that, while the procedurally defective re-
quest was not gi-anted, the agency has continued
to accept and consider the comments of the RMA
and others that have been received well after the
comment closing date.
Several commenters suggested that the NHTSA
publish the base course wear rates for the CMT's
chosen by the agency. Publication of these wear
rates, the commenters argued, was necessary for
their testing of the CMT's and thus for meaning-
ful comments on Notice 22. The agency dis-
agrees that it is necessary to have the base course
wear rates for purposes of commenting upon the
tires selected by the agency as CMT's. It is the
coefficient of variation experienced in the testing
that is relevant to their selection as monitors of
the course, and the base course wear rate is ir-
relevant to this consideration.
Since the commenters desired tlie publication
of these figures, albeit irrelevant to the selection
of the CMT's, the agency hereby makes them
public. The wear rates for the bias ply tire
(Armstrong Surveyor 78) and for the bias-belted
tire (General Jumbo 780) are 9.00 mils and 6.00
mils per 1,000 miles, respectively. Since these
figures have no impact upon the selection of
CMTs announced in Notice 22, no comment
period is rec[uired as a result of the publication
of the base course wear rates.
Firestone submitted two NHTSA technical
papers for inclusion in the Docket. These papers
have been modified by Firestone's underlining
without other comment. These papers are in-
cluded in the docket even thougli they are not
relevant to the present UTQG regulation.
Possible Radial AVear Rate Problem
In Notice 22, the agency stated that the data
appeared to indicate that the wear rate for some
radial tires may not be constant. The NHTSA
concluded, therefore, that radials would not be
included for the time being under the UTQG
rule, since computations made under that nile
contemplate a constant adjusted wear rate for
projection purposes. Industry commentere ob-
jected to this treatment of radials and argued
that the agency should not proceed with any of
the grading requirements unless it proceeds with
them all simultaneously.
These commenters cited the B. F. Goodrich case
which remanded the course monitoring tire issue
to the agency, because a selection of all of the
CMT's had not been made prior to the establish-
ment of an effective date for the implementation
of the rule to all tire types. The commenters
interpreted this court, mandate to mean that the
agency was required to proceed with the pronml-
gation of grading requirements for all three tire
types concurrently. The agency does not inter-
pret the court decision in that manner.
The 6th Circuit Court remanded to the agency
the issue of the selection of the CMT's. It should
be noted that at the time of the court decision
the agency had not selected the bias and bias-
belted CMT's even though it had established the
effective dates for all tire types. Moreover, the
court noted that the selection of the radial CMT
had been based upon a series of tests (reported
in NHTSA Technical Note T-1014) which were
flawed by a problem not clearly identified or ex-
plained. The court's conclusion, therefore, was
PART 575— PRE 50
that it was inappropriate to schedule the effective
date for compliance of tires with UTQG when
the NHTSA had not given notice and invited
comment on its selection of the CMT's. This
mandate of the court does not prohibit the pro-
mulgation of the rule in phases, however.
The court's opinion stated that it would be
inappropriate to require grading of a tire when
all of the procedures (in this case the CMT selec-
tion) had not been chosen, and commented upon,
for that tire. The court did not, in the opinion
of the NHTSA, state that the agency could not
proceed with rulemaking on some tire types pend-
ing further study of the application of the rule
to another tire type. Therefore, the agency does
not find merit in the position of the commenters
who allege that the agency must proceed with a
rule for all tire types at the same time.
The agency has responded to the remand in
Notice 22 by announcing the selection of all
CMT's. That notice gave the industry adequate
time to comment upon the agency's selections.
However, until possible problems concerning the
testing of radials are resolved, the agency will
not set an effective date for the application of
the rule to radial tires. As long as an effective
date applicable to the grading of radials is not
established prior to the establishment of grading
procedures for that tire, the NHTSA can imple-
ment the rale with respect to the other tire types
and is not in violation of the court's remand.
Several commenters argued that regardless of
the court mandate, the NHTSA should not go
forward with tire grading for two tire types
while excluding radials. The commenters as-
serted that altered test procedures for radials
could result in different tests or a different test
course for radial tires which would make com-
parisons between them and the other tire types
meaningless.
By this comment, it is apparent that some
people may have misunderstood the agency's
earlier notice announcing the possible problem
with radials. The problem that may attend the
grading of radial tires is one of computing the
wear rate after the 6400-mile test has been com-
pleted, since there is some evidence suggesting
that these tires may not wear at a constant rate
after only an 800-mile break-in. No comparable
problem has been found for bias and bias-belted
tires. Ample data have been generated demon-
strating that the wear rates for bias ply and
bias-belted tires are constant after an 800-mile
break-in. At present there are no plans to alter
the test course or the actual test procedures. If
changes were considered necessary in either the
test course or procedures, careful attention would
then be given to their impact upon the compara-
tive nature of the grades given other tire types.
The agency would not implement test procedures
for radial tires that differ from the procedures
used for bias and bias-belted tires without afford-
ing adequate time for comment upon such test
procedures and without carefully evaluating com-
ments received on such test procedures.
The agency would like to note that with re-
spect to the issue of radials, it was stated in the
earlier notice that an apparent problem had been
discovered with radials. The agency is not yet
convinced that this problem does exist. How-
ever, until such time as further analysis can be
accomplished, the NHTSA considers it prudent
to proceed cautiously with the implementation of
the UTQG requirements for radial tires.
Several commenters questioned the validity of
the test procedures for testing treadwear. Good-
year stated that the driving instructions are un-
clear and, in particular, the braking procedure is
not good. They stated further that the spacing
in convoys was dangerously close on corners.
Cooper Tire Company stated that the tests could
not be repeated within statistically acceptable
margins of error and, therefore, M'ould be unen-
forceable.
The NHTSA does not agree with these com-
ments questioning the validity of the test meth-
odology. The agency has determined that the^e
procedures provide a viable testing tex!hnique
which can be duplicated for enforcement pur-
poses. Fuither, the court in B. F. Goodrich up-
held the test methodology. Accordingly, the
agency sees no need to modify the test procedures.
Goodyear also argued that the test course has
been changed since the last update of the rule by
the agency. For example, they argued that some
stop signs are now yield signs. On a test course
of this size and nature, minor modifications of
road signs are to be expected with certain regu-
PAET 575— PEE 51
larity. The regulation only lists "key points" to
assist regulated parties, and has updated the
regulation to reflect changes in these key points
and will continue to do so. The minor changes
in the test track which have occurred since the
last publication of the regulation are included in
this notice.
The agency notes that with respect to sign
changes in the treadwear course, such minor
changes have no significant impact on tire grad-
ing. The use of CMT's is designed to reduce the
effects, if any, of the course variables, including
course markings. Therefore, the agency consid-
ers that minor changes in the road markings
which will occur from time to time should liave
no impact upon the comparative I'atings of tires.
Nevertheless, the XHTSA will make every effort
to update the regulation periodically to reflect
changed course markings.
///. Effective dates
Several commenters asserted that the agency
must propose effective dates to give the industrj'
time to comment on the appropriateness of such
dates. Notice 22 did not propose effective dates
for the implementation of the regidation to bias
and bias-belted tires. The agency has established
the effective dates for all provisions other than
the molding requirement as seven months from
the publication of the final rule in the case of
bias ply tires and 13 months from publication in
the case of bias-belted tires. An additional six
months has been provided in each case for the
revision of tire molds. The issue of effective
dates was litigated in the B. F. Goodrich case.
The court there held that the implementation
lead time as chosen by the agency was sufficient.
The determination was based upon an evaluation
of the capacity of the treadwear course and trac-
tion skid pads in relation to the number of tires
to be tested. Therefore, since the agency has not
modified the test procedure in any manner, there
is no need to raise again the issue of effective
dates as long as the agency allows the same lead
time as was held valid by the court. Moreover,
as noted in the court's opinion, the agency will
closely monitor the actual use of the treadwear
course and traction skid pads and will exercise
its discretion to extend the lead time periods if it
should become necessary to do so in the future.
Cooper Tire Company stated that changing the
order of implementation of the requirements re-
quires a reassessment of the effective date require-
ments. For example, radial tires no longer will
be the first tire type to be tested. According to
Cooper, a manufacturer may be harmed by the
change in the order of implementation and fur-
ther study of the effective dates is thus warranted.
The agency does not agree that a change in the
order of implementation of the grading regula-
tion for different tire types requires total recon-
sideration of the effective dates. As set forth in
this notice and in Notice 22, bias ply will be the
first tire construction type required to be graded.
A count by NHTSA staff of the number of pas-
senger tire lines set forth in a standard reference,
"1977 Tread Design Guide" (published by the
Tire Information Center, Commack, New York),
excluding winter treads (snow tires) and dupli-
cates of the same tread design, indicates that of
some 1139 tire lines on the market, approximately
431 are radials, 408 are bias-ply, and the remain-
ing 300 are bias-belted. Therefore, if ample time
was provided in the previous rule for the testing
of radials, and the court held that the lead time
was sufficient, there certainly should be sufficient
lead time to test bias ply tires which are fewer
in niunber. Although this change may create
greater test burdens for individual manufactur-
ers, it will not impair the ability of the test fa-
cilities to accommodate tire grading.
IV. Statistical Comments
The KMA criticized the NHTSA's statistical
analysis of the data upon which the coefficients
of variation were derived. The RMA subnutted
a paper written by Dr. Shelemyahu Zacks pur-
porting to discredit the NHTSA's analysis.
Through this paper the RMA suggested that the
coefficients of variation (COV) were larger than
the agency had indicated.
The analysis done by the NHTSA wivs con-
ducted according to statistically acceptable pro-
cedures, but the NHTSA concluded that it would
be prudent to obtain an impartial review of both
the Zacks' and the NHTSA's analyses of the
COV's. The agency contracted with a noted
statistician. Dr. Herbert Solomon, who reWewed
the agencj''s procedures in view of Dr. Zacks'
criticisms of tliose procedures and concluded that
PART 575— PRE 52
the agency was correct in its method of computa-
tion of the GOV'S. The full text of both the
Zacks and Solomon papers as well as the agency's
analyses of the former are in the public docket.
Subsequent to the Solomon report, the RMA
submitted several comments intended to refute
the accuracy of the report. In particular, the
RMA contended that the use by NHTSA of "n"
("n" = sample size), rather than "n-1", as the
divisor in computing the sample standard devia-
tion was incorrect and produced an inaccurately
low GOV. After careful review of this question,
the agency has concluded that the use of "n" in
the formula for the sample standard deviation
is a proper statistical approach as a step in the
process of determining the sample GOV. More-
over even if the alternative "n-1" formula were
adopted, the resulting GOV's of 4.74, 3.08, and
2.70 for bias, belted bias, and radial tires respec-
tively would still fall within the 5% coefficient
of variation which was approved by the court in
the B. F. Goodrich case. The RMA's other con-
tentions were also carefully reviewed and were
found to be invalid and to reiterate much of the
information contained in earlier RMA comments.
Therefore, the agency declines to adopt the sta-
tistical approach proffered by the RMA as well
as the other recommendations of the RMA that
attend their method of statistical analysis.
B. F. Goodrich submitted a statistical study by
its engineering staff of models of the wear be-
havior of tires. (G. Thomas Wright, "The Ade-
quacy of Linear Models in Tread Life Testing") .
The agency's analysis of the study revealed that
significant errors in the study accounted for
Wright's differences with the linear model em-
ployed in the regulation. The agency analysis
was placed in the docket, and B. F. Goodrich
subsequently filed a rebuttal to the analysis. Re-
view by the agency of that rebuttal confirms that
Wright's differences with the regulation's linear
model involve liis failure to observe conventional
statistical precepts.
Uniroyal submitted comments suggesting that
the NHTSA testing procedure did not adequately
consider the effects of actual driving conditions
upon tire grades. Uniroyal conducted a random
sampling of tires on automobiles in parking lots.
The conclusion of that study was that tires wear
at varied rates depending upon the type of car,
size of tire, load on the tire, and many other
variables. Uniroyal suggested that its results
indicated that it would have to test unlimited
combinations of its tires to ensure correct grading.
The NHTSA has always stated that UTQG
does not give an exact measurement of a tire's
life under all conditions. The agency realizes
that tire life will vary depending upon a number
of conditions. The court in B. F. Goodiich also
recognized this fact when it stated that no test
designed to grade millions of tires will be perfect.
Few measuring techniques are. However, for
this reason the agency cautions individuals con-
cerning misapplication of the grading informa-
tion.
The Uniroyal survey yields results that are to
be expected but that have no impact upon the
validity of the UTQG test procedures. The test
procedures for UTQG control most of the vari-
ables. The course, speed, drivers, stopping con-
ditions, and many other variables are controlled
for tire testing purposes. For those environ-
mental variables beyond the control of the agency,
the NHTSA uses the GMT to measure their
effect. The Uniroyal study did not control these
variables. Accordingly, it does not present an
accurate picture of comparative data between tire
lines. The agency has determined that compar-
ing different tires under similar conditions on the
treadwear course and traction sMd pads does
yield excellent comparative data. Therefore, the
agency discounts the value of the Uniroyal study
for purposes of questioning the validity of UTQG
testing. The Uniroyal study merely indicates
that the public must be cautioned against the
misuse of grades provided on the tires. The
NHTSA concludes that the warnings provided
on the grading label information provide suffi-
cient cautionary advice to the consumer.
Gooper Tire Gompany ran computer tests in-
tended to show that the same tire might receive
different grades with any two tire treadwear tests.
According to Gooper this indicated that the
UTQG requirements are unenforceable.
It has been argued in the past that enforcement
testing for many of the agency's regulations and
standards depends upon a test of a single piece
of equipment or motor vehicle and accordingly
PART 575— PRE 53
the results cannot be projected to all vehicles or
equipment. In other words, the commenters sug-
gest that a noncompliance in one vehicle or item
of motor vehicle equipment does not mean that
all vehicles are defective.
The agency's enforcement actions pertaining to
all standards have been conducted, in the past,
using a variety of data. A failure of equipment
or a vehicle to reach a performance standard
during an agency enforcement test indicates a
potential noncompliance. The agency then goes
to the manufacturer of the affected vehicle or
equipment and requests the results of the manu-
facturer's tests or other data upon which he based
his certification of compliance with the standard.
A similar method of enforcement is contemplated
for UTQG.
V. Petitions for Reconsideration.
On May 28, 1975, the NHTSA published the
final UTQG rule. In response to that rule, sev-
eral petitions for reconsideration were received
by the agency. A response to these petitions for
reconsideration was delayed pending the outcome
of the litigation in the B. F. Goodrich case.
Several of the issues raised in the petitions have
been answered by that litigation or in subsequent
notices issued by the agency. The NHTSA will
now respond to those issues raised in the peti-
tions and not previously addressed.
Several tire manufacturers commented that the
lead time allowed prior to the effective date of
the regulation was not adequate. The Japan
Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc.
argued that there were significant time problems
in the shipment of tires to the United States for
treadwear testing on our test course and trans-
mission of the resultant data back to Japan.
The issue of lead time was litigated in the
B. F. Goodrich case. The court upheld the
agency's proposed lead time. Since the agency
does not propose to reduce the amount of lead
time from that proposed in 1975, there should be
no problem with meeting the effective date of the
regulation.
Automobile manufacturers argued that they
need more lead time than tire manufacturers
since the specificity of the data required in the
owner's manual forces them to wait until they
receive the newly graded tires before printing
the manuals. On a related point, many of the
manufacturers suggested that the agency require
in the owner's manual only general tire grading
information. They argued that this is necessary
because frequently manufacturers are unable to
obtain the tire with which they normally equip
their cars. In such an event, they would have to
print a new owner's manual containing the new
tire information and would be required by Pail
575 of our regulations to submit a copy of this
new information to the NHTSA 30 days prior to
its issuance.
The agency has determined that the automobile
manufacturers should operate under the same
lead time constrictions as the tire manufacturers.
Therefore, the effective date of the requirements
applicable to the tire manufacturers shall also be
applicable to the automobile manufacturers. This
will ensure complete dissemination of grading
information at the earliest possible time.
The agency has concluded that the manufac-
turer's suggestion to provide only general tire
information in the owner's manual has merit.
It would be cumbersome for a manufacturer to
submit to the agency for 30-day review its own-
er's manual information every time a change in
tires was contemplated or required. The agency
considers it sufficient for purposes of informing
consumers, for manufacturers to provide general
grading information in the owner's manual. This
information would explain the grading system,
giving the cautionary warnings to the consumer
concerning the possible misuse of the UTQG in-
formation. The consumer could then be directed
to look at the tire sidewall for the particular
grading of the tire. The rule has been amended
to reflect this modification.
The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
(MVMA) and GM argued that the temperature
resistance grading system would be misleading to
consumers. Both suggested a two grade approach
to temperature testing using the "high speed"
designation for tires designed to operate under
those conditions. The agency does not agree that
the temperature information will be misleading.
The implementation of the proposed warnings on
the misuse of the temperature infonnation should
prevent any potential for consumer misimder-
PART 575— PRE 54
standing. The agency notes further that the
court upheld the existing temperature resistance
test.
Several manufacturers suggested that the
NHTSA exempt the space saver tire from the
UTQG requirements. They argued that this tire
is designed for a limited life and for a special
use only and, therefore, should not be required
to comply with the regulation.
The NHTSA agi-ees that the space saver tire
and other temporary use spare tires should be
exempt from the requirements of the regulation.
These tires are of reduced size or are inflatable.
They are designed so that as installed in the
vehicle, they reduce vehicle weight and create
more vehicle interior space. Since the useful life
of these tires is frequently limited to 2,000 miles,
it would be inappropriate to require them to
comply with the treadwear requirements. The
agency amends the regulation to indicate that the
space saver and temporary use spare tires are
exempted from the regulation's requirements.
Volkswagen and the European Tyre and Rim
Technical Organisation (ETRTO) argued that
the treadwear information would confuse the
public and be misused. ETRTO argued further
that treadwear grading has nothing to do with
safety and should be deleted from the require-
ments.
The treadwear labeling requirements are proper
and were upheld by the court. Accordingly, the
agency declines to change or delete those require-
ments as suggested by the manufacturers. Fur-
ther, the agency notes that the UTQG regulation
is promulgated under a special authorization of
the Act (15 U.S.C. 1423) . It is a consumer infor-
mation regulation issued at the behest of the
Congress.
On a related matter of labeling, ETRTO also
requested that the words "treadwear", "tempera-
ture", and "traction" not be required to be molded
into the sidewall owing to the expense of that
operation. Once again, the 6th Circuit upheld
the agency on its proposed labeling requirements
while suggesting additional warnings to prevent
the misuse of that information. The NHTSA
requires the use of the words "traction", "tread-
wear", and "temperature", because these words
will help avoid confusion as to the meaning of
the symbols molded onto the tire sidewall.
ETRTO also suggested that NHTSA extend
the effective dates for the traction requirements
since the standard test trailer can not accommo-
date small tires. The agency declines to extend
the effective date for the implementation of the
requirements. However, small tires are being ex-
cluded from the requirements until such time as
a test trailer is equipped to test them.
Dunlop recommended that the lowest of the
tliree possible tire traction grades be eliminated,
on grounds that an open-ended grade would
allow production of tires with extremely poor
traction in order to obtain higher treadwear or
temperature resistance grades. In effect, Dunlop
was requesting a minimum traction standard.
The agency has an outstanding proposal that
would establish such a minimum standard (38
FR 31841) ; November 19, 1973) and will respond
to Dunlop's request by means of the separate
rulemaking.
Dunlop suggested that the agency permit the
tire information to be molded onto the tire in
two tiers using smaller size lettering. Currently
the regulation requires that the information be
molded into the sidewall in either one or three
tiers using y^ inch lettering. Dunlop argued that
some of their tires are too small to permit the
display of information printed in one tier without
conflicting with other information molded on the
sidewall. Further, they stated that the depth of
their tires was such that three tiers of informa-
tion would not easily fit on them.
The exclusion of the smallest tires from the
UTQG requirements for the time being may
alleviate this problem since these are the tires
that present the greatest problems concerning
available space for sidewall molding. Nonethe-
less the agency amends the regulation to reduce
the print size of the required molding from 1^4
inch to %2 inch. Finally, the NHTSA can see
no reason not to permit the molding of informa-
tion into the sidewall in two tiers. Accordingly,
the agency amends the regulation establishing a
format for two tier information.
In a comment by ETRTO, it was suggested
that the agency clarify its position with respect
to the use of front wheel drive and rear wheel
PART 575— PRE 55
drive vehicles in a convoy for treadwear testing.
The regulation states that the vehicles used will
be rear wheel drive vehicles, but the preamble
(Notice 17) stated that testing would be accom-
plished by the use of vehicles for which the tires
were designed, which might include front wheel
drive vehicles. In accordance with the regulation
which was issued in 1975 and upheld by the court,
the agency has determined that only rear wheel
drive vehicles will be used for treadwear testing.
This removes the possibility that any vehicle
variations between front and rear wheel drive
vehicles will affect the tire test results.
In accordance with Department policy encour-
aging adequate analysis of the consequences of
regulatory action, the agency has evaluated the
anticipated economic and other consequences of
this amendment on the public and private sectors.
The agency has determined that the regulation
will benefit tire consumers by affording them
more detailed information upon which to make
informed tire purchases. The regulation will
thus reduce some of the existing confusing claims
associated with tire marketing.
As the purpose of UTQGs is to help the con-
sumer make an informed choice in the purchase
of passenger car tires, the agency will soon ini-
tiate action to evaluate whether the rule is meet-
ing this goal. It is planned that surveys will be
undertaken to determine how easily understand-
able and meaningful the grades are to purchasers,
how the grades are utilized in purchase decisions
and any measurable economic effect that may
occur both within the passenger tire industry and
to consumers as a result of the rule. The empha-
sis will be on the utility of the grading system to
consumers. Major points of interest of the con-
sumer survey will be the extent to which consum-
ers use the grading system in their purchase
decisions, the extent to which it has increased
their knowledge and awareness of the characteris-
tice of various tire constructions and tire lines
and whether they feel the grading system is valid
and worthwhile.
Effective date finding : Under section 203 of the
Act, the Congress stated that the regulation
should become effective not sooner than 180 days
nor later than one year from the date that the
rule is issued. Based upon this direction and
other agency findings concerning required lead
time for grading tires, the agency has determined,
and the Court has upheld, that phased implemen-
tation of the rule in essentially 6-month intervals
is appropriate.
The program official and lawyer principally
responsible for the development of this rulemak-
ing document are Dr. F. Cecil Brenner and
Richard Hipolit, respectively.
In consideration of the foregoing Part 575.104
of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
is amended. . . .
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203; Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421,
1423) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on July 12, 1978.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 30542
July 17, 1978
PART 575— PRE 56
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS
Temperature for Tire Testing
(Docket No. 25; Notice 25)
Action: Final rule.
Summary; This notice establishes a uniform tire
testing temperature for the test requirements of
the Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation
and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
for non-passenger-car tires. This amendment
simplifies existing requirements by permitting
various tire tests to be conducted at the same
temperature.
Efective date: July 17, 1978.
For further information contact :
Arturo Casanova III, Crash Avoidance Di-
vision, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20590 (202) 426-1715.
Supplementary information : The National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
proposed on March 3, 1977 (42 FK 12207), to
amend the ambient temperature conditions for
tire testing contained in Standard No. 119, Netv
Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Pas-
senger Cars (49 CFR 571.119), and in Part 575,
Uniform Tire Quality Grading (49 CFR 575.104)
(UTQG). The purpose of this proposed amend-
ment was to harmonize existing tire testing tem-
peratures as requested by the Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company. The ambient temperatures
were previously specified as follows :
Standard No. 109 : "100±5° F."
Standard No. 119: "any temperature ... up to
100° F."
UTQG: "at 105° F."
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the
agency proposed to amend Standard No. 119 and
UTQG to reflect the tire temperature utilized in
Standard No. 109 (100±5° F.). As an alterna-
tive method of expressing the test temperature,
the NHTSA proposed to amend the standards to
specify' "any temperature up to 95° F.
Five comments were received in response to
that proposal. All comments favored the pro-
posed amendment that would have instituted a
100±5° F. temperature. The Vehicle Equipment
Safety Commission did not take a position on
this proposal.
After consideration of the issues involved in the
proposal and review of the comments, the agency
has determined that the test temperature should
be expressed as "any temperature up to 95° F."
Accordingly, Standard No. 119 and UTQG are
amended to specify temperature testing at "any
temperature up to 95° F." It is the NHTSA's
opinion that the 95° F. test temperature is in
effect the same test temperature as would be
achieved by using the 5-degree tolerance (100zt5).
The NHTSA has often stated in interpretations
on similar issues that the use of tolerances in
safety standards reflects a misimderstanding of
the legal nature of the safety standards. Stand-
ards are not instructions, but performance levels
that vehicles or equipment are required by law to
be capable of meeting. Any tolerance in tliis
context would be meaningless and misleading,
since it would merely have the effect of stating a
performance level that the equipment must meet
when tested by the government, but in a confus-
ing manner.
Recognizing that no measurement is perfectly
precise, a manufacturer's tests should be designed
to show, using tire testing temperature as an
example, that his tires will comply with the re-
quirements at exactly 95° F. This may be done
in at least two ways: (1) by using a test method
PART 575-PRE 57
that corresponds so closely to the required tem-
perature that no significant differences could
occur as a result of differences between the actual
temperature and the specified one, or (2) by de-
termining which side of the specified temperature
is adverse to the product tested, and being sure
that the actual temperature of the test differs
from the specified one on the adverse side.
The amendment of Standard No. 119 and
UTQG to reflect the 95° F. temperature creates
a different temperature phraseology for those
standards than exists in Standard No. 109 which
still has the 100±5° F. temperature. As stated
earlier, the NHTSA considers the Standard No.
109 temperature tolerance to mean in actuality
"any temperature up to 95° F." However, since
modification of that standard was not proposed
in the earlier notice, the agency does not amend
it in this final rule. However, the agency intends
to issue an interpretive amendment that will
amend Standard No. 109 to adopt the alternative
expression for tire temperature testing (any tem-
perature up to 95° F.) unless objections are re-
ceived.
In accordance with Departmental policy en-
couraging analysis of the impact of regulatoi-y
actions upon the public and private sectors, the
agency has determined that this modification will
result in no appreciable safety gains or losses.
These amendments may result in slightly lower
costs for tire temperature testing since all tem-
peratures will be uniform.
Since these amendments relieve restrictions and
impose no additional burdens, it is found for
good cause shown that an immediate effective
date is in the public interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, . . . amend-
ments are made in Parts 571 and 575 of Title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations.
The program official and lawyer principally
responsible for the development of this rulemak-
ing document are Arturo Casanova and Roger
Tilton, respectively.
(Sees. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203, Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1421, 1423);
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on July 12, 1978.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 30541
July 17, 1978
PART 575- PRE 58
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS
Uniform Tire Quality Grading
(Docket No. 25; Notice 27)
This notice amends the Uniform Tire Quality
Grading (UTQ'-) Standards to re\'ise the grad-
ing symbols used to indicate traction grades and
responds to a petition for reconsideration of the
effective dates for the information requirement
regarding first purchasers of motor vehicles. The
notice, further, responds to petitions for recon-
sideration submitted by the Rubber Manufactur-
ers Association and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, regarding an amendment of the tire
testing temperature employed in the UTQG
regulation and the non-passenger-car tire safety
standards, which established a single test tem-
perature for the performance requirements of the
two standards. The notice also withdraws a
NHTSA proposal to modify the tread label re-
quirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading
Standard. These actions are intended to aid
consiuner understanding of the UTQG grading
system and facilitate industry tire testing.
Effective date : October 23, 1978.
For further information contact ;
Dr. F. Cecil Brenner, OflSce of Automotive
Ratings, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 426-1740.
Supplementary information; On July 17, 1978,
(43 FR 30542), NHTSA republished the UTQG
Standards (49 CFR 575.104) to assist the con-
sumer in the informed purchase of passenger car
tires. (Docket No. 25, Notice 24). The standard
requires that manufacturers and brand name
owners provide simple comparative data on tire
performance, which can be considered by purchas-
ers in selecting between competing tire lines.
Concurrently, witli issuance of the final rule, the
agency proposed modifications of the standard's
provisions relating to traction grading symbols
and tread labels (43 FR 30586; July 17, 1978).
Traction Grading Symbols
Tlie notice of proposed rulemaking (43 FR
30586), issued concurrently with the republished
final rule, proposed revision of the symbols used
to denote tire traction gi'ades. The agency in-
vited comment on the use of an A, B, C hierarchy
of traction grades in place of the **, *, 0 system
now required by paragraph (d) (2) (ii).
The Automobile Club of New York commented
that the proposed traction grading symbols would
he "far more meaningful to consumere" than the
asterisks and '.eros used in the existing regulation.
The National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Associa-
tion viewed the letter grading proposal as an
improvement, and, in response to Notice 24, the
Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, Office of the
Consumer Advocate approved of an A, B, C
grading system as falling within the experience
of all consumers.
The only negative comment came from Atlas
Supply Company which expressed concern that,
if consumers are warned, as the rule requires,
that tires with a C traction grade may have poor
traction performance, they may assume that a C
temperature resistance grade likewise denotes
poor temperature resistance qualities. Atlas rec-
ommended that the lowest traction grade be abol-
ished completely and that only the symbols A
and B be used to represent traction grades.
In fact, the agency is cun-ently considering
promulgation of a tire traction safety standard
which would set a minimum perfonnance level
such that tires falling within the lowest UTQG
traction performance grade would not comply
with the safety standard (43 FR 11100; March
16, 1978, and 38 FR 31841; November 19, 1973).
Pending issuance of such a standard, however,
consumers should not be misled as to the nature
of the C temperature grade, since the explanation
of the grading system, to be furnished under the
PART 575— PRE 59
standard, specifically states that the C grade in-
dicates a level of performance which meets the
applicable Federal safety standard.
The agency has concluded that the A, B, C
grading symbols for traction perfonnance will be
an aid to consumer understanding of the UTQG
system due to the general familiarity with letter
grading systems and the hierarchy inherently
associated with these symbols. Consumer com-
prehension of the grading system will also be
improved by eliminating the need to use three
different sets of symbols. The symbols A, B, and
C are, therefore, adopted to represent traction
grades under the UTQG Standard.
Tread Label Kequirements
The existing UTQG regulation provides that
each passenger car tire, other than one sold as
original equipment on a new vehicle, shall have
affixed to its tread surface a label indicating the
specific treadwear, traction, and temperature
grades for that tire, as well as a general explana-
tion of the grading system. In its July 17, 1978
notice of proposed rulemaking (43 FR 30586),
the agency proposed to amend section 575.104
(d) (1) (i) (B) of the standard, to require only
general grading information on the tread label,
while retaining a separate requirement that spe-
cific grades be molded on the tire sidewall. The
tread label would have been modified to include a
statement referring the consumer to the tire side-
wall for the actual grades of the pailicular tire.
The notice also proposed that specific tire grades
be supplied, at the manufacturer's option, on
either tread labels or on the sidewall during the
six-month period prior to the effective dates of
the molding requirement.
In commenting on the notice, Goodyear argued
that provision of specific grading information on
the tread label would not be feasible and would
add to the cost of implementation of the stand-
ard. American Motors Corporation commented
that provision of specific grades in two places
would be redundant and an unnecessary expense.
However, Michael Peskoe, an individual in-
volved in early development of the standard,
argued that the tread labeling requirement is not
redundant, since tire sidewall molding was in-
tended primarily to supply a permanent record
of the tire grades, to be considered when replac-
ing the tires, rather than to convey information
to the prospective purchaser. He also stated that,
with regard to cost and feasibility considerations,
tire specific identification labels, bearing informa-
tion such as tire line and size, are already in
wide^spread use within the industry to aid in the
distribution of tires. Therefore, the burden of
adding the specific UTQG grades for the par-
ticular tire classification should be minimal.
The Automobile Club of New York and Mr.
Peskoe commented that provision of specific tire
grades only on the sidewall would hinder use of
the information in the situation, common in tire
dealerships and service stations, where tires are
displayed on racks, sidewall to sidewall. Tires
would have to be removed from the display rack
before the grades molded on the sidewall could
be observed. The problem would be compoimded
where the purchaser wishes to compare the grades
on several tires.
While NHTSA is concerned with keeping the
cost of the UTQG regulation at a minimum,
existing tire labeling and marketing practices
lead the agency to the conclusion that tread labels
containing specific tire grading infonnation
should continue to be required for replacement
tires. The agency had earlier determined that
identification of specific tire grades on tread
labels is feasible and involves a very limited cost
to manufacturers and consumers. Tire-specific
tread labels have been demonstrated to be an
integral and necessary part of the regulation's
plan for getting useful information to tire pur-
chasers. The proposal to require only general
grading information on tire tread labels is, there-
fore, withdrawn.
Effective Dates for Point of Sale Information
Notice 24 set March 1, 1979, in the case of bias-
ply tires and September 1, 1979, in the case of
bias-belted tires, as effective dates for all UTQG
requirements except the molding requirements of
paragraph (D) (1) (i) (A). The molding require-
ments applicable to bias and bias-belted tires
were made effective September 1, 1979, and March
1, 1980, respectively.
The purpose of this delayed phase-in schedule
for tire sidewall molding is to provide manufac-
turers with extra time to prepare new tire molds
PART 575— PRE 60
containing grading information. However, the
delay in effective dates for tire molding had the
unintended effect of creating a six-month interval
between the time vehicle manufacturers must
provide point of sale information on tire quality
grading to prospective purchasers, and first pur-
chasers of motor vehicles (49 CFR 575.104(d)
(1) (ii) and (iii) ) and the date on which grading
information actually must appear on the tires
sold. In the case of information to be furnished
to first purchasers under paragraph (d)(1) (iii),
potential for confusion exists since consumers
will be referred to the tire sidewall for specific
tire grades, when in many cases, molds will not
yet have been modified for the tire lines being
supplied.
To correct this situation, American Motors
Corporation has petitioned NHTSA to recon-
sider the effective dates for paragraph (d)(1)
(iii). American Motors has recommended that
the effective dates for paragraph (d) (1) (iii) be
amended to correspond to those of paragraph
(d) (1) (i) (A), the molding requirement. The
agency has already recognized the difficulties in-
volved in providing specific grades for original
equipment tires through the use of tread labels
(39 FR 1037; January 4, 1974) or point of sale
information (43 FR 30547; July 17, 1978). To
better coordinate the availability of specific tire
grading information on tire molds and the pro-
vision of explanatory information through ve-
hicle owner's manuals, American Motors' petition
for reconsideration is granted. The effective
dates for paragraph (d) (1) (iii) are changed to
September 1, 1979, for bias-ply tires and March 1,
1980, for bias-belted tires.
Paragraph (d)(l)(ii) of the regulation re-
quires that vehicle and tire manufacturers furnish
to prospective purchasers an explanation of the
UTQG grading system. Although this provision
also takes effect six months prior to the tire mold-
ing requirements, the agency has concluded that
no corresponding change in effective dates is nec-
essary. Paragraph (d) (1) (ii) provides for the
availability of valuable information to prospec-
tive tire purchasers, since specific grading infor-
mation will be available on replacement tires sold
during the six-month phase-in period. Further,
the paragi'aph contains no potentially confusing
reference to the tire sidewall as does paragraph
(d) (1) (iii). Prospective vehicle purchasers who
obtain the information prior to the sidewall mold-
ing effective dates will be given the opportunity
to familiarize themselves in advance with the
new grading system.
Temperature for Tire Testing
On March 3, 1977 (42 FR 12207), NHTSA
proposed to amend Standard No. 119, New Pneu-
matic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger
Gars (49 CFR 571.119), and the UTQG Stand-
ards to establish the same ambient temperature
for tire testing in both standards, to allow more
efficient use of tire test facilities. The notice
proposed "any temperature up to 95° F" and
"100±5° F" as alternative means of phrasing
the new, identical test temperature.
After consideration of comments, the agency
determined that the ambient test temperature
should be expressed as "any temperature up to
95° F" (43 FR 30541; July 17, 1978). NHTSA
received petitions for reconsideration from the
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) and
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, recom-
mending that the test temperatures for Standard
No. 119 and the UTQG regulation include toler-
ances and be specified as "100° F±5° F." As
NHTSA has frequently stated in past notices
on these and other standards (e.g., 40 FR
47141; October 8, 1975), such a recommenda-
tion reflects a misunderstanding of the legal
nature of motor vehicle standards, NHTSA
standards are not instructions to test engineers,
but performance levels that vehicles and equip-
ment must be capable of meeting. The use of a
tolerance range in this context is confusing since
it creates ambiguity as to the performance level
required.
Establishment of a precise performance re-
quirement, expressed without a tolerance, still
recognizes that measurement techniques cannot
be controlled perfectly. Given a specified per-
formance level, manufacturers can design their
tests to assure compliance in at least two ways:
(1) by using a test procedure that conforms so
closely to the specified measurement that no sig-
nificant variations could occur, or (2) by deter-
mining which side of the specified level is adverse
PART 575— PRE 61
to the product being tested, and targeting test
conditions so that any deviation will occur on the
adverse side. In this case, a tire manufacturer
may use an ambient temperature slightly above
95° F to demonstrate, through adverse conditions,
that its tire would comply at the specified tem-
perature.
In its petition for reconsideration, Goodyear
commented that all test laboratories should em-
ploy the same ambient temperature conditions.
However, such uniformity is not advantageous
in a regulatory context, since government com-
pliance testing and manufacturers' laboratory
evaluations are undertaken for different purposes.
Goodyear also argued that a fixed 95° F test
temperature and a "100±5° F" tolerance range
do not establish "in effect the same test tempera-
ture", as stated in the agency's July 17, 1978
notice (43 FR 30541). A fixed 95° F requirement
is, in fact, from the manufacturers' perspective
identical to a "100±5° F" provision, since, given
a controlled variation in test conditions of 5° F
in either direction from the target temperature,
manufacturers seeking to assure compliance with
a 95° F requirement will set their test target
temperature at 100° F. For these reasons, the
petitioners' recommendation of a "100±5° F" test
temperature is rejected.
The RMA and Goodyear petitions noted that
the open-ended nature of the requirement "any
temperature up to 95° F" appeared to require
that tires be capable of attaining specified per-
formance levels when tested at temperatures
ranging from 95° F to sub-zero conditions. The
RMA petition stated as its primary concern the
possibility, under the UTQG system, that a tire
could be conditioned at a higher temperature than
that at which it is tested for temperature resist-
ance. Such inconsistency could, the RMA sug-
gested, result in the tire being underinflated
during testing.
The agency has concluded that the ambient
temperature specification "at 95° F" more ac-
curately describes the fixed temperature which
the agency intended to establish than does the
open-ended provision "any temperature up to
95° F." Standard No. 119 and the UTQG
Standards are, therefore, amended by substitu-
tion of a fixed temperature requirement of 95°
F in place of ''any temperature up to 95° F."
To the extent that the RMA and Goodyear
petitions for reconsideration are not granted by
this amendment, the petitions are denied.
In accordance with Departmental policy en-
couraging analysis of the impact of regulatory
actions upon the public and private sectors, the
agency has determined that these actions will
have no appreciable negative impact on safety.
Since the modification of effective dates relieves
a restriction, and the change in grading symbols
will result in no new burdens, no additional costs
will be imposed on manufacturers or the con-
sumer. Withdrawal of the tread labeling pro-
posal imposes no new costs not contemplated in
issuance of the UTQG Standards. The new tem-
perature phraseology has a;bsolutely no effect on
the tire performance requirements, but will elim-
inate any possible ambiguity in the standards'
meaning. For these reasons, the agency hereby
finds that this notice does not have significant
impact for purposes of the internal review.
Effective date: In view of the need for a fixed
temperature requirement to allow tire perform-
ance testing to proceed, and the ongoing prepara-
tion by the industry for implementation of the
UTQG system, the agency finds that an imme-
diate effective date for the amendments to Stand-
ard No. 119 and the UTQG regulation is in the
public interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, the follow-
ing amendments are made in Part 575 and 571. . . .
(Sec. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203, Pub. L. 89-563, 80
Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1421, 1423);
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) )
Issued on October 23, 1978.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 50430-50440
October 30, 1978
PART 575— PRE 62
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Uniform Tire Quality Grading
(Docket No. 25, Notice 31)
Action: Final rule and establishment of effective
dates.
Summary: This notice announces the effective
dates for application of the Unifomi Tire Qual-
ity Grading (UTQG) regulation to radial tires
and discusses comments on previously annoimced
testing and analysis of radial tire treadwear
under the road test conditions of the UTQG
regulation. This notice also interprets the effect
of the thirty-day stay of the UTQG effective
dates, granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, and corrects an inadvertant
error in the text of the regulation.
Effective date: For all requirements other than
the molding requirement of paragraph (d)(1)
(i) (A) and the first purchaser requirement of
paragraph (d)(1) (iii), the effective date for
radial tires is April 1, 1980.
For paragraph (d) (1) (i) (A), the molding
requirement, and paragraph (d) (1) (iii), the first
purchaser requirement, the effective date for
radial tires is October 1, 1980.
For further information contact :
Dr. F. Cecil Brenner, Office of Automotive
Ratings, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 205 (202) 426-1740.
Supplementary information: Acting under the
authority of the National Traffic and Motor Ve-
hicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C.
1381, et seq.), the NHTSA republished as a final
rule the UTQG Standards, establishing a system
for grading passenger car tires in the perform-
ance areas of treadwear, traction and temperature
resistance (43 FR 30542); July 17, 1978). The
regulation will provide consumers with useful,
comparative data upon which to base informed
decisions in the purchase of tires. Extensive
rulemaking preceded the July I7th notice, and a
comprehensive discussion of the regulation's pur-
pose and technical justification may be found in
a series of earlier Federal Register notices (40
FR 23073; May 28, 1975; 39 FR 20808; June 14,
1974); 39 FR 1037; January 4, 1974; 36 FR
18751; September 21, 1971).
The July 17 notice also established effective
dates for application of the regulation to bias
and bias-belted tires. Establishment of an effec-
tive date for radial tii-es was deferred pending
further analysis of test results relating to the
treadwear properties of radials. Questions con-
cerning the two other performance areas of the
standard, traction and temperature resistance had
previously been resolved, and therefore are not
discussed in this notice.
On November 2, 1978, NHTSA issued a notice
(43 FR 51735; November 6, 1978) announcing
the availability for inspection of the results of
the agency's test program for radial tires and
NHTSA's analysis of the test results (Docket 25;
Notice 28). A thirty-day period, later extended
to 45 days (43 FR 57308; December 7, 1978), was
provided for public comment on the data and
analysis. After examination of all comments re-
ceived, NHTSA has concluded that an effective
date for grading of radial tires under the UTQG
system can and should be established at this time.
Need for Grading of Radial Tires
In response to Notice 28, several commenters
pointed out the importance of extending the
UTQG Standards to radial tires at the earliest
possible date. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), while recognizing the establishment of a
credible system for grading bias and bias-belted
tires as a substantial accomplishment, commented
PART 575— PRE 63
that extension of the system to I'adial tires will
be of special significance to the public. The FTC,
the Center for Auto Safety (CFAS), and Con-
sumer's Union noted the increasing share of the
tire market represented by radial tires, which
now account for approximately half of the re-
placement tire market and an even higher per-
centage of original equipment sales. CFAS noted
that NHTSA's test data revealed significant dif-
ferences in treadwear properties among radial
tires of different manufacturers. In fact, it is
likely, based on the data, that some radial tires
may yield twice the mileage of those of other
manufacturers.
CFAS and the City of Cleveland's Office of
Consumer Affairs commented on the need, ex-
emplified by the recent recall of 14.5 million
radials by one domestic tire manufacturer, to
make safety a factor in the purchase of radial
tires. The City of Cleveland reported encounter-
ing consumer frustration with present tire mar-
keting practices and expressed concern that
inability on the part of consumers to ascertain
the quality of tires they are buying may lead to
careless and ill-advised purchasing decisions and
unsafe operating practices. NHTSA agrees and
has seen no new arguments that suggest Congress'
directive for establishing a uniform system for
grading motor vehicle tires should not be ful-
filled by the contemplated method.
Extent of NHTSA Radial Tire Testing
General Motors Corporation and the Rubber
Manufacturers Association (RMA) contended
that NHTSA's tests of radial tire treadwear were
inadequate as a basis for extension of the UTQG
regulation to radial tires. General Motors argued
that radial tire treadwear does not become con-
stant after tires are broken in, but continues to
vary upward and downward, as evidenced by
comparing adjusted wear rates in the final 6,400
miles of NHTSA's 38,400-mile radial tire tread-
wear test with the averages of adjusted wear
rates from several 6,400-mile test series. The
RMA stated its position that radial tire wear
rates continue to decline in the later stages of
tire life, pointing to NHTSA and RMA test data
on the subject. Both General Motors and the
RMA contended that, given the nature of radial
tire treadwear, NHTSA must test some radial
tires to actual wearout to confirm that treadwear
projections based on 6,400-mile tests correlate
closely with actual tire treadlife.
NHTSA has not suggested that radial tire
treadwear is precisely constant after break-in.
Rather the agency's position, as stated in Notice
28, is that radial tire treadwear after break-in
can be adequately described by a straight line
fitted to a series of data points representing tread
depth against miles traveled, thereby providing
an adequate basis for treadwear projections.
Variations in wear rate of the type noted by
General Motors and the RMA cause a sinuous
fluctuation in wear pattern which can be closely
approximated by a straight line projection of
treadwear based on the first 6,400 miles of testing.
NHTSA chose not to run tested tires to actual
wearout because such tests are expensive and time
consuming, and accurate projections of treadlife
are possible with tires which have substantial
wear, but are not worn out. For these reasons,
projecting radial tire treadlife from tests run
short of wearout is common in the industry (e.g.,
"A Statistical Procedure for the Prediction of
Tire Tread Wear Rate and Tread Wear Rate
Differences" by Dudley, Bower, and Reilly of the
Dunlop Research Centre) and is, the agency has
concluded, a relia;bl6 means of determining tire
treadwear properties of radial, bias, and bias-
belted tires.
Accuracy of the Treadwear Grading Procedure
for Radial Tires
General Motors, Michelin Tire Corporation,
and the RMA commented that the existing
UTQG procedures does not project the treadlife
of radial tires with a sufficient degree of accuracy,
based on the data submitted to the rulemaking
docket in connection with Notice 28. General
Motors and the RMA noted that treadwear
projections calculated onlj^ from wear rates ob-
served in the initial 6,400-mile test sequence dif-
fered in some cases by one or two UTQG grade
levels fi"om projections based on wear rates from
later 6,400-mile test cycles or from averages of
several test cycles. These commenters noted that
the range of such differences was slightly higher
when individual tires were compared rather than
the averages of four-tire sets. Michelin expressed
concern that the regulation would create an im-
PART 575— PRE 64
pression of equality among tires which in reality
vary in quality. General Motors suggested that
projections based on later test cycles or averages
established over a longer test period would pro-
vide a more accurate projection of actual tread-
life.
NHTSA established the 6,400-mile test se-
quence, with an 800-niile break-in, after consid-
ering the adequacy of the data which could be
obtained over that test distance and the expendi-
ture of money and resources required for addi-
tional testing. The grades arrived at by projecting
from later test series or combinations of series
were generally consistent with the results ob-
tained in the first 6,400 miles of testing, and
those variations which did occur were relatively
minor.
As noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit in B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Depart-
ment of Transportation, 541 F.2d 1178 (1976),
no system designed to grade millions of tires can
be expected to approach perfection. Considering
the present absence of tire quality infonnation
in the market place, the agency has concluded
that the UTQG treadwear grading procedure
provides reasonable accuracy when applied to
radial tires and will be of significant value to tire
consumers in making purchasing decisions.
General Motors commented that tire grades
should be assigned based on the lowest mileage
projected for any tire among a set of four candi-
date tires and not on the average projected mile-
age of a four tire set. The UTQG regulation
states that each tire will be capable of providing
at least the level of performance represented by
the UTQG grades assigned to it. UTQG grades
based solely on either average grade levels or on
the projected mileage of a particular tested tire
would not provide an adequate basis for con-
sumer reliance on the grading information. In
determining accurate treadwear grades for tire
lines, manufacturers must consider the popula-
tion variability evidenced in their tire testing.
Validity of the CMT Adjustment Procedure
The UTQG regulation accounts for environ-
mental influences on candidate tire wear rates
during testing by means of an adjustment factor
derived by comparing the wear rates of concur-
rently run course monitoring tires (CMT's) with
an established CMT base course wear rate
(BCWR) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(2)). In Notice
28, NHTSA explained how the same adjustment
procedure could be used to correct for a measure-
ment anomaly that generates the appearance of
a higher wear rate for radial tires in the first
4,000 miles of testing following the 800-mile
break-in. In response to Notice 28, CFAS re-
viewed the UTQG adjustment procedure, as it
applies to radial tires, and commented that this
procedure is the proper method for grading
radials. However, Michelin and the RMA, in
their comments on that notice, suggested that the
CMT adjustment procedure may be invalid for
radial tires, both in the context of wear rate
changes and as a control on environmental fac-
tors.
The RMA argued that NHTSA has not pro-
vided supporting data for its theory that the
shift in radial tire wear rate during the initial
phases of treadlife is caused by changes in tire
geometry as the tire attains its equilibriiun shape.
However, detailing the underlying mechanism of
the apparent change in wear rate is incidental to
the fact that radial tire wear rates do stabilize
in a consistent fashion, permitting use of the
CMT adjustment to project treadlife with reason-
able accuracy.
The RMA contended that wear patterns of
certain radial tires diifer markedly from the ap-
parent accelerated pattern observed by NHTSA
during the firet 4,000 miles of treadlife after the
800-mile break-in, and that NHTSA's test of
several tire brands provided an inadequate basis
to draw conclusions about radial tires in general.
Michelin, although citing no data on the subject,
commented that an accelerated wear pattern in
the early stages of treadlife may not exist in all
radial tires to the same degree.
NHTSA's test of radial tire treadwear, re-
ported in Notice 28, included ten different tire
brands, selected to include a wide range of prices
and materials, as well as both domestic and for-
eign manufacture. This sample constitutes a
reasonable and adequate basis upon which to draw
conclusions concerning tires available on the
American market. In spite of the wide variety
of radial designs included in NHTSA's test, the
agency found the wear rate patterns of the tires
studied to be remarkably consistent in the initial
PART 575— PRE 65
6,400-miles of testing, after the 800-mile break-in.
This consistency is exemplified by treadwear
projections in the paper "Test of Tread Wear
Grading Procedure — the Course Monitoring Tire
Adjustment on Eadial Tire Wear Kates", by
Brenner and Williams (Docket 25, General Ref-
erence No. 105), which compared estimates of
tread life for nine sets of candidate tires based
on data from the first 6,400 miles of testing after
break-in, with estimates based on data from 6,400
to 38,400 miles of testing. The projections com-
puted from these data sets did not differ signifi-
cantly, indicating that the UTQG adjustment
procedure accurately accounted for the initial
wear rate characteristics of all tires tested.
Based on this test experience, the agency be-
lieves that the data from its tests and analysis of
that data has demonstrated that the wear pat-
terns exhibited by radial tires early in their
treadlives are sufficiently consistent to pennit ac-
curate projection of treadwear based on the exist-
ing UTQG test procedure. NHTSA plans to
closely monitor testing at the San Angelo course
to insure that the UTQG test procedure accom-
modates future developments in tire technology
and continues to provide an accurate basis for
treadwear grading.
On the question of consistency beyond the ini-
tial 4,000 miles of testing, both Michelin and the
RMA argued that not all tires tested by NHTSA
responded to environmental factors in an identi-
cal manner, as demonstrated by comparing
graphs of unadjusted candidate tire wear rates
by test cycle with graphs of data from concur-
rently run CMT's. The RMA also noted that
graphic representations of radial tire adjusted
wear rates per test cycle were not always hori-
zontal, but in some cases sloped somewhat upward
or downward.
Close examination of the graphs of unadjusted
candidate tire wear rates and CMT wear rates
indicates that the wear rates fluctuated in a rea-
sonably parallel fashion in all but an insignificant
number of cases. NHTSA has never contended
that every tire of every brand must behave in a
perfectly consistent manner Ijeforc a valid grad-
ing system can be established. NHTSA finds
that the level of consistency exhibited by the
tested tires is sufficient to confirm the validity of
the CMT approach as a reasonably fair and
reasonably reliable means of radial tire grading.
With regard to the slope of the adjusted wear
i-ate curves, NHTSA has applied a test of inde-
pendence to this data to detennine if the adjusted
wear rates of the tested tires were dependent on
the test cycle. In no case was the slope signifi-
cantly different from zero at the 95 percent con-
fidence level. In fact, of the curves which slanted
to any measurable degree, sixteen had a slightly
positive slope and seventeen had a slightly nega-
tive slope, as would be expected if the true slope
were zero. This analysis suggests that CMT and
candidate tires continue to wear in a consistent
fashion beyond the initial phase of testing.
The RMA's comments suggest that some con-
fusion may exist as to whether CMT's are to be
reused for testing after an initial 6,400-mile test
cycle after break-in. Since radial tires, including
CMT's, exhibit an apparent change in wear pat-
tern during this initial phase of treadlife, when
measured by a tread depth gauge, the CMT ad-
justment procedure will be accurate only if new
candidate tires are run with new CMT's so that
the wear rate change occurs in all tires simul-
taneously.
Radial CMT's were run beyond the initial
6,400-mile cycle in NHTSA's testing announced
in Notice 28, in order to provide an extended
comparison of CMT's and candidate tires run
concurrently. In its UTQG compliance testing,
however, NHTSA will use new radial CMT's,
broken-in in accordance with 49 CFR 575.104
(d) (2) (v) , for each 6,400-mile test.
Also on the issue of the CMT adjustment pro-
cedure, the RMA commented that NHTSA's test
data indicate a coefficient of variation (COV)
for radial CMT's of over 5 percent, the standard
upheld in the B. F. Goodrich case as the agency's
target for the maximum permissible level of
variability for these tires. Much of the data
cited by the RMA on this point involved test
cycles beyond the initial 6,400-mile cycle, after
break-in. Data on the variability of CMT's at
test distances beyond 6,400 miles, after break-in,
are irrelevant to the UTQG system, since, as
noted above, radial CMT's will not be reused
aft«r an initial 6,400-mile test cycle.
PART 575— PRE 66
In examining data from the initial test cycle,
the RMA combined wear rates from several test
vehicles and then developed COV's from that
data, thereby interjecting vehicle variability into
the computation. A^ehicle variability, while un-
related to the properties of the tire, has the effect
of inflating coefficients of variation. "Wlien this
extraneous factor is removed from the computa-
tion, the test data indicate a GOV well within
the acceptable 5 percent level.
Michelin expressed concern that running
CMT's of a standard size with candidate tires of
differing sizes may lead to inaccuracy in the ad-
justment of data. National Bureau of Standards
Technical Note 486, "Some Problems in Measur-
ing Tread Wear of Tires," by Spinner and
Barton (Docket 25, General Reference No. 4),
compared projected mileages for three sizes of
radial and bias-ply tires of several manufacturers
run under different road conditions. Data in the
report suggest that tires of different sizes react
similarly to differing external conditions. There-
fore, the practical burden of providing a different
CMT for each size of candidate tire may be
avoided.
Finally, General Motors and the RMA asserted
that, in order to facilitate comparisons among
radial, bias, and bias-belted tires, BCWR's must
be established by running the three types of
CMT's concurrently to limit the influence of en-
vironmental variables on the test results. The
RMA also contended that a BC"\VR cannot be
established without running CMT's to actual
wearout.
NHTSA established BCWR's through experi-
ence with tires of all three construction types in
over 5 million tire miles of testing over a two
year period. In the course of this extensive test-
ing, each tire type can be expected to have en-
countered a random mix of environmental
conditions resulting in a similar net impact on
treadwear.
Other Comments
Michelin commented that the regulation's pro-
cedure of rotating tires among different positions
on a test vehicle, but not between vehicles, pre-
cludes the detection of vehicle mechanical prob-
lems which could affect grading. Adequate
preventive maintenance of test vehicles is the
primary safeguard against distortion of data by
vehicle malfunctions. Additionally, an analysis
of variance of the data obtained in a convoy or
on a vehicle provides another effective method of
detecting a malfunction. (See, "Elements in the
Road Evaluation of Tire Wear", by Brenner and
Kondo, Docket 25; General Reference No. 17).
NHTSA does not believe that rotation of tires
among vehicles would significantly improve on
these existing techniques.
General Motors noted that several tires studied
by NHTSA had to be removed from the test due
to failure or uneven wear prior to actual wearout
and suggested that the agency must account for
these anomalies before proceeding with rule-
making.
Early in the course of rulemaking on UTQG,
NHTSA concluded that considerations of cost
and consumer understanding required some
limitation on the number of grading categories
in which UTQG information would be presented.
Based on examination of numerous comments in
the rulemaking docket, the agency concluded that
treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance
are the tire characteristics of greatest importance
to consumers. For this reason, information on
subjects such as evenness of tread wear and sus-
ceptibility to road hazard damage, while of value
to consumers, is not provided under the regula-
tion. NHTSA will consider General Motors
comment, however, as a suggestion for possible
future rulemaking.
The RilA noted several minor computational
and other errors in the previously referred to
paper by Brenner and Williams (Docket 25,
General Reference No. 105), submitted to the
docket in connection with Notice 28. Some of
these errors were corrected by a subsequent sub-
mission to the docket (Docket 25, General Refer-
ence No. 105A). In any case, the errors were of
a non-substantive nature and had no impact on
the agency's ndemaking process and decisions.
Impact of the Thirty Day Stay
of Effective Dates
On January 19, 1979, the U.S. Court, of Ap-
peals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case B. F.
Goodrich Co. v. Department of Transportation
(No. 78-3392), granted a thirty-day stay of the
effective dates for application of the UTQG regu-
PART 575— PRE 67
lation to bias and bias-belted tires. The regula-
tion was scheduled to become effective March 1,
1979 for bias-ply tires and September 1, 1979 for
bias-belted tires, with the exception of the side-
wall molding requirements of paragi'aph (d) (1)
(i) (A) and the first purchaser requirements of
paragraph (d) (1) (iii) which were to become
effective September 1, 1979 and March 1, 1980
for bias and bias-belted tires, respectively.
NHTSA interprets the Sixth Circuit's action
as postponing the effective dates of the UTQG
regulation one month to April 1, 1979 for bias-ply
tires and October 1, 1979 for bias-belted tires.
However, the effective dates for the molding re-
quirements of paragraph (d)(l)(i)(A) and the
first purchaser requirements of paragraph (d)
(1) (iii) are postponed to October 1, 1979 for
bias-ply tires and April 1, 1980 for bias-belted
tires to ajjow manufacturers time to convert tire
molds. This postponement of effective dates has
been taken into account, in establishing effective
dates for application of the regulation to radial
tires, to assure adequate lead time for completion
of tire testing.
In accordance with Departmental policy en-
couraging adequate analysis of the consequences
of regulatory actions, the agency has evaluated
the anticipated economic, environmental and
other consequences of extending the UTQG regu-
lation to include radial tires and has determined
that the impact of this action is fully consistent
with impacts evaluated in July 1978 in establish-
ing effective dates for bias and bias-belted tires.
Based on the authority of Section 203 of the Act,
previous agency findings concerning required lead
time for grading tires, and the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in
B. F. Goodrich, the NHTSA hereby establishes
radial tire effective dates consistent with the basic
six-month phase-in schedule announced on July
17, 1978 (43 FR 30542) for bias and bias-belted
tires.
In an unrelated matter, NHTSA's FEDERAL
REGISTER notice announcing effective dates for
application of the UTQG Standards to bias and
bias-belted tires (43 FR 30542) ; July 17, 1978)
contained an inadvertent error in use of the word
"of" rather than the intended word "are" in the
first sentence of the third section of Figure 2 of
the regulation. This error is corrected by sub-
stitution of the word "are" in place of "of" in
Figure 2.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Uniform
Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR
575.104), are amended ....
The program official and lawyer principally
responsible for the development of this rulemak-
ing document are Dr. F. Cecil Brenner and
Richard J. Hipolit, respectively.
(Sec. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203; Pub. L. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421,
1423) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on March 9, 1979.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
44 F.R. 15721-15724
March 15, 1979
PART 575— PRE 68
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Uniform Tire Quality Rating
(Docket No. 25; Notice 35)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Uniform Tire
Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards through minor
modifications in the format of tire tread labels used
to convey UTQG information. The modifications
are intended to assure that tires are labeled with
the correct UTQG grades, to permit flexibility in
the design of labels, and to facilitate consumer
access to the grading information.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1979.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. F. Cecil Brenner, Office of Automotive
Ratings, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1740).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 8,
1979, NHTSA published a request for public
comment (44 F.R. 1814) on a petition for
rulemaking submitted by Armstrong Rubber
Company asking that the UTQG regulation be
amended to permit tire grading information and
explanatory material concerning the UTQG
system to be furnished to consumers by means of
two separate tire tread labels rather than the
single label called for in the regulation (49 CFR
575.104(d) (l)(i)(B)). Armstrong, joined by Atlas
Supply Company, contended that the chance of
mislabeling tires would be reduced, if UTQG
grades could be placed on the same label with tire
identification information. However, practical
limitations exist on the size of tread labels which
can be effectively applied and retained on the tire
tread surface. Some manufacturers reportedly
encountered difficulty in fitting tire identification
information, UTQG grades, and required UTQG
explanatory information on a single label. For this
reason, Armstrong and Atlas suggested that
UTQG explanatory information be furnished on a
separate label adjacent to a label containing UTQG
grades and tire identification information.
In view of the favorable comments received in
response to NHTSA's request for comment on the
Armstrong petition, the agency proposed to
modify the tread label format requirements to
employ a two-part label format (44 F.R. 30139;
May 24, 1979). NHTSA proposed that Part I of the
label contain a display of the UTQG grades
applicable to the particular tire while Part H would
contain the general explanation of the grading
system. At the manufacturer's option Parts I and
II could appear on separate labels. To assure that
the labels would be legible to consumers, the notice
also proposed requirements for orientation of the
label text and minimum type size.
Commenters on the proposal were in general
agreement that flexibility in the design of tire
tread labels is a desirable goal. While some
manufacturers expressed the opinion without
explanation that two-part labels would be
impractical for their operations, others welcomed
the proposal as a means of dealing with label size
limitations.
Some commenters favored retention of the
original label format pointing out that the
proposed label would be slightly longer than its
predecessor and arguing that the proposed label
would isolate the tire grades from the explanatory
material. Some industry sources expressed the
opinion that the proposed changes would be of no
benefit to consumers.
NHTSA disagrees with these criticisms of the
proposal. The new format should increase the
length of the label by only a fraction of an inch,
if at all, and should not pose a problem to
manufacturers wishing to employ a single label.
The separation of the grades from the explanatory
material should not create confusion since the two
PART 575-PRE 69
parts could be separated by no more than one inch
in any case. The agency has reached the conclusion
that displaying grades for all three performance
categories together on Part I of the label will in
fact benefit consumers by facilitating access to the
information.
Maximum retainability will be assured with the
new format since manufacturers may choose to
employ two labels if they are unable to fit all of the
necessary information on a single label of a
manageable size. Similarly, the possibility of
mislabeling will be reduced, because the two-part
option makes it possible in all cases to include ap-
plicable UTQG grades on tire identification labels.
For these reasons, NHTSA has determined to
adopt the proposed two-part label format with
minor modifications.
Several commenters suggested that orientation
of the tread label text should not be specified in the
regulation since flexibility in label design would be
reduced by such a requirement. However, NHTSA
has concluded that since most manufacturer's tire
identification labels are arranged with lines of type
ninning perpendicular to the tread circumference,
tires are most likely to be displayed so that labels
with this orientation will be easily readable by con-
sumers. Therefore, the agency has chosen to retain
the proposed requirement regarding label text
orientation.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company suggested the
possibility of printing Part I of the proposed label
below Part H, when both parts are contained on a
single tread label. NHTSA finds this suggestion
unacceptable because the UTQG grades would be
difficult to locate if preceded by a body of textual
material.
Goodyear also commented on several occasions
that specifying a minimum type size for the printing
of labels would be of no benefit since many factors
other than type size, such as letter style, spacing,
and format, contribute to legibility. NHTSA agrees
that a minimum type size requirement alone is insuf-
ficient to assure the readability of labels. For this
reason, NHTSA has chosen to withdraw its pro-
posed minimum type size requirement at this time.
The agency will, however, continue to monitor in-
dustry compliance with the labeling requirements to
ascertain whether a comprehensive set of re-
quirements is necessary to assure that tread labels
will be legible to consumers.
The agency has found considerable merit in
another Goodyear suggestion, to delete the range
of possible grades adjacent to the categories
"TRACTION" and "TEMPERATURE" on Part
H of the label. These letters were originally in-
cluded on the label to provide a display on which
the grade attributable to a particular tire could be
marked. Since grades will now be marked on Part I
of the label, the range of possible grades in Part H
is superfluous and has been deleted from the re-
quired format. If, however, manufacturers wish to
display the array of grades on both Part I and Part
II of their labels, NHTSA has no objection to this
practice.
Goodyear was joined by General Tire & Rubber
Company in requesting that NHTSA clarify whether
the three category headings, "TREADWEAR,"
"TRACTION," and "TEMPERATURE," in Part I
of the proposed label must be laid out side by side,
across the label, or one below the other, down the
label. In the interest of flexibility, the regulation
makes either of these layouts acceptable, although
the relative order of the categories must be main-
tained to permit easy reference to the explanatory
material.
Similarly, several manufacturers recommended
that the regulations permit grades to be displayed
either to the right of or directly below the grading
category to which they apply. Again, to facilitate
efficient label design, the regulation permits the
use of either of these locations for the display of
grades.
Industry commenters asked that NHTSA clarify
whether the use of lower case letters in the label
text, as set out in Figure 2 of the regulation,
precludes manufacturers from printing labels us-
ing all capital letters in the label text. The regula-
tion has been modified to permit the optional use of
all capital letters in printing the text of Figure 2.
NHTSA wishes to confirm Firestone Tire & Rub-
ber Company's understanding that the words
"Part I" and "Part 11" appearing in Figure 2 as
proposed are for reference purposes only and need
not be printed on the tread label. General and the
Rubber Manufacturers Association called
NHTSA's attention to certain typographical errors
in the proposed Figure 2 text, which have been cor-
rected in the amendment as adopted.
Several manufacturers suggested that the
original label format be permitted as an option, or
PART 575-PRE 70
that, as a minimum, waste be avoided by allowing
labels printed with the original format to be used
up regardless of the adoption of a new label for-
mat. NHTSA considers the new two-part label for-
mat to be superior to the original format in terms
of clarity and readability. Therefore, the agency
has concluded that universal conversion to the new
format is desirable. However, since manufacturers
have expended significant resources in efforts to
comply with the original labeling requirement,
NHTSA will permit the use of labels employing the
original format, at the manufacturers option, until
October 1, 1980. This period of flexibility should
permit any labels already printed to be used up and
allow a smooth transition to the new format.
Since this amendment will increase manufac-
turers' flexibility in complying with the UTQG
labeling requirements, and since the transition to
the new labeling format will be phased in so as to
avoid economic waste, the agency has found that
this notice does not have significant impact for
purposes of internal review. In view of the fact
that some manufacturers may still be in the proc-
ess of obtaining labels for their bias-belted tire
lines, this amendment will become effective
December 1, 1979.
Issued on November 20, 1979.
Joan Claybrook,
Administrator
44 F.R. 68475
November 29, 1979
PART 575-PRE 71-72
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Uniform Tire Quality Rating
(Docket No. 25; Notice 37)
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This notice corrects an inadvertent
error in the text of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) final rule
modifying the tread label format used under the
Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards
(49 CFR 575.104).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November
29, 1979, NHTSA published a notice (44 F.R.
68475) making minor modifications in the final
format of tire tread labels used to convey UTQG
information to consumers. That notice contained
an inadvertent error in the text of Figure 2 of the
regulation in that the words "one and one-half'
were substituted for the words "one and a half
under the heading "Treadwear" in Part H of the
tread label text. The notice is therefore revised to
reflect the intended wording.
F.R. Doc. 79-36522 appearing at 44 F.R. 68475
is corrected at page 68477 in the third column as
follows:
Figure 2, Part H of the Uniform Tire Quality
Grading Standards, 49 CFR 575.104, is corrected
by substitution of the words "one and a half in
place of the words "one and one-half under the
heading "Treadwear".
Issued on January 22, 1980.
Michael M. Finkelstein,
Associate Administrator
for Rulemaking
45 F.R. 6947
January 31, 1980
PART 575-PRE 73-74
<■
PREAMBLE TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION REGULATIONS
UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING
(Docket No. 25; Notice 38)
ACTION: Interpretation.
SUMMARY: This notice clarifies the procedure to
be used under the Uniform Tire Quahty Grading
(UTQG) Standards in measuring tread depth of
tires without circumferential grooves or with a
limited number of grooves. The regulation's
provision for measurement of tread depth in tire
grooves has given rise to questions concerning the
proper means of measurement for such tires. This
notice is intended to facilitate testing of tires of
this type.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This interpretation is effective
immediately.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Richard Hipolit, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1834).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The UTQG Standards (49 CFR 575.104) require
the grading of passenger car tires on three
performance characteristics: treadwear, traction
and temperature resistance. In setting forth the
procedure to be followed in evaluating treadwear
performance, the regulation states that, after an
800-mile break-in, tires are to be run for 6,400
miles over a designated course, with tread depth
measurements to be taken every 800 miles. The
regulation specifies that tread depth is measured
at six equally spaced points in each tire groove
other than shoulder grooves, avoiding treadwear
indicators. Tire grooves are typically arranged
symmetrically around the center of the tread.
On May 24, 1979, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) published in the
Federal Register (44 FR 30139) an interpretation
that tires designed for year round use do not
qualify as "deep tread, winter-type snow tires,"
which are excluded from the coverage of the UTQG
regulation by 49 CFR 575.104(c). In response to
this interpretation, the Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company commented to NHTSA (Docket 25;
Notice 32-011) that a technical problem may exist
in the measurement of tread depth of tires for year
round use since circumferential grooves are absent
in the designs of many such tires.
NHTSA is aware that certain other standard tire
designs, as well as year round designs, may
incorporate lugs, discontinuous projections molded
in the tread rubber, separated by voids, in place of
ribs defined by circumferential grooves. In other
cases, the limited number of grooves on the tire
could lead to inaccurate results if measurements
were made in only those grooves.
To assure accurate tread depth measurements on
tires lacking circumferential grooves, and tires with
fewer than four grooves, measurements are to be
made along a minimum of four circumferential lines
equally spaced across the tire tread surface. These
lines are to be symmetrically arranged around a
circumferential line at the center of the tread. The
outermost line on each side of the circimiferential
tread centerline is to be placed wdthin one inch of the
shoulder.
Measurements are to be made at six equally spaced
points along each line. If the design of the tire is such
that, on a particular circumferential line, six equally
spaced points do not exist at which groove or void
depth exceeds by Yieth of an inch the distance from
the tread surface to the tire's treadwear indicator,
measurements are not to be taken along that line. If
measurements cannot be taken on four equally-
spaced, symmetrically-arranged lines, the require-
ment for equal spacing does not apply.
Measurements in that case are to be taken along a
minimvmi of four lines, with an equal number of
symmetrically arranged measured lines on either
side of the tread centerline.
PART 575-PRE 75
NHTSA recognizes that, due to the
implementation schedule of the regulation, certain
manufacturers may have already conducted
treadwear tests on tires falling within the scope of
this interpretation. The Agency does not object to
the use in grading of treadwear data generated
prior to the publication date of this notice, if such
data was acquired using a test method varying only
in minor, non-substantive respects from the
method described in this interpretation.
The principal author of this notice is Richard J.
Hipolit of the Office of Chief Counsel.
Issued on March 24, 1980.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 F.R. 23441
April 7, 1980
PART 575-PRE 76
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENTS TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
REGULATIONS; UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING
(Docket No. 25; Notice 39)
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Uniform Tire
Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards to exclude
from the requirements of the regulation tires
produced in small numbers, which are not
recommended for use on recent vehicle models.
The amendment is intended to reduce costs to
consumers and reduce regulatory burdens on
industry in an area where the purchase of tires
based on comparison of performance
characteristics is limited.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective
immediately.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. F. Cecil Brenner, Office of Automotive
Ratings, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1740).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The UTQG Standards 49 CFR § 575.104 are
intended to enable consumers to make an informed
choice in the purchase of passenger car tires
through the use of comparative performance
information relating to tire treadwear, traction
and temperature resistance. The standards apply
to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars
manufactured after 1948. Deep tread, winter-type
snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare
tires, and tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to
12 inches have been excluded from the application
of the regulation (49 CFR § 575.104(c)).
Several tire manufacturers and dealers have
informed the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTS A) that a small class of tires
exists for which marketplace competition based on
performance characteristics is extremely limited.
These tires, which are purchased for use on
vehicles manufactured after 1948 but nonetheless
considered by their owners to be classic or antique,
are produced in small numbers in a wide variety of
designs and sizes. Purchasers of these tires are
reportedly concerned primarily with appearance,
authenticity, and availability rather than tire
performance.
Information supplied by Intermark Tire
Company indicates that a similar limited market
exists for tires used on older vehicles requiring tire
sizes no longer employed as original equipment on
new vehicles. Intermark petitioned NHTSA to
remove these tires from the coverage of the
regulation on the basis that little market
competition exists in their sale and that availability
is the primary factor in the purchase of this class of
tire.
In order to reduce costs to consumers and
eliminate the need for industry to grade the
multiplicity of small lines of tires in which
comparative performance information would have
limited value, NHTSA pubHshed a notice
proposing to remove certain limited production
tires from the application of the UTQG regulation
(45 FR 807; January 3, 1980). Four criteria, were
specified to define limited production tires. First
the annual production by the tire's manufacturer
of tires of the same design and size could not
exceed 15,000 tires. Second, if the tire were
marketed by a brand name owner, the annual
purchase by the brand name owner could not
exceed 15,000 tires. Third, the tire's size could not
have been listed as a manufacturer's recommended
size designation for a new motor vehicle produced
or imported into this country in quantities greater
than 10,000 during the preceding calendar year.
Fourth, the annual production by the tire's
manufacturer, or the total annual-purchase by the
tire's brand name owner, if applicable, of different
tires otherwise meeting the criteria for limited
PART 575-PRE 77
production tires could not exceed 35,000 tires. The
proposal also clarified that differences in design
would be determined on the basis of structural
characteristics, materials and tread pattern,
rather than cosmetic differences.
Commenters on the proposal, including the Rubber
Manufacturers Association, the National Tire
Dealers and Retreaders Association, Dunlop
Limited, Intermark, Kelsey Tire Company and
McCreary Tire and Rubber Company agreed that
tire quality grading should not be required for limited
production tires. Among the reasons stated for
support of the proposal were expected cost savings to
industry and the consumer and the special
consideration affecting the purchase of these tires.
After consideration of these comments, the agency
has adopted the proposed amendment with minor
modification.
Intermark pointed out a possible anomalous
situation which could result from the wording of
subparagraph (c) (2) (iv) of the proposal. That
provision placed a 35,000 tire limit on a
manufacturer's total annual production of tires
meeting the limited production criteria, or, in the
case of tires marketed under a brand name, on the
total annual purchase of limited production tires by a
brand name owner. Thus, under this commenter's
reading of (c) (2) (iv), 40,000 tires meeting the criteria
of subparagraphs (c)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) could be
produced by a manufacturer, sold in groups of 10,000
to four different brand name owners, and still qualify
as limited production tires. At the same time,
another manufacturer could produce 40,000 tires
meeting the first three criteria for sale in its own
company outlets and be required to grade the tires.
To make it clear that the 35,000 tire limitation on
ritanufacturer's production applies whether or not
the tires are marketed by a brand name owner,
subparagraph (c) (2) (iv) has been modified by
substituting the word "and" for "or."
Kelsey Tire Company asked how the criteria would
apply to tires which are produced abroad in large
numbers but are imported in quantities which would
fall within the unit limitations of subparagraphs
(c) (2) (i), (ii), and (iv) of the proposal. To make clear
that the criteria are to be applied to foreign tires only
insofar as they are imported in this country,
subparagraphs (c) (2) (i) and (iv) have been modified
to refer to "annual domestic production or
importation into the United States by the tire's
manufacturer." The reference to "importation ... by
the tire's manufacturer" includes in the total all tires
entering the United States for sale under the name of
the manufacturer, regardless of the shipping or title
arrangements made by the manufacturer with
distributors. Similarly, subpargraphs (c) (2) (ii) and
(iv) have been modified to clarify the status of tires
purchased by brand name owners.
McCreary and Intermark argued that the unit
restrictions on production of tires meeting the
criteria are too restrictive and should be eliminated
or eased significantly. McCeary predicted that the
total number of classic car tires produced by
individual manufacturers will grow, although
production runs of individual designs and sizes wUl
remain small. Intermark contended that
production limitations unfairly penalize efficient
manufacturers and that a new vehicle
recommended size designation provision such as
proposed subparagraph (c) (2) (iii) would be
sufficient to define the intended class of limited
production tires.
NHTSA considers the stated limitations broad
enough to encompass the "classic" car tire market
as it is presently constituted. With regard to the
larger production runs of tires in outdated sizes,
NHTSA believes that the production of tires in
numbers greater than the proposed limitations is
suggestive of wider availability and resulting
increased competition which would make UTQG
information of greater value. Further, relaxing or
eliminating unit restrictions could result in the
exclusion from the application of the standard of
high performance or racing tires which are not
recommended as original equipment. The agency
believes that comparative tire grading information
should be available to purchasers of tires of this
type. NHTSA will monitor the limited production
tire market to determine whether future market
changes require revision of the 35,000 tire
limitation.
Pursuant to E.G. 12044, "Improving
Government Regulation," and implementing
departmental guidelines, the agency has
considered the effects of this amendment. It
reaffirms its earlier determination that the
amendment is not significant and that the effects
are so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation. NHTSA has determined
that these amendments will result in modest cost
savings to industry and consumers, while having
no appreciable effect on safety or the environment.
PART 575-PRE 78
Because this amendment relieves a restriction
and because the agency desires to minimize any
possible interruption in tire production pending the
effective date of this amendment, the amendment
is effective immediately.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
§ 575.104(c) is amended to read:
§ 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading
standards.
* • • « *
(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-savef 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
importation 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 designation for a new motor vehicle
produced in or imported into the United
States in quantities greater than 10,000
during the calendar year preceding the year
of the tire's manufacture; 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
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 subparagraphs (c) (2) (i), (ii),
and (iii) of this section, does not exceed
35,000 tires.
Tire design is the combination of general
structural characteristics, materials, and tread
pattern, but does not include cosmetic, identifying
or other minor variations among tires.
The principal authors of this notice are Dr. F.
Cecil Brenner of the Office of Automotive Ratings
and Richard J. Hipolit of the Office of Chief
Counsel.
Issued on March 24, 1980.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 F.R. 23442
April 7, 1980
PART 575-PRE 79-80
^
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Consumer
Information Regulations by deletion of the re-
quirement that manufacturers supply information
on acceleration and passing ability to vehicle first
purchasers and prospective purchasers. The notice
also revises the timing of manufacturers' submis-
sions of performance data to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These
modifications, which were proposed in response to
a General Motors Corporation petition for rule-
making, are intended to lessen regulatory burdens
on industry, while providing performance data in a
manner more useful to consumers.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The amendment of section
575.6(d) is effective June 1, 1981. The deletion of
section 575.106 is effective immediately, July 7,
1980.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ivy Baer, Office of Automotive Ratings,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1740)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Consumer
Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575) provide
first purchasers and prospective purchasers with
performance information relating to the safety of
motor vehicles and tires. This information is in-
tended to aid consumers in making comparative
purchasing decisions and in the safe operation of
vehicles. General Motors Corporation petitioned
NHTSA to delete requirements for consumer in-
formation on passenger car and motorcycle stop-
ping distance (49 CFR 575.101), passenger car tire
reserve load (49 CFR 575.102), and passenger car
and motorcyle acceleration and passing ability
(49 CFR 575.106), on the basis that this information
is of limited value to consumers. In response to
this petition, NHTSA proposed (44 FR 15748;
March 15, 1979) to delete the requirement for ac-
celeration and passing ability information and to
limit the application of the tire reserve load provi-
sions to vehicles with significant cargo capacity,
thus dropping the requirement for most passenger
cars. NHTSA also proposed that vehicle manufac-
turers submit performance data to the agency at
least 90 days before model introduction, compared
to the 30-day advance submission which had been
required (49 CFR 575.6).
Timing of Data Submission
The primary purpose of the advance submission
to NHTSA is to permit the agency to compile and
disseminate performance data in a comparative
format for use by prospective vehicle purchasers.
A major criticism of the consumer information pro-
gram in the past has been that comparative infor-
mation reached the consumer too late in the model
year to be of real value in choosing between
competing vehicles. A 90-day advance submis-
sion would permit the agency to assemble and
distribute comparative information early in the
model year, when it would be of greatest value to
consumers.
Some industry commenters questioned the need
for earlier submission of data on the basis that
agency delays in publishing the data will result in
comparative information being available late in
the model year, in spite of the earlier submission.
Other manufacturers argued that consumer in-
terest in the information is limited in any case.
General Motors suggested that vehicle design
changes during the model year rapidly outdate the
information, further limiting its value.
However, the Center for Auto Safety (CFAS)
commented that it receives numerous requests
PART 575-PRE 81
from consumers for comparative information on
motor vehicles. CFAS also pointed out the popu-
larity of comparative motor vehicle information on
the rare occasions when such information is made
available by independent publishers. NHTSA has
concluded that consumer interest in comparative
performance information would be substantial if
the information were made available in a timely
manner. Further, NHTSA has determined that
few running design changes during the model year
are so major as to significantly affect the perform-
ance characteristics covered by the consumer in-
formation regulations.
The success of the Environmental Protection
Agency in publishing its popular fuel economy
guides in a timely manner indicates that publica-
tion of vehicle information by NHTSA early in the
model year is practical. However, based on past
experience, it appears that a 90-day advance sub-
mission is the minimum leadtime necessary for
NHTSA to publish and distribute the information.
Some manufacturers indicated they may have
difficulty providing accurate performance informa-
tion 90 days in advance of model introduction due
to the possibility of last minute design changes.
However, American Motors Corporation com-
mented that a 90-day advance submission require-
ment would pose no problem at new model intro-
duction, although it would inhibit running changes
during the model year. In view of the importance
of supplying comparative information early in the
model year, NHTSA has adopted the proposed 90-
day advance submission requirement for model
introduction. However, to avoid delaying the in-
troduction of product improvements, the 30-day
notice period has been retained for changes occur-
ring during the model year.
Tire Reserve Load
In response to General Motors' petition,
NHTSA proposed modifying the tire reserve load
information requirement to limit its application to
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or
less, and to passenger cars with a maximum cargo
capacity of 25 cubic feet or more. The regulation
had applied to all passenger cars, but not to trucks
or multipurpose passenger vehicles.
Comments from many industry and consumer
sources recommended deleting the tire reserve
load information requirement completely. CFAS
commented that consumer interest in tire reserve
load information has been limited. Many comments
from car, truck and recreational vehicle manufac-
turers expressed concern that presenting informa-
tion on tire reserve load may encourage vehicle
overloading by misleading consumers into think-
ing that vehicles have additional load carrying
capacity. Several commenters suggested that
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 110 and
120 provide the appropriate means of ensuring
that vehicles are equipped with tires of adequate
size and load rating.
A recent study conducted for NHTSA (Docket
79-02, Notice 1-016) indicates that tire reserve load
is an important factor in preventing passenger car
tire failure. Additional information is being gath-
ered on this subject and the agency is planning to
propose amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard 110 to require a minimum tire
reserve load on passenger cars. Preliminary analy-
sis suggests that a tire reserve load percentage of
10% or greater is necessary to provide an ade-
quate safety margin.
NHTSA has found that presently available in-
formation is not sufficient to justify extension of
the tire reserve load requirements to light trucks
and multipurpose passenger vehicles at this time.
However, in view of the safety implications of tire
reserve load for passenger cars and in the absence
of a requirement for minimum tire reserve load,
NHTSA believes that information on this subject
should be available to passenger car purchasers
and owners. The agency has concluded that provi-
sion of tire reserve load information in its present
form does not encourage vehicle overloading, since
a warning against loading vehicles beyond their
stated capacity must accompany the information.
For these reasons, NHTSA has determined that
the existing requirement for tire reserve load in-
formation must remain in effect at least until the
completion of rulemaking on the possible amend-
ment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
110. If the provision of tire reserve load informa-
tion no longer appears necessary then, the agency
will reconsider the status of tire reserve load as a
consumer information item. At this time, however,
NHTSA withdraws the proposal to modify the tire
reserve load consumer information requirements.
Acceleration and Passing Ability
The final aspect of NHTSA's proposal was dele-
PART 575-PRE 82
tion of acceleration and passing ability (49 CFR
575.106) from the consumer information re-
quirements. The acceleration and passing ability
provision required information on the distance and
time needed to pass a truck traveling at 20 mph
and at 50 mph. The passing vehicle was permitted
to attain speeds of up to 35 mph and 80 mph in the
respective maneuvers.
In proposing deletion of this requirement,
NHTSA felt that the national interest in energy
conservation had substantially diminished con-
sumer demand for rapid acceleration capability.
Further, the high speed driving permitted by the
test procedures appeared to contradict the safety
and energy saving policies behind the national
55-mph speed limit. Commenters on the proposal,
including American Motors, CFAS, General
Motors and Volkswagen of America, unanimously
agreed that the acceleration and passing ability
provision was no longer of interest to consumers
and had become inconsistent with national goals.
Section 575.106 has, therefore, been deleted from
the consumer information regulations.
NHTSA's regulatory evaluation, conducted pur-
suant to E.O. 12044, "Improving Government
Regulations" and departmental guidelines, in-
dicates that the amendments are not significant.
They decrease the regulatory burden on industry,
while having no appreciable negative impact on
safety. A copy of the regulatory evaluation can be
obtained from the Docket Section, Room 5108,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Also, the amendments will have no measurable
effect on the environment.
Because the amendments as they pertain to ac-
celeration and passing ability relieve a restriction,
and to avoid any unnecessary costs in complying
with this requirement, the deletion of section
575.106 is effective immediately. So that useful
performance information can be provided to con-
sumers for model year 1982 vehicles, the amend-
ment to section 575.6 is effective June 1, 1981.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part
575, Consumer Information Regulations, is
amended as follows:
1. Section 575.6(d) is amended to read:
§575.6 Requirements
(d) In the case of all sections of Subpart B, other
than §575.104, as they apply to information sub-
mitted prior to new model introduction, each
manufacturer of motor vehicles shall submit to the
Administrator 10 copies of the information
specified in Subpart B of this part that is ap-
plicable to the vehicles offered for sale, at least 90
days before it is first provided for examination by
prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c)
of this section. In the case of §575.104, and all
other sections of Subpart B as they apply to post-
introduction changes in information submitted for
the current model year, each manufacturer of
motor vehicles, each brand name owner of tires,
and each manufacturer of tires for which there is
no brand name owner shall submit to the Ad-
ministrator 10 copies of the information specified
in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the
vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days
before it is first provided for examination by pro-
spective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this section.
2. Section 575.106 is deleted.
The principal authors of this proposal are Ivy
Baer of the Office of Automotive Ratings and
Richard J. Hipolit of the Office of the Chief
Counsel.
Issued on July 7, 1980!
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 FR 47152
July 14, 1980
PART 575-PRE 83-84
<c
<:
V
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations
Uniform Tire Quality Grading
(Docket No. 25; Notice 4)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Uniform Tire
Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards to provide for
the testing of metric tires, tires with inflation
pressures measured in kilopascals. Since the
original UTQG test requirements were written
prior to the introduction of metric tires and
specified inflation pressures measured in pounds
per square inch, modification of the regulation is
now necessary to identify inflation pressures ap-
plicable to metric tires. The notice also makes
technical changes in the UTQG traction test pro-
cedure to facilitate efficient use of test facilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments are effective
immediately.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. F. Cecil Brenner, Office of Automotive
Ratings, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-426-1740
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The UTQG
standards prescribe test procedures for evaluation
of the treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance properties of passenger car tires.
Grades based on these are used by consumers to
evaluate the relative performance of competing
tire lines. Test procedures for all three perform-
ance categories were established specifying infla-
tion pressures in pounds per square inch.
Following the introduction of metric tires with
inflation pressures measured in kilopascals, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) recognized the need to add metric infla-
tion pressures to the UTQG test procedures. The
agency proposed (44 F.R. 56389; October 1, 1979;
Notice 34) that for purposes of traction testing.
metric tires would be inflated and tire loads deter-
mined using a prescribed inflation pressure of 180
kPa. Under the proposal, other tires would con-
tinue to be tested at an inflation pressure of 24 psi.
NHTSA's notice also proposed modification of the
temperature resistance test procedure to provide,
in the case of metric tires, for use of inflation
pressures 60 kPa less than the tires' maximum
permissible inflation pressure.
In response to comments, NHTSA modified the
original proposal (45 F.R. 35408; May 27, 1980;
Notice 40) to include treadwear testing in the pro-
posed modifications and to incorporate a table in-
dicating treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance test inflation pressures for tires with
various maximum permissible inflation pressures
in kilopascals and pounds per square inch. In the
proposed table, different test inflation pressures
were specified for tires with differing maximum
permissible inflation pressures.
The agency also proposed, in Notice 34, modifi-
cation of the traction test procedure to permit the
adjustment of candidate tire test results with
standard tire results obtained either before or
after the candidate tire test sequence, so long as
all data to be compared were collected within the
same two-hour period. This change was intended
to promote efficient use of the traction test
facilities by permitting data from more than one
candidate tire test sequence to be adjusted by
comparison with the same standard tire sequence.
Upon examination of additional data, NHTSA
concluded that a three-hour period could be em-
ployed without affecting the accuracy of the test
results. Use of a three-hour period would permit
more than one candidate tire test sequence to be
run both before and after the corresponding stand-
ard tire test sequence. A three-hour period for
comparative testing was proposed in Notice 40.
Having received no negative comments on the
PART 575-PRE 85
traction test sequence proposal as stated in that
notice, NHTSA has determined that the amend-
ment will be adopted as proposed.
On the proposed changes to provide for testing
of metric tires, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
noted that the table of test inflation pressures pro-
posed in Notice 40 calls for variations in the
prescribed test inflation pressure depending on
the maximum permissible inflation pressure of the
tested tire. The original traction procedure
specified a single test inflation pressure for all
tires. Goodyear expressed concern that such a
change could affect test results and, consequently,
tire grades, and require wasteful additional
testing to confirm grades already assigned.
Goodyear recommended that NHTSA adopt the
amendment proposed in Notice 34 that all metric
tires be tested using the inflation pressure 180 kPa
and all other tires be tested using the original 24
psi inflation pressure.
NHTSA agrees that unnecessary costs asso-
ciated with the UTQG Standard should be avoided.
For this reason, the agency has determined that
reference to traction testing will be deleted from
the table of test inflation pressures, and the addi-
tion of the metric traction test inflation pressure
of 180 kPa proposed in Notice 34 will be adopted
instead. Those aspects of Notice 40 pertaining to
treadwear and temperature resistance testing of
metric tires will be adopted as proposed in that
notice.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12044, "Improving
Government Regulations," and implementing
Departmental guidelines, the agency has con-
sidered the effects of these amendments. NHTSA
reaffirms its earlier determination that the amend-
ments are not significant and that the effects are
so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation. NHTSA has determined
these amendments will result in modest cost sav-
ings to industry and consumers, while having no
appreciable effect on safety or the environment.
•Because these amendments will facilitate the
efficient and accurate completion of testing pres-
ently underway, the amendments are effective
immediately.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
§575.104 is amended as follows:
1. In section 575.104(e)(2)(ii) by substitution of
the words "the applicable pressure specified in
Table 1 of this section," in place of the words "an
inflation pressure 8 pounds per square inch less
than its maximum permissible inflation pressure."
2. In section 575.104 (f) (2) (i) (B) and (D) by addi-
tion of the words, "or, in the case of a tire with in-
flation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180
kPa" following the words "to 24 psi."
3. In section 575.1 04(f)(2)(vii) by addition of the
following sentence, at the end thereof: "The stand-
ard tire traction coefficient so determined may be
used in the computation of adjusted traction coeffi-
cients for more than one candidate tire."
4. In section 575.104 (f)(2)(viii) by addition of
the words, "or, on the case of a tire with inflation
pressure measured in kilopascals, the load speci-
fied at 180 kPa," following the words "at 24 psi,"
and by addition of the sentences, "Candidate tire
measurements may be taken either before or after
the standard tire measurements used to compute
the standard tire traction coefficient. Take all
standard tire and candidate tire measurements
used in computation of a candidate tire's adjusted
traction coefficient within a single three hour
period" following the first sentence thereof.
5. In section 575.104 (g) (1) by substitution of the
words "the applicable pressure specified in Table 1
of this section," in place of the words "2 pounds per
square inch less than its maximum permissible in-
flation pressure."
6. In section 575.104(g)(3) by substitution of the
words "the applicable pressure specified in Table 1
of this section," in place of the words "2 pounds per
square inch less than the maximum permissible in-
flation pressure."
7. In section 575.104(g)(6) by substitution of the
words "applicable inflation pressure specified in
Table 1 of this section," in place of the words "infla-
tion pressure that is 8 pounds per square inch less
than the tire's maximum permissible inflation
pressure."
8. In section 575.104(g)(8) by substitution of the
words "the applicable pressure specified in Table 1
of this section," in place of the words "2 pounds per
square inch less than that the tire's maximum per-
missible inflation pressure."
9. By addition of the following table at the con-
clusion of the text of that section:
PART 575-PRE 86
Table 1. — Test Inflation Pressures
Maximum permissible
inflation pressure
32
36
40
240
280
300
lb/in='
Ib/in^
Ib/in^
kPa
kPa
kPa
Pressure to be used in tests for
treadwear and in determination of tire
load for temperature resistance testing. 24 28 32 180 220 180
Pressure to used for all aspects of
temperature resistance testing other
than determination of tire load. 30 34 38 220 260 220
The principal authors of this notice are Dr. F.
Cecil Brenner of Office of Automotive Ratings and
Richard J. Hipolit of the Office of Chief Counsel.
Issued on October 15, 1980.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
45 FR 70273
October 23, 1980
PART 575-PRE 87-88
k-
^
^
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations; Uniform Tire Quality Grading
(Docket No. 25; Notice 45)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Uniform
Tire Quality Grading Standards to permit
tire grades to be molded on the tire sidewall
beginning at any time up to six months after
introduction of a new tire line. This
amendment, which was proposed in response
to a petition from Atlas Supply Company, is
intended to avoid disruption of production
while tire grades are determined. The notice
also extends the deadline for conversion to
new format tire tread labels in order to
permit unused supplies of old-format labels to
be used up.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 1981.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 26, 1981, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (46
F.R. 8063; Docket 25, Notice 44) proposing
amendment of the sidewall molding and tread
labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire
Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR
575.104). In response to a petition for
rulemaking filed by Atlas Supply Company,
NHTSA proposed a four month phase-in
period for molding of UTQG grades on the
sidewalls of tires of newly introduced tire
lines. Under the regulation as originally
issued, all covered tires were required to
have UTQG grades molded on the sidewall
(49 CFR 575.104(d)(l)(i)(A)). Atlas, with
support from the Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company and the General Tire & Rubber
Company, requested that initial production
runs of new tire lines be exempted from the
molding requirement pending determination
of UTQG grades.
The notice of proposed rulemaking also
responded to a petition for rulemaking
submitted by Armstrong Rubber Company.
Armstrong had requested that the deadline
for conversion to the new UTQG tread label
format established in Docket 25, Notice 35 (44
F.R. 68475; November 29, 1979) be extended
at least nine months to permit supplies of old-
format labels to be used up. In response to
Armstrong's petition, NHTSA proposed that
the deadline for conversion to the new format
be extended from October 1, 1980, until April
1, 1982.
As indicated in the Notice of Intent
published by NHTSA on April 9, 1981, (46
F.R. 21203), NHTSA is currently reviewing
the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality
Grading System regulatory program, to
determine the degree to which it accurately
and clearly provides meaningful information
to consumers in accordance with the
requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1423. Proposed
rulemaking or further action on this question
will be published within thirty days of this
notice.
Proposed Rulemaking— Decision
NHTSA received several comments from
tire and motor vehicle manufacturers on the
proposed amendments. After review of these
comments, the agency has concluded that.
PART 575- PRE 89
while amendment of the regulation is
warranted, several changes in the specifics of
the proposal are desirable.
Proposed Rulemaking— Comments
Support for the concept of a temporary
exemption from the UTQG molding
requirements for new tire lines was indicated
by both tire and motor vehicle industry
sources. The Rubber Manufacturers
Association (RMA) commented that such an
exemption would resolve difficulties
associated with grading new tire lines, and
save costs to manufacturers, while not
significantly affecting the distribution of
grading information to the public.
Ford Motor Company expressed its opinion
that a temporary exemption would make
good economic sense by permitting full
utilization of production facilities while
UTQG grades are determined. Full utilization
of equipment was a primary goal of the Atlas
petition, which expressed concern that a
substantial investment in tire molds would be
unproductive while UTQG testing was
conducted using a small initial sample of
tires.
Goodyear also expressed general support
for the proposal, since it would permit UTQG
grades to be based on testing of production
tires. Goodyear noted that while UTQG
testing of prototype tires is possible, testing
of production tires is desirable because of the
greater variety of sizes available for testing.
While supporting the proposal for a molding
exemption period, tire industry commenters
uniformly agreed that the four-month period
proposed by NHTSA would be inadequate.
Goodyear, Atlas, and the RMA agreed that a
six-month period would be preferable. These
commenters viewed four months as the
period in which grades could be determined
and molds stamped under optimal conditions.
However, these sources pointed out that
unexpected delays in tire selection, testing,
data analysis, retesting, or stamping could
easily extend beyond the four-month period.
Atlas' comments suggested that the potential
for delay is even greater where multiple
sources of supply are involved. In order to
allow for potential uncontrollable delays of
this nature, NHTSA has determined that the
period for introduction of molded grades on
new tire lines will be extended to six months
from the date production commences.
NHTSA's notice of proposed rulemaking
on this subject contained a proposed
requirement that motor vehicle
manufacturers affix to the window of each of
their vehicles equipped with tires exempted
from the molding requirement a sticker
containing tire-specific UTQG information.
This proposal was intended to assure that
prospective vehicle purchasers have access
to UTQG information. Tire-specific grades
for original equipment tires are not available
on tread labels or in vehicle manufacturers'
point of sale information. However, the
window sticker proposal was uniformly
opposed by motor vehicle and tire industry
commenters.
General Motors Corporation, Chrysler
Corporation, Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
and Goodyear all argued that significant
assembly line problems would result from
adoption of a window sticker requirement.
Comments received from these manufacturers
indicated that several lines of tires are
frequently used as original equipment on a
single vehicle model and, under the proposal,
more than one tire line without molded
grades could be available for use in an
assembly plant at one time.
Given this diversity of tire use,
commenters pointed out, assembly line
personnel would have to inspect each vehicle
and determine whether ungraded tires were
being used. These employees would then
have to determine the correct UTQG window
sticker 'to be affixed to the vehicle. Under
such a system, labeling errors would be likely
in the absence of costly and time-consuming
reinspection. Alternatively, expensive
special parts identification and storage
programs could be undertaken to track
ungraded tires through the plant and affix
the appropriate labels when the tires are
used.
Several commenters argued that such a
labeling program would be unreasonably
burdensome and expensive in comparison to
PART 575- PRE 90
the benefits which would be expected from
such a program. Ford Motor Company
estimated that UTQG window stickers would
result in an annual cost to that company of
$50,000. General Motors (GM) estimated that
window stickers could be affixed at a cost of
$.50 per car if used on all cars it produced.
According to GM, this cost would be much
higher in the limited application
contemplated by the proposal, due to
increased scheduling and inspection costs.
At the same time. General Motors,
Chrysler, and Goodyear argued that the
major importance of UTQG is in the
replacement market and that tire grades
seldom influence new car purchases. GM
pointed out that it establishes its own
performance criteria for original equipment
tires beyond the UTQG performance
categories, and that in this way vehicle
purchasers are assured of getting suitable
tires regardless of molded UTQG grades.
While Ford suggested several alternatives
to the window sticker proposal, the other
commenters addressing the issue
recommended that no accommodation at all is
necessary for ungraded original equipment
tires. In this regard, Goodyear noted that the
estimate used in the notice of proposed
rulemaking that no more than five percent of
original equipment tires would be ungraded
was probably high and the actual figure will
likely be considerably below that estimate.
NHTSA is also aware that in the event a
vehicle purchaser is interested in UTQG
information on original equipment tires
temporarily exempted from the molding
requirement, UTQG information would be
readily available from local tire dealers and
other sources. In view of the above
considerations, NHTSA has determined that
the proposed UTQG window sticker is
unnecessary and unduly burdensome and the
proposal for such a sticker is withdrawn.
NHTSA's notice of proposed rulemaking
also proposed a sunset provision for the
molding requirement change. This provision
would have automatically terminated the
molding exemption at the end of three years,
unless the agency determined that an
extension were necessary. Goodyear and the
RMA pointed out in their comments that a
sunset provision is unnecessary, since the
agency already has the authority to review
and amend the regulation at any time, if it
appears that the exemption is not working as
planned. In fact. Atlas recommended that the
agency review the effect of the amendment
no later than 18 months after its effective
date.
Goodyear noted that, if the sunset provision
is adopted, unforeseen delays in completion
of NHTSA's review could lead to disruptions
in the event the three-year sunset period
expires before the review process can be
completed and the exemption extended.
While NHTSA plans to monitor the effect of
the molding exemption and will propose any
necessary modifications, the agency has
concluded that the proposed sunset provision
is unnecessary and potentially disruptive.
Therefore, the sunset provision is
withdrawn.
Finally, only one commenter expressed an
opinion on the proposal to extend the
deadline for conversion to the new tread label
format. As 'iscussed in Armstrong's petition
on this subject, the original October 1, 1980,
effective date appeared appropriate at the
time it was established. However, a sudden
market shift toward radial tires resulted in
unused supplies of old-format labels for bias-
belted tires. In order to permit existing
stocks of labels to be used, NHTSA proposed
extension of the deadline for conversion to
the new label format until April 1, 1982.
Goodyear complained that it had scrapped
unused supplies of old-format labels when the
format change took effect and argued that
extension of the deadline at this time would
not be fair and equitable. Goodyear went on,
however, to state its preference that the
deadline for conversion be eliminated
altogether in the interest of efficient use of
available materials.
NHTSA regrets that Goodyear found it
necessary to dispose of a quantity of old-
format labels which could not be used up
prior to the October 1 deadline. However, the
agency believes that such economic waste
would only be compounded by requiring
disposal of labels which may have been
PART 575 -PRE 91
retained by other manufacturers. At the
same time, complete elimination of the
conversion deadline could indefinitely delay
conversion to the new label format, which the
agency considers superior. For these reasons,
the deadline for conversion to the new tread
label format is extended until April 1, 1982.
Of course, manufacturers and brand name
owners wishing to use new-format labels
prior to that date are free to do so.
Several commenters stressed the need to
act quickly on the proposed amendments in
order to avoid production disruptions and
economic penalties which may be encountered
in the planned introduction of new tire lines.
Since the changes outlined above relieve
restrictions and have these beneficial effects,
they are made effective immediately upon
publication.
NHTSA has evaluated these amendments
and found that their effect would be to
provide minor cost savings for tire
manufacturers and brand name owners.
Accordingly, the agency has determined that
the amendments are not a major rule within
the meaning of Executive Order 12291 and
are not significant for purposes of
Department of Transportation policies and
procedures for internal review of proposals.
The agency has further determined that the
cost savings are not large enough to warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation under
the procedures. The agency has also
determined that the amendments, which reUeve
restrictions and provide minor cost savings,
will not significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities. Finally, the agency
has concluded that the environmental
consequences of the amendments will be
minimal.
Issued on July 30, 1981.
Raymond A. Peck, Jr.
Administrator
46 F.R. 41514
August 17, 1981
PART 575 -PRE 92
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations
(Docltet No. 79-02; Notice 5)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Consumer
Information Regulations to permit amendment of
previously submitted motor vehicle performance
information at any time up to 30 days prior to new
model introduction. This amendment is intended
to reduce regulatory burdens on industry by
allowing greater flexibility in the implementation
of pre-introduction product changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1982.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Consumer
Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575)
require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and
tires provide prospective purchasers and first
purchasers with information on the performance
of their products in the areas of vehicle stopping
ability (49 CFR §575.101), vehicle tire reserve
load (49 CFR §575.102), truck camper loading (49
CFR §575.103), and uniform tire quality grading
(49 CFR §575.104). In addition to the requirements
that information be furnished directly to
consumers, manufacturers are required to submit
information to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) prior to the
introduction of new vehicle models and tire lines
or modification of existing lines. This advance
submission requirement is intended to permit the
agency to compile the information supplied by
various manufacturers in a comparative format
for distribution to consumers.
As originally issued, and presently in force, the
regulation requires that all information be
submitted to NHTSA at least 30 days prior to the
date on which the information is made available
to prospective purchasers (49 CFR §575.6(d)). The
regulation requires that information must be
made available to prospective purchasers not
later than the day on which the manufacturer
first authorizes the subject product to be put on
public display and sold to consumers (49 CFR
§575.6(c)).
To enable NHTSA to compile the information
in a comparative booklet for distribution early
enough in the model year to be useful to most
consumers, the agency amended the regulations
to require that motor vehicle manufacturers
submit information at least 90 days in advance of
new model introduction (45 F.R. 47152; July 14,
1980). The 30-day period was retained for post-
introduction vehicle changes and for tire quality
grading information. The amendment was
originally scheduled to take effect June 1, 1981,
but the effective date was postponed until June 1,
1982 (46 F.R. 29269; June 1, 1981), to allow
consideration of a petition from Ford Motor
Company requesting greater flexibility in the
requirement.
Ford contended that the 90-day advance
submission requirement could create hardships
for manufacturers when last minute pre-
introduction product changes, resulting from
component supply difficulties or other factors,
affect the performance characteristics covered by
Part 575. In such a situation, a manufacturer
could be forced to delay introduction of a vehicle
model until a new 90-day advance notice period
had been completed. To avoid this result. Ford
recommended that manufacturers be permitted
to amend initial pre-introduction submissions at
any time prior to 30 days before model
introduction. NHTSA responded with a notice of
proposed rulemaking to permit such revisions in
the event of unforeseeable pre-introduction
modifications in vehicle design or equipment (46
F.R. 4054; August 10, 1981; Docket 79-02; Notice
4). This proposal was among the deregulatory
measures discussed in the Administration's
PART 575: PRE 93
notice of intent on measures to aid the auto
industry.
NHTSA received comments from seven motor
vehicle manufacturers and importers in response
to the notice of proposed rulemaking. All
commenters agreed that the proposed amendment
would be an improvement over the established
90-day requirement, in that greater flexibility
would be provided in the introduction of necessary
product changes. As noted by Ford, the
amendment would facilitate implementation of
product development and marketing schedules,
while still providing information adequate for
NHTSA's purposes. NHTSA agrees and has
determined that the proposed amendment should
be adopted with one modification.
General Motors and Volkswagen of America,
Inc. commented that limiting changes in
performance information to those resulting from
"unforeseeable" product changes is inappropriate.
Volkswagen argued that only the manufacturer
can adequately judge whether product changes
are unforeseeable, and that agency attempts to
enforce such a requirement could lead to
undesirable consequences. Moreover, a
manufacturer acting in good faith could be faced
with a dilemma if the manufacturer is unable to
conclude that a needed product change was
unforeseeable, although in fact it had not been
anticipated in a particular instance. (Docket 79-02,
Notice 4, No. 004). General Motors argued that
cost factors alone are a sufficient incentive to
manufacturers to avoid last minute product
changes and therefore no foreseeability standard
is necessary to insure that changes are made in
good faith. General Motors suggested that if any
qualifier is thought necessary, "unforeseen" or
"unanticipated" would be preferable. (Docket
79-02, Notice 4, No. 007).
NHTSA continues to believe that some provision
is necessary to assure that only good faith product
changes form the basis for modifications of pre-
introduction submissions. However, NHTSA does
not wish to inhibit product changes which the
agency may believe could have been foreseen, but
honestly were not. To avoid this result, the
agency has concluded that "unforeseen" rather
than "unforeseeable" is a more appropriate
description of the types of product changes which
would justify amendments of pre-introduction
consumer information submissions.
Volkswagen and General Motors also
commented that the 90-day advance submission
requirement is unnecessary and that the original
30-day period should be retained. Volkswagen
contended that the agency could not use the
manufacturers' submissions until 30 days prior to
model introduction in any case because the data
would be subject to change. Volkswagen also
suggested that manufacturers could circumvent
the 90-day requirement by making minimal
performance claims in their initial submissions
and amending the information at a later date.
General Motors commented that the further in
advance information is submitted, the less
accurate it will be, and that the successful
publication of the Environmental Protection
Agency's fuel economy guide establishes the
feasibility of publishing comparative information
with a brief advance submission period.
NHTSA's past experience indicates that 30
days is inadequate for this agency to compile,
publish and distribute a useful comparative
booklet. Moreover, any design or equipment
related inaccuracies inherent in a 90-day advance
submission can be corrected under the amendment
adopted in this notice. While it is true that the
agency could not publish and distribute the
information until the period for amendment of
initial submissions expired, the agency could
compile the information and begin the publishing
process, incorporating any necessary changes
prior to printing. Comments submitted by
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Docket 79-02,
Notice 4, No. 001), suggest that the number of
required changes will be small. Finally, the type
of abuse noted by Volkswagen would be
precluded under the amended regulation because
the type of revision described would not have
been necessitated by unforeseen product
changes.
Commenters also suggested rescinding the
advance submission requirement completely or
rescinding the stopping distance and tire reserve
load provisions. Still other commenters
recommended that the agency reassess the costs
and benefits of the Consumer Information
Regulations as a whole. The rationale for these
recommendations centered on the alleged lack of
consumer interest in the information and the
limited amount of information provided under the
program.
PART 575; PRE 94
As noted by commenters, NHTSA has proposed
rescission of the requirement that auto
manufacturers provide tire reserve load
information to the public and the agency (46 F.R.
47100; September 24, 1981). However, in
conjunction with the Administration's efforts to
ease regulatory burdens on the auto industry, the
agency wishes to maintain a functioning consumer
information program as a possible substitute for
mandatory safety regulations. As part of the
agency's ongoing program to identify and eliminate
unnecessary regulatory burdens, NHTSA plans
to review the benefits of and need for the
Consumer Information Regulations as a component
of the agency's total regulatory program. If this
review indicates that the consumer information
program is not useful and cost-beneficial, the
future of the regulation will be addressed in a
later rulemaking proceeding.
NHTSA has evaluated this relieving of a
restriction and found that its effect will be to
provide minor cost savings for motor vehicle
manufacturers. Accordingly, the agency has
determined that the action is not a major rule
within the meaning of Executive Order 12291 and
is not significant for purposes of Department of
Transportation policies and procedures for
internal review of regulatory actions. The agency
has further determined that the cost savings are
so minimal as to not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation under the procedures. The
agency certifies pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act that the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the cost savings
will be modest and few, if any, motor vehicle
manufacturers can be considered small entities
within the meaning of the statute. Finally, the
agency has concluded that the environmental
consequences of the proposed change will be of
such limited scope that they clearly will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment.
Issued on February 11, 1982.
Raymond A. Peck, Jr.
Administrator
47 F.R. 7257
February 18, 1982
PART 575; PRE 95-96
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations
(Docket No. 81-09; Notice 2)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Consumer
Information Regulations by revocation of the
requirement that motor vehicle manufacturers
provide information on passenger car tire reserve
load. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has concluded that this
information is without value to consumers, and
that deletion of the requirement will avoid
unnecessary regulatory burdens on industry.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective
immediately.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Consumer
Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575)
require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and
tires provide consumers with information on the
performance of their products under various
performance criteria. In the case of motor vehicle
manufacturers, information is required in the
areas of passenger car and motorcycle stopping
distance (49 CFR §575.101), passenger car tire
reserve load (49 CFR §575.102), and truck camper
loading (CFR §575.103). National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations
require that motor vehicle manufacturers supply
the required performance information in writing
to first purchasers of their motor vehicles at the
time of delivery (49 CFR §575.6(a)) and that the
information be made available for examination by
prospective purchasers at each location where
the vehicles to which it applies are sold (49 CFR
§575.6(c)). The information must also be
submitted in advance to NHTSA (49 CFR
§575.6(d)).
On September 24, 1981, NHTSA published in
the Federal Register a proposal to delete from
the Consumer Information Regulations the
requirement for provision of information on
passenger car tire reserve load (46 F.R. 47100;
Docket No. 81-09, Notice 1). Tire reserve load is
the difference between a tire's stated load rating
and the load imposed on the tire at maximum
loaded vehicle weight. This difference is
expressed as a percentage of tire load rating
under the regulation.
NHTSA's proposal noted that a NHTSA
analysis, "The Relationship Between Tire Reserve
Load Percentage and Tire Failure" (Docket No.
81-09, Notice 1, No. 002), had concluded that no
relationship exists between tire reserve load
percentage and tire failure rate. This analysis
was based on the results of a study prepared for
NHTSA by Chi Associates, "Statistical Analysis
of Tire Failure vs. Tire Reserve Load Percentage"
(Docket No. 81-09, Notice 1, No. 001), using tire
reserve load data obtained from eight automobile
manufacturers under special order from this
agency. The proposal also noted the lack of major
differences among manufacturers' reported tire
reserve load percentages, and the safeguards
against overloading contained in Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (FMVSS No.
110), Tire Selection and Rims.
In response to its proposal to delete the
requirement for tire reserve load information,
NHTSA received comments from seven motor
vehicle manufacturers and importers. The
commenters were unanimous in their support of
the agency's proposal. Comments received
generally focused on the lack of benefit to
consumers resulting from provision of tire
reserve load information.
Several commenters noted the lack of any
proven safety benefit from the tire reserve load
regulation. Two commenters, Ford Motor
Company and Volkswagen of America, Inc., cited
the above mentioned NHTSA analysis in support
PART 575; PRE 97
of the proposition that tire reserve load is an
invalid predictor of tire failure (Docket No. 81-09,
Notice 1, Nos. 004 and 006). General Motors
Corporation (Docket No. 81-09. Notice 1, No. 007)
and American Motors Corporation (Docket No.
81-09, Notice 1, No. 008, referencing its prior
comment, Docket No. 79-02, Notice 1, No. 012)
argued that FMVSS No. 110 is sufficient to
protect against the installation of tires with
inadequate load carrying capacity.
American Motors also pointed out that much of
the information required under the tire reserve
load regulation is redundant of information which
must be included on glove compartment placards
pursuant to FMVSS No. 110. In this regard,
information on recommended tire size designation
and recommended inflation pressure for maximum
loaded vehicle weight, required under paragraphs
(c)(2) and (3) of the tire reserve load regulation (49
CFR §575.102(c)(2) and (3)) is essentially the same
as that required under paragraphs s4.3(c) and (d)
of FMVSS No. 110 (49 CFR §575.110, s4.3(c) and
(d)).
Several commenters argued that not only is
tire reserve load information lacking in safety
value, but it may actually pose a danger to
highway safety. Renault USA, Inc., Volkswagen,
General Motors and American Motors all
expressed concern that provision of tire reserve
load information would mislead consumers into
loading their vehicles beyond gross vehicle
weight ratings (Docket No. 81-09, Notice 1, Nos.
003, 006, 007, 008). Renault and American Motors
also noted that the tire reserve load regulation
fails to take into account the effect of inflation
pressure, thus further limiting the usefulness of
the regulation and creating additional potential
hazards resulting from improper tire inflation.
Chrysler Corporation and General Motors
emphasized the minimal consumer interest in tire
reserve load information (Docket No. 81-09,
Notice 1, Nos. 005 and 007). As evidence of this
minimal interest, both manufacturers noted the
lack of consumer requests for point of sale
information currently available.
Some cost savings are likely to result to
automobile manufacturers as a result of deletion
of this requirement. General Motors pointed out
that, even if tire reserve load is dropped from the
consumer information regulations, manufacturers
will still be required to print and distribute
booklets containing information on vehicle
stopping distance and thus cost savings will be
limited (Docket No. 81-09, Notice 1, No. 007).
However, Ford commented that elimination of
the tire reserve load provision would result in
some savings in manpower and computer time
(Docket No. 81-09, Notice 1, No. 004). Similarly,
Volkswagen noted that manufacturers' booklet
publication costs would be reduced and reporting
requirements simplified if the proposed
amendment were adopted (Docket No. 81-09,
Notice 1, No. 006).
In view of the lack of benefits of the tire
reserve load information requirements, the
potential for reduction of unnecessary regulatory
burdens by deletion of these requirements, and
the other considerations discussed above,
NHTSA has concluded that the tire reserve load
requirements of the Consumer Information
Regulations should be revoked. In order to avoid
continued imposition of unncessary regulatory
burdens, this amendment relieving a restriction
is made effective immediately.
Several commenters also suggested rescinding
the vehicle stopping distance information
requirement of the regulation, thereby eliminating
all requirements for vehicle specific consumer
information applicable to passenger cars. While
beyond the scope of this rulemaking proceeding,
NHTSA is reviewing the benefits of and need for
other aspects of the Consumer Information
Regulations in connection with a petition for
rulemaking submitted by General Motors. If this
review indicates that vehicle stopping distance
information is not useful, the potential deletion of
this requirement will be made the subject of a
future rulemaking proceeding.
NHTSA has evaluated this relieving of a
restriction and found that its effect would be to
provide minor cost savings for motor vehicle
manufacturers. Accordingly, the agency has
determined that this action is not a major rule
within the meaning of Executive Order 12291 and
is not significant for purposes of Department of
Transportation policies and procedures for
internal review of regulatory actions. The agency
has further determined that the cost savings are
minimal and do not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation under the procedures.
The agency certifies, pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, that this action will not "have a
PART 575; PRE 98
significant economic impact on a substantial case of individual purchasers.
number of small entities," and that a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis was therefore not required. Issued on May 28, 1982.
Few, if any, motor vehicle manufacturers can be
considered small entities within the meaning of
the statute. Small organizations and small
government jurisdictions will not be significantly
affected by this action. These entities could be
affected by the action as motor vehicle Raymond A. Peck, Jr.
purchasers. However, the agency has determined Administrator
that tire reserve load information is not of value
to purchasers. Moreover, possible cost savings 47 F.R. 24593
associated with the action will be minor in the June 7, 1982
PART 575; PRE 99-100
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations; Uniform Tire Quality Grading
(Docket No. 25; Notice 46)
ACTION: Interim final rule and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: This notice makes several technical
amendments to the test procedures in the
regulation on Uniform Tire Quality Grading
(UTQG). The UTQG regulation specifies that the
tire rim size and tire loading used in testing
individual tires are to be determined by using
Table 1, Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires.
Since the portion of Table 1, Appendix A relied
upon by the UTQG regulation was deleted in a
previous agency rulemaking, effective June 15,
1982, reliance upon that Appendix will no longer
be appropriate after that date. This notice
replaces the references to Appendix A with
equivalent methods for determining rim size and
tire loading.
DATES: This amendment is effective June 15,
1982.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Uniform
Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) regulation (49 CFR
575.104) requires that manufacturers and brand
name owners of passenger car tires provide
consumers with information on the treadwear,
traction and temperature resistance of their
tires. This information is to be generated in
accordance with procedures specified in the
regulation.
Two parameters specified in the test procedures
are the proper test rim width for each tire, and
the load under which the tire is to be tested. The
UTQG regulation refers to Appendix A of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (FMVSS
109) for the determination of rim size to be used
for testing purposes. Table 1 of Appendix A
provides a complete listing of tire sizes available
in this country and for each size indicates the
proper test rim size and maximum loads at
various tire pressures.
The UTQG regulation also refers to Appendix A
of FMVSS 109 for the determination of tire load.
The tire load for temperature resistance testing
is the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS 109
for the tire pressure listed in Table 1 of the UTQG
regulation. Thus, load is currently determined by
obtaining the tire pressure from Table 1 of the
UTQG regulation and finding the load for that
pressure level in Appendix A. The tire load for
treadwear and traction testing is determined in
the same way, except that the load level found in
Appendix A is multiplied by 85 percent.
Beginning on June 15, 1982, reliance upon
Appendix A o£ FMVSS 109 to determine rim size
and tire load for UTQG testing will no longer be
possible. On that date, the agency's amendment
(December 17, 1981; 46 F.R. 61473) deleting Table
1 of Appendix A will become effective. As
FMVSS 109 is currently written, the tire
manufacturers and brand name owners must
submit the rim size information to NHTSA for
incorporation in Table 1. Under the amendment,
they will be able to satisfy FMVSS 109 by either
securing the incorporation of the information in a
publication of a standardization organization like
the Tire and Rim Association or one of its foreign
counterparts or by submitting it to the agency,
their dealers, and others who request it, without
the need for the information's incorporation in
any other document.
As to tire load information, the tire
manufacturers and brand name owners must
currently calculate loads for pressure levels
ranging from 16 to 40 pounds per square inch in
most cases and submit the information to NHTSA
for incorporation in Table 1. After June 14, they
need determine the load only for a single
PABT 576; PRE 101
pressure level, the maximum one. The
responsibilities of the manufacturers and brand
name owners under amended FMVSS 109
regarding load information may be satisfied in
the same fashion as their responsibilities
regarding rim size.
The deletion of Table 1 of Appendix A was
intended to reduce an unnecessary regulatory
burden placed by FMVSS 109 on the tire industry
and the agency. The action was not intended to
make any change in the UTQG test procedures.
However, the deletion of Table 1 of Appendix A
necessitates amending the UTQG regulation so
that rim size and tire load can be determined
without reference to that appendix.
This notice provides the means for making
those determinations. The rim size to be used for
UTQG testing is the same size specified by the
tire manufacturer or brand name owner in a
publication of a standardization association or in a
submission directly to the agency. This provision
does not in any way change the rim size used for
UTQG testing. Instead, it simply changes the
source of obtaining the rim size information.
As to tire loading, the UTQG testing will
henceforth rely upon mathematical calculation
involving a tire's maximum load, as molded on its
sidewall, instead of relying upon information
submitted by the manufacturer or brand name
owner to any organization or agency. Under the
new procedure, the maximum load is multiplied
by a factor, ranging from .851 to .887 depending
on the tire's maximum inflation pressure, and the
result is rounded. The rounded result is used for
temperature resistance testing. For treadwear
and traction testing, the rounded result is
multiplied by 85 percent. In most instances, this
procedure produces the same load as is currently
obtained by reference to Table 1 of Appendix A.
In those instances in which the load is different,
the degree of difference is so slight that the
difference will not have any practical effect on
the UTQG test results.
The agency finds good cause for issuing these
amendments without prior notice and comment.
The agency believes that prior notice and
comment are unnecessary. The revisions are
technical and editorial in nature. In most instances,
the revisions produce no changes in the procedures
under which tires are tested for UTQG purposes.
In the few instances in which there will be a
change, the change is so slight as to be
substantively insignificant. Although the agency
has concluded that prior notice and comment are
unnecessary, it has decided to go beyond the
minimum requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act and provide a 60-day comment
period on these amendments. For the same
reasons set forth above and to permit continued
implementation of the UTQG regulation, the
agency finds good cause for making the revisions
effective immediately.
Since this proceeding is merely intended to
allow the continued implementation of the UTQG
regulation without any change in the manner of
implementation, NHTSA has determined that
this proceeding does not involve a major rule
within the meaning of Executive Order 12291 or a
significant rule within the meaning of the
Department of Transportation regulatory
procedures. Further, there are virtually no
economic impacts of this action so that preparation
of a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require
the preparation of flexibility analyses with respect
to rulemaking proceedings, such as this one, for
which prior notice and comment is not required
by the Administrative Procedures Act. If the
requirement for preparation of such analyses
were applicable, the agency would certify that
this action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As noted above, this action will make essentially
no change in the implementation of the UTQG
regulation.
NHTSA has concluded that this action will
have essentially no environmental consequences
and therefore that there will be no significant
effect on the quality of the human environment.
Interested persons are invited to submit
comments on the agency's action announced above
and on any other topics relevant to this notice. It
is requested but not required that 10 copies be
submitted.
All comments must be limited not to exceed 15
pages in length. Necessary attachments may be
appended to these submissions without regard to
the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to
encourage commenters to detail their primary
argument in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain
information under a claim of confidentiality, three
PART 575; PRE 102
copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential information, should be
submitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
street address given above, and seven copies
from which the purportedly confidential
information has been deleted should be submitted
to the Docket Section. Any claim of confidentiality
must be supported by a statement demonstrating
that the information falls within 5 U.S.C. section
552(b)(4), and that disclosure of the information is
likely to result in substantial competitive
damage; specifying the period during which the
information must be withheld to avoid that
damage; and showing that earlier disclosure
would result in that damage. In addition, the
commenter or, in the case of a corporation, a
responsible corporate official authorized to speak
for the corporation must certify in writing that
each item for which confidential treatment is
required is in fact confidential within the meaning
of section (b)(4) and that a diligent search has been
conducted by the commenter or its employees to
assure that none of the specified items have
previously been disclosed or otherwise become
available to the public.
All comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated
above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent
possible, comments filed after the closing date
will also be considered. However, the rulemaking
may proceed at any time after that date, and
comments received after the closing date and too
late for consideration in regard to the action will
be treated as suggestions for future rulemaking.
NHTSA will continued to file relevant material as
it becomes available in the docket after the
closing date; it is recommended that interested
persons continue to examine the docket for new
material. Those persons desiring to be notified
upon receipt of their comments in the rulemaking
docket should enclose, in the envelope with their
comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard.
Upon receiving the comments, the docket
supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Issued on June 11, 1982.
Raymond A. Peck, Jr.
Administrator
47 F.R. 25930
June 15, 1982
PART 575: PRE 103-104
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations; Uniform Tire Quality Grading
(Docket No. 25; Notice 48)
ACTION: Interim final rule and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: This notice makes a technical
correction to the test procedures used in Uniform
Tire Quality Grading (UTQG). A recently issued
amendment to those procedures inadvertently
omitted certain factors to be used in determining
the load under which tires are to be tested for
traction. This notice corrects the prior
amendment. This notice also provides that, for a
two-year period, tires whose test loads would
change significantly as a result of the use of the
treadwear, temperature resistance and traction
load factors shall continue to be tested at the
loads used in UTQG testing prior to June 14,
1982. The agency intends this notice to ensure
that test loads will not significantly change from
previously specified loads.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The UTQG amendment is
effective on August 12, 1982.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
UTQG system, tires sold in this country are
tested and grades are assigned for treadwear,
traction, and temperature resistance. Prior to
June 15, 1982, the UTQG Standards provided that
the tire rim size and test loads used for UTQG
testing were to be obtained from the tire tables of
Appendix A to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires. However,
those tables were deleted from FMVSS 109
effective June 15, 1982. In order to provide a
substitute means for determining rims and test
loads for all three performance characteristics,
NHTSA published an interim final rule on June
15, 1982 (47 F.R. 25930). The June 15 notice
specified alternative methods for determining
test rim sizes and test loads, without having to
refer to the now-deleted tire- tables of Standard
109.
Of relevance here is the new procedure for
determining test loads. That procedure requires
multiplying the maximum tire load appearing on
the tire's sidewall by certain specified factors.
The agency's June 15 correction notice
inadvertently omitted factors for traction
testing. The factors which were listed in that
notice were those appropriate for treadwear and
temperature resistance testing only. Therefore,
the agency is now correcting the table set forth in
the June 15 notice to include the factors to be used
in UTQG traction testing. The agency has selected
these factors, like those specified in the June 15
notice for treadwear and temperature resistance
testing, in an attempt to produce approximately
the same test load as was previously specified by
reference to the tire tables of Standard 109. The
agency believes that for most tire types and sizes,
this procedure will produce tire load specifications
which differ from loads specified by the old
procedure by less than 10 pounds. The agency
believes that this difference will not be large
enough to produce significant differences in test
results, but invites comment on this point.
The agency has identified 14 individual tire
sizes which would have differences of more than
10 pounds in test loads under the load factors for
treadwear, temperature resistance or traction
testing under UTQG. These discrepancies
apparently result from differences in the manner
in which various tire companies determine
maximum tire loads and "design" loads. For these
14 tires, the agency is specifying as an interim
measure that the loads previously determined by
reference to the tire tables may continue to be
used for a period of two years. The two-year
period will permit the tire manufacturers to make
any design changes they feel necessary in these
PART 575; PRE 105
tires. While the agency believes that those 14 tire
sizes represent the only tires now sold in the U.S.
with load discrepancies of greater than 10
pounds, there may be others. Commenters are
requested to inform the agency of any additional
tires for which such a discrepancy exists. These
tires will be added to that list when final action is
taken on the interim final rule.
The agency finds good cause for issuing this
amendment without prior notice and comment.
The agency believes that prior notice and
comment are unnecessary, since the revisions are
technical and editorial in nature. They are
intended to allow the continued implementation
of the UTQG regulation in the same manner as it
was before June 15, 1982. Although the agency
has concluded that prior notice and comment are
unnecessary, it has decided to go beyond the
minimum requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act and provide a comment period on
this amendment. For the same reasons set forth
above and to permit continued implementation of
the UTQG regulation, the agency finds good
cause for making the revisions effective
immediately.
Since this amendment is not intended to cause
any significant change in implementation of the
UTQG regulation as it existed on June 14, 1982,
NHTSA has determined that this proceeding
does not involve a major rule within the meaning
of Executive Order 12291 or a significant rule
within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation regulatory procedures. Further,
there are virtually no economic impacts of this
action so that preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation is unnecessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not
require the preparation of flexibility analyses
with respect to rulemaking proceedings, such as
this one, since the agency certifies that this action
would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As noted
above, this action will make essentially no change
in the implementation of the UTQG regulation.
NHTSA has concluded that this action will
have essentially no environmental consequences
and therefore that there will be no significant
effect on the quality of the human environment.
Interested persons are invited to submit
comments on the agency's action announced
above and on any other topics relevant to this
notice. It is requested but not required that 10
copies be submitted.
All comments must be limited not to exceed 15
pages in length. Necessary attachments may be
appended to these submissions without regard to
the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to
encourage commenters to detail their primary
argument in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain
information under a claim of confidentiality three
copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential information, should be
submitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
street address given above, and seven copies
from which the purportedly confidential
information has been deleted should be submitted
to the Docket Section. Any claim of confidentiality
must be supported by a statement demonstrating
that the information falls within 5 U.S.C. section
552(b)(4), and that disclosure of the information is
likely to result in substantial competitive damage;
specifying the period during which the information
must be withheld to avoid that damage; and
showing that earlier disclosure would result in
that damage. In addition, the commenter or, in
the case of a corporation, a responsible corporate
official authorized to speak for the corporation
must certify in writing that each item for which
confidential treatment is required is in fact
confidential within the meaning of section (b)(4)
and that a diligent search has been conducted by
the commenter or its employees to assure that
none of the specified items have previously been
disclosed or otherwise become available to the
public.
All comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated
above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent
possible, comments filed after the closing date
will also be considered. However, the rulemaking
may proceed at any time after that date, and
comments received after the closing date and too
late for consideration in regard to the action will
be treated as suggestions for future rulemaking.
NHTSA will continue to file relevant material as
it becomes available in the docket after the
closing date; it is recommended that interested
persons continue to examine the docket for new
material. Those persons desiring to be notified
PART 575; PRE 106
upon receipt of their comments in the rulemaking
docket should enclose, in the envelope with their
comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard.
Upon receiving the comments, the docket Raymond A. Peck, Jr.
supervisor will return the postcard by mail. Administrator
47 F.R. 34990
Issued on August 5, 1982. August 12, 1982
PART 575; PRE 107-108
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations
Uniform Tire Quality Grading
[Doclcet No. 25; Notice 52]
ACTION: Final rule.
SUIVIIVIARY: This notice suspends, on an interim
basis, the treadwear grading requirements of the
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(UTQGS). No change is made in the requirements
of grading the traction and temperature
resistance performance of new tires except for a
minor change in the format for molding those
grades on tires.
The UTQGS treadwear grading requirements
are intended to aid consumers in assessing the
value of new tires in terms of relative treadwear
performancerrhis suspension is being adopted
because available information and analysis
indicate that the treadwear grades are
apparently not only failing to aid many
consumers, but also are affirmatively misleading
them in their selection of new tires. The
unreliability of the treadwear grades arises from
two major sources. One is the variability of
treadwear test results, which could be caused by
either the lack of sufficient measures in the
treadwear test procedures to ensure
repeatability, or by the inherent complexity of
the structure of individual tires themselves,
which would preclude reproducibility of test
results and, thus, comparative examination
between or among tires. The other major source
of unreliability is substantial differences among
the practices of the tire manufacturers in
translating test results into grades.
The agency has identified a wide variety of
presently uncontrolled and perhaps
uncontrollable sources of variability in the
treadwear test procedure, and believes that other
sources remain to be discovered. Although some
or all of these sources may ultimately be found to
be controllable to the extent that the variability
in test results is reduced to acceptable levels,
considerable research must be completed before
the agency can determine whether or how that
can be achieved. Much of the necessary research
has already been initiated. When the research is
completed, the agency will determine whether
the suspension of treadwear grading should be
lifted.
The agency is also amending Part 575 to change
the format for molding grades on the sidewalls of
new tires. The new format, which would include
traction and temperature resistance grades but
not treadwear grades, must be used on new tires
produced in molds manufactured after (180 days
after publication in the Federal Register). The
agency expects and directs that manufacturers
will cease printing tire labels and consumer
information materials which include treadwear
grades described or characterized as having been
determined by or under the UTQGS procedures
of the United States Government.
As a result of the amendments adopted by this
notice, consumers will cease to be misled by
unreliable treadwear grade information. In
addition, the costs of implementing the treadwear
grading program will no longer be imposed on the
manufacturers and consumers.
DATES: The suspension of the existing
requirements relating to treadwear grades, and
the new alternative provision specifying the
format for the molding of only traction and
temperature resistance information on new tires
are effective February 7, 1983. The provision
requiring use of the new format is effective for
tires produced in molds manufactured on or after
August 8, 1983.
PART 575; PRE 109
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to
prescribe a "uniform quality grading system for
motor vehicle tires." As explained in that section,
this system is intended to "assist the consumer to
make an informed choice in the purchase of motor
vehicle tires." The uniform tire quality grading
standards (UTQGS) became effective April 1,
1979, for bias tires; October 1, 1979, for bias
belted tires; and April 1, 1980, for radial tires.
UTQGS requires manufacturers and brand name
owners of passenger car tires to test and grade
their tires according to their expected
performance in use with respect to the properties
of treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance, and provide consumers with
information regarding those grades.
Treadwear Testing and Grading Process
This notice focuses on the treadwear grades.
Unlike grades for the properties of traction and
temperature resistance, the treadwear grades
have never been intended to promote safety.
Their essential value has always been to aid
consumers in selecting new tires by informing
them of the performance expectations of tread
life for each tire offered for sale, so that they can
compare on a common basis the relative value of
one tire versus another. Although these grades
are not intended to be used for predicting the
actual mileage that a particular tire will achieve,
the. relevance and effectiveness of the grades
depend directly on the accuracy of the
projections of tread life derived from tests and
assigned by grades.
The grades are based on a tire's projected
mileage (the distance which it is eircpected to
travel before wearing down to its treadwear
indicators) as tested on a single, predetermined
course laid out on public roads near San Angelo,
Texas. Each treadwear test consists of 16 circuits
of the approximately 400 mile long course. A
tire's tread depth is measured periodically during
the test. Based upon these measurements, the
tire's projected mileage is calculated. A tire's
treadwear grade is expressed as the percentage
which its projected mileage represents of a
nominal 30,000 miles. For example, a tire with a
projected mileage of 24,000 would be graded "80,"
(i.e., 24,000 is 80 percent of 30,000 miles), while
one with a projected mileage of 39,000 would be
graded "130," (i.e.. 39,000 is 130 percent of 30,000,
rounded).
Because the measured treadwear upon which
grades are based occurs under outdoor road
conditions, any comparison between candidate
tire performances must involve a standardization
of results by correction for the particular
environmental conditions of each test. To do this,
the treadwear performance of a candidate tire is
measured in all cases in conjunction with that of a
so-called "course monitoring tire" (CMT) of the
same construction type. The treadwear of the
standardized CMT's is measured to reflect and
monitor changes in course severity due to factors
such as road surface wear and environmental
conditions. The actual measured treadwear of the
candidate tire is adjusted on the basis of the
actual measured treadwear on the CMT's run in
the same convoy, and the resulting adjusted
candidate tire treadwear is used as the basis for
assigning the treadwear grade.
To promote their uniformity, the CMT's are
selected from a single production lot
manufactured at a single plant, under more
stringent quality control measures (set by
contract with NHTSA) than would otherwise
apply to production tires.
Each test convoy consists of one car equipped
with four CMT's and three or fewer other cars
equipped with candidate tires of the same
construction type. Candidate tires on the same
axle are identical, but front tires on a test vehicle
may differ from rear tires as long as all fout are of
the same size designation. After a two-circuit
break-in period, the initial tread depth of each
tire is determined by averaging the depth
measured in each groove at six equally spaced
locations around the circumference of the tire. At
the end of every two circuits (800 miles), each
tire's tread depth is measured again, the tires are
rotated on the car, and wheel alignments may be
readjusted as needed to fall within the ranges of
the vehicle manufacturer's specifications. At the
end of the 16-circuit test, each tire's overall wear
rate is calculated from the nine measured tread
depths and their corresponding mileages after
break-in by using a regression line technique.
Part 575 requires that the treadwear grading
information be disseminated in three ways. First,
PART 575; PRE 110
the actual grade must be molded onto the
sidewall of each tire. Second, the grade and an
explanation of the treadwear grading process
must appear on a paper label affixed to the tire
tread. Third, the grade and the same explanation
must be included in materials made available to
prospective purchasers and first purchasers of
new motor vehicles and tires.
Agency's Recent Actions
The basis and validity of the UTQGS has been a
longstanding source of controversy and
uncertainty within the agency and among
interested parties. In view of the manifest
potential conflict between the clear desirability of
a valid, effective program to enable more
informed consumer choice in the marketplace and
the potential for serious adverse effect on the
marketplace of an inadequate or potentially
misleading programmatic result, the agency
responded to its own enforcement uncertainties,
described more fully below, by reviewing the
current state of knowledge concerning the
UTQGS, and addressing the specific sources of
variability already identified.
Variability due to treadwear test procedures.
In response to longstanding concerns about the
variability and unreliability of the treadwear test
results and grades and about the underlying
causes of these problems, the agency conducted a
review in May 1982 of treadwear test procedures
being used by the tire testing companies in San
Angelo. That review confirmed the existerca of
numerous uncontrolled sources of potential
variability in treadwater test results. The
potential cumulative effect of those sources
would produce test result variability approaching
the unacceptable magnitude long asserted by
many tire manufacturers. The high level of test
result variability could result in tires with better
actual treadwear performance being graded as
inferior to tires with worse actual performance,
or vice versa.
The review did not, however, address in detail
the relative significance of the various sources of
variability. That question and the ultimate
question of whether the identified sources of
variability can be sufficiently controlled so as to
bring the overall amount of variability down to an
acceptable level can be answered only after
extensive research and testing.
Among the sources of variability discussed in
the review were the weight scales intended to
assure the proper loading of the cars used in the
testing convoys, errors or inconsistencies
introduced by variations in the amount of force
applied to the probes used to measure tread
depth and tendencies of measuring personnel to
"search" for tread depth measurements
consistent with expected rates of treadwear,
discrepancies in the level of the training of
technicians, fairly wide tolerances on critical
alignment settings, unquantifiable variations in
vehicle weights and weight distribution and
suspension modification, and variations in driver
techniques and in weather conditions on the
course.
Each of the specific identified sources of such
variability is discussed in detail below.
Variability due to grade assignment practices.
Following the initial implementation of UTQGS,
the agency sent a special order to the tire
manufacturers to obtain information regarding
their practices for translating treadwear test
results into grades. The response indicated wide
variation within the industry regarding those
practices. Some manufacturers evaluated data by
applying statistical procedures to estimate the
percentage of their production which would equal
or exceed a particular grade. Other
manufacturers did not use such a procedure,
relying instead on business and engineering
judgment in assigning grades. The agency
tentatively concluded that these differing
practices created the substantial likelihood that
different manufacturers, although faced with
similar test results, would assign different grades
to their tires. Accordingly, NHTSA issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking requesting
comment on a standardized process for
translating test results into grades. (46 F. R.
10429, February 2, 1981). Commenters generally
criticized the proposed process, particularly for
its failure to account properly for undergrading.
The agency is continuing its efforts aimed at
developing a uniform procedure for translating
test results into treadwear grades. However,
until this problem is resolved, the unreliability of
treadwear grades is compounded by the fact that
the relationship between test results and
assigned grades is not a constant one from
PART 575; PRE 111
manufacturer to manufacturer.
Variability inherent in the nature of tire
structure. A potential for an unquantified degree
of variability is inherent in the differences
between seemingly identical (i.e., in terms of
brand, line, size, and manufacturing lot) tires. The
potential arises from the complex combination of
a variety of factors, including the materials,
designs, and manufacturing procedures, that go
into the production of tires. The materials include
the rubber composition and various reinforcing
materials such as rayon, steel, polyester, etc.,
which themselves are developed from
complicated manufacturing processes. The design
of a tire includes such factors as the cross section
shape, the orientation and structure of the
reinforcing materials, the tread design, and the
construction (bias, bias-belted, or radial). The
manufacturing procedures include the processes
employed during manufacturing and the
conditions such as temperatures and times of
vulcanization. Separately and together, these
variables can have a significant effect on tread
life.
In the production of tires, the manufacturers
use a variety of techniques in an attempt to
control all of these variables and to achieve a
consistent level of quality and performance for
their different products. The success of these
efforts varies from tire line to tire line, lot to lot,
and from manufacturer to manufacturer. The
complexity of the entire process will inevitably
lead to some variation in performance, including
treadwear performance between nominally
identical tires.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Based on the assertions and submissions of the
tire manufacturers and the agency's review of the
test procedures and of its own enforcement data,
the agency tentatively concluded in July 1982
that treadwear grading under UTQGS should be
suspended pending completion of research
regarding the extent to which the sources of
variability could be isolated and reduced.
Accordingly, it issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking to obtain both written comments and
oral testimony on suspending treadwear grading
(47 F.R. 30084, July 12, 1982) and to schedule
a public meeting August 12, 1982. The agency
stated that it was issuing the proposal principally
to avoid the dissemination of information
potentially misleading to consumers and
secondarily to minimize the imposition of
unwarranted compliance costs on industry and
consumers. The agency noted its concern that the
treadwear grading was not only failing to achieve
its statutory goal of informing consumers, but
also affirmatively misleading them.
In defending UTQGS against earlier judicial
challenges, NHTSA had taken the position that
the treadwear test procedure was adequately
specified to ensure that test result variability
was limited to acceptable levels. See B.F.
Goodrich v. Department of Transportation, 541 F.
2d 1178 (6th Cir. 1976) (hereinafter referred to as
"Goodrich /"); and B.F. Goodrich v. Department
of Transportation, 592 F. 2d 322 (6th Cir. 1979).
For example, the agency had stated in the
Goodrich I litigation that variables in the testing
procedure are controlled and taken into account,
principally through the selection of a single test
course and the use of CMT's. With respect to
certain potential sources of variability, the
agency stated that their effects on treadwear
testing and grading would be minimal. The
agency indicated in its suspension proposal that it
could no longer make the same representations.
These statements have been further undermined
by information now available to the agency.
The notice summarized the material relied
upon by the agency in making its tentative
conclusions, including the information and
arguments submitted by the tire manufacturers.
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, for
example, found that treadwear test results could
vary up to 30 percent even for CMT tires, which
are specially manufactured for maximum
homogeneity. That company also pointed out
several possible causes of the variability,
including variability in test vehicles and driver
techniques as well as deficiencies in the details of
the test procedures themselves. General Tire and
Rubber Company reported additional sources of
variability, including vehicle wheel alignment,
weight distribution, and test course
environmental factors. B.F. Goodrich Company
stated that differences in tire tread composition
between candidate tires being tested and the
CMT's could be a major source of variability. As a
group, the tire manufacturers generally
PART 575; PRE 112
contended that the variability of the test results
is too great to permit meaningful treadwear
grading or compliance testing. The agency's own
preliminary research confirms this conclusion
and supports the need for the suspension.
The proposal also discussed the agency's
enforcement data and described at length the
review conducted by NHTSA of the treadwear
testing companies. The agency emphasized that
the list of sources of variability mentioned in the
review was not exhaustive, but intended merely
to be illustrative of the types of possible such
sources and of the difficulties which exist in
seeking to establish a treadwear test procedure
that could produce valid, repeatable results. The
agency found that the combination of the
examined sources represented a potential for test
result variability of serious dimensions. Each
potential source of variability was described and
the potential effect of them on test results was
estimated. For example, effects of ± 34 or 35
points were estimated for two sources of
variability and ± 14 points for another.
Summary of Comments on Proposal
Written comments and oral testimony were
received from a variety of sources, although the
most detailed ones were from tire manufacturers.
While there was a division of opinion regarding
the merits of the proposal, most commenters
favored the suspension. Proponents of the
suspension included tire manufacturers, several
tire manufacturers' associations, tire dealers, a
motor vehicle manufacturer, some consumers,
and a public interest group. Proponents agreed
with the agency's statement that the treadwear
test results and grades were so variable and
unreliable as to confuse and mislead consumers.
They also listed again the factors that they
thought were causing the variability. Some
proponents suggested that the problems are so
serious that simple suspension was inadequate.
They urged that the agency go further and
rescind the treadwear provisions altogether.
Opponents of the proposed suspension included
one tire manufacturer, a tire dealer, a public
interest group, a county consumer protection
agency, and a number of consumers. The tire
manufacturer argued that the treadwear grade
information was sufficiently correlated with
actual differences in tire performance to be
helpful to those consumers who use that
information. It acknowledged that there was
variability in the treadwear test results and
differences in the grade assignment practices,
but contended that these problems could be
satisfactorily controlled through further
identified changes in UTQGS. The manufacturer
argued that even if there were difficulties in
enforcing the current treadwear requirements,
the overall value of the comparative treadwear
information justified retention of the
requirements while the enforcement problems
were addressed. The public interest group
argued that NHTSA was ignoring its statutory
mandate, as interpreted by that group, in
contemplating a suspension of treadwear
grading. That opponent argued further that the
agency haid artificially narrowed the options
under consideration in this rulemaking
proceeding.
Two tire testing companies submitted detailed
comments regarding their testing practices. They
generally argued that the problems discussed in
the agency's review of testing companies did not
apply to them. One asserted further that the
suspension would have a severe economic impact
in the San Angelo, Texas area, where treadwear
tests are conducted. The San Angelo Chamber of
Commerce concurred in that assessment.
Summary of Suspension Decision
NHTSA has decided to suspend the treadwear
provisions of UTQGS because available
information and analysis indicate that the
treadwear grades are apparently not only failing
to aid many consumers, but are also affirmatively
misleading them in their selection of new tires.
The capacity of these grades to mislead
consumers arises principally from variability in
treadwear test results unrelated to actual
differences in measured or projected
performance, and secondarily from differences
among manufacturers in their translation of test
results into grades. In its proposal, the agency
identified some of the wide variety of
uncontrolled sources of variability in the
insufficiently specific treadwear test procedures.
The agency has been able to quantify the effect of
only some of those sources. Other sources are
PART 575; PRE 113
believed to exist and continue to be discovered.
Indeed, the tire manufacturer opposing the
suspension reported only last November its
discovery of a "major unreported source of
variability." (Letter from R. H. Snyder, Uniroyal
Tire Company, to Raymond Peck, NHTSA
Administrator, November 12, 1982, Docket 25,
Notice 47, No. 090).
In their comments to the agency, the opponents
of the suspension did not controvert the premise
of the agency that there is substantial variability
in test results and that there are specific
identified sources of much of that variability. The
tire manufacturer opposing suspension conceded
that test result variability and differences in
grading practices can be so large as to result in
changes between the order in which tires are
ranked based on test results and the order in
which they are ranked based on grades. Indeed,
comparisons of the agency's own compliance test
data and grades assigned by the tire
manufacturers indicate that these ranking
changes occur with some frequency and can be
substantial. Moreover, the opponents did not
deny that there were significant problems with
enforcing the treadwear requirements of Part 575
as they are now written.
Where the rank order of measured
performances or assigned grades changes, it is
clear that only one of such differing results can in
fact be objectively correct and valid. Any such
change in ranking thus represents a clear and
present danger that grades can be affirmatively
misleading. Resulting purchasing decisions based
on such incorrect grades are not merely wrong,
but represent instances in which the government-
created program of consumer assistance through
the dissemination of objective comparative
information has in fact affirmatively misled the
consumers which are intended to be assisted.
Although the sources of variability may
ultimately be controllable to the extent that the
variability and unreliability derived from
treadwear test results and grades are reduced to
lower, more acceptable levels, considerable
research must be completed before that is even a
possibility. Even if such research were now
complete, it is not clear at this point how much of
the current test-derived variability and
unreliability could be eliminated. Much of the
necessary research has already been initiated.
When the research is completed, the agency will
address the question of whether the problems can
be reduced to the point that it can begin
considering whether to reinstate the UTQGS
treadwear system.
Rational for Suspension Decision
Magnitude of the Overall Variability
and Reliability Problem
Available data demonstrate that the treadwear
test results can vary substantially and that the
treadwear grades assigned by the manufacturers
are unreliable for the purposes of comparing
tires. Data submitted by the tire manufacturers
indicate that subjecting tires of a particular type
and line to the same tests on separate occasions
produces differences in test results of up to 80
points. The agency's own compliance test data
include examples of significant test result
variability.'
Moreover, in addition to test result variability,
the process of assigning grades can and
demonstrably has introduced other unacceptable
levels of uncertainty as far as the consumer is
concerned. Treadwear grades are often not a
reliable indicator of the relative tread life of tires
because the order in which tires are ranked on
the basis of test results can differ significantly
from the order in which they are ranked on the
basis of grades. The magnitude of these
crossovers (i.e., changes in rank) can be
'The agency believes that the enforcement data are a
particularly significant source of information since the data
comprise the most complete set of test results available. They
reflect consistent application of test procedures under the
direction of a single party, the agency, under circumstances
involving the greatest incentive of any interested party to
minimize variability in data, the exigencies of the certainty
required for enforcement purposes. In fact, to attempt to
resolve doubts as to variability, the agency has in fact refined
its enforcement test procedures to a greater extent than is
required by Part 575. For example, all enforcement tests are
conducted by a single contractor, eliminating the influence of
differences between test facilities. Highly accurate electronic
scales are used to determine wheel loads. Very precise wheel
alignment equipment is used. That equipment has been
operated by the same skilled technicians for all compliance
tests since mid-1981. Thus, NHTSA believes that statements
regarding test variability which are based on these
enforcement data could tend only to understate the variability
experienced by others in testing tires and assigning grades.
PART 575; PRE 114
substantial, as is shown in a graph which B. F.
Goodrich constructed by plotting the agency's
enforcement data against the grades assigned by
the tire manufacturers for the same tires. (This is
the same graph shown on page III-2 of the
agency's regulatory evaluation for this
rulemaking action and is similar to one prepared
by Uniroyal.) Goodrich's graph includes
information on radial ply tires primarily,
although it also covers tires of other construction
types. There are numerous examples in the graph
of tires whose test results fell within a 10 point
range, but whose assigned grades were spread
over an 80 to 100 point range. Some tires had
average test results which were 10 points below
those of other tires, but were assigned grades as
much as 60 or 70 points higher. Some tires
assigned the same grade had average test results
that were scattered over a 100 point range. These
phenomena are not restricted to a particular
portion of the graph, but exist throughout, from
the left side where bias ply and bias belted tires
predominate to the right side where radial ply
tires predominate.
The magnitude and pervasiveness of the
crossovers and grading quirks means that the
treadwear grades have the capacity for more
than simply confusing consumers about the
relative performance of tires exhibiting nearly
the same performance. The possibility exists for
confusion even between some tires in the lower
third percentile and some tires in the upper third
percentile of treadwear performance. Thus,
whether a prospective purchaser seeking the
particular size (i.e., diameter) of tire appropriate
for his or her vehicle is looking at the entire
spectrum of construction types, or is focusing on a
single construction type only, there is a
significant possibility that the person may be
misled about the relative performance of tires.
The possibility is greatest in the latter case, since
the smaller the difference in actual performance
between tires under consideration, the greater
the probability that test variability and
crossovers will cause the grades of those tires to
be misleading about the relative performance of
those tires. The ranges in grades for particular
construction types are not very large when
compared with the magnitude of the problems
created by test variability and crossovers.
Treadwear grades typically range from 60-120 (a
60 point range) for bias ply tires of all sizes, 90-150
(a 60 point range) for bias belted tires of all sizes,
120-200 (an 80 point range) for 13 inch diameter
radial ply tires, 160-220 (a 60 point range) for 14
inch diameter radial ply tires, and 170-220 (a 50
point range) for 15 inch radial ply tires. The
ranges for radials are particularly relevant since
radials account for most original equipment tires
on new cars and a substantial majority of
replacement tires for used cars.
It is considered especially significant that the
occurrence of such rank changes is not uncommon.
For examples for each of a majority of the tires in
Goodrich's graph, other tires could be found in
the graph which had a lower assigned grade but
which, based on compliance test results,
exhibited superior performance.
Although the agency recognizes that the
graphs submitted by Goodrich and Uniroyal
reflect, in part, manufacturer-to-manufacturer
differences in grade assignment procedures and
not just variability in test results, the agency
considers the analyses made using the graphs to
be significant since they point out the extent to
which consumers may in fact be misled by
treadwear grades. In its analysis, Uniroyal
calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.763 for the
two variables (test results and grades),^ and a
similar rank order correlation. The coefficient of
0.763 implies that only about 58 percent (the
square of the correlation coefficient) of the
variation in tire treadwear grades can be
explained by actual differences in treadwear
^Using a slightly different data base, B. F. Goodrich
calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.78 between the agency's
enforcement trest results and assigned grades.
^While the argument has been made that this aspect of
variability should not be taken into account because it is
entirely within the control of the grading manufacturer, the
agency is not able to conclude from the data before it that any
actually assigned grade is without basis in test data. In
implementing the statute to determine whether the sanctions
imposed by the statute and agency regulation should be
applied to given manufacturers, the agency has been forced to
conclude that all assigned grades so reviewed have been
reasonable, based on agency and manufacturer supporting
data. Under such circumstances, the agency finds that the
overwhelming policy purpose of the UTQGS to inform
consumers of comparative tire data, in a meaningful way (i.e.,
one that is valid, reasonably accurate, and objectively
verifiable for enforcement purposes) in order to affect their
tire purchase decisions, requires that this uncertainty also be
taken into account.
PART 575; PRE 115
performance. The agency estimates that as many
as 10 of the 40 percentage points of unexplained
variability may be due to differences in grade
assignment practices.'
In reaching its decision that currently
documented levels of variability are
unreasonable and cannot sustain retention of the
UTQGS treadwear grading requirements in their
present form, the agency has been guided by two
principal conclusions: first, the rank order of test
results and the rank order of assigned grades can
and do change with repeated testing under
currently allowable procedures. This result has
also taken place when the agency's own, far more
carefully controlled compliance efforts are the
basis for the test.
Second, the levels of certainty and
predictability which the agency expected would
be achieved over time and which the agency so
represented to the courts which have upheld
UTQGS against charges of unacceptable
uncertainty, have not been achieved in fact.
At a minimum, the agency concludes that such
a level of potential rank order change, under
applicable test procedures, is unacceptable. The
agency also concludes that unless the level of
certainty previously asserted by the government
in litigation can be verified to exist, the continued
integrity of the process is undermined to a
separate and unsupportable degree.
Agency research is thus primarily directed to
the determination of the degree to which these
effects can be eliminated.
Specific Sources of Variability
The agency's proposal described a variety of
potential sources of variability in the treadwear
test results based on a review of testing being
done in San Angelo. The tire manufacturers
supporting the suspension, and the commenting
tire testing companies generally agreed that
many of such sources contributed to test result
variability. While some commenters, especially
two testing companies describing in detail their
own testing practices, disputed the magnitude of
the variability that could be caused by several of
the sources, it remains uncontroverted that the
sources identified in the proposal are potential
contributors to variability.
One such testing company objected to the
inference it drew from the proposal that the
agency believed that the testing companies as a
group were to blame for the variability in the test
results. That company also stated its belief that
the proposal unfairly criticized the practices of
testing companies as though all such companies
followed identical practices. The agency
recognizes, and reaffirms its conclusions, that the
primary source of test variability lies in the
shortcomings of the test procedures themselves.
Further, it rejects any implication that the
testing companies were improperly following
such procedures.
The agency emphasizes that the list of sources
in the proposal was not exhaustive. The proposal
specifically noted that the list was included for
illustrative purposes only. It was recognized that
additional research would likely reveal other
sources, of the indisputable and undisputed levels
of variability. Indeed, the record of comments has
provided information regarding several
previously unmentioned sources of variability,
e.g., tire/wheel rim width combinations and the
effect of rubber's high coefficient of thermal
expansion on tire groove depth measurement.
The following specific sources of variability
have been confirmed by the agency as a result of
the current rulemaking proceeding.
Problems of instrumentation— scales. Some
testing companies use scales that are designed
for weighing objects up to 20,000 pounds. Scales
are rarely accurate below 10 percent of their
maximum measuring capacity. Since the loads
being weighed for UTQGS purposes are less than
half that level, the potential for inaccurately
loading the tires on the test cars is obvious. This
problem is compounded by the inability of many
such scales to provide readings more precise than
at 5 pound intervals. The combination of these
factors could lead to significant potential
measurement errors.
Using a ratio of 1:4 between changes in load
and changes in treadwear, the agency stated in
its proposal that a 20 to 30 pound error in
measuring a 700 to 800 pound load could cause
test results errors of ± 20 to 34 points in a tire
with a treadwear grade of 200. The two tire
testing companies submitting detailed comments
stated that their own scales are regularly
calibrated, and that maximum weighing errors of
not more than 10 pounds could be expected under
PART 575; PRE 116
such circumstances. One of the companies also
argued that the ratio between load changes and
treadwear changes is actually closer to 1:1. The
agency cannot now determine with certainty the
correct ratio between changes in tire load and
changes in treadwear. Even assuming such actual
ratio may be lower than 1:4, the agency believes
that scale miscalibration is a factor that can
potentially contribute significantly to variability
in treadwear test results.
— tread depth probes. Tire testing companies
currently measure tread depth by means of either
mechanical gauges with dial indicators or
electronic devices which translate probe
displacement into a voltage reading in mils or
thousandths of an inch. NHTSA's tests of
measurement devices produced measurement
errors of between 3 and 5 mils for electronic
probes and up to 10 mils for mechanical gauges,
with the magnitude of error appearing to depend
on the amount of the pressure placed on the
probe. Variations in pressure can be caused by
differences in strength or technique among
personnel or even by the gradual effect of fatigue
on a given technician. The resulting measurement
differences on tires graded from 160 to 200 can
cause treadwear grading errors of ± 2 to 3
points. The two tire testing companies argued
that measurement errors of 10 mils were in fact
difficult to achieve and would not normally be
expected to occur. The agency concurs that the
typical such error would be expected to be less
than 10 mils, but concludes that variation in the
pressure placed on the probes remains one of the
potential sources which collectively has
produced high levels of test variability.
Electronic probes are subject to other sources
of measurement error. The lack of temperature
compensation in some of the electronic probes can
cause drifts in both the zero reading and the gain.
One tire testing company did note that its
electronic probes are attached directly to a
computer, and asserted that they are capable of
measuring accurately over a wide range of
temperatures. While such drift can be corrected
for in such a process, the agency has determined
that such corrections are not in fact routinely
sought or made by testing companies in general.
Further, any change in probe force at the bottom
of the groove for tires with varying hardness will
generate different tread depth readings
depending on the spring constant, the amount of
deflection used in the design, and the shape of the
tip on the electronic probe. The use of
uncalibrated springs produces additional
measurement differences.
— wheel alignment equipment and procedures.
The agency has determined that treadwear is
very sensitive to wheel alignment, much more so
than had previously been understood by
interested parties. One of the two tire testing
companies agreed with this proposition. B. F.
Goodrich supported this proposition by asserting
that 4/32nds of an inch increase in toe-in can
decrease tread life by 15 to 30 percent. Since Part
575 permits the wheels to be aligned anywhere
within the vehicle manufacturers' specified range
of acceptable alignments, differences in toe-in are
possible. Armstrong Rubber Company cited
various vehicle manufacturer specifications
which had a minimum-to-maximum range of from
5/32nds to 14/32nds of an inch.
The comments on the proposal reveal that the
use of different toe-in settings for a given vehicle
can and do occur. Some testing companies align
wheels to the minimum toe-in setting within the
acceptable range while others align to the mid-
point of the range. Indeed, practices of the two
commenting tire testing companies vary in
precisely this fashion, with one aligning to the
minimum point and the other to the mid-point.
Differences in wheel alignment may also occur
as a result of differences in the frequency of
wheel alignment and in the skill of the technicians
who perform the alignments. The two tire testing
commenters asserted that they use accurate
alignment equipment and well-trained personnel.
Assuming this to be true for these particular
companies, however, does not remove wheel
alignment as a potential source of variability
even with respect to their testing. As noted
above, the wheel alignment practices of these two
companies vary significantly. Further, for these
as well as the other tire testing companies, the
problem of maintaining the alignment equipment
in proper adjustment is a formidable one.
Although all testers have suitable alignment
equipment, their success in using it to achieve
accurate results depends on the skill of the
technicians operating it, the calibration of the
equipment, and the frequency of alignment during
a test.
PART 575; PRE 117
Problems of measurement. The agency
believes that several measurement problems
contribute to variability as well. Observed but
currently unquantifiable measurement errors
occur as a result of information feedback during
testing, i.e., access by measuring personnel to the
previous day's tread depth measurements and
resulting conscious or unconscious bias to parallel
or duplicate those measurements. The agency
also believes error to be caused by the
documented practice of some testing companies
to establish an absolute level of coefficient of
variation, i.e., the degree of variability among the
separate measurements of depth in the same
groove around the circumference of the tire.
Some technicians tend to "hunt" for groove
depths as uniform as possible around the
circumference of the tire, on the understandable
but not factually supportable or recognizable
assumption that such variation should be
minimized.
One tire testing company indicated in its
comments that it took steps to avoid these
sources of variability. Even assuming this
company is fully successful in that effort, the
agency believes that such problems exist for
other testing companies, and would compromise
the success of the program unless all companies
were equally successful.
Problems with vehicle maintenance and use.
The agency continues to believe that factors
relating to the test cars produce substantial
variability. One of these factors is the wide
variation found in the approaches of the testing
companies to achieving a proper vertical load on a
tire. Some testing companies allow the weight to
be placed forward of the front wheels, rearward
of the rear wheels, or even on the vehicle
exterior. In addition, some but not all companies
place heavy deer guards on the front of their test
cars.''
The overloading of some test cars also
produces unquantifiable effects on treadwear test
results. Some testing companies load their cars to
whatever weight is required to achieve the
appropriate load level for a test tire. As a result,
the gross vehicle weight rating for the specific
*Some tire testing companies stated that weight is removed
from their cars to compensate for the deer guards. However,
the agency did not observe any accurate means of weight
compensation.
cars themselves may be exceeded, necessitating
the use of special springs or shims to reestablish
normal ride height. Such heavy loads can cause
the cars to bottom out, while the variations in
springs create differences in roll stiffness and
weight transfer among vehicles of the same type.
Each of these practices introduces changes in
the handling characteristics of the cars and in
different polar moments of inertia, between and
among wheels, vehicles, and the entire test fleet.
These factors would produce different rates of
tire wear as the cars corner, accelerate, or
decelerate.
The two commenting tire testing companies
indicated that they attempt to control these
sources of variability. However, there is no
evidence that those efforts are fully successful,
and agency observations indicate that the other
companies are not in practice as careful as those
two companies.
Problems with drivers and weather conditions.
The agency found in its review that drivers of the
test cars varied significantly in their skill and
driving techniques. These differences are
reflected in the frequency and severity of
accelerations and decelerations. Further, the
agency believes that adverse weather conditions
may affect driving techniques and thereby
treadwear. One tire testing company indicated
that it carefully sought to limit these sources of
variability. However, not all testing companies
have adopted the same measures. In addition,
adverse weather conditions cannot be controlled.
CMT tread composition^ Most CMT's-do not
currently have tread composition similar to that
of most candidate tires. As a result, a substantial
question has been raised as to whether the use of
the CMT measurements in fact validly
compensate for environmental effects upon
candidate tire wear. The last two lots of radial
CMT's contained about 30 percent natural
rubber. Most tires produced in the U.S. do not
contain any natural rubber, while some Japanese
tires contain substantial quantities of it. the
presence of a significant percentage of natural
rubber in CMT's is important since natural
rubber is more sensitive to temperature changes
than the current tread compounds used in tires,
and in general wears at a faster rate in hot
weather than the current materials do. Thus,
where the CMT in use contains a larg«
PART 575; PRE 118
percentage of natural rubber and the candidate
tires do not, candidate tires graded in hot
weather would be expected to have higher grades
than those graded in cool weather.
The significance of CMT tread composition
appears to be borne out by a report from B. F.
Goodrich. That company stated that candidate
tires made of compounds similar to that of the
CMT's received more consistent ratings than
those whose compounds were less similar. B. F.
Goodrich's analysis indicates also that the latter
tires can receive different relative rankings.
Wheel rim width. Armstrong asserted in
comments that the tolerance permitted on rim
widths to be used with a given size of tire is a
significant source of variability. The agency lacks
any corrobative information with respect to this
previously unrecognized problem, but will
address the issue as another potential source of
variability as efforts continue to complete
research on treadwear testing variability.
Grade assignment practices. There are
significant differences among the tire
manufacturers in the procedures they use to
translate treadwear test results into grades.
These differences arise partially from the
differing degree of conservatism that the various
manufacturers exercise in selecting a grade for a
group of tires so as to ensure that the
performance of all tires in the group exceed that
grade as required by Part 575 (See discussion
above).
Uniroyal Petition
On January 21, 1983, Uniroyal petitioned the
agency to make three significant changes to the
treadwear test procedures. These changes
involve a new procedure for running CMT's, the
rotation of candidate tires through each wheel
position in a four-car convoy, and a doubling of
the break-in period.
The agency has completed its preliminary
review of this petition and, in view of the
pendency of the current proceeding, has also
taken it into account as if it were a
supplementary filing to the docket.^
Under the Uniroyal petition, CMT's would no
longer be run in the same convoys as candidate
tires, but in a separate convoy using CMT's
exclusively. The CMT's would be rotated through
each position in the CMT convoy. This procedure
is claimed to substantially reduce vehicle and
driver related sources of variability, while
reducing costs. However, its validity depends
upon the accuracy of Uniroyal's conclusion that
the course environment factors measured by the
CMT process do not produce rapidly changing
treadwear effects, i.e., that the course
environment effect on treadwear changes slowly,
if at all.
Similarly, the rotation of candidate tires
through each position in the test convoys is
claimed by Uniroyal to greatly reduce driver and
vehicle related variability for those tires. All
vehicles in a convoy would be nominally identical.
No front wheel drive vehicles could be used due,
according to Uniroyal, to "load distribution
problems." Uniroyal does not state how it would
deal with the problem of declining number of rear
wheel drive models being produced, and the
difficulty in matching all tire lines with the
limited number of those models.
Finally, Uniroyal found that the break-in effect
for new tires occurred beyond the 800-mile period
currently specified in the regulations. It stated
that establishing a longer period would provide a
more accurate estimate of treadwear rates.
NHTSA regards Uniroyal's petition as further
evidence of the necessity for suspending the
treadwear provisions of UTQGS while the agency
conducts research and testing to determine the
feasibility of reducing variability to more
acceptable levels. Uniroyal has revealed yet
another previously unidentified factor,
barometric pressure, apparently capable of
contributing significantly to the variability of
test results. Although Uniroyal has proposed
several changes which it believes would
substantially reduce certain sources of
variability, it does not suggest how other factors
identified in its petition are to be addressed.
Those factors are barometric pressure,
temperature, and wet road surfaces. Uniroyal
supplied information indicating that the manner
^he disposition at this time of the pending notice of
rulemaking does not, of course, affect the pendency of this
petition before the agency, since only a suspension of the
UTQGS is involved. The petition will thus be treated both as a
comment to the current proposal and as a petition directed
toward the modification of the suspended portion of the
UTQGS and a request for their reinstatement as so modified.
PART 575; PRE 119
in which temperature differences affect
treadwear is more complicated than previously
supposed. While some compounds wear more
rapidly as temperature increases, Uniroyal
reported the example of a tire which wore more
rapidly as temperature decreased. Further, the
degree of temperature affect was substantial.
While Uniroyal's testing showed that one family
of tires was only slightly affected by an eight-
degree average temperature difference, that
same difference caused a 20 percent change in
wear rate for another family of tires. Further,
Uniroyal noted that wet road surfaces could
significantly affect the rate of treadwear and
admitted that some allowance must be made for
this phenomenon, but didn't indicate how that
might be accomplished.
Much of the work done by Uniroyal in support
of its proposal is similar to the agency's ongoing
research, and it may be that the agency's efforts
will lead to the development of test procedures
similar to those suggested by Uniroyal. However,
Uniroyal's work does not obviate the need for
NHTSA to complete its own research and testing
and make its own judgments about the changes
that might be made to the test procedures. The
agency cannot now conclude that Uniroyal's
proposal would reduce test variability to
acceptable levels. Much more research and testing
would be necessary before the agency could even
consider proposing to adopt those or any other
significant changes.
Not only would the agency need to address the
significance of the failure of Uniroyal's proposals
to address certain sources of variability, but it
would also need to examine the implications of
Uniroyal's proposals which in some cases go well
beyond those suggested by Uniroyal in its
petition. For example, Uniroyal's proposal for
rotating candidate tires through each of 16 wheel
positions on test convoys would necessitate a
doubling of the mileage driven by treadwear
testing convoys from 6,400 miles to 12,800 miles
(16 X 800). The additional expense and time
necessary to conduct such extended testing
would be substantial.
Further, although Uniroyal urges the making
of substantial and fundamental changes to the
treadwear test procedures and the theory
underlying those procedures, it argues, without
providing the basis for that argument, that there
would not be any necessity for retesting all tires
in accordance with the modified procedures.
Uniroyal apparently contemplates a marketplace
in which some tires that were tested and graded
under the existing, inadequate procedures are
offered for sale side-by-side with others that are
tested under new, revised procedures. Thus,
Uniroyal would allow the continued
dissemination of misleading treadwear
information.
In the agency's judgment, the need to make
these types of substantial and fundamental
changes would render wholesale retesting and
suspension unavoidable. The inescapable
conclusion from the necessity of making these
changes is that the grades generated under the
existing procedures are unreliable and should not
be presented to the public as a basis for choosing
between alternative tires. Further, since the
grades that would be assigned to a particular tire
if tested under the current and new procedures
would differ, the grades would be inherently
incompatible. As a matter of responsibility to the
consumer and of fairness, the agency could not
contemplate the simultaneous use of two
fundamentally different yardsticks to measure
the treadwear performance of tires.
To avoid this situation, all tires would have to
be retested and regraded. To provide time for the
completion of these activities and to ensure that
substantial numbers of tires graded under the
existing procedures are not still in the
marketplace when the tires graded under the
new ones are introduced, a suspension of the
treadwear testing requirements would be
necessary.
Inadequacy of Alternatives
NHTSA considered several alternative courses
of action in reaching its decision. In addition to
suspending the treadwear grading provisions of
Part 575, the agency considered rescinding them.
NHTSA also considered retaining the provisions
intact while it conducted its research and
attempted to determine whether modifications to
the test procedures and grade assignment
practices could reduce variability to acceptable
levels for UTQGS purposes.
Rescission. Several commenters argued that the
problems with the treadwear grading program
PART 575; PRE 120
were so substantial and intractable that
rescission of the treadwear provisions was the
only appropriate step for the agency to take at
this time. While the agency believes that the
problems now identified with respect to the
UTQGS treadwear ratings are extensive and
serious, that some of them can be addressed only
after substantial research, and that some or all
may not be fully solved even then, it is convinced
there is a substantial possibility that its planned
research could eventually lead to amendments
that would reduce identified treadwear test
result variability to acceptable levels. For
example, if the agency were able to develop an
appropriate procedure for rotating all tires
among the cars in a test convoy, the contribution
of vehicle and driver effects to test result
variability might be greatly reduced. Similarly,
the agency's development and adoption of
statistical procedures that would bring
uniformity to the translation of test results into
grades might contribute significantly to reliable
treadwear grading.
In such a case, any remaining variability could
more confidently be able to be considered
attributable to the inherent complexity of tires
themselves. At that stage, a failure to attain
significant improvements in the repeatability or
reproducibility of tests might well force the
agency to the conclusion that no grading system
based on measured and projected treadwear
could be possible.
Precisely because of the levels of uncertainty
now understood to exist as a result of test result
variability, however, the agency is not now able
to assess whether or not this will likely be the
case. Absent some further evidence on this point,
and taking into account the positive benefits to
the consumer and the orderly working of the
market place which a properly functioning
UTQGS treadwear system would produce, the
agency is unwilling to rescind the program of
treadwear rating entirely at this time.
Continue treadwear grading and make
improvements in treadwear grading process as
they are developed. While conceding that there
are variability problems, several commenters
argued that the treadwear grades are still
sufficiently useful to warrant their retention.
They argued further that the agency should
simply proceed to make available changes to the
treadwear testing procedures and adopt other
changes as they are developed. One commenter
argued that if the treadwear grading information
were more accurate than the information which
previously existed in the marketplace, the agency
was obligated to continue treadwear grading.
NHTSA believes that the critical issue is in this
case not merely whether the treadwear grading
provisions are currently fulfilling their statutory
objective, that of assisting consumers to make
informed choices in purchasing new tires, but of
equal or greater importance whether such
provisions may to the contrary be affirmatively
frustrating the achievement of that objective. As
interpreted by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals,
the UTQGS provisions in section 203 of the Act do
not contemplate "theoretical perfection" in
providing such assistance. Goodrich I, at 1189. It
calls only for "reasonably fair and reasonably
reliable grading procedures." Id. The agency
believes that this is an appropriate statement of
the principal underlying test of certainty which
the procedures should satisfy. Procedures which
fail to meet that test will tend inappropriately to
increase the sales of some tires and decrease
those of other tires through inaccurately
representing the relative performance of either
or both.
In the agency's view, it appears that the
current procedures fail to meet that
reasonableness test on several counts. Such
procedures are not reasonably reliable because of
the excessive magnitude of the overall
variability.
Moreover, the grades produced under the
treadwear grading procedures are not merely
imperfect, they appear to be affirmatively
misleading.
These problems are not minor. They do not
affect only those tires which differ moderately in
performance. As noted above in the discussion of
the overall variability and reliability problem, the
rank reversals produced by the procedures can
be substantial and are not uncommon. Tires
which are significantly superior to others in
performance may be graded significantly below
those tires, and vice versa. Tires whose test
results show performance differences of up to 100
points may be assigned the same grade.
Thus, while some consumers might be aided in
choosing between some tires, particularly those
PART 575; PRE 121
with very substantial differences (greater than
100 points) in treadwear performance, there
appears to be a significant likelihood that
consumers choosing among closer performing
tires will be misled. The agency believes that
most consumers fall into the latter category. As
noted above, the threshold considerations of tire
size and tire construction type should lead most
persons considering the purchase of a new tire to
look at a universe of potential candidate tires for
purchase whose treadwear grades differ by
significantly less than 100 points. Accordingly, it
appears that the treadwear grading procedures
are neither reasonably fair to the tire
manufacturers nor reasonably reliable in guiding
those consumers who will in fact be purchasing
tires for a given vehicle.
The agency believes that the unreasonableness
of the level of reliability of the current treadwear
grading procedures is compounded by the
possibility that many of the identified sources of
variability, and thus the overall level of
variability, might eventually be able to be
significantly reduced, after a period of research
and testing, at costs that are not prohibitive.
The agency regulatory evaluation discusses a
wide range of possible changes that the agency
believes could ultimately reduce test-induced
variability to more acceptable levels. Among
these are requirements for calibration of
alignment equipment, tighter specifications for
alignment, load distribution, tire-rim width
matchings and CMT composition, prohibition
against information feedback, standardization of
equipment calibration and tread measurement
procedures, limitations on driver acceleration
rates and cornering techniques, limitations on
tire temperature during tread depth
measurement, standardization or elimination of
deer guards, standardized statistical procedure
for grade ^assignment, and rotation of candidate
and CMT's tires among test cars. The actions
which appear at this point to hold the greatest
potential for improving the reliability of the
grades are adoption of the grade assignment
procedure, rotation of the tires, more precise
specification of wheel of alignment, and
specification of the composition of CMT's.
The relative importance of many of these
factors is currently unknown. As a result, it is not
possible to determine or assess what actual result
in improved repeatability may be achievable, and
how or at what level such an improved result
might be determined to be acceptable. However,
the agency believes that together such factors
contribute substantially to the variability of
treadwear test results and unreliability of the
resulting grades. The agency's research efforts
are expected to provide information about the
relative importance of individual sources of
variability and the degree to which each source
can be controlled.
The agency expects that its research and
testing will also provide an indication of the cost
of implementing controls on these factors. Based
on the costs of the current procedures, the agency
has no current basis for concluding whether the
costs associated with effective controls would be
reasonable either separately or collectively. The
current cost of treadwear testing is an average of
$.09 per tire. Based on indications from Goodyear
that the retail markups for manufacturing costs
may be 100 percent, that testing cost would have
an $.18 retail price effect, against a retail price of
$40 to $70 for a new tire. Thus, for example, a
doubling of testing expenses would bring the
retail price effect of testing costs up to an
average of only $.36 per tire, a presumptively
reasonable economic impact in and of itself.
As to the suggestion that the agency
immediately commence to make changes in the
treadwear testing procedures and make other
changes as they are developed, the agency
emphasizes that its research and testing have not
proceeded sufficiently to enable it to determine
either precisely how to define and implement the
individual changes or which of those changes will
make enough to a contribution to reducing overall
variability to warrant adoption. The agency does
not believe that the few currently acknowledged
options would make a significant change in the
overall level of variability. Identifying the range
of necessary and appropriate changes will require
iterative testing, given the interplay of the many
sources of variability.
The issue of adopting an appropriate statistical
procedure to standardize the assignment of
grades bears special mention. Although the
agency has already proposed such a procedure (46
F.R. 10429, February 2, 1981). commenters
on that proposal pointed out a variety of
shortcomings, particularly with respect to its
PART 575: PRE 122
failure to properly account for undergrading. No
commenter in the present rulemaking proceeding
has suggested that the procedure as proposed in
February 1981 be adopted at this time. The
agency is continuing its analysis of the extent and
nature of the changes which might be made to the
proposal.
The agency does not agree with the suggestion
by a public interest group that the mere
possibility that the current treadwear grading
information may be better than pre-UTQGS
information on treadwear would justify
continuation of treadwear grading during the
period of any further review. In NHTSA's
judgment, it is not clear whether and to what
extent the UTQGS treadwear information would
in fact be superior to any or all information
previously available for distinguishing between
tires on the basis of expected tread life. To the
degree that the UTQGS system is arguably
superior in format and direct comparability
among tire lines or manufacturers, however, such
apparent advantage derives entirely from those
aspects of the system which the agency has found
to be most flawed: the accuracy and validity of
the UTQGS value as expressed in the grade.
Stated differently, it is precisely that aspect of
the UTQGS which distinguishes it from market
claims of manufacturers which also introduces
the clear probability that false information is
being disseminated by or under the auspices of
the government itself. The probable objective
falsity of at least some of the information now
being disseminated through UTQGS converts the
clarity and apparent simplicity of the UTQGS
reporting format from an asset to its most
damaging liability. Fully cognizant of the view
expressed by this commenter that some
information, or a less than perfect-functioning
system, is better than no information or no
system at all, the agency cannot agree. The
agency concludes that the government has a
superior duty not to participate in such an effort
to the probable detriment of consumers, who
have every reason to demand, and must
necessarily be expected to assume, that such
participation implies and connotes, a higher level
of certainty than the agency can now find in this
well-intentioned effort. Given the shortcomings
of the UTQGS system as now understood, price
differentials and information voluntarily supplied
by the manufacturers as to probable treadwear
performance may be as useful to consumers as
the current grades.'
After weighing the possible benefits of the
current grades against the potentially extensive
problems created by those grades in their effects
on consumers and tire manufacturers, NHTSA
concludes that the appropriate course of action is
suspension pending completion of its research
and testing program.
The agency believes that continuing to require
the tire manufacturers to comply with the
treadwear grading requirements in the interim is
not appropriate, because of the above discussed
impossibility of enforcing those requirements in
an objective way. NHTSA noted in its proposal
that the wide variability in its compliance test
results prevented the agency from concluding
with any certainty whether tires were incapapble
of achieving the grades assigned to them.
Commenters on the proposal did not controvert
the agency's statements on this point.
In the agency's opinion, requiring the tire
manufacturers and consumers to continue to bear
the costs of treadwear testing during the time
necessary t<^ complete the research and testing
concerning test procedure improvements would
be unreasonable and unwarranted since the
treadwear grading program is apparently neither
reasonably fair to the tire manufacturers nor
reasonably reliable as a guide to consumers.
Although the cost per tire is not large, those costs
total approximately $10 million annually.
Amendments Adopted by This Notice
This notice adopts several amendments
relating to the treadwear grading provisions of
Part 575. Most important, it adopts a suspension
of those provisions effective upon the date that
this notice is published in the Federal Register.
*To compound the agency's dilemma on this point, the
number of consumers potentially aided by treadwear grading
information, and thus the number of consumers potentially
misled by an invalid result, is apparently fairly limited.
According to information submitted by Uniroyal at the public
meeting, only 30 percent of consumers surveyed by them even
knew about the UTQGS information, after their promotional
efforts, and only 60 percent of those consumers stated they
would plan to use that information in making their next tire
purchase. Thus, only 18 percent of consumers are potentially
benefited, or potentially misled, by the treadwear information.
PART 575; PRE 123
On that date, manufacturers will no longer be
required to submit treadwear grading
information to this agency or to disseminate it to
consumers through moldings on the side of new
tires, paper labels on the treads on new tires, or
consumer information materials. The only
information that would be required to be
submitted or disseminated on or after that date
would be traction and temperature resistance
grading information.
The agency believes there is ample
justification for an immediate effective date. The
suspension relieves a restriction and will aid in
ending as quickly as is reasonably practicable the
possibility that consumers will be misled by the
treadwear grading information.
The agency is not requiring that manufacturers
immediately cease disseminating treadwear
information already printed or embodied on tires
or tire molds, through the means formerly
required by Part 575. Such a requirement would
be impracticable. The greatest problem is
associated with the molding of treadwear
information on the tires. Discontinuation of that
practice would necessitate making changes to the
molds being used to produce new tires.
Specifically, the manufacturers would have to fill
in the indentations used to print the word
"TREADWEAR" and the appropriate grade on
the sidewall of each new tire. The total cost to the
tire industry of making those changes to all molds
would be approximately $11 million. Instead of
requiring that all molds be changed
simultaneously, the agency is requiring that all
tires produced in molds manufactured after (180
days after publication in the Federal Register),
use a format which provides for the molding of
only traction and temperature resistance grades
on new tires.
, Although the manufacturers could cease
printing labels and consumer information
materials containing treadwear information
almost immediately, they are confronted with the
problem of existing inventories of labels and
materials containing that information. The
agency has decided to allow the manufacturers to
exhaust those inventories. The agency expects
that after the effective date of this suspension,
the labels and materials printed and used by the
manufacturers to comply with the UTQGS
provisions of Part 575 will not contain that
information. The continued printing of labels and
materials that set forth the treadwear grades
without revealing the suspension of the
treadwear requirements, or the absence of any
participation by the government in procedures to
use similar tests or measurement systems as a
basis for warranties or other forms of
representation as to treadwear expectancy,
would be doubly misleading, i.e., it could be
misleading as to the relative performance of tires,
but also would be misleading as to the current
existence of a government sanctioned system for
grading treadwear.
The agency believes that the publicity given
this notice will minimize the likelihood that
consumers will be misled as a result of the
continued molding of treadwear information on
some new tires and the continued dissemination
for a relatively short period of treadwear
information by means of labels and other
materials. Probable media coverage of the
agency's conclusions in taking this action should
reduce the extent of any consumer reliance on
them. Further, consumers would be even less
likely to rely on the grades after the existing
inventories of those lables and materials are
exhausted. After then, only the grade would
appear on the tire. There would not be any
explanatory information concerning the
development or meaning of the grade. As the
molds are replaced, even the treadwear grade
would disappear from the tire, during the
pendency of this suspension.
Status of Research
As NHTSA noted in its proposal, it has begun
several research activities aimed at reducing the
variability of treadwear test results. The agency
is proceeding diligently to complete these
activities. One program discussed above would
attempt to establish the relationship between
treadwear, tire inflation pressure, and load. The
program to develop this relationship is partially
completed, with final results expected by the end
of February. If such a relationship could be
established, it could aid future research to
determine the effects of rotating tires through all
positions in test car convoys. Rotating tires in
this fashion would tend to minimize the
variability that is caused by differences in
PART 575; PRE 124
vehicles and in driver techniques. A contract to
test the validity of the rotation concept is
expected to be awarded by late spring of this
year.
Another program is aimed at establishing the
effect of reducing tolerances on permitted test
vehicle loading configurations, wheel alignment,
driver techniques, and tread depth measurement
techniques. A contract for this program is
expected to be awarded soon.
A third program will attempt to quantify the
individual sources of treadwear test variability
through a statistical analysis of existing
enforcement data. This research program has
already begun and should be completed by the
end of February.
Research planned for the future includes an
attempt to achieve greater accuracy in test
equipment, to specify test vehicle maintenance
procedures, and to account for differences in the
testing and tread depth measurement
environment. A contract for this work is expected
to be awarded by late summer of this year.
Issued on February 1, 1983.
Raymond A Peck, Jr.
Administrator
48 F. R. 5690
February 7, 1983
PART 575; PRE 125-126
k
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Customer Information Regulations;
Uniform Tire-Quality Grading
[Docket No. 80-14; Notice 8]
[Docket No. 25; Notice 54]
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Uniform Tire
Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) by revising
the procedure used to establish tire loads under
which temperature-resistance tests are con-
ducted. This amendment is being issued to make
test loads under the temperature-resistance test
consistent with test loads specified for the high-
speed test in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stan-
dard (FMVSS) 109. It is anticipated that this
amendment will assure that UTQGS temperature-
resistance tests and FMVSS 109 high-speed tests
may, to the maximum possible extent, be con-
ducted together.
DATE: This amendment is effective July 1, 1984.
Certain minor technical amendments in the notice
are effective immediately on publication.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Decem
ber 17, 1981, NHTSA amended FMVSS 109, which
establishes performance requirements for new
automobile tires, by deleting the tire tables in Ap-
pendix A of that standard. Information in these
tables was previously used, among other pur-
poses, to specify tire test loads under the UTQGS.
Therefore, with the deletion of the tire tables of
FMVSS 109, it was necessary to establish alterna-
tive procedures for determining UTQGS test
loads. Interim procedures were established by
NHTSA on June 15 and August 12, 1982, in 47 FR
25930 and 34990, and public comment was invited
on the adopted technical approaches. On August
19, 1982, the agency issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking, inviting further public comment on
other possible approaches to be used in specifying
test loads under the UTQGS. See 47 FR 36260.
This notice establishes these procedures in final
form.
The UTQGS establish procedures for testing
tires to evaluate their traction, temperature
resistance, and tread-wear performance. (On
February 7, 1983, NHTSA suspended the tread-
wear portion of the UTQGS, pending the comple-
tion of research intended to determine the causes
of the high levels of test variability found in
tread-wear test results, and to reduce that
variability. (See 48 FR 5690.)) The test procedures
specify loads to be placed on the tire. Those loads
differ for each of the three types of tests. Prior to
the deletion of the FMVSS 109 tire tables, tem-
perature-resistance tests were conducted at the
maximum load specified in those tables for a tire
pressure 8 pounds per square inch (psi) below the
tire's maximum inflation pressure. Tread-wear
tests were conducted at 85 percent of the load for
temperature-resistance testing. Traction tests
were conducted at 85 percent of the maximum
load specified in the tire tables for tire pressures
of 24 psi or 180 kilopascals, as appropriate.
With the deletion of the tire tables, the agency
developed a range of numerical factors which
relate a tire's maximum load rating, as stated on
the tire's sidewall, to the appropriate test load.
Rather than relying on the tables, manufacturers
or others conducting tests under the UTQGS
would simply multiply the maximum load by the
factor to determine the test load. This procedure
resulted in at most a 10-pound change in the load
at which tests were conducted, for all but a small
number of tires. For these remaining tires, the
agency provided that tests would be conducted at
the same load as was done prior to June 15 (rely-
ing on the tire tables), until July 1, 1984. After
that date, test loads would be determined by us-
PART575;PRE127
ing the load factors.
Shortly after the load-factor procedure was
established the Rubber Manufacturers Associa
tion and the Cooper Tire Company raised objec-
tions to it. These parties pointed out that prior to
the deletion of the tire tables, a single test could
be used to demonstrate compliance with high-
speed requirements under FMVSS 109 and tem-
perature-resistance testing under the UTQGS.
However, after the deletion of the tire tables,
slightly different loads would be specified for
those two purposes. (When the tire tables were
deleted, NHTSA specified a single test-load fac-
tor of 88 percent of the tire's maximum load for
high-speed testing under FMVSS 109.)
On August 19, 1982, NHTSA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking, inviting comment on
methods for restoring equivalent load specifica
tions for purposes of high-speed testing under
FMVSS 109 and temperature-resistance testing
under the UTQGS. The agency proposed three
possible methods for achieving this result, and re-
quested that commenters present any other alter-
natives they felt appropriate. The three NHTSA
alternatives were:
(1) To amend the UTQGS temperature-resis-
tance test by deleting the load factors and speci-
fying a single 88-percent factor, as was done with
FMVSS 109.
(2) To amend the FMVSS 109 high-speed test
by deleting the 88-percent factor and adopting
the series of load factors used in the UTQGS
temperature-resistance test.
(3) To amend FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS by
relying on load information published by industry
standardization organizations such as the Tire
and Rim Association and The European Tyre and
Rim Technical Organization. This approach would
be much the same as the procedure previously
followed by the agency in relying on the FMVSS
109 tire tables.
Virtually all comments received on the agency's
notice of proposed rulemaking recommended
adopting the third alternative, since it is the
closest to past practice and would assure that test
data derived under the pre-June 15 procedures
would still be valid. Also, some tire manufac-
turers felt this option would minimize the "load
range creep" phenomenon, in which tire manufac
turers were encouraged by vehicle manufac
turers to increase incrementally the load rating
of a tire, thus permitting the use of a smaller, less
expensive tire for a given automobile. These in-
creases could ultimately result in overloaded tire
operation. The tire manufacturers felt that the
existence of tabulated load information would
discourage the load creep phenomenon. On the
other hand, the European Tyre and Rim Tech-
nical Organization favored the first alternative
(testing at 88 percent of maximum load), due to
the simplicity of that approach.
NHTSA has concluded that the first alterna-
tive is preferable, and is herein amending the
UTQGS accordingly. That alternative has the ad
vantage of being the simplest to use, and has been
shown to work well in FMVSS 109. The agency is
concerned that adoption of alternative 3 could
/esult in the reinstitution of NHTSA tire tables.
Information on tires not listed by one of the stan-
dardization organizations would be submitted to
NHTSA under that alternative. However, com-
menters requested that information on such tires
be published by NHTSA to make it available to
all interested parties, thereby resulting in new
tire tables, albeit on a smaller scale. The possibil-
ities also exist of inconsistent data entries for
tires appearing in more than one table and omis-
sions of certain tires from all tables. The
undesirability of this unwieldy system is clear
and the disadvantages of the continued reliance
on tire tables was discussed fully in the notices in-
volving the deletion of the FMVSS 109 tire tables.
With regard to the load range creep phenome-
non, the agency does not agree that the third
alternative would discourage such actions to any
greater degree than would the other alternatives.
Under the third option, all a manufacturer would
have to do to change a tire's load rating would be
to submit new information to a standardization
organization. Further, the agency has ample
authority to deal with this problem and will take
appropriate action to prevent such actions where
safety would be jeopardized.
In the case of the second option, amending
FMVSS 109 to adopt varying load factors would
disrupt testing programs under that standard
which have worked well for the past year using
the 88-percent load criterion. Further, adopting
the varying load factors is slightly more complex
than using the single 88-percent factor. There-
fore, the agency considers option 1 to be the
preferable alternative.
Adoptive alternative 1 will produce no changes
in tire testing under FMVSS 109. However, the
PART 575; PRE 128
Rubber Manufacturers Association points out
that adoption of this alternative will increase tire
test loads for UTQGS purposes by from 1 to 3 per-
cent for certain tires.
For the vast majority of currently produced
tires (p-metric sizes with maximum inflation
pressure of 240 kilopascals), the increase in test
load is approximately 1.6 percent. An increase in
load of this small a magnitude is insufficient to af-
fect temperature-resistance grades. Also, the ma-
jority of tires are graded "C" for temperature
resistance, a grade which merely signifies
minimum compliance with the high-speed test of
FMVSS 109. Therefore, increasing the test loads
for UTQGS temperature-resistance purposes
(which should theoretically make that test more
stringent) will not affect the grades of those tires.
Therefore, the amendments promulgated herein
should impact only a very small number of tires.
To the extent that the adoption of identical test
loads for the FMVSS 109 high-speed test and the
UTQGS temperature-resistance test permits the
two tests to be run together, this amendment will
produce an overall reduction in testing costs.
This amendment is being made effective on
July 1, 1984, to coincide with the effective date
for test-load factors for traction and tread-wear
testing for all tires, as specified in the August 2,
1982, Federal Register notice.
Two minor amendments are also being promul-
gated in this notice for which, due to their tech-
nical nature, the agency finds good cause for mak-
ing effective immediately. The first of these adds
three size designations to table 2A of the UTQGS,
as requested by the Japanese Automobile Tire
Manufacturers Association. This addition will
avoid (until July 1, 1984) having to test these tires
at significantly different test loads than those
specified through the FMVSS 109 tire tables. The
second technical amendment clarifies that the
traction-test pavement-wetting procedure is that
specified in the 1979 version of American Society
for Testing and Materials Method E 274.
Since this rule should not cause any significant
change in implementation of the UTQG regula-
tion, NHTSA has determined that this pro-
ceeding does not involve a major rule within the
meaning of Executive Order 12291 or a significant
rule within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation regulatory procedures. Further,
there are no significant economic impacts of this
action, so that preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation is unnecessary.
Tht agency has also considered the impacts of
this rule in accordance with the Regulatory Flex-
ibility Act. I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As noted above, this ac-
tion will make essentially no change in the im-
plementation of the UTQG regulation.
NHTSA has concluded that this action will
have essentially no environmental consequences
and therefore that there will be no significant ef-
fect on the quality of the human environment.
Part 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION REG-
ULATIONS
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part
575 is amended as follows:
1. Section 575.104(g)(6) is revised to read as
follows:
(gl * * * * ♦
(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 sidewall.
2. Section 575.104(h)(1) is revised to read as
follows:
(h) Determination of test load. 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.
3. Table 2 of section 575.104 is amended by
deleting the words "and temperature resistance"
from the heading of the middle column of the
table.
4. Table 2A of section 575.104 is amended by
adding the following new entries at the bottom of
the table:
PART 575; PRE 129
Tire size designation
32
Temp resistance
Max. pressure
36
Traction
40
Tread wear
Max. pressure
32 36
40
5.20-14
165-15
185/60 R 13
5. The references to "ASTM Method E 274-70
in sections 575.104(f)(l)(iii) and (fMl)(iv) are deleted
and replaced by "ASTM Method E 274-79."
Issued on March 5, 1984.
695
785
855
591
591
667
727
915
1015
1105
779
779
863
939
845
915
980
719
719
778
833
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
48 FR 8929
March 9, 1984
PART 575; PRE 130
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations
Operation of Utility Vefiicies on Paved Roadways
(Docket No. 82-20; Notice 2)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule adds a new require-
ment to the Consumer Information Regulations,
applicable to "utility vehicles", i.e., multipurpose
passenger vehicles which have a short wheelbase
and special features for occasional off-road use.
Some of these special features cause utility
vehicles to handle and maneuver differently from
ordinary passenger cars under certain driving con-
ditions. A driver who is unaware of the differences
and who makes sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers
when operating utility vehicles on paved roads may
lose control of the vehicle or rollover. To inform
drivers of the handling differences between utility
vehicles and passenger cars, this amendment re-
quires manufacturers to place a prescribed sticker
on the windshield, dashboard or some other promi-
nent location of the vehicle to alert operators. In
addition, the new regulation requires manufac-
turers to include information in the vehicle
Owner's Manual concerning the proper method of
on- and off-road driving for utility vehicles.
DATES: This amendment is effective September
1, 1984.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice
amends the Consumer Information Regulations (49
CFR 575) to add a new requirement applicable to
"utility vehicles"— multipurpose passenger
vehicles (49 CFR 571.3) which have a short
wheelbase and special features for occasional off-
road operation. This new regulation addresses a
safety concern resulting from a possible lack of
owner awareness about the proper handling and
operation of utility vehicles. These vehicles have
features which cause them to handle and maneuver
differently than ordinary passenger cars under
certain on-pavement driving conditions. Those
features include: short wheelbase, narrow track,
high ground clearance, high center of gravity, stiff
suspension system and, often, four-wheel drive.
Examples of utility vehicles in current production
include: AMC Jeeps, Chevrolet Blazer, Ford
Bronco, Dodge Ram Charger, Toyota Land
Cruiser, and the GMC Jimmy.
Because of the drivers' apparent unfamiliarity
with the unique characteristics of these vehicles
(their higher center of gravity, narrower track and
stiffer suspensions), utility vehicles are more likely
to go out of control or roll over than passenger cars
during sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers on paved
roads, especially at high speeds. Certain research
studies appear to indicate that utility vehicles are
disproportionately represented in rollover ac-
cidents than are passenger cars, and that the rates
of death and disabling injury per accident could be
twice as high for utility vehicles. (These studies are
discussed more fully in this notice.)
In response to these factors, the agency issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking on December 30,
1982 (47 FR 58323) to require a new consumer in-
formation regulation which would require
manufacturers to alert utility vehicle drivers of the
imique handling characteristics of these vehicles.
As noted in that proposal, the agency believes that
the differences in safety statistics and apparent
performance with regard to utility vehicles are
likely influenced by the lack of awareness by utility
vehicle drivers concerning the operational charac-
teristics of these vehicles, especially under condi-
tions approaching the limits of vehicle perform-
ance. The occurrence of accidents at observed
rates makes it clear that operators do not under-
stand or appreciate the need for adjusting their
driving habits to coincide with physical differences
between utility vehicles and ordinary passenger
cars.
PART 575; PRE 131
The proposed amendment to the Consumer In-
formation Regulations specified a prescribed
sticker which manufacturers would be required to
place in a prominent vehicle location to alert
drivers concerning the special handling character-
istics of utility vehicles. Additionally, the proposed
regulation specified that manufacturers would be
required to include information in the vehicle
Owner's Manual concerning the proper method of
handling and maneuvering these vehicles when
driven on paved roads.
There were twenty comments to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. Nearly all of these sup-
ported promulgation of the proposed new regula-
tion, in principle. However, many commenters did
not accept the agency's basis for the rulemaking
and nearly all of the comments recommended
various changes. The following is a discussion of
the major comments, along with agency's response
and final conclusions.
Basic Premise of the New Regulation
The proposal cited a study conducted by the
Highway Safety Research Institute of the Univer-
sity of Michigan which found that utility vehicles
rollover at a rate at least five times higher than
that experienced by the average passenger car
("On Road Crash Experience of Utility Vehicles",
see NHTSA Docket 82-20). In addition, the pro-
posal noted that NHTSA fatal accident report data
indicate that on a statistical basis, given a rollover
accident, occupants are more likely to be killed in
utility vehicles than in passenger cars (probability
twice as high). Several manufacturers took strong
exception to the Michigan study and challenged its
scientific accuracy in certain regards, citing
statements by the study's author that it was not a
definitive project. Although these manufacturers
did not oppose the proposed new regulation, they
strongly objected to using the cited research as
support for the regulation. Several manufacturers
also stated that the proposal focused too narrowly
on the physical characteristics of utility vehicles
and failed to take into account the driver and
environmental factors which affect the safety
operation of these vehicles.
The agency did not intend to imply that it is only
the unique physical characteristics of utility
vehicles which are responsible for the great
number of accidents in these vehicles. The basic
premise of the new regulation, as evidenced by
statements in the proposal, is that drivers are ap-
parently unaware of the unique handling char-
acteristics of these vehicles as compared to
ordinary passenger cars, and that this coupling of
unique vehicle attributes and lack of awareness is
apparently a large part of the problem.
Regarding the research cited in the proposal, the
agency also did not intend to imply that further
study would not be advantageous or that the
Michigan study is an exhaustive, definitive state-
ment concerning the actual accident experience of
utility vehicles. However, the agency does believe
that the information from the Michigan study,
together with NHTSA's own data and other
research cited below, is sufficiently reliable to in-
dicate that utility vehicles are involved in a
substantial number of accidents which appear to be
related to their unique handling characteristics, of
which their operators may not be fully aware.
In addition to the research mentioned in the pro-
posal, the agency also notes the following informa-
tion which has been submitted to the Docket con-
cerning this proceeding: "A Comparison of the
Crash Experience of Utility Vehicles, Pickup
Trucks and Passenger Cars," Reinfurt, et al..
Highway Safety Research Center, University of
North Carolina, September 1981: "Analysis of
Fatal Rollover Accidents in Utility Vehicles," S. R.
Smith, NHTSA, February 1982; "Insurance
Losses Personal Injury Protection Coverage,
Passenger Cars, Vans, Pickups, and Utility
Vehicles, 1979-1981 Models," HLDI, 1-18-1,
September 1982. These studies also indicated
significant rollover accident experience with utility
vehicles. While it may be true that these studies do
not quantify the contributions of the various possi-
ble causes of this accident experience (vehicle
characteristics, driver characteristics, vehicle use,
environmental factors, etc.), the agency believes
that this research does indicate a serious problem
which should be brought to the attention of vehicle
owners and which can be alleviated by the
dissemination of information to alert vehicles
owners and drivers.
Application
Several commenters requested changes and
clarifications in the definition of "utility vehicle"
as set forth in the proposal's application section.
The proposal specified the following:
PART 575; PRE 132
"This Section applies to multipurpose pas-
senger vehicles which have special features for
occasional off-road operation ('utility
vehicles')."
Commenters noted that the utility vehicles at issue
typically have a wheelbase of 110 inches or less and
recommended that this specification be added to
the definition so that other vehicles are not in-
advertently included in the regulation's applica-
tion. Manufacturers were particularly concerned
that certain vehicles such as long wheel base utility
trucks like the General Motors "Suburban" line,
motor homes and multi-use recreational vehicles
would be included even though they do not have
the same rollover propensities as utility vehicles.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
argued that the application of the rule should be
limited to those vehicles most likely to present
rollover concerns. The agency generally agrees
with these concerns. As noted in the proposal, the
vehicles which are intended to be covered are those
with relatively short wheelbases, narrow tracks,
high ground clearances, high centers of gravity
and stiff suspensions. The proposal also mentioned
four-wheel drive as a characteristic of utility
vehicles. While four-wheel drive is typically a
characteristic of those vehicles, it was mentioned
in the proposal only because it is descriptive of the
majority of vehicles at issue. Four-wheel drive in
and of itself, however, has very little to do with the
rollover propensities involved in this rulemaking,
and the agency did not intend to include a vehicle
simply because it had four-wheel drive if it did not
also have the characteristics which necessitate
alerting drivers to special handling methods.
After reviewing these comments and informa-
tion concerning the vehicles at issue, the agency
has determined that the definition should include a
110-inch wheel base specification in order to
segregate those vehicles which are dispropor-
tionately involved in rollover accidents. Thus, as
specified in this new regulation, utility vehicles are
multipurpose passenger vehicles which have a
wheel base of 110 inches or less and special
features for occasional off-road operation (which
may or may not include four-wheel drive).
One manufacturer recommended that the new
regulation also apply to four-wheel drive light
pickup trucks (GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less) as
well as to utility vehicles. The manufacturer did
not supply any information, however, indicating
that the same accident experience occurs with
respect to light pickup trucks. Moreover, data
before the agency do not indicate that this vehicle
class has a different rollover experience than
ordinary passenger cars. Therefore, the fact that
certain pickup trucks have four-wheel drive does
not seem to be sufficient reason for including this
vehicle type in the standard's application. As noted
earlier, there is no indication that four-wheel drive
alone leads to the rollover propensities which are
the subject of this rulemaking action. The agency
will continue to monitor the accident experience of
these vehicles, however, to determine if they
should be included in the standard at some time in
the future.
Sticker Location
The proposal preceding this new regulation
specified that manufacturers shall affix a sticker to
"the instrument panel, windshield frame or in
some other location in each vehicle prominent and
visible to the driver", to alert drivers concerning
the special handling characteristics of utility
vehicles. Several commenters requested that this
requirement specifically include the driver's sun
visor as an acceptable location for the required
sticker. One commenter stated that the warning
should be of a more permanent nature than a
sticker affixed to the windshield or instrument
panel. That commenter stated that, if the sticker is
located on the instrument panel, it should be
behind the plastic lens so that it cannot be re-
moved, arguing that the sticker should remain per-
manently affixed so that subsequent vehicle
owners are made aware of "the vehicle's sensi-
tivity to certain maneuvers."
The agency considers the driver's sun visor to be
a "prominent" location in a vehicle, and is modify-
ing the language of this requirement to specifically
mention that vehicle location. The agency agrees
that the sticker should be of a permanent nature,
but does not believe that it is necessary at this time
to require the sticker to be placed, for example,
behind the plastic lens of the instrument panel.
There is no wish to place design restrictions on
manufacturers, but the agency does intend for the
sticker to be permanently affixed in a prominent
position and readily visible to drivers. Stickers
simUar to the placard required in FMVSS 110
would be considered adequate.
PART 575; PRE 133
Sticker and Manual Language
A majority of the commenters recommended
clarification and changes in the prescribed
language for the warning sticker and information
in the vehicle Owner's Manual. The proposal
specified that the sticker shall have the language
prescribed "or similar language", and included the
following caveat:
"The language on the sticker required by this
paragraph may be modified as is desired by the
manufacturer to make it appropriate for a
specific vehicle design, to ensure that consum-
ers are adequately informed concerning the
unique propensities of a particular vehicle
model."
As proposed, this caveat was not applicable to the
language required in the vehicle Owner's Manual.
Numerous commenters requested that this flex-
ibility be allowed for the Owner's Manual as well.
One commenter stated that there is no way the
sticker can "ensure" consumers are adequately in-
formed. One commenter requested that manufac-
turers be allowed to place the required information
in any section of their Owner's Manual they
choose, rather than in the "introduction" and "on-
pavement" driving sections as prescribed in the
proposal. Several commenters also suggested that
the word "rollover" be specifically included in the
required warnings, on the basis that "loss of con-
trol" does not sufficiently describe the hazard.
The agency agrees that language flexibility may
be useful for the Owner's Manual as well as for the
prescribed sticker, in order to ensure that con-
sumers are adequately informed concerning the
unique characteristics of a particular vehicle
design. That modification is made in this notice.
The agency believes that the objection to use of the
word "ensure" in the specified caveat is a matter
of semantics since the agency's intent is that
manufacturers make every attempt to adequately
inform its customers. It was for this reason that
the language flexibility is being allowed. The
agency also agrees that use of the word "rollover"
in the sticker and Owner's Manual might more ac-
curately describe the possible consequences of
sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers than the phrase
"loss of control" used alone. Accordingly, that
word is added to the language specified in this
notice. Finally, the agency agrees that manufac-
turers should be allowed to place the required "on-
pavement" driving information in any prominent
location of their Owner's Manual they desire,
rather than only in a section specifically labeled
"on pavement driving". However, the agency
believes that the specified introductory statement
must be included in the Manual's introduction (or
preface) so that any person consulting the Manual
will be aware that driving guidelines are included
in the Manual.
One commenter requested that the required in-
formation be allowed in a supplement to the
Owner's Mamuil, i.e., a separate pamphlet. The
agency has no objections to additional, or com-
prehensive supplements which further describe
driving methods and operating procedures for
utility vehicles (one manufacturer currently pro-
vides such a Supplement). However, the agency
believes that the two prescribed (or similar)
statements should be placed in the general Owner's
Manual since some operators might be more likely
to consult the Manual, which includes all informa-
tion concerning their vehicles, than they would
supplements. Further, the required statements are
short and should not be onerous to manufacturers.
Effective Date
The proposal specified that the new regulation, if
promulgated, would become effective 60 days after
publication of a final rule. Several manufacturers
stated that their Oumer's Manuals are typically up-
dated only at the beginning of a new model year
and that longer than 60 days is needed to comply
with the requirements of the regulation. After
considering these comments, the agency has con-
cluded that the new regulation should become ef-
fective September 1, 1984, coincidental with the
typical introduction of new models. This is longer
than the 60-days leadtime specified in the proposal
and should allow all manufacturers sufficient time
to comply with the requirements.
NHTSA has examined the impacts of this new
regulation and determined that this notice does not
qualify as a major regulation within the meaning of
Executive Order 12291 or as a significant regula-
tion under the Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. The agency has
also determined that the economic and other im-
pacts of this rule are so minimal that a regulatory
evaluation is not required. The prescribed sticker
and additional information required in the vehicle
Owner's Manual will result in only minimal costs
PART 575; PRE 134
for vehicle manufacturers and will not likely result tions or governmental units which purchase utility
in any cost increase for consumers. vehicles. Moreover, few, if any, vehicle manufac-
The agency also considered the impacts of this turers would quaUfy as smaU entities under the
rule under the precepts of the Regulatory Flexibil- Act.
ity Act. I hereby certify that the regulation will not Issued on May 7, 1984.
have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As just discussed, the Diane K. Steed
cost of the required sticker and information will be Administrator
extremely small. Accordingly, there will be vir- 49 F.R. 20016
tually no economic effect on any small organiza- May 11, 1984
PART 575; PRE 135-136
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations
Operation of Utility Vehicles on Paved Roadways
[Docket No. 82-20; Notice 3]
ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for
reconsideration.
SUMMARY: This final rule responds to petitions
for reconsideration filed by American Motors Cor-
poration and Subaru of America, Inc., with regard
to the agency's requirement that manufacturers of
utility vehicles inform drivers of those vehicles of
the propensity of such vehicles to rollover. Ameri-
can Motors and Subaru pointed out in their peti-
tions that the scope of this requirement includes
certain passenger car derivatives such as the AMC
Eagle and the Subaru four-wheel drive vehicles
which do not have the operating characteristics
which were the focus of the rule. Therefore, the
agency is herein clarifying the regulations to ex-
empt passenger car derivatives.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective
September 1, 1984. (
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 11,
1984, NHTSA amended its Consumer Information
Regulations (49 CFR 575) to add a new require-
ment applicable to "utility vehicles" — multipur-
pose passenger vehicles (49 CFR 571.3) which have
a short wheelbase (110 inches or less) and special
features for occasional off-road operation. See 49
FR 20016. This new regulation addresses a safe-
ty concern resulting from a possible lack of owner
awareness about the proper handling and opera-
tion of utility vehicles have features which causes
them to handle and maneuver differently than
ordinary passenger cars under certain on-
pavement driving conditions. Those features in-
clude: short wheelbase, narrow track, high ground
clearance, high center of gravity, stiff suspension
system and, often, four-wheel drive. Examples of
utility vehicles in current production which were
cited in the agency's final rule include: AMC Jeeps,
Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Bronco, Dodge Ram Charger,
Toyota Land Cruiser, and the CMC Jimmy.
On June 11, 1984, the agency received petitions
for reconsideration of the utility vehicle labeling
rule from American Motors Corporation and
Subaru of America, Inc. Both manufacturers
pointed out that although the preamble to the
agency's final rule indicated that the rule was in-
tended to apply to a class of vehicles with attri-
butes which might tend to increase the likelihood
of vehicle rollover (high center of gravity, narrow
track, stiff suspension, etc.), the actual language of
the rule applied to certain vehicles without these
attributes. In particular, these manufacturers
were concerned that the labeling requirements
would apply to their four-wheel drive vehicles
which are derived from passenger cars, i.e., the
American Motors Eagle and the Subaru four-wheel
drive station wagons, sedans, and Brat. Both
manufacturers requested that the agency clarify
the scope of the rule to exclude these vehicles.
Since the American Motors and Subaru vehicles
in question are certified as multipurpose
passenger vehicles under 49 CFR Part 567, have a
wheelbase of 110 inches or less and have four
wheel drive, they would fall within the "utility
vehicle" definition in the Consumer Information
Regulations, and would therefore be subject to the
rollover warning label requirements. However,
the manufacturers are correct in pointing out that
the main thrust of the agency's May 11 rule was to
regulate the more traditional types of utility
vehicles, such as the Jeep CJ series and the Toyota
Land Cruiser.
PART 575 -PRE 137
To assess the appropriateness of subjecting the
Eagle and Subaru model lines to the labeling re-
quirements, the agency analyzed its accident data
to determine the frequency of involvement in fatal
rollover accidents for various types of vehicles.
Fatality data were obtained from the agency's
Fatal Accident Reporting System, while vehicle
registration information was obtained from R. L.
Polk data. The rollover rate for the Eagle is much
lower than that for the more traditional utility
vehicles, and is, in fact, lower than that for all
passenger cars. This data strongly supports the
American Motors argument that the Eagle should
not be subject to the labeling rule. The case for the
Subaru vehicles is less clear, since their rollover
fatality rate is between that of passenger cars and
the more traditional utility vehicles. However, the
Subaru four-wheel drive vehicles have a rollover
fatality rate which is virtually identical to that of
their two-wheel drive counterparts, which are not
subject to the labeling requirement, and is still
only about 'A that of more traditional util-
ity vehicles. Subaru submitted data with its recon-
sideration petition indicating that the handling
characteristics of the Subaru four-wheel drive
vehicles are on a par with those of passenger cars,
and superior to those of more traditional utility
vehicles. Therefore, the agency is exempting
passenger car derivative multipurpose passenger
vehicles from the rollover labeling requirements.
These vehicles are typically based upon a passen-
ger car chassis, then modified to have certain at-
tributes common to trucks or utility vehicles. The
Subaru and Eagle vehicles are the only vehicles
currently sold in the Untied States which fall
within this exemption.
The amendments promulgated herein are effec-
tive September 1, 1984, to coincide with the effec-
tive date of the May 11 labeling rule. The agency
finds good cause for making this amendment effec-
tive less than 180 days after publication. The
amendment relieves an inappropriate restriction,
avoiding the need to provide warning information
in vehicles which do not pose an unusual risk of
rollover.
NHTSA has examined the impacts of this new
regulation and determined that this notice does
not qualify as a major regulation within the mean-
ing of Executive Order 12291 or as a significant
regulation under the Department of Transporta-
tion regulatory policies and procedures. The agen-
cy has also determined that the economic and
other impacts of this rule are so minimal that a
regulatory evaluation is not required. The rule
merely exempts a small number of vehicles from
the labeling rule, which imposed minimal costs.
The agency also considered the impacts of this rule
under the percepts of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. I hereby certify that the regulation will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The cost of the required
sticker and information will be extremely small,
and only a small number of vehicles are being ex-
empted. Accordingly, there will be virtually no
economic effect on any small organizations or gov-
ernmental units which purchase utility vehicles.
Moreover, few, if any, vehicle manufacturers
would qualify as small entities under the Act.
In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph
575.105(b) is amended to read as follows:
§575.105 Utility Vehicles
(b) Application. This section applies to multipur-
pose passenger vehicles (other than those which
are passenger car derivatives) which have a wheel-
base of 110 inches or less and special features for
occasional off-road operation ("Utility vehicles").
Issued on August 6, 1984.
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
49 FR 32069
August 10, 1984
PART 575 -PRE 138
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
Effective Dates for Reimplementation of Treadwear Grading
[Docltet No. 25; Notice 58]
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMfWIARY: This rule sets forth the effective
dates for the reimplementation of the treadwear
grading requirements under this agency's Uniform
Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Those
requirements were suspended after the agency
found high levels of variability in treadwear test
data and grade assignment practices. The United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Colum-
bia Circuit vacated the agency's suspension of the
treadwear grading requirements on April 24, 1984.
In response to the court, NHTSA published a
notice on August 13, 1984, proposing dates on
which tires would again be required to comply
with the treadwear grading requirements. Subse-
quently, the agency learned that there were some
problems with reimplementing treadwear grading
for bias belted tires by the proposed dates.
Therefore, the agency published a notice on
September 12, 1984, asking for pubUc comment on
what effect, if any, this newly discovered informa-
tion should have on the proposed schedule for
reimplementing treadwear grading for bias belted
tires.
Despite these agency actions to reinstate tread-
wear grading, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued an
order on September 27, 1984, finding NHTSA in
violation of its April 24 order, and directing the
agency to either reinstate the treadwear grading
requirements in full "forthwith" or to apply to that
court for a modification of the mandate and pro-
vide a reasonably prompt reimplementation sched
ule. NHTSA filed an application for a modification
of the mandate on October 11, 1984. On October 31,
1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals granted NHTSA's
application and ordered NHTSA to reimplement
treadwear grading in accordance with the sched-
ule proposed by NHTSA in its October 11 filing.
That same schedule is set forth in this rule.
DATES: In the case of bias ply tires, requirements
that treadwear information be included on paper
labels affixed by tire manufacturers to tire treads
and for the submission of consumer information
brochures to NHTSA for review are reimple-
mented effective December 15, 1984. Those bro-
chures are required to be distributed to prospec-
tive purchasers by tire dealers effective January
15, 1985. Requirements regarding the molding of
treadwear grades on tire sidewalls become effec-
tive again on May 15, 1985.
In the case of bias belted tires, requirements
that treadwear information be included on paper
labels and for the submission of the consumer in-
formation brochures to NHTSA for review are re-
implemented effective March 1, 1985. The bro-
chures must be distributed to prospective purchas-
ers effective April 1, 1985. The requirements re-
garding the molding of treadwear grades on tire
sidewalls become effective again on August 1, 1985.
In the case of radial tires, requirements that
treadwear information be included on paper labels
and for the submission of the consumer informa-
tion brochures to NHTSA for review are reimple-
mented effective April 1, 1985. The brochures
must be distributed to prospective purchasers ef-
fective May 1, 1985. The treadwear grades must be
molded on the sidewall of all new radial tires
manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.
In the case of vehicle manufacturers, the re-
quirements to include treadwear grading informa-
tion in the vehicle consumer information are
reimplemented effective September 1, 1985.
PART 575; PRE 139
The amendments made to the UTQGS by this
rule are effective December 19, 1984. This action is
taken to permit those manufacturers which choose
to do so to comply with the treadwear grading re-
quirements before the mandatory reimplementa-
tion dates listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA sus-
pended treadwear grading requirements under
the UTQGS at 48 FR 5690, February 7, 1983. This
action was announced after the agency found high
levels of variability in treadwear test results and
in the grade assignment practices of the various
tire manufacturers. This variability resulted in a
substantial likelihood that treadwear information
being provided to the public under this program
would be misleading, i.e., that the assigned grades
could, in many instances, incorrectly rank the ac-
tual treadwear performance of different tires.
On April 24, 1984, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated the agency's suspension of the treadwear
grading requirements in Public Citizen v. Steed,
733 F.2d 93. NHTSA interpreted the court's action
as requiring the agency to reimplement the tread-
wear grading requirements at the earliest reason-
able time. To comply with this interpretation of
the court order, NHTSA published a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking at 49 FR 32238, August 13, 1984.
That proposal set forth the following dates for
reimplementing treadwear grading requirements:
AUGUST 13 SCHEDULE
Bias Ply and Bias
Belted Tires
Radial Tires
Tire manufacturers
complete testing November 15, 1984 June 15, 1985
Affix paper labels and
submit brochures to
NHTSA for review December 15, 1984 July 15, 1985
Distribute brochures
to the public January 15, 1985 August 15, 1985
Modify all molds to
include treadwear
May 15, 1985 December 15, 1985
Include treadwear
grading in vehicle
manufacturer's
consumer information
booklet
September 1, 1985
The reason for proposing different reimple-
mentation dates for bias ply and bias belted tires,
on the one hand, and radial tires, on the other, was
the need to procure new course monitoring tires
(CMT's, for the radial tires. As of that date,
NHTSA believed that its existing supply of bias
ply and bias belted CMT's would be adequate for
testing those tire types. This fact would allow the
manufacturers to begin their testing very quickly,
which would in turn allow the treadwear grading
requirements to be reimplemented more quickly.
However, shortly after publication of that
notice, the agency determined that its existing
supply of bias belted CMT's showed unacceptably
high levels of variabUity, and concluded that it
would be inappropriate to use such tires as CMT's.
A notice announcing these determinations was
published at 49 FR 35814, September 12, 1984.
This notice asked for public comment on what ef-
fect, if any, this newly discovered information
would have on the dates proposed for the reimple-
mentation of treadwear grading for bias belted
tires.
Despite these agency actions to reimplement
treadwear grading, the U.S. Court of Appeals
issued an order on September 27, 1984, finding the
agency in violation of the court's April 24 order.
The court gave the agency a choice of either im-
mediately reinstating treadwear grading in full,
or, within 14 days of September 27, applying to the
court for a modification of its earlier order and pro-
viding the court with a reasonably prompt
schedule for reimplementing the treadwear
grading requirements.
In accordance with this order, NHTSA applied
for a modification of the court's April 24 mandate
on October 11, 1984. This application was accom-
panied by a proposed schedule for reimplementing
treadwear grading and an affidavit in support
thereof. The schedule which the agency proposed
to the court is shown on the next page.
This schedule was the same as that proposed in
the August 13 notice for reimplementing tread-
wear grading for vehicle manufacturers and for
bias ply tires. However, it accelerated the
reimplementation of treadwear grading by 3 1/2
months from what had been proposed for radial
tires in the August 13 notice, and postponed the
proposed dates for bias belted tires by 2 1/2
months. In formulating this revised schedule,
NHTSA considered all nine comments received on
the August 13 notice, and the one comment it
PART 575; PRE 140
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Bias Ply Tires Bias Belted Tires Radial Tires
Tire manufacturers
complete testing
November 7. 1984
February 1, 1985
March 1, 1985
Affix paper labels and submit
brochures to NHTSA for review
December 15, 1984
March 1, 1985
April 1, 1985
Distribute brochures to the
public
January 15, 1985
April 1, 1985
May 1, 1985
Modify all molds to include
treadwear
May 15, 1985
August 1, 1985
September 1, 1985
Include treadwear grading in
vehicle manufacturer's consumer
information booklet
September 1, 1985
received on the September 12 notice. The agency
received an additional comment regarding the
September 12 notice on October 12, the comment
closing date for that notice. That additional com-
ment was not considered by the agency in pre-
paring its October 11 application.
The court issued an order on October 31, 1984,
granting NHTSA's application for a modification
of the court's earlier mandate, and ordered the
agency to reimplement treadwear grading accord-
ing to the schedule proposed by the agency in its
October 11 application. This final rule implements
the court's October 31 order.
Comments received on previous notices. As
noted above, all but one of the comments received
in response to the agency's August 13 and
September 12 notices were considered while the
agency formulated the revised schedule for reim-
plementing treadwear grading which was sub-
mitted to the court on October 11. What follows is
a brief explanation of the agency's response to the
more significant comments.
The petitioners in the U.S. Court of Appeals
submitted their motion to enforce judgment,
which they filed with the court, as a comment to
the agency on its August 13 proposed schedule.
The essential aUegation of that motion was that
the August 13 schedule was not reasonably
prompt. NHTSA responded to this allegation in
considerable detail in the application and affidavit
in support thereof filed with the court on October
11. Rather than repeat this lengthy response
herein, this rule incorporates by reference the ap-
plication and affidavit filed October 11 as the agen-
cy response to petitioners' comments. Copies of
the application and affidavit are available in
Docket No. 25, Notice 58, and any interested per-
sons are advised to contact the Docket Section to
obtain a copy of those documents.
Several tire manufacturers commented that the
August 13 notice was unclear as to whether the
agency would permit tire manufacturers to modify
their molds to show treadwear grading informa-
tion prior to the dates by which they were re-
quired to modify all their molds. These manufac-
turers stated that they wanted to modify some of
their molds before the effective dates when they
had to have all of their molds modified. This issue
arises because of amendments made to the
UTQGS in connection with the agency's suspen-
sion of the treadwear grading requirements. Since
NHTSA had concluded that there was a substan-
tial likelihood that treadwear information would
be misleading, the UTQGS were amended to pro-
hibit the sidewalls of tires from showing any
treadwear grades. As long as that prohibition, con-
tained in 49 CFR §575.104(i)(2)(ii), remains in effect,
tire manufacturers may not legally begin con-
verting their molds to show the treadwear grades
on the sidewaUs of their tires.
NHTSA wishes to encourage the manufacturers
to reimplement the treadwear grading require-
PART 575; PRE 141
ments as expeditiously as possible, to comply with
the decision in Public Citizen v. Steed, supra. The
agency intended to allow manufacturers to imple-
ment any of the necessary steps, including not just
the molding of the grades on the sidewall, but also
paper labels and the submission and distribution of
consumer information brochures, as soon as was
feasible. If some requirements can be satisfied by a
particular manufacturer prior to an effective date
specified in this rule, it would serve no interest to
prohibit that manufacturer from disseminating
treadwear grading information to consumers.
Hence, a manufacturer is permitted to comply
with any of these reimplemented treadwear
grading requirements in advance of the effective
dates specified herein. These dates represent the
agency's best judgment as to the earliest dates by
which it would be reasonable to require all tires to
again comply with the treadwear grading re-
quirements. However, manufacturers may comply
with the requirements of this notice sooner than
the mandatory effective dates, if they wish. To
make this intent more clear, a statement has been
added to the DATES section to the effect that the
amendments made by this rule take effect upon
publication. This action immediately removes the
prohibition on molding treadwear grades on the
sidewalls of tires, which was a part of the action
taken by NHTSA in connection with the decision
to suspend treadwear grading.
Most tire manufacturers also indicated that
they could meet the dates proposed in the August
13 notice for reimplementing treadwear grading
for radial tires, albeit "with some difficulty". This
notice accelerates that schedule by shortening the
time available for the agency's completion of its
tasks while retaining the proposed amount of time
following these tasks for the manufacturers to
achieve compliance. This acceleration was made
possible as the result of CMT's being made
available to the agency more quickly, and the agen-
cy accelerating its own testing. The time periods
allowed to the manufacturers for completing each
step of the reimplementation process (3 months
for testing, 1 month to print paper labels and
draft the consumer information brochure to be
submitted to NHTSA for its review, 1 month to
distribute the brochures to all dealers, and 6
months to modify all molds) will require the
manufacturers to move expeditiously, but are
reasonable for completing each of the needed
steps.
One manufacturer asked for additional time in
reimplementing treadwear grading for radial tires
imported from other countries. The comment
stated that there is a logistical problem in shipping
the tires for testing into the U.S., clearing them
through customs, shipping the tires to Texas for
testing, conducting the tests and evaluating the
data, printing the labels in the U.S. and shipping
them overseas, and finally affixing the paper labels
to the tires for sale before shipping them into the
United States to be offered for sale. The comment
concluded by requesting an additional 2 months
period for affixing paper labels to imported radial
tires, and for an additional 1 month to modify all
molds to include the treadwear grade.
NHTSA considered these logistical problems.
However, the agency believes that radial tires to
be imported into the United States can be shipped
early enough so that the tires will be in Texas for
testing very early, since the foreign producers are
well aware of the logistical burdens confronting
them. The testing and analysis for these tires
would then be among the first completed on radial
tires. While the agency agrees that it is more dif-
ficult for manufacturers of imported tires to
reimplement treadwear grading than manufac-
turers of domestic tires, the agency believes that
the time allotted for reimplementing is feasible
and reasonable for all manufacturers. Accordingly,
the schedule set forth in this final rule establishes
the same dates for compliance with radial tire
treadwear grading requirements for both foreign-
and domestically-produced tires.
The comments on the proposed dates for reim-
plementing treadwear grading for bias ply tires all
indicated that those dates were feasible, and those
dates have been adopted as proposed.
Three manufacturers asked in their comments
for an additional month for testing bias belted
tires. That would be the same period of time allot-
ted for testing radial tires. The August 13 notice
proposed to allow only 2 months for testing bias
belted tires, since there are only about 350 bias
belted tire designs. Radial tires, for which 3
months were proposed for testing, are produced in
about 1,400 designs. Hence, the difference in the
number of tires to be tested suggested to NHTSA
that bias belted tire testing could be completed in
less time than would be needed for radial tire
testing. The commenters asking for additional
testing time for bias belted tires did not provide
any evidence that the proposed 2 months for
PART 575; PRE 142
testing bias belted tires was insufficient. Absent
such evidence, NHTSA has no basis for concluding
that the proposed 2-month period for testing is in-
sufficient. Accordingly, this final rule adopts the
proposed 2-month testing period for bias belted
tires.
The only comment addressing the proposed date
for reimplementing treadwear grading re-
quirements for vehicle manufacturers stated that
the proposed September 1, 1985, date was accept-
able as long as the agency had a final rule publish-
ed by March 1, 1985. This rule is published well in
advance of that date.
Impact analyses. NHTSA has determined that
this final rule is neither "major" within the mean-
ing of Executive Order 12291 nor "significant"
within the meaning of the Department of Trans-
portation regulatory policies and procedures. The
treadwear grading is being reimplemented in its
current form as a result of the court decision in
Public Citizen v. Steed, supra, and the dates set
forth herein for reimplementation were ordered to
be established by the same court in its October 31,
1984, order. The agency is required to comply with
those court orders. Most of the analysis in the
regulatory evaluation which accompanied the
agency's suspension of treadwear (Docket No. 25;
Notice 52) is still applicable to this rule. In that
regulatory evaluation, NHTSA estimated that the
costs of treadwear grading were about $10 million
annually to tire manufacturers and brand name
owners. That is equivalent to less than 6 cents par
tire. These costs are well below the level for classi-
fying a rule as a major action. A separate
regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for
this rule, because the costs and impacts of tread-
wear grading set forth in the regulatory evalua-
tion accompanying the suspension of treadwear
grading are still the agency's estimate of the ef-
fects of treadwear grading.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
agency has considered the impacts of this rule on
small entities. I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
NHTSA concluded that few, if any, of the manufac-
turers and brand name owners are small entities.
To the extent that any of these parties are small
entities, the additional costs imposed by reimple-
menting treadwear grading for passenger-car tires
are slightly less than 6 cents per tire ($10
million total costs/178 million passenger car tires
produced annually). This does not constitute a
significant economic impact. Small organizations
and small governmental units will be minimally af-
fected in their tire purchases as a result of the
minimal additional costs imposed by reimple-
menting treadwear grading. Further, those
minimal costs will have minimal impacts on the
costs and sales for any tire dealers which might
qualify as small entities.
NHTSA has also considered the environmental
impacts of this rule. While it is possible that
reimplementation of treadwear testing may have
some negative effects on the environment around
the Texas test course in terms of increased fuel
consumption and increased noise and air pollution,
NHTSA has concluded that the environmental con-
sequences of this rule are of such limited scope
that they will clearly not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment.
Effective date. As noted above, the amendments
made by this rule are effective as of the date this
rule is published in the Federal Register. NHTSA
has taken this step so that the tire manufacturers
and brand name owners who wish to reimplement
any portion of the treadwear grading require-
ments in advance of the dates by which they are
required to do so may follow that course of action.
Prior to the effective date of these amendments,
§575.104(1) prohibits manufacturers from molding
treadwear grades on the sidewalls of tires.
Manufacturers and brand name owners which are
unable or unwilling to reimplement treadwear
grading in advance of the mandatory compliance
dates specified herein will not be affected by an im-
mediate voluntary compliance date for these
amendments, because they are not required to
reimplement before the mandatory compliance
dates. There is also a public interest in complying
with the court orders as soon as possible. For
these reasons, NHTSA has concluded that there is
good cause for specifying an immediate effective
date for the amendments made by this rule.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR
§575.104 is amended as follows:
1. By revising paragraph (i) and adding new
paragraphs (j), (k), and (1) to read as follows:
(i) Effective dates for treadwear grading re-
quirements for radial tires.
PART 575; PRE 143
(1) Treadwear labeling requirements of §575.104
(d)(lKi)(BK2) apply to tires manufactured on or after
April 1, 1985.
(2) Requirements for NHTSA review of tread-
wear information in consumer brochures, as
specified in paragraph 575.6(dK2), are effective
April 1, 1985.
(3) Treadwear consumer information brochure
requirements of paragraph 575.6(c) are effective
May 1, 1985.
(6) Treadwear sidewall molding requirements of
§575.104(d)(l)(i)(A) apply to tires manufactured on
or after September 1, 1985.
(j) Effective dates for treadwear grading re-
quirements for bias ply tires.
(1) Treadwear labeling requirements of §575.104
(d)(lKi)(B)(2) apply to tires manufactured on or after
December 15, 1984.
(2) Requirements for NHTSA review of tread-
wear information in consumer brochures, as
specified in paragraph 575.6(d)(2), are effective
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 manufactured 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 manufactured on or after
March 1, 1985.
(2) Requirements for NHTSA review of tread-
wear information in consumer brochures, as
specified in paragraph 575.6(d)(2), are effective
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)(l)(i)(A) apply to tires manufactured on
or after August 1, 1985.
(1) Effective date for treadwear information re-
quirements for vehicle manufacturers.
Vehicle manufacturer treadwear information re-
quirements of §§575.6(a) and 575.104(d)(l)(iii) are ef-
fective September 1, 1985.
2. By deleting Figure 6.
Issued on December 14, 1984.
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
49 F.R. 49293
December 19, 1984
PART 575; PRE 144
I;
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations;
Vehicle Stopping Distance
[Docket No. 83-09; Notice 2]
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends the requirements of
the Consumer Information Regulations by delet-
ing the requirement that vehicle stopping distance
information be provided to first purchasers of new
passenger cars and motorcycles at the time the
vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser. The
agency has taken this action because the primary
purpose of the consumer information is to permit
prospective purchasers to obtain as much com-
parative information as possible before deciding
which particular model to buy. Information
provided after the consumer has purchased the
vehicle cannot serve that purpose. Since NHTSA
is unaware of any other value to the consumer
being given stopping distance information after
purchasing a new vehicle, this rule rescinds that
requirement. Based on cost information provided
by General Motors, the agency estimates that this
action will save vehicle manufacturers over one
million dollars annually.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective July 24,
1987.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule
amends the requirements of 49 CFR Part 575, Con-
sumer Information Regulations, to delete the re-
quirement that manufacturers of passenger cars
and motorcycles provide stopping distance informa-
tion to the first purchasers of their vehicles at the
time of delivery of the new vehicle. The primary
purpose underlying the requirement that vehicle
manufacturers provide consumers with stopping
distance information is to provide consumers with
comparative information on different vehicles so
that they can consider this information when
deciding which new vehicle to purchase. Stopping
distance information that is given to consumers
after they have purchased a new vehicle does not
serve this purpose.
Vehicle manufacturers have been required to
provide stopping distance information to first
purchasers of new vehicles at the time of delivery
of the vehicle ever since the original consumer
information regulations were published at 34 FR
1246, January 25, 1969. At this time, however, it
is not clear what benefits the agency believed first
purchasers would derive from information provided
to them after they had purchased the vehicle. The
preamble to the 1969 rule requiring manufacturers
to provide such information explained only that,
"This regulation is intended to be the initial part
of a comprehensive program to supply the con-
sumer with information concerning safety and
other performance characteristics of motor
vehicles." 34 FR 1247. No further explanation was
set forth in the final rule or any other document
of how or why the agency believed it would be
helpful to consumers to obtain stopping distance
information for vehicles after they had purchased
the vehicle. The agency is not aware of any
empirical or analytical evidence that stopping
distance information is or could be useful to con-
sumers after they have purchased a new vehicle.
Therefore, the requirement to provide this infor-
mation to first purchasers is deleted from Part 575
by this rule.
Under the requirements as they existed before
today's amendment, stopping distance information
was required to be disseminated to consumers via
three separate sources. First, §575. 6(a) requires
manufacturers to provide the first purchasers of
new vehicles with stopping distance information
at the time of delivery of the new vehicle. Second,
§575. 6(c) requires stopping distance information to
be provided by each vehicle manufacturer to each
of its dealers, so that prospective purchasers can
examine the information in the dealer's showroom
at no cost. Third, §575. 6(d) requires the stopping
distance information to be provided by each vehi-
cle manufacturer to NHTSA, so that it can be made
available to the public in NHTSA's Technical
Reference Library and upon request.
General Motors Corporation (GM) filed a petition
for rulemaking with the agency, in which GM
asked that the requirements for vehicle manufac-
PART 575-PRE 145
turers to disseminate stopping distance informa-
tion about their vehicles be deleted altogether. GM
asserted that the stopping distance information
was not actually used by consumers, that it was
not a meaningful comparison between different
vehicles, and that dissemination of the stopping
distance information was an unnecessary economic
burden on the vehicle manufacturers. In response
to this petition, NHTSA carefully reexamined the
requirements that stopping distance information
be disseminated to consumers via the three
separate sources identified above.
As a result of this reexamination, NHTSA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
on June 30, 1983. 48 FR 30166. This NPRM
proposed to delete the requirement that manufac-
turers provide stopping distance information to the
first purchasers of new vehicles, since this infor-
mation does not become available to the consumer
soon enough to serve the primary purpose of these
consumer information regulations. However, the
agency did not propose to delete the requirements
that vehicle manufacturers provide stopping
distance information to their dealers and to this
agency. The agency stated in the NPRM that it did
not agree with GM's assertion that the stopping
distance information was not meaningful to con-
sumers. While some manufacturers report that
their vehicles stop exactly at the maximum stop-
ping distance allowed under Standard No. 105,
Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR §571.105), most
manufacturers reported that their vehicles stop in
a shorter distance. The differences in reported stop-
ping distance could be used by consumers to make
comparative evaluations of the vehicles. Further,
the NPRM noted that 14 percent of the dealerships
surveyed by that company reported that they had
been asked by consumers for stopping distance in-
formation. The NPRM stated that these requests
"indicate that the information is being used by the
public and NHTSA is reluctant to curtail the
amount of information available to the public when
that information is reliable and can be provided at
a reasonable cost." 48 FR 30167. Based on GM's
estimates of its own costs for providing stopping
distance information to the three sources presently
required by Part 575, NHTSA estimated total costs
to vehicle manufacturers at $266,000 if stopping
distance information were required to be provided
only to each dealer and this agency. This translates
to less than 3 cents for each new car and motor-
cycle sold, and NHTSA tentatively adjudged this
to be a reasonable cost for providing the
information.
The NPRM also sought comments on the
desirability of requiring vehicle manufacturers to
permanently affix a label to the vehicle, setting
forth the stopping distance information. Such label-
ing would ensure that continuing availability of
stopping distance information to subsequent pur-
chasers of the vehicle. The current practice of put- ^
ting stopping distance information in the owner's
manual or in a separate consumer information
booklet can result in the stopping distance infor-
mation not being available to the subsequent
purchasers of the vehicle.
After publication of this NPRM, NHTSA under-
took research to gain a better understanding of con-
sumer awareness of and interest in NHTSA's
consumer information programs, and to learn if
there were ways in which the consumer informa-
tion programs could be made more useful to con-
sumers. The final report is entitled "Consumer
Attitudes Toward Consumer Information Pro-
grams," and is available in the General Reference
section of Docket No. 83-09. This report indicated
that most consumers are satisfied with the infor-
mation available to them when purchasing a vehi-
cle. There is, however, a small segment of car
buyers who actively seek information about
vehicles when making a purchase and would prefer
that more information be made available. This seg-
ment's interest in the subject of stopping distance
increases when they are informed that stopping
distances for comparable vehicles may vary.
The agency received 12 comments on the NPRM.
Nine of these 12 comments were submitted by vehi-
cle manufacturers. Each of these manufacturers
supported the proposal to delete the requirement
that stopping distance information be provided to
first purchasers at the time of delivery of a new
vehicle. However, all nine of the vehicle manufac-
turers disagreed with the agency's decision to
continue requiring stopping distance information
to be provided to each of their dealers and to
NHTSA.
Along with its petition, GM submitted a survey
of 162 of its dealers. Of these 162 dealers, 140 had
not received a single request for stopping distance
information, while 22 (14 percent) had received
such requests. The 22 dealers that received re-
quests for stopping distance information received
an average of five such requests each. In the
NPRM, the agency stated, "The fact that 14 per-
cent of the dealerships surveyed by GM received
requests for stopping distance information in-
dicates that the information is being used by the
public and NHTSA is reluctant to curtail the
amount of information available to the public when
that information is reliable and can be provided at
a reasonable cost." 48 FR 30167. *"
PART 575-PRE 146
All nine of the commenting vehicle manufac-
turers stated in their comments that the public had
shown little or no interest in stopping distance in-
formation. Most of these commenters questioned
the agency's interpretation of the GM dealer
survey, and suggested that sales-weighting of the
survey results would show that very few consumers
requested the information. GM stated that by ad-
justing the requests received by the number of
potential purchasers passing through each dealer-
ship, NHTSA would conclude that less than 1/10
of 1 percent of prospective purchasers had re-
quested stopping distance information. Volks-
wagen raised the same point in its comments.
Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. (Suzuki) provided a survey
of 50 of its dealerships in its comments. Suzuki's
survey showed that 30 of 50 dealers had no re-
quests for the information, 13 of 50 had one per-
cent or fewer of their customers ask for stopping
distance information, 4 dealers had 5 percent of
their customers ask for the information, and 3
dealers said that 10 percent of their customers
asked for stopping distance information.
Admittedly, the GM and Suzuki surveys, as well
as the agency's own research of this topic, show
that most consumers do not request stopping
distance information from dealers. However,
NHTSA does not believe that consumer informa-
tion requirements need to be justified by a majority
vote of consumers. If majority use of information
were the test, it seems likely that few, if any, con-
sumer information requirements could pass this
test. For instance, whether or not most consumers
read the list of ingredients on processed food, the
point of that consumer information requirement,
as is the case for the stopping distance information
requirements, is to permit those consumers that
choose to do so to obtain useful comparative infor-
mation on different products before deciding which
of the products to purchase. The surveys submitted
by the commenters and the agency's own research
indicate that some consumers do use the informa-
tion in this manner. The agency believes this
number is not insignificant. NHTSA believes it
would be inappropriate to curtail the amount of in-
formation available to these consumers simply
because other consumers do not use this informa-
tion when making their purchase decisions.
American Motors Corporation commented that
there was no evidence that stopping distance in-
formation was actually used by consumers in
making the purchase decision. Mercedes-Benz com-
mented that it was doubtful that stopping distance
information would be a decisive criterion for a con-
sumer in choosing a particular car. As noted above,
the agency's consumer research indicated that a
small minority of consumers are interested in stop-
ping distance information. Some consumers
asserted that stopping distance information could
be used as an indicator for assessing the car as a
whole, while others perceived stopping distance in-
formation as crucial iriformation all by itself. These
research findings do not directly contradict the
assertions of either commenter. However, the find-
ings do indicate that some consumers are in-
terested in stopping distance information and that
the information would be useful to those consumers
when making their purchase decisions. Since this
is the reason for requiring the information to be
made available, NHTSA is not persuaded by the
manufacturers' comments.
Several commenters stated that stopping
distance information as currently reported is not
useful to consumers. Volkswagen stated that the
example offered in the NPRM of the differing
reported stopping distances for the three largest
U.S. automakers illustrated why the stopping
distance information was not useful to consumers.
The NPRM noted that the 1982 stopping distances
reported by Ford and Chrysler showed that all of
their domestically produced vehicles stop at exactly
the maximum distance permitted by Standard No.
105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR §571.105),
while GM reported that its vehicles stopped on
average in about 5 percent less than the maximum
permissible distance.
First, Volkswagen stated its doubts that both
Ford and Chrysler build all of their cars to stop
exactly at the limit prescribed by Standard No.
105. Instead, Volkswagen stated that the reported
stopping distances do not reflect the actual
performance of the vehicles, but are "very con-
servative estimates." Volkswagen stated that the
companies have a very strong incentive to over-
state the actual stopping distances, so as to
minimize consumer complaints that the car does
not perform up to expectations. By being "con-
servative," Volkswagen stated that the manufac-
turers avoid consumer complaints, but also dilute
the usefulness of the stopping distance information
for comparative purposes. Hence, Volkswagen con-
cluded that the requirement to provide stopping
distance information should be rescinded
altogether.
NHTSA does not agree with Volkswagen's
premise that most manufacturers will follow this
practice of reporting conservative estimates. For
1986, Ford and Chrysler were the only manufac-
turers that reported that their vehicles stopped at
the limit specified in Standard No. 105. The other
16 manufacturers reported some value under that
limit. Additionally, two manufacturers have in-
PART 575-PRE 147
eluded stopping distance information in some of
their television advertising during the past two
years. This indicates either that those manufac-
turers believe that stopping distance information
is an aspect of vehicle performance in which some
consumers are interested or that stopping distance
is indicative of the image they are trying to achieve
for their vehicles. In either case, the advertising
strategy of these manufacturers uses stopping
distance information to distinguish the perform-
ance of one vehicle from another to try to influence
consumers. Thus, no matter how plausible the
Volkswagen premise sounds, it is simply not borne
out by the facts.
Even if the premise were true, it is not clear to
the agency why the commenter concluded that the
requirement to report stopping distance informa-
tion should be rescinded for all manufacturers,
since some manufacturers have chosen not to
report useful stopping distance information. To the
contrary, it seems more responsible to conclude
that some steps should be taken to encourage all
manufacturers to report more representative stop-
ping distance information. Indeed, it is possible
that the marketplace itself will force manufac-
turers to report more representative stopping
distance im'ormation, if the aforementioned adver-
tising campaigns are effective. Alternatively, the
agency could "market" the facts about stopping
distance: stopping distance is an important safety
attribute of a vehicle, not all comparable vehicles
perform equally, and good driving skills become
better when combined with better braking perform-
ance. By trv'ing to get all manufactui-ers to provide
more representative stopping distance information
to consumers, the agency would better achieve its
goal of informing consumers of performance dif-
ferences in cars. If the agency rescinded the stop-
ping distance requirements altogether, it would
have simply abandoned that goal.
The Automobile Club of Southern California
(ACSC) also directed its comments towards the
practice of some vehicle manufacturers just
publishing the limits allowed under Standard No.
105 as the stopping distance for all of their vehicles.
ACSC commented that disseminating such infor-
mation is not useful to consumers, and recom-
mended that Standard No. 105 be reevaluated by
the agency to determine if the results obtained ac-
cording to Standard No. 105's test procedures are
sufficiently accurate and useful as probable indices
of the braking performance for the vehicles tested.
This comment was probably based on the erroneous
assumption that vehicle manufacturers are re-
quired to report the actual stopping distances
measured under Standard No. 105 as the stopping
distance information under Part 575. Instead, Part
575 requires only that vehicle manufacturers
report stopping distance values that can be met or
exceeded by the gi-oup of vehicles in question. Those
manufacturers that have chosen to report the
Standard No. 105 stopping distance limit for all
their vehicles have chosen a value that can be
exceeded by the overwhelming majority of vehicles.
If a regulatory change were chosen as the means
for addressing this problem, it could be accom-
plished by amending Part 575 without changing
the test procedures in Standard No. 105.
As stated earlier, Volkswagen commented on the
NPRM's example that the 1982 stopping distance
information reported by the three largest U.S. auto
manufacturers showed that two of the three
reported that all their vehicles stopped in the
maximum distance allowed by Standard No. 105,
while the other manufacturer reported that its
vehicles generally stopped in a distance that was
5 percent less than the maximum allowed under
Standard No. 105. According to Volkswagen, the
5 percent shorter stopping distance was "inconse-
quential" and "certainly not a good reason to
purchase a vehicle." This comment misunder-
stands the purpose of the consumer information
regulations. Under these regulations, manufac-
turers of new vehicles are required to provide con-
sumers with pertinent safety information about the
particular vehicles they might purchase. Thus,
whether or not a 5 percent stopping distance dif-
ference is a good reason to choose a particular vehi-
cle, it is a decision to be made by consumers and
making such information available to consumers
is the underlying purpose of the consumer infor-
mation regulations.
American Motors Corporation stated its opinion
that a consumer information program is not needed
for stopping distance, because Standard No. 105
already specifies performance requirements for
vehicle stopping distance. What is omitted from
this argument is that Standard No. 105. like all
of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards,
merely establishes minimum levels of performance
necessary for safe operation of vehicles on the
public roads. The amount by which a vehicle
exceeds those minimum levels, if any. is still rele-
vant and useful information for consumers contem-
plating the purchase of that vehicle. Therefore,
NHTSA does not find this argument persuasive.
After considering all the comments received, this
agency has decided to amend Part 575 to incor-
porate the proposed actions with respect to the
dissemination of stopping distance information.
Vehicle manufacturers are no longer required to
provide stopping distance information to the first
PART 575-PRE 148
purchasers of new vehicles at the time of delivery
of the vehicle. As noted in the NPRM, the purpose
of requiring the dissemination of the stopping
distance information is to provide consumers with
relevant safety information on the different vehi-
cle models they are considering purchasing. Re-
quiring such information to be provided to con-
sumers after they have just purchased a new vehi-
cle does not serve this puipose. As explained at the
beginning of this preamble, NHTSA is unaware of
any other purpose that would be served by
providing stopping distance information to con-
sumers after they have purchased a new vehicle.
No commenters disagreed with this proposed deter-
mination, or suggested some purpose that would
be served by providing stopping distance informa-
tion after a consumer has purchased a new vehicle.
On the other hand, the agency believes that the
requirements to disseminate stopping distance in-
formation to each dealer and to this agency could
serve the above-described intended purpose. More-
over, this purpose can be served while imposing
minimal burden and cost on the vehicle
manufacturers.
The National Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA) indicated its support for the changes pro-
posed in the NPRM. However, NADA asked that,
in conjunction with the proposed amendments, the
agency retain the requirements that manufac-
turers provide the stopping distance information
to dealers free of charge and in sufficient quantity.
NHTSA did not propose to amend those re-
quirements, and has not changed them in this rule.
Therefore, this rule will not result in any increase
in burden for the dealers.
The NPRM asked for comments on the desir-
ability of requiring the stopping distance informa-
tion to be permanently labeled on vehicles, so as
to ensure its availability for subsequent purchasers
of the vehicles. One commenter, an individual, sup-
ported this idea, stating that it was "obvious that
labels with stopping distance information would be
best for consumers."
All of the other commenters that addressed this
topic opposed the idea for a number of reasons. The
motorcycle manufacturers stated that there is
almost no place to put another label on a motor-
cycle. They believed that if stopping distance in-
formation requirements were to be retained for
first purchasers, the manufacturers should be
allowed to continue printing it in the owner's
manuals. Several passenger car manufacturers
stated that proper maintenance of the vehicle was
a far more significant factor in a vehicle's braking
performance for subsequent purchasers than was
its braking performance when it was delivered to
the first purchaser. GM commented that requiring
permanent labels to disseminate stopping distance
information would cost manufacturers twice as
much as requiring the information to appear in
owner's manuals.
The agency sought comments on this topic to
learn if there was an effective and inexpensive way
to make stopping distance information available
to prospective purchasers of used vehicles, in the
same way that such information is available to pro-
spective purchasers of new vehicles. If the infor-
mation could be used for comparative purposes by
persons shopping for a used car, NHTSA was con-
sidering proposing a requirement that stopping
distance information be permanently affixed to
new vehicles.
However, the agency agrees with the comments
stating that maintenance of a particular vehicle
would have the greatest impact on that particular
vehicle's braking performance. This gives rise to
the possibility that subsequent purchasers could
be misled by the stopping distance information
labeled on a vehicle. For instance, a vehicle with
very good braking performance when it was new
may subsequently exhibit very poor braking per-
formance because of inadequate maintenance by
the owner. A person purchasing the vehicle might
be led to believe that the braking performance was
still very good, because of the stopping distance
label. NHTSA believes that any labeling require-
ment for stopping distance information would give
rise to this potential misuse. Accordingly, the
agency has no plans to propose adopting a stopping
distance labeling requirement.
As explained above, the agency has concluded
that no purpose was served by the requirement
that vehicle manufacturers provide first pur-
chasers with stopping distance information at the
time of delivery of the new vehicle. The amend-
ment made by this rule will relieve vehicle
manufacturers of this unnecessary restriction,
without lessening the information available to
potential purchasers before they make a final pur-
chase decision. Accordingly, the agency finds for
good cause that this final rule should become
effective immediately upon publication in the
Federal Register, instead of 30 days after publica-
tion as is generally required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part
575 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 575 is revised
to read as set forth below and the authority sections
following §§575.6, 575.7, and 575.104 are removed.
AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407, 1421,
and 1423; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
PART 575-PRE 149
§575.6 Requirements.
(a) At the time a motor vehicle is deUvered to the
hrst purchaser for purposes other than resale, the
manufacturer of that vehicle shall provide to the
purchaser, m writing and in the English lanmiaee ^
the information specified in §§575.103 and 575 104 ^T^ ^- ^^^^^
of this part that is applicable to that vehicle and Administrator
Its tires. »„ ^ „
52 F.R. 27806
July 24, 1987
PART 575-PRE 150
t
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575
Consumer Information Regulations
(Docket 88-04; Notice 2)
ACTION: Final rule
SUMMARY: This notice amends Standard No. 109,
New Pneumatic Tires, to include an additional max-
imum inflation pressure, 340 kPa, in the Standard.
Before the effective date of this rule, the Standard re-
quires that the maximum permissible inflation
pressure for each tire must be either 32, 36, 40 or 60
psi, or 240, 280 or 300 kPa. The European Tyre and
Rim Technical Organization (E.T.R.T.O.) submitted
a petition for rulemaking requesting the inclusion of
the 340 kPa pressure. After evaluating the petition
and comments on the proposal, NHTSA has decided
to include 340 kPa as a permissible inflation pressure.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1988
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Until the effec
tive date of this rule. Standard No. 109, New
Pneumatic Tires, requires that the maximum per-
missible inflation pressure for each tire must be 32,
36, 40 or 60 psi, or 240, 280 or 300 kPa. The standard
specifies differing test criteria depending upon the
maximum permissible inflation pressure.
The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organiza-
tion (E.T.R.T.O.) submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting the inclusion of an additional inflation
pressure, 340 kPa, in Standard No. 109. The peti-
tioner stated that its members are receiving requests
with increasing frequency from vehicle manufac-
turers for reinforced tires at an inflation pressure
higher than 300 kPa, for purposes of safety and op-
timum vehicle handling. The requests for these tires
are primarily for station wagons. E.T.R.T.O. re-
quested that a pressure of 340 kPa be added, so that
the standard inflation pressure for reinforced tires
(280 kPa) can be increased for special performance re-
quirements with no increase in tire load capacity.
On January 18, 1988, NHTSA published a notice
of proposed rulemaking to allow a new maximum per-
missible tire inflation pressure. (53 FR 936.) NHTSA
addressed petitions raising almost identical issues in
1978. As discussed in the January 18, proposal, the
300 kPa maximum pressure for non-reinforced tires
was added to the standard in response to those peti-
tions. The relationship of the 300 kPa non-reinforced
tire to the standard inflation pressure (240 kPa) non-
reinforced tire is analogous to that of the 340 kPa
reinforced tire to the 280 kPa reinforced tire. Thus,
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the 340 kPa tire
pressure should be added to Standard No. 109 for the
same reasons the 300 kPa pressure was added. The
agency explained its reason in detail in the January
18 proposal.
The agency received comments from Chrysler
Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation,
General Tire, and Volkswagen of America. Each com-
menter endorsed the proposal. NHTSA is adopting the
proposed changes for the reasons expressed in the
proposal.
Further, the agency is issuing a conforming amend-
ment to Table 1, 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform Tire Qual-
ity Grading Standards, to set out the 340 kPa max-
imum permissible inflation pressure. The agency in-
advertently neglected to propose the Table 1 amend-
ment when NHTSA issued the proposed rule. Without
such an amendment, NHTSA could not conduct com-
pliance testing for UTQGS of tires with a 340 kPa
maximum inflation pressure. The agency finds that
there is good cause for amending Table 1 without
notice and comment because the amendment adds no
new substantive requirement for tires with a 340 kPa
maximum inflation pressure.
The agency finds that there is good cause for mak-
ing this final rule effective in less than 180 days
because the amendment relieves a restriction, and
permits the sale of tires that can provide better per-
formance without any negative impact on safety.
Impact Assessments
The agency has analyzed this proposal and deter-
mined 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
do not impose new requirements for current tires, but
instead permit a new category of tire. Since the new
tires can provide better performance, the amend-
ments will result in consumer benefits.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on
PART 575-PRE 151
small entities. I certify that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The agency believes that
few of the tire manufacturers qualify as small
businesses. Any tire manufacturers that do qualify
as small businesses might benefit to a small extent
by being permitted to produce these new tires. Small
non-profit organizations and small governmental
units are affected by the final rule only to the extent
that they purchase motor vehicles. These small en-
tities may benefit to a small extent if they purchase
vehicles with these new tires.
The agency has analyzed this action under prin-
ciples and criteria of Executive Order 12612, and has
determined that this final rule does not have suffi-
cient Federalism implications to warrant preparing
a Federalism Assessment.
Finally, the agency has considered the environmen-
tal implications of this proposed rule in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and determined that the rule does not have any
significant impact on the human environment.
PART 571-lAMENDED]
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Parts 571
and 575 are amended as follows:
Section 571.109 [Amended]
S4.2.1(b) is revised to read as follows:
(b) Its maximum permissible inflation pressure
shall be either 32, 36, 40 or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 300
or 340 kPa.
S4.2.2.2 is revised to read as follows:
S4.2.2.2 Physical dimensions. The actual section
width and overall width for each tire measured in ac-
cordance with S5.1, shall not exceed the section width
specified in a submission made by an individual
manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4.1(a) or in one of the
publications described in S4.4.1(b) for its size designa-
tion and type by more than:
(1) (For tires with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 32, 36, or 40 psi) 7 percent, or
(2) (For tires with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 60 psi or 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa) 7 per-
cent or 0.4 inch, whichever is larger.
S4.3.4 is revised to read as follows:
S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire
is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then:
(a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pur-
suant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by
the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to
the next higher whole number; and
(b) Each marking of the tire's maximum load rating
pursuant to S4.3(c) in kilograms shall be followed in
parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds,
rounded to the nearest whole number.
Tables I-A, I-B and I-C of Appendix A are revised
to read as follows:
Table II of Appendix A is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 of PART 575 is amended to read as follows:
571.109-Appendix A
Table I-A For Bias Ply Tires With Designated Section Width of 6 Inches and Above
Cord Material
Maximum permissible inflation
32 lb/in=
36 Ib/in^
40 Ib/in^
240 kPa
280 kPa
300 kPa
340 kPa
Rayon (in-lbs)
1,650
2,600
2,574
3,900
3,300
5,200
1,650
2,600
3,300
5,200
1,650
2,600
3,300
Nylon or polyester (in-lbs). . .
5,200
PART 575-PRE 152
571.109-Appendix A
Table IB For Bias Ply Tires With Designated Section Width Below 6 Inches
Cord Material
Maximum permissible inflation
32 Ib/in^
36 Ib/in^
40 lb/in'
240 kPa
280 kPa
300 kPa
340 kPa
Rayon (in-lbs)
1,000
1,950
1,875
2,925
2,500
3,900
1,000
1,950
2,500
3,900
1,000
1,950
2,500
Nylon or polyester (in-lbs). . .
3,900
571.109-Appendix A
Table I-C For Radial Ply Tires
Size Designation
Maximum permissible inflation
32 Ib/in^
36 Ib/in^
40 Ib/in^
240 kPa
280 kPa
300 kPa
340 kPa
Below 160 mm (in-lbs)
160 mm or above (in-lbs). . . .
1,950
2,600
2,925
3,900
3,900
5,200
1,950
2,600
3,900
5,200
1,950
2,600
3,900
5,200
571.109-Appendix A
Table II— Test Inflation Pressures
Maximum permissible
inflation pressure
32 Ib/in^
36 Ib/in^
40 lb/in='
60 Ib/in^
240 kPa
280 kPa
300 kPa
340 kPa
Pressure to be used in
tests for physical
dimensions, bead
unseating, tire
strength, and tire
endurance
24
28
32
52
180
220
180
220
Pressure to be used in
test for high-speed
performance
30
34
38
59
220
260
220
260
Issued on May 11, 1988
PART 575-PRE 153-54
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
53 F.R. 17950
May 19, 1988
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 575— CONSUMER INFORMATION
Vehicle Owner's Manual
(Docket No. 88-13; Notice 2)
RIN 2127-AC72
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Consumer
Information xtegulations to require vehicle manufac-
turers to include information in the owner's manual
for each vehicle about NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety
Hotline and its defect investigation and remedy and
recall authority. This requirement will allow
NHTSA to obtain more information, more expedi-
tiously about potential safety-related defects and
noncompliances with safety standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 26, 1987, Motor Voters, a consumer organ-
ization interested in motor vehicle safety, petitioned
the agency to require manufacturers of passenger
vehicles to include information about NHTSA in the
vehicle owners' manuals. Specifically, the petitioner
requested that the agency require information ad-
vising owners about NHTSA's safety defect author-
ity and urging them to contact the agency about
potential safety defects in their vehicles. To facilitate
contacting the agency, the petitioner requested that
the agency require manufacturers to include the
toll-free telephone number of the Auto Safety Hot-
line and the agency's address. The petitioner sug-
gested that the message explain that while the
agency has authority to investigate defects and
order recall and remedy campaigns, it does not
become directly involved in the dealings of a partic-
ular consumer with a manufacturer of a motor
vehicle regarding a defect in that vehicle.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to the petition, on November 10, 1988,
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing to amend title 49 CFR Part 575,
Consumer Information Regulations. (53 PR 45527).
The NPRM explained that the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act." 15
U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires manufacturers of motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to recall and
remedy vehicles and equipment that are determined
by the manufacturer or NHTSA to contain either a
safety-related defect or a failure to comply with a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under
the Vehicle Safety Act. The NPRM further noted
that the agency's most important source of data used
to identify defects which relate to motor vehicle
safety is the consumer complaints made by persons
calling the agency's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline. In
1987, the agency received 332,659 calls on the Hot-
line, of which 75 percent concerned alleged defects or
recall information. In addition, over 15,092 of these
Hotline callers followed by up completing and re-
turning to NHTSA detailed Vehicle Owner Ques-
tionnaires which were mailed by the agency to
callers reporting defects and seeking recall informa-
tion. The NPRM also noted that a longstanding
agency goal is to enhance publication of the Auto
Safety Hotline and to improve the process of getting
informat.on from consumers about potential safety
defects. The NPRM explained the agency's plans to
publicize the Hotline through public service an-
nouncements in the media, through consumer and
corporate safety offices, in telephone books, and
through programs with State transportation agencies.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the inclusion
of the requested information in each owner's manual
would be an important addition to NHTSA's public
information campaign to increase consumer aware-
ness of the Hotline and the agency's efforts to
strengthen its defect investigation activities. The
agency stated its tentative belief that including the
Hotline number in owners' manuals would put that
number in the hands of millions of motor vehicle
purchasers at virtually no additional cost. Moreover,
the NPRM noted that since owners typically refer to
their manuals periodically throughout the owner-
ship of their vehicles, especially when they are
experiencing vehicle problems, the Hotline number
printed in the manuals would be seen many times.
The agency stated that inclusion of the Hotline
number in manuals would be particularly important
for new car owners, since it would produce a higher
volume of calls about potential safety defects earlier
in a vehicle's life. The agency believed that this
PART 575; PRE 155
would be particularly important to detect defects in
newly introduced models.
The NPRM accordingly proposed to amend section
575.6 of the Consumer Information Regulations to
require motor vehicle manufacturers to include in-
formation about NHTSA's recall and remedy author-
ity and about the Auto Safety Hotline in the owner's
manual. The agency proposed requiring that all new
motor vehicles, not just "passenger vehicles," be
subject to the proposed amendment. The agency
explained that facilitating owner reporting of poten-
tial safety defects would be important for all types of
motor vehicles. The agency also made minor
changes in the information requirements requested
in the petition.
The proposed amendment required a manufac-
turer to state in each owner's manual that consum-
ers may contact NHTSA if they believe that their
vehicle contains a safety defect. The proposed
amendment also required that the manuals include
the toll-free Hotline telephone number and agency
address. Finally, the proposed amendment required
that manufacturers include in the manuals a state-
ment about the agency's authority to order a safety
recall if it finds that a safety defect exists in a group
of vehicles.
Comments and The Agency's Response
NHTSA received 24 comments in response to the
NPRM. Commenters included 15 automotive manu-
facturers and automotive affiliates; four academic,
medical, and insurance groups; and five consumers
and consumer organizations. The agency considered
all these comments in developing this final rule.
General Comments
American Honda, American Insurance Associa-
tion (AIA), Cagiva Motorcycle of North America,
Children's Mercy Hospital, the National Consumers
League (NCL), the University of Maryland's Center
for Business and Public Policy, US Public Interest
Research Group ("US Pirg"), and several citizens
favored the proposal. US Pirg stated that the pro-
posal would be a cost-effective and efficient way to
improve consumer awareness of the Hotline. NCL
commented that this measure would further the
agency's need to receive information about safety
defects so that the agency can protect the consumer.
On the other hand, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors
(GM), General Tire, Mercedes, Michelin, the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), the
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA),
Navistar, Volkswagen and Volvo opposed the pro-
posal. NADA stated that there was no need for the
rule and suggested NHTSA reevaluate the proposal.
MVMA similarly commented that there was no
safety need for this requirement. Ford, Michelin,
MVMA, Chrysler, CJeneral Tire, GM, and Volkswa-
gen elaborated that the proposal was unnecessary,
might adversely affect customer manufacturer rela-
tions, delay corrective action, and overburden the
agency's resources to respond to calls. Mercedes
stated that the proposal would give consumers the
false impression that they could receive immediate
action related to their problems and that resolution
of the problem would be delayed. Volvo commented
that the rule would not be in the best interests of the
vehicle owners, who would be better served by con-
tacting the manufacturer rather than NHTSA.
Upon considering these comments in light of cur-
rent trends in consumer awareness, NHTSA con-
cludes that the benefits of increasing the availability
of information about consumer remedies support the
inclusion of information about the agency in the
owner's manuals. Calls to the Hotline decreased
from about 332,000 in 1987 to 252,000 in 1988, a
reduction of about 24 percent. In turn, receipt of
Vehicle Owner's Questionnaires decreased from
about 15,000 in 1987 to about 12,000 in 1988. The
agency believes that this new information will in-
crease consumer awareness about the Hotline and
the agency's defect investigation activities, espe-
cially for newly introduced models, and thus will
improve the agency's information about potential
safety defects and noncompliances. The agency is
accordingly adopting the proposals. The increased
dissemination of information about NHTSA will
enable the agency to identify, investigate, and re-
solve potential problems more rapidly, because the
agency will have a more extensive and more timely
data base for analyzing owners' experiences with a
given problem.
Chrysler, MVMA, and Volkswagen disagreed with
the statement in the NPRM that the Hotline was the
agency's most important source of data used to
identify safety-related defects. Although the com-
menters are correct in noting that many recalls are
initiated by manufacturers based on their own tests
and field evaluations, the statement referred to
NHTSA's own investigations, which continue to in-
fluence a high percentage of the total vehicles re-
called and which rely heavily on consumer contacts
through the Hotline.
Message's Language
The NPRM proposed to require the following mes-
sage in the owner's manual:
If you believe that a vehicle or item of motor
vehicle equipment (such as tires, lamps, etc.)
has a potential safety-related defect, you may
notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration (NHTSA). You may either call toll
free at 800-424-9393 (or 366-0123 in Washing-
ton, D.C.) or write Administrator, NHTSA, 400
PART 575; PRE 156
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590.
NHTSA investigates alleged safety-related de-
fects and may order a recall and remedy cam-
paign if it finds that a safety defect exists in a
group of vehicles and the manufacturer does not
voluntarily conduct a recall and remedy cam-
paign. However, NHTSA does not become di-
rectly involved in the dealings between a partic-
ular consumer and a vehicle manufacturer
regarding a defect in the consumer's vehicle.
Mercedes and other manufacturers commented
that this proposed language would hinder their
relationship with their customers by delaying the
correction of vehicle problems and by providing the
unrealistic expectation that NHTSA can remedy the
problem. According to these commenters, a con-
sumer should contact the manufacturer before con-
tacting the agency because the manufactvu-er is in a
better position to actually remedy a safety related
defect.
In response to this comment, NHTSA iterates that
requiring this message will help to publicize the
Auto Safety Hotline and NHTSA's related activities.
The agency believes that NHTSA might lose valu-
able information from owners if the message did not
initially focus on the agency's information collection
responsibilities. For instance, in order for NHTSA to
react quickly to reports of a defect trend, it is
necessary for the agency to receive the information
as soon as possible. The agency believes that this
invitation for early consumer communication to
NHTSA will also encourage manufacturers to act
quickly to address consumer concerns. The agency
further notes that even if NHTSA is contacted first,
a manufacturer still will become aware of a problem
because the agency will notify them about these
complaints.
NHTSA nevertheless agrees with the commenters
that the public should be instructed to also contact
the manufacturer. Therefore, the agency has revised
the message to state that a consumer should also
contact the manufacturer or its designate (e.g., its
authorized dealer) to resolve safety-related or other
problems with the vehicle. In addition, the final rule
explains NHTSA's authority and limitations more
clearly. NHTSA believes that these modifications
will increase the effectiveness of the message.
The agency emphasizes that NHTSA's message is
mandatory, and thus a manufacturer cannot modify
or otherwise vary it. Nevertheless, the agency notes
that a manufacturer may place additional language
elsewhere in the owner's manual encouraging a
vehicle owner to contact them, provided that this
additional information is not included in the mes-
sage required by NHTSA and does not otherwise
dilute the content of the required message.
GM suggested that the message be written in a
"plain English" style. After reexamining the propos-
al's wording, NHTSA agrees with GM that to in-
crease the final rule's effectiveness, the message
should be written in an easily understood style.
Accordingly, the final rule adopts more simplified
wording whenever such wording does not misstate
the legalities or realities of NHTSA's defect investi-
gation and recall and remedy program.
Volkswagen commented that listing examples of
equipment would result in consumers overreporting
those items of equipment. In response to this com-
ment, NHTSA has decided to eliminate these exam-
ples in the required message. The agency agrees
with Volkswagen that including examples might
bias the reporting and thus provide an inaccurate
record of overall complaints about equipment. Ac-
cordingly, the final rule deletes reference to "tires,
lamps, etc."
Several commenters noted that the proposed mes-
sage should include more information than the
NPRM proposed. The American Insurance Associa-
tion (AIA) and Gillis and Associates stated that the
final rule should contain information about other
NHTSA activities such as drunk driving and odom-
eter fraud. The NCL commented that NHTSA
should expand the message to inform consumers
that they should contact other consumer organiza-
tions such as the Better Business Bureau. NADA
suggested that the required message should state
that consumers should initially refer to the war-
ranty booklet's section concerning dispute resolu-
tion and then contact the manufacturer.
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has de-
cided to include a general statement that a con-
sumer can "get other information about motor vehi-
cle safety from the Hotline." Nevertheless, the
agency believes that the final rule should not in-
clude detailed information about NHTSA's other
consumer protection matters. The agency notes that
the principal purpose of this rule is to disseminate
information about the Auto Safety Hotline and
NHTSA's defect investigation authority which will
lead to the increased reporting of potential safety
defects and noncompliances with safety standards.
The agency further notes that the rule is not in-
tended as an all-encompassing source of consumer
information. NHTSA believes that if the message
were required to address all the agency's activities
and consumer protection, then the most important
information about this rulemaking (the Hotline and
NHTSA's defect investigation authority) would be
obscured.
The agency notes that upon contacting the Auto
Safety Hotline, the caller will receive information about
NHTSA's other activities. As for consiuner protection
information (e.g., warranty information), NHTSA notes
PART 575; PRE 157
that this type of activity is beyond the agency's statutory
mandate.
Applicability of Requirement
Motor Voter's petition requested that NHTSA re-
quire "passenger vehicle manufacturers" to include
information about the Hotline and the agency's
defect investigation authority. The NPRM expanded
the applicability of this requirement to "all new
motor vehicles," reasoning that "facilitating owner
reporting of potential safety defects is important for
all types of motor vehicles."
US Pirg agreed with NHTSA's decision to expand
the requirement's applicability to all motor vehicles.
The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
(TTMA) commented that the rule would create prob-
lems for small truck trailer manufacturers, some of
which currently do not provide an owner's manual.
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA con-
cludes that the final rule should be applicable to all
motor vehicles, because any vehicle type may expe-
rience a safety-related defect. However, to accommo-
date a manufacturer that does not provide an
"owner's manual," as defined in section 572.2(c) of
the final rule, the rule provides that the manufac-
turer may provide the information in a separate
one-page document to be included with the sales
documents. In other words, a manufacturer must
include the required information in the owner's
manual if it provides one, or in a separate document
if it provides no manual.
Placement of Information
The NADA suggested that a manufacturer be
given the option of including the required informa-
tion in the warranty booklet rather than in the
owner's manual, claiming that consumers would
more likely look in the warranty booklet for assis-
tance with defect matters. GM stated that the man-
ufacturer was in the best position to determine
placement of the required information, suggesting
that this information be placed in its "Warranty and
Owner Assistance Information" booklet. GM stated
that a manufacturer should not be required to place
this information in the owner's manual.
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has de-
termined that the manufacturer must include this
information in the owner's manual. The agency
believes that requiring the information to be placed
in the owner's manual will promote uniformity
among manufacturers. In addition, NHTSA notes
that placing the information in the warranty book
would be less effective because the warranty lasts for
a finite time (often much less than the life of the
vehicle), after which a vehicle owner would have
little reason to retain the book. In contrast, many
manufacturers state in the owner's manual that this
document should stay with the vehicle for its life,
even if it is sold. Thus, it is more likely that a vehicle's
owner or owners will retain the owner's manual for a
longer time period than the warranty booklet. The
agency notes that a manufacturer may place this
information in any additional document provided that
it includes this information in the owner's manual.
The agency is aware that manufacturers refer to
such documents by many terms, including "Owner's
Guide," "Owner's Handbook," or "Operating In-
structions." Accordingly, the final rule expressly
defines an "owner's manual" in section 575.2(c) as
"the document which contains the manufacturer's
comprehensive vehicle operating [and maintenance]
instructions, and which is intended to remain with
the vehicle for the life of the vehicle."
Several organizations commented about the place-
ment of this information within the owner's manual.
Volvo Truck stated that a manufacturer should have
discretion about where it places the information.
Volkswagen stated that this information be placed
near the information on customer assistance. Gillis
and the Center for Business and Policy did not
suggest a specific location in the manual but noted
that the agency should require that a manufacturer
refer to it in the table of contents. US Pirg suggested
that the agency require the information to be placed
in a prominent location such as the front or back
cover to prevent a manufacturer from "bury(ing)" it.
NCL stated that the agency should specify the
location to reduce reporting discrepancies. It sug-
gested in order of preference that the information be
placed opposite the first page of the table of contents,
on the inside front cover, in the text preceding the
maintenance schedule, or on the inside back cover.
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA agrees
with Volvo Truck that a manufacturer should be given
discretion about where it places the information. The
agency believes that requiring the table of contents to
include reference to the Hotline will adequately en-
sure that vehicle owner's will see this information.
Accordingly, section 575.6(aX2)(B) of the final rule also
requires that the table of contents in the owner's
manual specify the location of the information about
NHTSA. In particular, the heading must be entitled
"Reporting Safety Defects" and include the corre-
sponding page number to effectively alert consumers
and to provide uniformity as to the heading.
Two commenters offered their views on the type
size. Volvo GM Heavy Truck requested that the type
size be left to the manufacturer's discretion. NCL
commented that the rule should specify a minimum
point size for the type. It further stated that NHTSA
should specify a minimum amount of space not less
than one-half page for this information.
NHTSA has concluded that to be easily readable
the required message must be written in letters and
PART 575; PRE 158
numbers not smaller than 10 point type, and has
incorporated that requirement in the final rule. The
agency notes that the point type size is consistent
with the labeling requirements in S5.5.2 of Standard
No. 213. The agency concludes that it is superfluous
to specify a minimum page length because the final
rule specifies the type size and the message itself.
Effective Date
The NPRM proposed that the rule would become
effective "180 days after the publication of the final
rule." Several manufacturers requested that the
effective date coincide with the start of the model
year to avoid unnecessary costs that would result in
reprinting manuals during the middle of a model
year. American Honda suggested that the effective
date coincide with the change in model year. Volvo
GM Heavy Truck requested that the effective date be
changed to "January 1, or at the option of the
manufacturer, the time of model year change-over."
Cagiva, which changes its motorcycle models every
two to four years, requested an effective date that
would "allow us adequate lead time to incorporate
the regulatory language" at the start of its model
run. Chrysler recommended an effective date of the
"first day of September occurring 180 days after
publication of the final rule." Navistar requested an
effective date of 270 days after the final rule's
publication. US Pirg noted that the agency should
"act promptly."
After reviewing these comments, NHTSA deter-
mines that the effective date will be September 1,
1990, which typically is the beginning of a model
year for most vehicles. The agency believes that this
effective date will allow the timely inclusion of this
information at little or no cost to the manufacturers.
Cagiva requested that the final rule allow it to
exhaust its supply of already printed manuals, ex-
plaining that its model runs may extend up to four
years. A manufacturer whose models run for more
than one year may comply with the final rule by
placing an add-on-sticker on its existing manuals,
until this supply is exhausted. The agency believes
that this will ensure that consumers receive the
information while minimizing the costs related to
this rule for manufacturers like Cagiva.
Section 575.2(c) is amended by adding the follow-
ing definition of "Owner's manual" after the defini-
tion for "Maximum loaded vehicle weight" and
before the definition for "Skid number":
operating and maintenance instructions, and which
is intended to remain with the vehicle for the life of
the vehicle.
Section 575.6(a) is revised by redesignating the
existing language as Section 575.6(aXl), and adding
a new Section 575.6(aX2), to read as follows:
§575.6 Requirements.
(aXl) * * *
(2XA) At the time a motor vehicle manufactured
on or after September 1, 1990 is delivered to the first
purchaser for purposes other than resale, the man-
ufacturer shall provide to the purchaser, in writing
in the English language and not less than 10 point
type, the following statement in the owner's man-
ual, or, if there is no owner's manual, on a one-page
document:
"If you believe that your vehicle has a defect
which could cause a crash or could cause injury
or death, you should immediately inform the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion (NHTSA) in addition to notifying [INSERT
NAME OF MANUFACTURER].
If NHTSA receives similar complaints, it may
open an investigation, and if it finds that a
safety defect exists in a group of vehicles, it may
order a recall and remedy campaign. However,
NHTSA cannot become involved in individual
problems between you, your dealer, or [INSERT
NAME OF MANUFACTURER.]
Tb contact NHTSA, you may either call the Auto
Safety Hotline toll-free at 1-800-424-9393 (or
366-0123 in the Washington D.C. area) or write
to: NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C. 20590. You can also obtain
other information about motor vehicle safety
from the Hotline."
(2XB) The manufacturer shall specify in the table
of contents of the owner's manual the location of the
statement in 575.6(aX2XA). The heading in the table
of contents shall state "Reporting Safety Defects."
Issued on: November 21, 1989
(c) Definitions used in this part.
"Owner's manual" means the document which
contains the manufacturer's comprehensive vehicle
Jeffrey R. Miller
Acting Administrator
54 F.R. 48745
November 27, 1989
PART 575; PRE 159-160
^
PART 575-CONSUMER INFORMATION
SUBPART A— GENERAL
§ 575.1 Scope.
This part contains Federal Motor Vehicle Con-
sumer Information Regulations established under
section 112(d) of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1401(d))
(hereinafter "the Act").
§ 575.2 Definitions.
(a) Statutory definitions. All terms used in this
part that are defined in section 102 of the Act are
used as defined in the Act.
(b) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard definitions.
Unless otherwise indicated, all terms used in this
part that are defined in the Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, Part 571 of this subchapter (herein-
after "The Standards") are used as defined in the
Standards without regard to the applicability of a
standard in which a definition is contained.
(c) Definitions used in this part.
"Brake power unit" means a device installed in a
brake system that provides the energy required to
actuate the brakes, either directly or indirectly
through an auxiliary device, with the operator
action consisting only of modulating the energy
application level.
"Lightly loaded vehicle weight" means—
(1) For a passenger car, unloaded vehicle
weight plus 300 pounds (including driver and
instrumentation), with the added weight
distributed in the front seat area.
(2) For a motorcycle, unloaded vehicle weight
plus 200 pounds (including driver and instrumen-
tation), with added weight distributed on the
saddle and in saddle bags or other carrier.
"Maximum loaded vehicle weight" is used as
defined in Standard No. 110.
"Maximum sustained vehicle speed" means
that speed attainable by accelerating at
maximum rate from a standing start for 1 mile.
["Owner's manual" means the document which
contains the manufacturer's comprehensive vehi-
cle operating and maintenance instructions,
and which is intended to remain with the vehicle
for the life of the vehicle. 54 F.R. 48745— November
27, 1989. Effective: September 1, 1990).J
"Skid number" means the frictional resistance
measured in accordance with American Society for
Testing and Materials Method E-274 at 40 miles
per hour, omitting water delivery as specified in
paragraph 7.1 of that Method.
§ 575.3 Matter incorporated by reference.
The incorporation by reference provisions of
§ 571.5 of this subchapter applies to this part.
§ 575.4 Application.
(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) through (d) of this section, each section set forth
in Subpart B of this part applies according to its
terms to motor vehicles and tires manufactured
after the effective date indicated.
(b) Military vehicles. This part does not apply
to motor vehicles or tires sold directly to the
Armed Forces of the United States in conformity
with contractural specifications.
(c) Export. This part does not apply to motor
vehicles or tires intended solely for export and so
labeled or tagged.
(d) Import. This part does not apply to motor
vehicles or tires imported for purposes other than
resale.
§ 575.5 Separability.
If any section established in this part or its ap-
plication to any person or circumstances is held in-
valid, the remainder of the part and the application
of that section to other persons or circumstances is
not affected thereby.
(Rev. 11/27/89)
PART 575-1
§ 575.6 Requirements.
(a)(1) At the time a motor vehicle is delivered to
the first purchaser for purposes other than resale,
the manufacturer of that vehicle shall provide to
that purchaser, in writing and in the English
language, the information specified in §§ 575.103
and 575.104 of this part that is applicable to that
vehicle and its tires. The document provided with a
vehicle may contain more than one table, but the
document must either (1) clearly and uncondi-
tionally indicate which of the tables apply to the
vehicle with which it is provided, or (2) contain a
statement on its cover referring the reader to the
vehicle certification label for specific information
concerning which of the tables apply to that vehi-
cle. If the manufacturer chooses option (2), the
vehicle certification label shall include such specific
information.
Example 1: Manufacturer X furnishes a document
containing several tables, which apply to various
groups of vehicles that it produces. The document
contains the following notation on its front page:
"The information that applies to this vehicle is
contained in Table 5." The notation satisfies the re-
quirement.
Example 2: Manufacturer Y furnishes a document
containing several tables as in Example 1, with the
following notation on its front page:
Information applies as follows:
Model P. 6-cy Under engine— Table 1.
Model P. 8-cylinder engine— Table 2.
Model Q-Table 3.
This notation does not satisfy the requirement, since
it is conditioned on the model or the equipment of the
vehicle with which the document is furnished, and
therefore additional information is required to select
the proper table.
(b) At the time a motor vehicle tire is delivered
to the first purchaser for a purpose other than
resale, the manufacturer of that tire, or in the case
of a tire marketed under a brand name, the brand
name owner, shall provide to that purchaser the
information specified in Subpart B of this part that
is applicable to that tire.
(c) Each manufacturer of motor vehicles, each
brand name owner of tires, and each manufacturer
of tires for which there is no brand name owner
shall provide for examination by prospective
purchasers, at each location where its vehicles or
tires are offered for sale by a person with whom
the manufacturer or brand name owner has a con-
tractual, proprietary, or other legal relationship,
or by a person who has such a relationship with a
distributor of the manufacturer or brand name
owner concerning the vehicle or tire in question,
the information specified in Subpart B of this part
that is applicable to each of the vehicles or tires
offered for sale at that location. The information
shall be provided without charge and in sufficient
quantity to be available for retention by prospec-
tive purchasers or sent by mail to a prospective
purchaser upon his request. With respect to newly
introduced vehicles or tires, the information shall
be provided for examination by prospective
purchasers not later than the day on which the
This ligure indicates braking performance Ihat can be met or exceeded by the vehicles to which it applies, without locking the wheels, under diMerenl
conditions of loading and with partial failures of the braking system The intormation presented represents resufts obtainable by skifled drivers under
controlled road and vehicle conditions, and the information may not be correct under other conditions
Description of vehicfes to which this tatjie applies.
- - ■
A Fully Operational Service Brake Load
Light
Maximum
B Emergency Service Brakes (with Par-
tial Service Brake System Failure)
C Brake Power Unit Failure
Maximum Load
1 IK4
1 IM/
1 .i/tl
0 100 200 300 400 500
Slopping Distance in Feel from 60 inph.
FIGURE 1
PART 575-2
manufacturer or brand name owner first
authorizes those vehicles or tires to be put on
general public display and sold to consumers.
(d) (1) (i) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) (1) (ii) of this section in the case of all sections of
Subpart B, other than § 575.104, as they apply to
information submitted prior to new model intro-
duction, each manufacturer of motor vehicles shall
submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the infor-
mation specified in Subpart B of this part that is
applicable to the vehicles offered for sale, at least
90 days before it is first provided for examination
by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph
(c) of this section. (2) In the case of § 575.104, and
all other sections of Subpart B as they apply to
post-introduction changes in information sub-
mitted for the current model year, each manufac-
turer of motor vehicles, each brand name owner of
tires, and each manufacturer of tires for which
there is no brand name owner shall submit to the
Administrator 10 copies of the information
specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable
to the vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30
days before that information is first provided for
examination by prospective purchasers pursuant
to paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) Where an unforeseen pre-introduction
modification in vehicle design or equipment
results in a change in vehicle performance for a
characteristic included in Subpart B of this part,
a manufacturer of motor vehicles may revise in-
formation previously furnished under (d) (1) (i)
of this section by submission to the Admin-
istrator of 10 copies of revised information
reflecting the performance changes, at least 30
days before information on the subject vehicles
is first provided to prospective purchasers pur-
suant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) In the case of § 575.104, and all other sec-
tions of Subpart B as they apply to post-
introduction changes in information submitted
for the current model year, each manufacturer of
motor vehicles, each brand name owner of tires,
and each manufacturer of tires for which there is
no brand name owner shall submit to the Admin-
istrator 10 copies of the information specified in
Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the
vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days
before it is first provided for examination by pro-
spective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this session.
[(2)(A) At the time a motor vehicle manufatured
on or after September 1, 1990 is delivered to the
first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the
manufacturer shall provide to the purchaser, in
writing in the English language and not less than
10 point type, the following statement in the
owner's manual, or, if there is no owner's manual,
on a one-page document:
"If you believe that your vehicle has a defect
which could cause a crash or could cause injury or
death, you should immediately inform the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
in addition to notifying [INSERT NAME OF
MANUFACTURER].
If NHTSA receives similar complaints, it may
open an investigation, and if it finds that a safety
defect exists in a group of vehicles, it may order a
recall and remedy campaign. However, NHTSA
cannot become involved in individual problems be-
tween you, your dealer, or [INSERT NAME OF
MANUFACTURER.]
To contact NHTSA, you may either call the Auto
Safety Hotline toll-free at 1-800-424-9393 (or
366-0123 in the Washington D.C. area) or write to:
NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C. 20590. You can also obtain other
information about motor vehicle safety from the
Hotline.
(2)(B) The manufacturer shall specify in the
table of contents of the owner's manual the loca-
tion of the statement in 575.6(a)(2)(A). The heading
in the table of contents shall state "Reporting
Safety Defects." 54 F.R. 48745— November 27, 1989.
Effective: September 1, 1990)]
§ 575.7 Special vehicles.
A manufacturer who produces vehicles having a
configuration not available for purchase by the
general public need not make available to ineligible
purchasers, pursuant to § 575.6(c), the information
for those vehicles specified in Subpart B of this
part, and shall identify those vehicles when
furnishing the information required by § 575.6(d).
SUBPART B— CONSUMER INFORMATION ITEMS
§ 575.101 Vehicle stopping distance.
(a) Purpose and scope. This section requires
manufacturers of passenger cars and motorcycles
to provide information on vehicle stopping distances
(Rev. 11/27/89)
PART 575-3
under specified speed, brake, loading and pave-
ment conditions.
(b) Application. This section applies to
passenger cars and motorcycles manufactured on
or after January 1, 1970.
(c) Required information. Each manufacturer
shall furnish the information in (1) through (5)
below, in the form illustrated in Figure 1, except
that with respect to (2) and (3) below, a manufac-
turer whose total motor vehicle production does
not exceed 500 annually is only required to furnish
performance information for the loaded condition.
Each motorcycle in the group to which the infor-
mation applies shall be capable, under the condi-
tions specified in paragraph (d), and utilizing the
procedures specified in paragraph (e), of perform-
ing at least as well as the information indicates.
Each passenger car in the group to which the infor-
mation applies shall be capable of performing at
least as well as the information indicates, under
the test conditions and procedures specified in S6
and S7 of Standard No. 105-75 of this chapter (49
CFR 571.105-75) or, in the case of passenger cars
manufactured before January 1, 1977, and at the
option of the manufacturer, under the conditions
specified in paragraph (d) of this section and the
procedures specified in Paragraph (e) of this sec-
tion.
If a vehicle is unable to reach the speed of 60
miles per hour (mph), the maximum sustained vehi-
cle speed shall be substituted for the 60 mph speed
in the requirements specified below, and in the
presentation of information as in Figure 1, with an
asterisked notation in essentially the following
form at the bottom of the figure: "The maximum
speed attainable by accelerating at maximum rate
from a standing start for 1 mile." The weight re-
quirements indicated in paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and
(4) of this section are modified for the motorcycles
(and at the option of the manufacturer, in the case
of passenger cars manufactured before January 1,
1977) by the fuel tank condition specified in
paragraph (d) (4) of this section.
(1) Vehicle description. The group of vehicles
to which the table applies, identified in the terms
by which they are described to the public by the
manufacturer.
(2) Minimum stopping distance with fully
operational service brake system. The minimum
stopping distance attainable, expressed in feet.
from 60 mph, using the fully operational service
brake system—
(i) In the case of a motorcycle, at lightly
loaded and maximum loaded vehicle weight;
and
(ii) In the case of a passenger car, at lightly
loaded vehicle weight and at gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR), except for a passenger
car manufactured before January 1, 1977, and
tested, at the option of the manufacturer,
under the conditions and procedures of
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which
passenger car shall be tested at lightly loaded
vehicle weight and at maximum loaded vehicle
weight.
(3) Minimum stopping distance with partially
failed service brake system. (Applicable only to
passenger cars with more than one service brake
subsystem.) The minimum stopping distance at-
tainable using the service brake control, ex-
pressed in feet, from 60 mph, for the most
adverse combination of GVWR or lightly loaded
vehicle weight and partial failure as specified in
55.1.2 of Standard No. 105-75 of this chapter.
However, a passenger car manufactured before
January 1, 1977, and tested, at the option of the
manufacturer, under the conditions and pro-
cedures of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,
shall be tested at maximum loaded vehicle
weight instead of GVWR.
(4) Minimum stopping distance with in-
operative brake power assist unit or brake power
unit. (Applicable only to passenger cars equipped
with brake power assist unit or brake power
unit.) The minimum stopping distance, ex-
pressed in feet, from 60 mph, using the service
brake system, tested in accordance with the re-
quirements of S5.1.3 of Standard No. 105-75 of
this chapter. However, in the case of a passenger
car manufactured before Janaury 1, 1977, vehi-
cle loading may, at the option of the manufac-
turer, be maximum loaded vehicle weight in
place of the GVWR loading specified under
55.1.3 of Standard No. 105-75.
(5) Notice. The following notice: "This figure
indicates braking performance that can be met
or exceeded by the vehicles to which it applies,
without locking the wheels, under different
conditions of loading and with partial failures of
the braking system. The information presented
PART 575-4
represents results obtainable by skilled drivers
under controlled road and vehicle conditions, and
the information may not be correct under other
conditions."
(d) Conditions. The data provided in the format
of Figure 1 shall represent a level of performance
that can be equalled or exceeded by each vehicle in
the group to which the table applies, under the
following conditions, utilizing the procedures set
forth in (e) below:
(1) Stops are made without lock-up of any
wheel, except for momentary lock-up caused by
an automatic skid control device.
(2) The tire inflation pressure and other
relevant component adjustments of the vehicle
are made according to the manufacturer's
published recommendations.
(3) For passenger cars, brake pedal force does
not exceed 150 pounds for any brake application.
For motorcycles, hand brake lever force applied
1 V4 inches from the outer end of the lever does
not exceed 55 pounds, and foot brake pedal force
does not exceed 90 pounds.
(4) Fuel tank is filled to any level between 90
and 100 percent of capacity.
(5) Transmission is in neutral, or the clutch
disengaged, during the entire deceleration.
(6) The vehicle begins the deceleration in the
center of a straight roadway lane that is 12 feet
wide, and remains in the lane throughout the
deceleration.
(7) The roadway lane has a grade of zero per-
cent, and the road surface has a skid number of
81, as measured in accordance with American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Method E-274-70 (as revised July, 1974) at 40
mph, omitting the water delivery specified in
paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of that Method.
(8) All vehicle openings (doors, windows,
hood, trunk, convertible tops, etc.) are in the
closed position except as required for instrumen-
tation purposes.
(9) Ambient temperature is between 32 °F and
100°F.
(10) Wind velocity is zero,
(e) Procedures.
(1) Burnish.
(i) Passenger cars. Burnish brakes once
prior to first stopping distance test by conduct-
ing 200 stops from 40 mph (or maximum sus-
tained vehicle speed if the vehicle is incapable
of reaching 40 mph) at a deceleration rate of 12
fpsps in normal driving gear, with a cooling in-
terval between stops, accomplished by driving
at 40 mph for a sufficient distance to reduce
brake temperature to 250°F, or for one mile,
whichever occurs first. Readjust brakes ac-
cording to manufacturer's recommendations
after burnishing.
(ii) Motorcycles. Adjust and burnish brakes
in accordance with manufacturer's recommen-
dations. Where no burnishing procedures
have been recommended by the manufacturer,
follow the procedures specified above for
passenger cars, except substitute 30 mph for
40 mph and 150° F for 250°F, and maintain
hand lever force to foot lever force ratio of ap-
proximately 1 to 2.
(2) Ensure that the temperature of the hot-
test service brake is between 130°F and 150°F
prior to the start of all stops (other than bur-
nishing stops), as measured by plug-type ther-
mocouples installed according to SAE Recom-
mended Practice J843a, June 1966.
(3) Measure the stopping distance as specified
in (c) (2), (3), and (4), from the point of applica-
tion of force to the brake control to the point at
which the vehicle reaches a full stop.
§ 575.102 [Reserved].
§ 575.103 Truck-camper loading.
(a) Scope. This section requires manufacturers
of trucks that are capable of accommodating slide-
in campers to provide information on the cargo
weight rating and the longitudinal limits within
which the center of gravity for the cargo weight
rating should be located.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to
provide information that can be used to reduce
overloading and improper load distribution in
truck-camper combinations, in order to prevent ac-
cidents resulting from the adverse effects of these
conditions on vehicle steering and braking.
(c) Application. This section applies to trucks
that are capable of accommodating slide-in
campers.
(d) Definitions. "Camper" means a structure
designed to be mounted in the cargo area of a
PART 575-5
truck, or attached to an incomplete vehicle with
motive power, for the piupose of providing shelter
for persons.
"Cargo weight rating" means the value specified
by the manufacturer as the cargo-carrying capac-
ity, in pounds, of a vehicle, exclusive of the weight
of occupants, computed as 150 pounds times the
number of designated seating positions.
"Slide-in camper" means a camper having a
roof, floor and sides, designed to be mounted on
and removable from the cargo area of a truck by
the user.
(e) Requirements. Except as provided in
paragraph (f) of this section each manufacturer of
a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in
camper shall furnish the information specified in
(1) through (5) below:
(1) A picture showing the manufacturer's
recommended longitudinal center of gravity
zone for the cargo weight rating in the form il-
lustrated in Figure 1. The boundaries of the zone
shall be such that when a slide-in camper equal in
weight to the truck's cargo weight rating is in-
stalled, no gross axle weight rating of the truck
is exceeded. Until October 1, 1973 the phrase
"Aft End of Cargo Area" may be used in Figure
1 instead of "Rear End of Truck Bed".
RECOMMENDED
LOCATION FOR
CARGO CENTER
OE GRAVITV FOB
CARGO WEIGHT '
I RATING
ceed the truck's cargo weight rating and the
camper's center of gravity should fall within the
truck's recommended center of gravity zone when
installed." Until October 1, 1973 the phrase "total
load" may be used instead of "total cargo load".
(4) A picture showing the proper match of a
truck and slide-in camper in the form illustrated
in Figure 2.
TRUCK LOADING tNFORMATION
FIGURE 2 EXAMPLE OF PROPER TRUCK AND CAMPER MATCH
(5) The statements: "Secure loose items to
prevent weight shifts that could affect the
balance of your vehicle. When the truck camper
is loaded, drive to a scale and weigh on the front
and on the rear wheels separately to determine
axle loads. Individual axle loads should not ex-
ceed either of the gross axle weight ratings
(GAWR). The total of the axle loads should not
exceed the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).
These ratings are given on the vehicle certifica-
tion label that is located on the left side of the
vehicle, normally the dash, hinge pillar, door
latch post, or door edge next to the driver. If
weight ratings are exceeded, move or remove
items to bring all weights below the ratings."
(f) If a truck would accommodate a slide-in
camper but the manufacturer of the truck recom-
mends that the truck not be used for that purpose,
the information specified in paragraph (e) shall not
be provided but instead the manufacturer shall
provide a statement that the truck should not be
used to carry a slide-in camper.
(2) The truck's cargo weight rating.
(3) The statements: "When the truck is used
to carry a slide-in camper, the total cargo load of
the truck consists of the manufacturer's camper
weight figure, the weight of installed additional
camper equipment not included in the manufac-
turer's camper weight figure, the weight of
camper cargo, and the weight of passengers in
the camper. The total cargo load should not ex-
§ 575.104 Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.
(a) Scope. This section requires motor vehicle
and tire manufacturers and tire brand name
owners to provide information indicating the
relative performance of passenger car tires in the
areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to
aid the consumer in making an informed choice in
the purchase of passenger car tires.
PART 575-6
(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 grading 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 manufactiired before Oc-
tober 1, 1980, other than a tire sold as original
equipment on a new vehicle, shall have affixed
to its tread siuf ace 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
treadwear 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
manufacturer 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. Treadwear grades shall be
multiples of 10 (e.g., 80, 150).
(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:
(i) 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:
(1) 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:
(i) 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
(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.
PART 575-8
(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 exhibits 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 in public use for tires of differing con-
struction types. 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 course monitoring
tires of the same general construction 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
convoy, except for the lead vehicle, is
throughout the test within human eye range of
the vehicle immediately ahead of it.
(iv) A test convoy consists of no more than
four passenger cars, each having only rear-
wheel drive.
[(v) On each convoy vehicle, all tires are
mounted on identical rims 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 -i- 0.50
inches of the width listed. (47 F.R. 25931-June
15, 1982. Effective: June 15, 1982)]
(2) Treadwear grading procedure, (i) Equip a
convoy with course monitoring and candidate tires
of the same construction type. Place four course
monitoring tires on one vehicle. On each other
vehicle, place four candidate tires that are identical
with respect to with identical size designations. On
each axle, manufacturer and line.
(ii) Inflate each candidate and each course
monitoring tire the applicable pressure 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).
(47 F.R. 25931-June 15, 1982. Effective: June
15, 1982)1
(iv) Adjust wheel alignment to that specified
by the vehicle manfuacturer.
(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.
(vi) After break-in, allow the tires to cool to
the inflation pressure specified in paragraph
(e) (2) (ii) of this section or for 2 hours,
whichever occurs first. Measure, to the nearest
0.001 inch, the tread depth of each candidate
and course monitoring tire, avoiding tread-
wear indicators, at six equally spaced points in
each groove. For each tire compute the
average of the measurements. Do not include
those shoulder grooves which are not provided
with treadwear indicators.
(vii) Adjust wheel alignment to the manufac-
turer's specifications.
(viii) Drive the convoy on the test roadway
for 6,400 miles. After each 800 miles:
(A) Following the procedure set out in
paragraph (e) (2) (vi) of this section, allow
(Rev. 6/15/82)
PART 575-9
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 wheel alignment to the vehicle
manufacturer's specifications, if necessary.
(ix) Determine the projected mileage for
each candidate tire as follows:
(A) For each course monitoring and can-
didate 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 + 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.
(B) Average the wear rates of the four
course monitoring tires as determined in ac-
cordance with paragraph (e) (2) (ix) (A) of
this section.
(C) Determine the course severity adjust-
ment factor by dividing the base wear rate
for the course monitoring tire (see note
below) by the average wear rate for the four
course monitoring tires determined in ac-
cordance with paragraph (e) (2) (ix) (B) of
this section.
Note. -The base wear rates for the course
monitoring tires will be furnished to the
purchaser at the time of purchase.
(D) Determine the adjusted wear rate for
each candidate tire by multiplying its wear
rate determined in accordance with para-
graph (e) (2) (ix) (A) of this section by the
course severity adjustment factor deter-
mined in accordance with paragraph
(e) (2) (ix) (C) of this section.
(E) Determine the projected mileage for
each candidate tire using the following
formula: ,„„„ ,
T, ■ ^ A -1 1000 (a -62) „.^
Projected mileage = !^ — - ' ■\- 800
b'
where:
a = y intercept of regression line (reference tread depth)
for the ci-ndidate 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.
(F) Compute the percentage of the
NHTSA nominal treadwear value for each
candidate tire using the following formula:
p _ Projected Mileage
30,000
xlOO
Round off the percentage to the nearest
lower 10% increment.
(f) Traction grading conditions and proce-
dures.—(1) Conditions, (i) Tire traction perform-
ance is evaluated on skid pads that are established,
and whose severity is monitored, by the NHTSA
both for its compliance testing and for that of reg-
ulated persons. The test pavements are asphalt and
concrete surfaces constructed in accordance with
the specifications for pads "C" and "A" in the
"Manual for the Construction and Maintenance of
Skid Surfaces," National Technical Inform.ation
Service No. DOT-HS-800-814. The surfaces have
locked wheel traction coefficients when evaluated in
accordance with paragraphs (f) (2) (i) through
(f)(2)(vii) of this section of 0.50 ±0.10 for the
asphalt and 0.35 ±0.10 for the concrete. The loca-
tion of the skid pads is described in Appendix B to
this section.
(ii) The standard tire is the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 501 "Stand-
ard Tire for Pavement Skid Resistance Tests."
(iii) The pavement surface is wetted in ac-
cordance with paragraph 3.5, "Pavement Wet-
ting System," of ATSM Method E 274-79,
"Skid Resistance of Paved Surfaces Using a
Full-Scale Tire."
PART 575-10
^|{^*^ Curvature to W \^
,«) Suit Mold ^•^^
."Oy OPTION 1 /Vv
_L
TREADWEAR 160 ^ \
TRACTIONS ~^ "I32
TEMPERATURE B ^ i
SAMPLE
Qualilv Gfad«
Curvature to
Suit Mold
Locale quality grades between the
shoulder and the maKimum section
Note The quality grades shall be m
Fuiura Bold, Modified, Condensed or
Gothic characters permanently molded
( 020 to 040 deepl into or onto the
lire :s indicated
Figure 2
[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 (IV2) 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. 6/15/82) PART 575-11
(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 -h0.50 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
temperature and readjust its inflation pres-
sure to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with in-
flation pressure measured in kilopascals, to
180 kPa.
(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 deter-
mined may be used in the computation of ad-
justed traction coefficients for more than one
candidate 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 apparatus, and test one of them
according to the procedures of paragraph
(fX2)(ii) through (v) of this section, except load
each tire to 85% of the test load specified in
§575. 104(h).
Table 1.— Test Inflation Pressures
Maximum permissible
inflation pressure
32
36
W
uo
280
300
iSiO
lb/in 2
lb/in ^
Iblin^
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
Pressure to be used in tests for treadwear 24 28 32 180 220 180 220
treadwear and in determination of tire
load for temperature resistance testing
Pressure to be used for all aspects of 30 34 38 220 260 220 260]
aspects of temperature resistance testing
other than determination of tire load
1(53 F.R. 17950— May 19, 1988. Effective: June 20. 1988)]
(Rev. 5/19/88) PART 575-12
procedures of paragraph (f) (2) (ii) through (v) of
this section, except load each tire to 85% of the test
load specified in § 575.104(h).
(ix) Compute a candidate tire's adjusted traction
coefficient for asphalt (rria) by the following for-
mula:
ma = 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 (rric) by the follow-
ing formula:
rrip = 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 circumference on either side of the
tire at any temperature up to 95°F. Locate the
temperature sensor so that its readings are not
affected by heat radiation, 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 sidewall.
(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.
(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. (48
F.R. 8929— March 9, 1984. Effective: July 1, 1984)1
(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 para-
graph (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 infla-
tion pressure
Multiplier to be
used for treadwear
testing
Multiplier to
be used for
traction testing
32 psi
.851
.851
36 psi
.870
.797
40 psi
.883
.753
240 psi
.866
.866
280 psi
.887
.804
300 psi
.866
.866
• NOTE: 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 percent factors specified for treadwear and traction
testing.
(Rev. 3/9/84)
PART 575-13
Table 2A
Designation
Temp Resistance
Traction
Treadwear
Tire Size
Max Pressure
Max Pressure
32
S6
iO
32
36
iO
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
|(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 manufactured 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.
(6) Treadwear sidewall molding requirements of
§575.104(d)(l)(i)(A) apply to tires manufactured
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)(i)(B)(2) apply to tires manufactured 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(dXlXi)(A) apply to tires manufactured
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 (dXlXiXB)(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(dX2), 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(dXlXiXA) apply to tires manufac-
tured on or after August 1, 1985.
(Rev. 12/19/84)
PART 575-14
(1) Effective date for treadwear information re-
quirements for vehicle manufacturers.
Vehicle manufacturer treadwear information
requirements of §§575.6(a) and 575.104(d)(l)(iii)
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 YOU
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.
(2) (i) The vehicle Owner's Manual shall in-
clude the following statement in its introduction.
As with other vehicles of this type, failure to
operate this vehicle correctly may result in loss
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 other 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, 1S69
(Rev. 12/19/84)
PART 575-15-16
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 re-
turns 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 Val-
ley, northeast toward Robert Lee and returns via
Texas 208 to the vicinity of Goodfellow AFB.
ROUTE
The route is shown in Figure 3. The table
identifies key points by number. These numbers
are encircled in Figure 3 and in parentheses in
the descriptive material that follows.
Southern Loop
The course begins at the intersection (1) of
Ft. McKavitt Road and Paint Rock Road
(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 proceed to junction with Texas 163
(6). Turn left onto Texas 163, proceed south
to Camp Hudson Historical 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 junction of FM 2334 and US 87 (15). Make
U-turn and return to junction of FM 388 and
Loop Road 306 (2) by the same route.
ROBERT LEE
WATER VALLEY
go^ L
®
AVENUE C (CONVOY GATEn^U-Kr55^-i«~v3)
GOODFELLOW AIR FORCE BASE -^^^3^ — " err LZ^Sj
SAN ANGELO, TEXAS TT"^^^- I^
-CAMP HUDSON SITE
Northwestern Loop
From junction of Loop Road 306 and FM 388
(2), make right turn onto Loop Road 306. Pro-
ceed onto US 277, to junction with FM 2105(8).
Turn left onto FM 2105 and proceed west to junc-
tion with US 87 (10). Turn right on US 87 and
proceed northwest to the junction with FM 2034
near the town of Water Valley (11). Turn right
PART 575-17
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 306 to junction with 388 (2). Turn
right onto 388 and proceed to starting point at
junction of Ft. McKavitt Road and FM 388 (1).
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 theSTOP AHEADsign,
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, APPROX. MILEAGES,
AND REMARKS
Mileages Remarks
1 Ft. McKavitt Road &
0
FM388
2 FM388& Loop 306.
3
STOP
3 Loop 306 &US277 .
10
4 Sonora
72
88
5 US277&FM189 ..
6 FM189 & Texas 163
124
7 Historical Marker . .
143
U-TURN
(Camp Hudson)
4 Sonora
214
276
3 Loop 306 & US 277.
2 FM 388 & Loop 306
283
13 FM 388 & FM 2334 .
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 FM 388 & Loop 306
307
STOP/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 .
397
1 Ft. McKavitt Road &
400
FM388
PART 575-18
APPENDIX B
Traction Skid Pads
Two skid pads have been laid on an un-
used runway and taxi strip on Goodfellow AFB.
Their location is shown in Figure 4.
The asphalt skid pad is 600 ft x 60 ft and is
shown in black on the runway in Figure 4. The
pad is approached from either end by a 75 ft
ramp followed by 100 ft. of level pavement.
This arrangement permits the skid trailers to
stabilize before reaching the test area. The ap-
proaches are shown on the figure by the hash-
marked area.
The concrete pad is 600 ft x 48 ft and is on
the taxi strip. The approaches to the concrete
pad are of the same design as those for the
asphalt pads.
A two lane asphalt road has been built to con-
nect the runway and taxi strip. The road is
parallel to the northeast-southwest runway at a
distance of 100 ft. The curves have super-eleva-
tion to permit safe exit from the runway at op-
erating speeds.
CONCRETE SKJD — >
PAVEMENT
FIGURE 4
PART 575-19-20
APPENDIX C
Method Of Least Squares
The method of least squares is a method of
calculation by which it is possible to obtain a
reliable estimate of a true physical relationship
from a set of data which involve random error.
The method may be used to establish a regres-
sion line that minimizes the sum of the squares
of the deviations of the measured data points
from the line. The regression line is conse-
quently described as the line of "best fit" to the
data points. It is described in terms of its slope
and its "y" intercept.
The graph in Figure 5 depicts a regression
line calculated using the least squares method
from data collected from a hypothetical tread-
wear test of 6,400 miles, with tread depth meas-
urements made at every 800 miles.
In this graph, (xj, yj) [j = 0, 1,...8] are the
individual data points representing the tread
depth measurements (the overall average for the
tire with 6 measurements in each tire groove)
at the beginning of the test (after break-in and
at the end of each 800-mile segment of the test.
c/}
a.
LLI
Q
Q
<
LU
(xq-Yo)
• (xg.yg)
• ixg.yg)
•JXy.Vy)
(xg.yg)
JL
800 1600 2400 3200 4000
MILES
4800
5600
6400 X
Figure 5
PART 575-21
The absolute value of the slope of the regres- The "y" intercept of the regi-ession line (^^
following formula
8 8
\>=o j=0 j=0
b= 1000
Zxi-i-e-SxiSv.) " 'S'' ' ^^J"'
8 V2
J=o \j=0
(Rev. 12/19/84) PART 575-22
Effective: August 15, 1974
PREAMBLE TO PART 576-~RECORD RETENTION
(Docket No. 74-31; Notice 1)
This notice establishes an immediate temporary
requirement for retention by motor vehicle manu-
facturers of records concerning malfunctions
that may be related to motor vehicle safety.
By a separate notice published today, 39 FR
30048, the NHTSA proposes to establish perma-
nent requirements for the retention of records
by manufacturers. The proposed rule would
require motor vehicle manufacturers to retain
for 5 years all records in their possession relating
to failures, malfunctions, or flavps that could be
a causative factor in accidents or injuries. These
records are needed in agency investigations of
possible defects related to motor vehicle safety,
or of nonconformity to the safety standards and
regulations. A fuller discussion of the proposal
is contained in that notice.
The NHTSA finds it important that existing
records and those that may be generated or ac-
quired while this rulemaking is under considera-
tion not be disposed of prior to the permanent
effectiveness of the rule. In order to maintain
the status quo, therefore, this rule is issued to be
effective immediately upon posting for public
inspection at the Federal Register. For the
reasons stated, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b),
notice and public procedure thereon with respect
to this interim notice are found to be imprac-
ticable and contrary to the public interest. This
rule in its present form will be effective only
until action is taken upon the proposed perma-
nent rule issued concurrently.
In light of the foregoing, a new Part 576,
Record Retention., is added to Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations.
Elective date: August 15, 1974.
AUTHORITY: Sec. 108, 112, 113, 119, Pub. L.
89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1402,
1407 ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51,
Issued on August 13, 1974.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
39 F.R. 30045
August 20, 1974
PART 576— PRE 1-2
PART 576— RECORD RETENTION
(Docket No. 74-13; Notice 1)
Sec.
576.1 Scope.
576.2 Purpose.
576.3 Application.
576.4 Definitions.
576.5 Basic Requirement.
576.6 Records.
576.7 Retention.
576.8 IMalfunctions Covered.
§ 576.1 Scope. This part establishes require-
ments for the retention by motor vehicle manu-
facturers of complaints, reports, and other
records concerning motor vehicle malfunctions
that may be related to motor vehicle safety.
§ 576.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part
is to preserve records that are needed for the
proper investigation, and adjudication or other
disposition, of possible defects related to motor
vehicle safety and instances of nonconformity
to the motor vehicle safety standards and asso-
ciated regulations.
§ 576.3 Application. This part applies to all
manufacturers of motor vehicles, with respect to
all records generated or acquired after August
15, 1969.
§ 576.4 Definitions. All terms in this part
that are defined in the Act are used as defined
therein.
§ 576.5 Basic Requirements. Each manufac-
turer of motor vehicles shall retain as specified
in § 576.7 all records described in § 576.6 for a
period of 5 years from the date on which they
were generated or acquired by the manufacturer.
§ 576.6 Records. Records to be retained by
manufacturers under this part include all docu-
mentary materials, films, tapes, and other infor-
mation-storing media that contain information
concerning malfunctions that may be related to
motor vehicle safety. Such records include, but
are not limited to, communications from vehicle
users and memoranda of user complaints; reports
and other documents related to work performed
under, or claims made under, warranties; service
reports or similar documents from dealers or
manufacturer's field personnel; and any lists,
compilations, analyses, or discussions of such
malfunctions contained in internal or external
correspondence of the manufacturer.
§ 576.7 Retention. Duplicate copies need not
be retained. Information may be reproduced or
transferred from one storage medium to another
{e.g., from paper files to microfilm) as long as
no information is lost in the reproduction or
transfer, and when so reproduced or transferred
the original form may be treated as a duplicate.
§ 576.8 Malfunctions covered. For purposes
of this part, "malfunctions that may be related
to motor vehicle safety" shall include, with re-
spect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment, any failure or malfunction beyond
normal deterioration in use, or any failure of
performance, or any flaw or unintended deviation
from design specifications, that could in any
reasonably foreseeable manner be a causative
factor in, or aggravate, an accident or an injury
to a person.
39 F.R. 30045
August 20, 1974
PART 576-1
Elftclivs: March 26, 1973
PREAMBLE TO PART 577— DEFECT NOTIFICATION
(Dockst No. 72-7; Notice 2)
This notice establishes a new regulation cover-
ing notifications of motor vehicle safety defects
and nonconformity to safety standards. The
notice proposing these regulations was published
May 17, 1972 (37 F.R. 9783).
The regulation is intended to improve the re-
sponse of owners in vehicle notification cam-
paigns. Data which the NHTSA has been re-
ceiving on the completion rates of notification
campaigns show a wide range of completion
rates, with campaigns involving newer vehicles,
and more serious safety problems, having higher
completion rates than others. In many cam-
paigns, however, the rate is alarmingly low.
An examination of the notifications sent by
manufacturers reveals wide disparity in emphasis.
Although precise evaluation of the impact of no-
tification letters is difficult, due to its being
largely subjective, the NHTSA is of the opinion
that many notifications have tended to deem-
phasize the safety problems involved. Some
of these notification letters are questionably
within the requirements of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and litigation on
a case by case basis to improve them is prac-
ticable. These regulations are intended to ensure
that all notification letters contain sufficient in-
formation, as determined by NHTSA, to prop-
erly notify purchasers.
The regulation applies to manufacturers of
incomplete and complete motor vehicles, and
motor vehicle equipment. In the case of ve-
hicles manufactured in two or more stages, com-
pliance by any one of the manufacturers of the
vehicle is considered compliance by all. This
provision is based on similar language in the
Defect Reports regulation (Part 573 of this chap-
ter), and is included in response to comments
received.
The regulation requires the notification to con-
tain substantially the information specified in
the proposal. It requires each notification to
begin with a statement that it is sent pursuant
to the requirements of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The NHTSA did
not concur with comments to the effect that the
inclusion of this statement would not promote
the purpose of the regulation. The regulation
requires the notification to state that the manu-
facturer, or the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrator, as the case may be, has deter-
mined that a defect relating to motor vehicle
safety (or a noncompliance with a motor vehicle
safety standard) exists in the vehicle type, or
item of motor vehicle equipment, with which the
notification i' concerned. When the manufac-
turer (or the Administrator) has, as part of his
determination, also found that the defect may
not exist in each such vehicle or equipment item,
he may include a statement to that effect. The
NHTSA has decided to allow such statements
based on comments that many defects in fact do
not exist in each vehicle or equipment item of the
group whose owners are notified.
The manufacturer must also describe the de-
fect, evaluate the risk it poses to traffic safety,
and specify measures which the recipient should
take to have it remedied. In each case, the regu-
lation requires information which the NHTSA
has determined will meet these objectives. In
describing the defect, the manufacturer must
indicate the vehicle system or particular items
of equipment affected, describe the malfunction
that may occur, including operating conditions
that may cause it to occur, and precautions the
purchaser should take to reduce the likelihood of
its occurrence. In providing that the vehicle sys-
tem affected be mentioned, the regulation reflects
comments to the effect that listing each particular
part involved would be too technical to be useful
to most consumers.
PART 577— PRE 1
EfftcNva: March 26, 1973
In evaluating the risk to traffic safety, the man-
ufacturer must indicate if vehicle crash is the po-
tential result, and whatever warning may occur.
Where vehicle crash is not the potential result,
the manufacturer must indicate the general type
of injury which the defect can cause. Although
many comments protested that it was impossible
to predict a specific type of injury, the NHTSA
believes that manufacturers can easily foresee the
general type of injury, such as asphyxiation, that
cm result from those defects which are not ex-
pected to result in crashes.
In stating measures to be taken to repair the
defec', tlie requirements differ in the case where
the manufacturer's dealers repair the vehicle free
of charge to the purchaser, where the manufac-
turer merely otfers to pay for the repair, and
where he refuses to pay for the repair. The pur-
pose of this distinction is to provide information
sufficient to have adequate repairs made in each
case.
Where the manufacturer's dealers repair the
vehicle free of charge, the notification must in-
clude a general description of the work involved,
the manufacturer's estimate of when his dealers
will be supplied with parts and instructions, and
his estimate of the time reasonably necessary to
perform the labor involved in correcting the de-
fect. The agency's position is that consumers are
entitled to know approximately when their cars
will be repaired and how much labor is needed
in order for the repair to be made. The NHTSA
realizes that dealers frequently retain vehicles
longer than the actual work involved, due to
difficulties in scheduling, repairs. However,
manufacturers are free to impart this informa-
tion to consumers under the regulation. Some
comments objected to requiring manufacturers
to provide information on when replacement
parts will be available, on the basis that manu-
facturers cannot know, at the time a notification
is issued, precisely when parts deliveries will be
made to dealers. To include this information, it
is argued, would therefore delay the issuance of
the notification. The NHTSA has modified the
proposed language to allow manufacturers to
"estimate" when corrective parts will be available.
The estimate would be based on the manufac-
turer's knowledge at the time the notification is
sent, thereby eliminating any reasons for delay.
When manufacturers do not provide for repairs
to be made by dealers, the notification is required
to contain, in addition, full lists of parts and com-
plete instructions on making the repairs. The
regulation also requires the manufacturer to
recommend, generally, where the vehicle should
be repaired, and manufacturers are free to make
general and specific recommendations. This re-
quirement reflects the intent of the proposal that
manufacturers who believe particular repairs may
require special expertise should indicate that
fact to purchasers.
When the manufacturer does not oifer to pay
for repairs, he must, in addition, include full
cost information on necessary parts. The notice
would have required the retail cost of all parts,
and information on labor charges of the manufac-
turer's dealers in the general area of the purchaser.
In response to comments, the cost information is
limited to the suggested retail price of parts.
Manufacturers have indicated they do not set ac-
tual prices of parts, but do have suggested list
prices. With respect to labor charges, manufac-
turers have indicated that labor charges vary,
and that requiring them to ascertain exact charges
would delay issuance of notifications. The
NHTSA believes these comments to be well-
founded, and has dropped the proposed require-
ments regarding labor charges. Consumers will
still have information on costs of parts, and time
necessary for repairs to be performed, from
which they can obtain a fair idea of the cost of
a repair.
The reguations prohibit the notification from
stating or implying that the problem is not a de-
fect, or that it does not relate to motor vehicle
safety. Moreover, in those cases where the noti-
fication is sent pursuant to the direction of the
Administrator, it cannot state or imply that the
manufacturer disagrees with the Administrator's
finding. Many comments opposed these require-
ments on the basis that they unconstitutionally
limited manufacturers' freedom of speech. The
NHTSA emphatically rejects this contention.
Notification letters are not intended to serve as
forums where manufacturers can argue that prob-
lems are not safety-related or dispute the Ad-
ministration's findings. Their purpose is to un-
ambiguously and adequately induce owners to
remedy a potentially hazardous situation. The
PART 577— PRE 2
NHTSA is of the opinion that there is ample
precedent that allows the Federal government to
require manufacturers to warn purchasers in a
particular manner that certain products they
manufacture may be hazardous. If a manufac-
turer does not believe that his condition is a
safety-related defect, he is not required by law to
notify owners at all. It is only when he deter-
mines that a defect exists that he must notify in
accordance with the regulations. Similarly, when
the Administrator has made the finding that a
certain product is defective, the manufacturer
can administratively and judicially challenge this
determination as provided in the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act before sending a
notification.
The NHTSA received other objections to the
proposed requirements. Numerous tire manu-
facturers argued that parts of the regulation
dealing with repairs of defects are inappropriate
when applied to them, since repairs generally
meant replacement. Certain manufacturers of
lighting equipment argued that notification re-
quirements should not apply to them at all. The
NHTSA disagrees with both of these contentions.
In the case of tire manufacturers, the NHTSA
believes that the requirements can be followed.
If the repair of a defective tire entails its re-
placement, this can certainly be stated within the
regulatory scheme. Similarly, lighting equip-
ment manufacturers are responsible for defects
to the same extent as manufacturers of other
equipment. The NHTSA rejects completely the
argument that no lighting failures can be con-
sidered safety-related because of the millions of
lights that bum out every year without resulting
in accidents. The question in each case is not
whether a failure may occur, but whether a defect
exists, and whether the defect may cause a haz-
ardous situation to arise.
The notice of proposed rulemaking would
have prohibited manufacturers from making
statements contemporaneous with the notification
that disagreed with its conclusions. This pro-
posal has not been adopted. After careful con-
sideration, the NHTSA has determined that its
inclusion is probably unnecessary. The agency's
position is that if notification letters clearly and
unambiguously describe and evaluate defects in
accordance with this regulation, other statements
Effectlva: March 26, 1973
by manufacturers will not normally affect re-
actions of consumers.
Certain comments requested that manufac-
turers be allowed to state in the notification that
it does not constitute an admission of liability or
wrongdoing. The regulation does not preclude
the making of such statements, as the agency
has concluded that their inclusion will not sig-
nificantly deter owners from having repairs made.
One comment suggested that the notification
be required to contain a postage-free card by
which consumers could notify manufacturers
when vehicles had been sold or otherwise disposed
of. While the NHTSA believes this practice
would be advantageous in improving notification
campaigns, it has concluded that such a require-
ment would be outside the scope of the regula-
tion, which is limited to notifications to first pur-
chasers and warranty holders.
Certain comments objected to the regulations
on the ground that they prescribed a rigid format
in an area where each case must be treated sep-
arately, and thus where flexibility was required.
The NHTSA has modified to some extent the
proposed restrictions on format. Manufacturers
are free, within the limits established, to com-
pose notifications to fit each case. As issued, these
regulations do not require rigid, inflexible letters
(only the first two sentences must contain specific
statements in a set order), but require that man-
ufacturers include certain important items of in-
formation. It is hoped that manufacturers in
meeting these requirements will provide required
information in easily understandable form.
In light of the above, a new Part 577, "Defect
Notification" is added to Chapter V of Title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth
as below.
Effective date : March 26, 1973. Because these
requirements are not technical in nature, and do
not require lead times for compliance, good cause
exists, and is hereby found, for an effective date
less than 180 days from the day of issuance.
Issued on January 17, 1973.
Douglas Toms
Administrator
38 F.R. 2215
January 23, 1973
PART 577— PRE 3-4
Elhctiv*: April 17, 1973
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 577— DEFECT NOTIFICATION
(Dockat No. 72-7; Notics 3)
This notice responds to petitions for recon-
sideration of the Defect Notification regulations,
published January 23, 1973 (38 FR 2215). Peti-
tions were received from the Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company, Chrysler Corporation, the
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers' Associa-
tion, and the Recreational Vehicle Institute. , A
petition was also received from the Wagner Elec-
tric Company. Although not received within 30
days of the regulation's publication (49 CFR
553.35), it has been considered in the preparation
of this notice. Insofar as this notice does not
grant the requests of the petitioners, they are
hereby denied.
The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company has
petitioned for reconsideration of section 577.6,
"Disclaimers", which prohibits manufacturers
from starting or implying that the notification
does not involve a safety related defect. Fire-
stone requestf'd that the provision, for Federal
Constitutional reasons, be dropped from the rule.
This request is denied. The NHTSA does not
believe, for the reasons set forth in the notice of
January 23, 1973 (38 FR at 2216), that the pro-
vision is violative of the Constitution.
Chrysler Corporation has requested that the
phrase, "his dealers" be modified in section 577.4-
(e)(1) (ii), which requires the manufacturer to
estimate the date by which his dealers will be
supplied with corrective parts and instructions.
It argues that the phrase "his dealers" could be
interpreted to mean all dealers, regardless of
whether all of the manufacturer's dealers are in-
volved in the campaign. This request is denied.
Neither section 113 of the Safety Act nor the
regulation require a notification campaign to ex-
tend to all of the manufacturer's dealers, whether
or not they have any involvement in a particular
campaign. The NHTSA does not believe that
the phrase "his dealers", when read in context,
means all of the manufacturer's dealers.
Chrysler also asks that special requirements be
specified for the notification of "noncompliance
non-operational defects", citing as an example
the improper placement of the VIN plate under
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. Chrysler
states that existing provisions of the regulation
dealing with malfunctions (specifically 577.4-
(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4)), and evaluating the risk
to traffic safety (sections 577.4(d), (d)(1),
(d)(1) (i), (d)(1) (ii), (d)(2)) are not perti-
nent to these defects. This request is denied.
The' NHTSA does not believe that separate re-
quirements for notification of the type of defect
described by Chrysler are either necessary or
desirable. If a particular defect does not in-
volve a malfunction, to be in compliance with
the regulation a manufacturer should, in response
to the appropriate provisions of the regulation,
indicate that to be the case. The NHTSA be-
lieves this approach will notify purchasers of the
defect as effectively as separate, more specific re-
quirements. The NHTSA does not agree that
the relationship to safety of these types of defects
should not be evaluated in notification letters,
similarly to other defects.
The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers As-
sociation (MEMA objects to the requirements of
sections 577.4(e)(2) (vi) and 577.4(e) (3) (vi)
that the manufacturer recommend whom the pur-
chaser should have perform necessary repair
work, and requests that these provisions be de-
leted. MEMA argues that the requirement is
anti-competitive in that it sanctions the steering
of consumers to vehicle dealerships for repairs,
to the detriment of the independent repair in-
dustry, even when the manufacturer does not pay
for the repair. MEMA argues that original
equipment replacement parts are frequently more
expensive than competitively produced parts, re-
sulting in added costs to owners. It argues also
that limiting repairs to dealers precludes the use
PART 577— PRE 5
E«mMv«: April 17, 1«73
of the full domestic repair industry, which
should be utilized fully given the magnitude of
recent notification campaigns.
>
While the NHTSA appreciates the concern of
this association in not being precluded from a
large market, the NHTSA believes the require-
ment as issued to be consistent with the National
TraflSc and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the
need for motor vehicle safety. The NHTSA
has, in issuing the requirement, indicated that
manufacturers should indicate to purchasers
when special expertise may be necessary to cor-
rect defects. The repairs in issue do not involve
normal maintenance, but constitute defects whose
proper repair is essential to the safety of the na-
tion's highways. Frequently these repairs in-
volve a higher degree of expertise and familiarity
with a particular vehicle than that required to
perform normal maintenance. If such expertise
will more likely be found at dealerships, in the
view of the vehicle manufacturer, the NHTSA
believes that opinion should be imparted to pur-
chasers.
Moreover, even if the NHTSA deleted the re-
quirement the manufacturer could if he desired,
consistently with the regulation, recommend a re-
pair facility. The NHTSA would not prohibit
the making of such a recommendation, for it is
responsive to the statutory requirement that the
notification contain a statement of the measures
to be taken to repair the defect (15 U.S.C.
1402(c)). Moreover, the argument that the reg-
ulation stifles competition does not appear to
have merit. In the event the manufacturer does
not bear the cost of repair, the regulation
(§ 577.4(e) (3) (i)) requires the manufacturer to
provide the purchaser with the suggested list
price of repair parts. As a consequence, pur-
chasers will be provided with information with
which they can "shop", with full knowledge, for
the least expensive repair facilities. The peti-
tion is accordingly denied.
The Recreational Vehicle Institute (RVI) has
petitioned that the requirements of both section
577.4(a), requiring an opening statement that the
notification is sent pursuant to the Act, and sec-
tion 677.6, prohibiting disclaimers, be deleted.
RVI argues such requirements may result in de-
lay by manufacturers in determining that defects
exist, forcing the use of administrative and legal
procedures before purchasers are notified. The
agency cannot accept the position that the notifi-
cation should be diluted because of possible eva-
sion by manufacturers. The NHTSA believes
that the need that notification letters fully in-
form purchasers outweighs the possible problems
caused by manufacturers delaying their notifica-
tions to purchasers until forced to notify them.
The request is denied.
RVI points out that section 577.4 seems to as-
sume that defects will be evidenced by some
form of mechanical failure. It asks, therefore,
whether a safety-related defect can exist where
proper corrective action to avoid an occurrence
or possible occurrence is appropriate maintenance
or operational use. RVI also requests, if
NHTSA adheres to its present position regard-
ing these issues, that it undertake rulemaking
to define "safety related defect". For the fol-
lowing reasons, these requests are denied. There
is no intent in the regulation to limit the concept
of safety related defects to those involving me-
chanical failures. As stated above, in reply to
the petition from Chrysler, non-mechanical de-
fects can be the basis of defect notification, and
purchasers can be fully notified of them under
the present regulatory scheme. Moreover, the
NHTSA believes any attempt to precisely define
safety related defect would be ill-advised.
Whether a defect exists depends solely on the
facts of each particular situation. The fact that
such determinations may encompass a wide va-
riety of factual situations, and may consequently
be difficult to make, does not mean that it is
necessary, desirable, or even possible to replace
the decision with a simple formula. The NHTSA
believes, on the contrary, that the relatively broad
definition of defect contained in the Safety Act
is best suited to the wide variety of defective
conditions that may arise.
RVI has also pointed out that references to a
manufacturer's dealers in section 577.4(e), speci-
fying measures to be taken to repair the defect,
overlook the fact that manufacturers' dealers may
not always provide service facilities, or that
manufacturers may use service facilities other
than dealers. The NHTSA agrees with RVI,
and has therefore modified the provisions of that
PART 577— PRE 6
S4«ctlv«i April 17, 1973
section to include "other service facilities of the
manufacturer", as well as his dealers.
RVI requested that the regulation be amended
to permit compliance by either a component
manufacturer or a vehicle manufacturer, rf^ben
the defect involves a specific component. RVI
also requested that compliance be permitted by
either the vehicle alterer or the complete vehicle
manufacturer in cases involving altered vehicles.
The regulations do not prohibit the sending of
notification letters by persons other than the ve-
hicle manufacturer. Accordingly, no modifica-
tion of the regulation is called for. However,
manufacturers who do utilize the services of
others in meeting requirements still bear the ulti-
mate responsibility for compliance with the
regulation under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act.
The Wagner Electric Company has requested
that the provisions of the regulation regarding
manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (ex-
cluding tires) be reconsidered in light of the fact
that, under present marketing procedures, it is
difficult or impossible for such manufacturers to
notify jobbers, installers, dealers, or consumers.
The notification required by the regulation is
directed at the notification sent to retail purchas-
ers and not that sent to distributors or dealers
of the manufacturer. The notification of the
latter is subject only to the statutory provision
of section 113 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
1402). Moreover, manufacturers of equipment
(other than tires) who do not have the names
of first purchasers are not required to notify
them either under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act or the regulation. There is
consequently no need for modification of the
regulation for the reasons presented by Wagner,
and its request is accordingly denied.
In light of the above. Part 577 of Title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, "Defect Notifica-
tion", is amended
Effective date: April 17, 1973. These amend-
ments impose no additional burdens on any per-
son, and serve only to clarify the application of
existing requirements to specific situations. Ac-
cordingly, notice and public procedure thereon
are unnecessary, and good cause exists for an
effective date less than thirty days from the day
of publication.
(Sec. 108, 112, 113, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat.
718 as amended, sec. 2, 4, Pub. L. 91-265, 84
Stat. 262 (15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1402, 1408);
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51)
Issued on April 10, 1973.
James E. Wilson
Acting Administrator
38 F.R. 9509
April 17, 1973
PART 577— PRE 7-8
Effective: September 14, 1975
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 577— DEFECT NOTIFICATION
(Docket No. 74-42; Notice 2)
This notice amends 49 CFR Part 577, Defect
Notification, to require that bilingual notification
be sent to owners in certain cases, and to clarify
the wording manufacturers are required to use
to indicate their determination that a safety-
related defect exists.
A notice of proposed rulemaking on this sub-
ject was published on November 25, 1974, (39
F.R. 41182) and an opportunity afforded for
comment. The Center for Auto Safety had
questioned tlie efficacy of defect notification
campaigns in Puerto Rico conducted in the Eng-
lish language since the primary language of that
Commonwealth is Spanish. A National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
survey in Puerto Rico confirmed that there was
a need for bilingual defect notification. It was
proposed that whenever the address of the pur-
chaser is in either the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico or the Canal Zone the notification be sent
in both the English and Spanish languages.
The notice also proposed clarifying § 577.4(e)
(1) so that the second paragraph of a notifica-
tion letter could no longer be written to reflect
a manufacturer's belief that the cause of a defect
is an item other than that which he manufac-
tured.
Only Chrysler Corporation and Firestone Tire
and Rubber Company commented on bilingual
notification. Both stated that it was not neces-
sary for the Canal Zone. Firestone also felt
that the requirement to translate the notification
would delay its mailing, and voiced the belief
that NHTSA must express the exact wording
in Spanish for § 577.4(a) and (b). Chrysler
commented that it had been providing bilingual
notification to owners of automobiles purchased
in Puerto Rico but that extensive and burden-
some data-processing reprogramming would be
required to identify owners of vehicles originally
purchased on the mainland and later taken to
Puerto Rico.
The NHTSA believes that the language prob-
lem is a significant factor in the below-average
response to notification campaigns in Puerto
Rico, and that owner response rate to campaigns
in the Canal Zone will improve if notifications
are provided in Spanish as well as English.
Information from the Census Bureau indicates
that more than 50% of the residents of each area
speak Spanish as their primary language. Trans-
lation may delay mailing to these areas a few
days, but this is deemed inconsequential com-
pared with the benefits to be derived by an im-
proved response to campaigns. This agency
does not consider that it need specify the exact
wording in Spanish of § 577.4(a) and (b). If
it appears that manufacturers are providing
ambiguous statements it will consider the matter
further. Finally, since section 153(a) (1) of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act,
15 U.S.C. 1413(a)(1), requires notification to be
sent to the person who is registered under State
law as the owner of the vehicle to be campaigned,
Chrysler's comments on reprogramming of data
do not appear to have merit.
This notice also amends § 577.4(b) (1), which
presently requires the second sentence of the
notitlcation to state that the manufacturer has
determined tliat a defect which relates to motor
vehicle safety exists in its motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment. Certain notification
letters have characterized the defect as existing
in a vehicle or item of equipment not manufac-
tured by the manufacturer making the determi-
nation. The intent of the section is that a
manufacturer of motor vehicles would state its
determination that the defect exists in the motor
vehicle it manufactures, while a manufacturer
of motor vehicle equipment would state its de-
PART 577— PRE 9
Effective: September 14, 1975
termination that the defect exists in the motor
vehicle equipment it manufactures. If the manu-
facturer believes the cause of the defect to be an
item other than that which he manufactured,
that information can be imparted in the other
parts of the notification, but not in the second
paragraph where the content is specifically pre-
scribed.
Kelsey-Hayes Company and Skyline Corpora-
tion commented on the proposal to clarify
§ 577.4(b)(1). Both objected to it, feelinp: that
the present rej^ulation is adequate and that the
mandatory statement may be prejudicial. How-
ever, in the opinion of this a>iency, manufactur-
ers with limited experience in composin<r notifi-
cation letters have in many cases misinterpreted
§ 577.4(b) (1). Clarification of the sentence
should eliminate mistakes.
In consideration of the forejfoing, Part 577 of
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Defect
Xotif ration, is amended. . . .
Effective date: September 14, 1975.
(Sec. 108, 112, 113, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80
Stat. 718; sec. 2, 4. Pub. L. 91-265, 84 Stat. 262
(15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1402, 1407) ; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on June 10, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
40 F.R. 25463
June 16, 1975
PART 577-PRE-lO
Effective: June 28, T977
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 577— DEFECT NOTIFICATION
(Docket No. 75-10; Notice 2)
This notice amends 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect
Notification," to conform to §§ 151 through 160
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act (the Act) (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470,
October 27, 1974; 15 U.S.C. 1411-1420).
The amendments of Part 577 were published
as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Fed-
eral Register on May 6, 1975 (40 FR 19651).
Approximately 30 comments were received from
vehicle and equipment manufacturers, equipment
distributors, trade associations representing these
groups, and the Center for Auto Safety. The
National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council
did not take a position on this proposal. Inter-
ested persons are advised that NHTSA Dockets
75-30 (Defect and Noncompliance Responsibil-
ity), 75-31 (Petitions for Hearing on Notification
and Remedy of Defects or Failure to Comply),
and 74-7 (Defect and Noncompliance Reporting)
are relevant to the subject matter of this rule-
making.
The agency is amending its earlier notification
procedures to reflect the major expansion of
manufacturer responsibilities under the Motor
Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of
1974 to notifj' vehicle and equipment owners or
purchasers of noncompliances with safety stand-
ards and of defects that relate to motor vehicle
safety (hereinafter referred to as defects), chief
of which is that remedy shall be without charge
in most cases.
The new regulation specifies the content, tim-
ing, and form of notification that complies with
the requirements set forth in § 153 of the Act.
Distinctions among notifications that arise under
difi'erent circumstances are set forth in detail.
Provisions concerning disclaimers in the notifica-
tion and conformity to the statutory requirements
are carried over from the former Part 577.
Comments on the proposal were generally in
agreement with the revision of the regulation, iji
recognition that the revision reflects responsibili-
ties already a matter of law. Several questions
were raised with regard to the authority for or
wisdom of specific provisions of the proposed
regulation, and these are discussed below.
Motor vehicle manufacturers and the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA)
expressed strong support for modification of the
statutory definitions of "original equipment" and
"replacement equipment" that allocate responsi-
bility for notification and remedy between vehicle
and equipment manufacturers. The agencj' has
issued a separate proposal to redistribute respon-
sibility (40 FR 56930, December 5, 1975) which
addresses the issues raised. Resolution of that
proposal will be responsive to the issues raised
by the MV1VL4. and vehicle manufacturei-s. To
simplify any future action in this area, the two
terms are no longer set forth in Part 577.
In the definitions section of the regulation, the
phrase "in good faith" has been added to the
definition of "first purchaser" to conform to its
meaning under § 108(b) (1) of the Act.
The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association
(RVIA) requested that vehicle alterers be per-
mitted to meet (assume) the obligations of manu-
facturers for notification and remedy on a
voluntary basis. Without notice and oppor-
tunity for comment on this idea, the agency does
not consider it wise to modifj' the regulation as
suggested by the RVIA.
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO A
MANUFACTURER'S DETERMINATION
Section 151 of the Act provides that a manu-
facturer who determines in good faith that a
defect or noncompliance exists in its products
PART 577— PRE 11
EffecKve: June 28, 1977
"shall furnish notification to the Secretary and
to owners, purchasers, and dealers in accordance
with section 153, and he shall remedy the defect
or failure to comply in accordance with section
154."
Section 577.5 of Part 577 provides for manu-
facturer-initiated notifications in accordance with
§ 151. The section specifies, among other things,
that a statement appear in the notification that
the manufacturer has determined that a defect
or noncompliance exists in identified vehicles or
equipment. An additional statement may be
made to indicate that the problem may not exist
in each such vehicle or item of equipment. The
MVMA and American Motors Corporation
(AMC) believed that a better approach would
be to state that the defect or noncompliance
exists in some, but not all, vehicles or items of
equipment (if such is the case), and that an
owner should bring his vehicle in for inspection
in any case. The agency does not believe that
either the MVMA or AMC has an expertise in
this area and declines to adopt the suggested
modification.
Paragraph (e) of § 577.5 requires a clear de-
scription of the defect or noncompliance, includ-
ing, among other things,
(e) ***
(2) A description of any malfunction that
may occur. The description of a noncompli-
ance with an applicable standard shall include
the difference between the performance of the
noncomplying vehicle or item of replacement
equipment and the performance specified by
the standard;
The MVMA viewed the phrase "any malfunc-
tion" as overbroad and ambiguous, in that a
manufacturer would be held to correctly antici-
pate a malfunction, whether or not related to
safety or the noncompliance. The agency agrees
that such a description would go beyond the
purpose of the notification and therefore has
narrowed somewhat the language proposed.
Vehicle manufacturers and the MVMA argued
that the second sentence of paragraph (e) (2)
should be deleted because an exact description
of the difference in performance due to noncom-
pliance would be too technical for comprehension
by most owners, require extensive and expensive
testing in some cases that would delay notifica-
tion, and be the basis for a technical violation of
the regulation. The agency believes that the
description is valuable to vehicle or equipment
owners in understanding the noncompliance, but
agrees that a detailed description could delay
notification unnecessarily. Accordingly, the
phrase "in general terms" is added to modify the
required description.
The Center for Auto Safety (the Center) be-
lieved that the statement required by (e) to
minimize the chances of an accident before
remedy failed to mention prior warnings that
the vehicle's operating characteristics might of-
fer. "Wliile prior warning is adequately covered
by the "evaluation of risk" statement made re-
garding the possibility of vehicle crash (para-
graph (f)(l)(ii)), the agency has added a
comparable requirement to paragraph (f ) (2)
(that covers "non-crash" type defects and non-
compliances) .
The Specialty Equipment Manufacturer As-
sociation objected that any evaluation of the risk
to motor vehicle safety would be speculative and
therefore was unjustified. This requirement,
however, is based on the specific requirement of
§ 153(a) of the Act, and cannot be eliminated.
The Center believed that the evaluation of risk
to motor vehicle safety is a discretionary state-
ment that need not be made by a manufacturer.
This is not the case. Section 577.5 is a require-
ment that the information (b) through (g) be
listed and, under paragraph (f), the evaluation
must either describe the crash hazard or be a
description of the "general type of injurj' to
occupants, or [others] , that can result."
Paragraph (g) of § 577.5, dealing with meas-
ures to be taken by the owner, proved to be the
greatest source of comments on the proposal.
The paragT'aph is divided into subparagraphs
dealing with notification of remedy without
charge and notification of remedy for which the
manufacturer will charge. This distinction is
based on § 154(a) (4) of the Act which limits the
"remedy without charge" to vehicles or equip-
ment first purchased no more than 8 years (3
years in the case of tires) before notification in
accordance with §§ 151 or 152.
Paragraph (g)(1) specifies requirements both
for notification when the remedy must be under-
PART 677— PRE 12
Effective: June 28, 1977
taken and also notification when the manufac-
turer vohintarily decides to remedy without
charge. The M\TMA and General Motors (GM)
felt that manufacturers imdertaking voluntary
remedy should not be subjected to the same noti-
fication requirements as those manufacturers
required to remedy. The agency distinguishes
between the separate duties of notification and
remedy, however, and notes that the notification
requirements of § 153 of the Act contain no ex-
ceptions for older vehicles and equipment. The
M\TiIA's abbreviated list of requirements for a
\oluntary remedy do not fulfill the requirements
of §153. For example, § 153(a) (2) requires
that the notification contain an evaluation of the
risk to motor vehicle safety.
It is the agency's philosophy that a manu-
facturer undertaking a i-emedy should provide
the same information to the owner whether or
not the remedy is undertaken voluntarily. In
this way, an owner will be apprised of the infor-
mation necessary to make informed decision.
Also, events beyond the manufacturer's control
will not be able to negate the remedy without
agency or manufacturer's knowledge. For these
reasons, the agency does not modify the require-
ments as suggested.
Aside from the general suitability of para-
graph (g)(l)'s requirements for a voluntary-
remedy, manufacturers raised more specific ques-
tions about the separate provisions.
International Harvester Company (IH) as-
serted with regard to paragraph (g) (1) (i) that
no basis existed for the exception of replacement
equipment from the right to refund as a means
of remedy. In the agency's view, § 1.54(2) (B)
of the Act clearly limits the remedy for items of
replacement equipment to either repair or re-
placement.
IH objected to the requirements that the
earliest date for repair set under paragraph
(&) (1) (ii) be premised on anticipated receipt by
dealers of necessary parts for repair. The com-
pany pointed out that some repair parts would
not typically be forwarded to a dealer for repair
until a specific request has arisen. The agency
would like to clarify that ths "earliest date" can
be established as a certain number of days fol-
lowing inspection of the defective or noncomply-
ing vehicle. Thus a manufacturer need only
calculate the time that it would take to get the
parts to the dealer following an inspection and
then state that the earliest date for repair will
follow the date of inspection by that amount.
AMC argued that the requirement for a gen-
eral description of the work and amount of time
involved in a repair without charge by the manu-
facturer's dealer exceeded the authority of the
Act and is unnecessary when the manufacturer
undertakes repair. The same argument was
made with regard to paragraphs (g) (1) (v) and
(vi). The agency disagrees, and notes that the
specific authority listed in § 153(a) is "in addi-
tion to such other matters as the Secretary may
prescribe by regulation." As for the need for a
general description, it is concluded that the owner
would value knowledge of the time involved and
the nature of the repair that is involved, to cor-
rectly weigh the gravity of the problem. Cor-
respondingly, the offer of replacement or refund
is more helpful to the owner if it includes the
detail that has been specified.
In paragraph (g)(l)(iv), the MVMA asked
for parallelism with the construction of para-
graph (g)(l)(iii). It is accomplished by the
addition of "or its dealers" following the word
"manufactui'er." IH suggested the addition of
"authorized service centers" to the list, but this
is unnecessary in view of the NHTSA's interpre-
tation of "dealer" to include an authorized service
center.
The Center, Mack Trucks, and Crane Carrier
Corporation (CCC) commented on paragraph
(g)(l)(iv)'s requirement that the method or
basis for a manufacturer's assessment of depre-
ciation be specified. The two manufacturers
suggested use of a retailer's price guide as the
basis. The Center suggested that a method for
determination of depreciation be de\ased by a
panel of industry, government, and consumer
representatives. The legislative history indicates
that retailer price guides should not be the sole
criterion, and thus the Mack and CCC recom-
mendations are not adopted. Until tliere is some
indication that the manufacturers' chosen meth-
ods of assessment are unreasonable, the agency
does not consider it necessary to exercise its
authoritj' in this area, and the Center's sugges-
tion is also not adoj)ted.
PAET 577— PEE 13
EfFecHve: June 28, 1977
The greatest objections were raised regarding
the statement advising an owner how to inform
the NHTSA if he believes that the notification
or remedy is inadequate, or that the remedy was
untimely or not made in accordance with the
notification. PACCAR, AMC, Chrysler, GM,
IH, the EVIA, and the MVMA considered the
statement to be, in some respects, beyond the
agency's statutory authority and not contem-
plated by Congress. As earlier noted, § 153 is
prefaced by a general grant of authority to the
agency to specify the contents of the notification.
The agency has considered the objections, in
any case, particularly in view of the decision to
require the same notification in the case of vol-
untary and mandatory remedy notices. It is
concluded that modification of the statements to
reflect the exact terms of § 154(a) (6) is appro-
priate.
Manufacturers objected to the language of
paragraph (g) (1) (vii) (C) that invites owner
complaints if a remedy is not effected within a
reasonable period. The agency considers timeli-
ness to be an aspect of whether a manufacturer
has failed or is unable to provide a remedy as
specified in § 153(a) (6) of the Act. The agency
does agree that remedy by replacement or refund
should not be limited to the first 60 days, since
it might follow a failure to repair within that
60-day period. In conforming to § 154(b)(1),
the agency substitutes "tender" for "first at-
tempt." Also reference to extension by the
Administrator of the 60-day repair period has
been added to paragraph (g) (1) (vii) (C) (1).
GM suggested that an additional statement be
made to owners, advising them of recourse avail-
able with the manufacturer if the dealer's re-
sponse is unsatisfactory. The agency considers
this desirable but, without the benefit of notice
and opportunity for comment, declines to make
this addition. Paragraph (g) (1), of course, only
sets forth what the manufacturer "shall include"
in its notification, and it may make such addi-
tional statements as it deems necessary.
There was no comment on the second part of
§ 577.5 that deals with manufacturer notices in
which remedy without charge is not required and
is not volunteered. Accordingly, the paragraph
is adopted as proposed.
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION
Section 577.6 provides for Administration-
ordered notifications in accordance with § 152.
Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) set forth require-
ments for the three types of notification contem-
plated by the Act. Manufacturers made no
comment on the requirements for notification
ordered by the Administrator in the first instance,
and paragraph (a) is accordingly made final as
proposed.
PACCAR objected to provisional notification
as placing an unreasonable burden on the manu-
facturer, rendering any court decision in its
favor meaningless. Section 155(b) of the Act
clearly contemplates such an order, however, and
the regulations consequently do provide for it.
Comments were received on the proposed con-
tent of the provisional notification. The MVMA
pointed out that the requirement in paragraph
(b) (2) should be clarified to permit a statement
that the defect or non-compliance may not occur
in all the described vehicles. The agency agrees
and adds a paragraph similar to § 577.5(d).
With regard to the proposed paragraph (b)
(4), the MVMA asked that reference to a
"United States District Court" be broadened to
"the Federal courts" and that the statement make
clear that the NHTSA and not the court is order-
ing provisional notification. The agency concurs
in these clarifications and they are made where
appropriate in the final rule.
The requirements of paragraphs (b)(5), (6),
and (7) provide for a description of the Admin-
istrator's determination, his evaluation of the
hazard, and the recommended measures to avoid
unreasonable hazard resulting from the defect
or noncompliance. Fiat requested that the de-
scription, evaluation, and recommended measui'es
be provided by the NHTSA. As specified in the
requirements, it is the "Administrator's stated
basis" that must be described, and the measures
"stated in his order" that must be listed. The
agency intends to include in each order a de-
scription, evaluation, and list of measures that
permit quotation or paraphrase by the manufac-
turer.
Chrysler and the MVMA asked that a manu-
facturer be permitted more latitude to explain
PART 577— PRE 14
Effective: June 28, 1977
its position than provided for in paragraph
(b) (8). Tlie agency has considered this request,
and concludes that extensive advocacy of the
manufacturer's position would detract from the
intent of the provisional notification to put the
owner on notice of potential problems. The
Chrysler and MVMA suggestion is therefore not
adopted.
In the required statement dealing with avail-
ability of remedy and reimbursement in the
event the court upholds the Administrator's de-
termination (paragraph (b)(9)), Chrysler ar-
gued that the suggestion of reimbursement would
generate poor customer relations if a repair were
sought or undertaken during pendency of a court
proceeding in which the manufacturer prevailed.
The agency is aware of the possibility for some
misunderstanding but is certain that the provi-
sional notification was intended by the Congress
to encourage owners to consider repair or other
corrective action while the manufacturer contests
the determination. For this reason, the notice
of possible reimbursement remains in the regu-
lation. The first statement in (b) (9) (i) has
been clarified in one minor respect.
The MVMA requested that the phrase "for
repair" be substituted for "in repairing" to per-
mit manufacturers to make clear that reimburse-
ment would only cover the repairs that were
reasonable and necessary to correct the defect or
noncompliance. The NHTSA believes that the
term "reasonable and necessary" makes clear
what repairs would be reimbursed should the
court uphold an Administrator's determination.
The MVMA asked, and the agency agrees, that
the reimbursement statement be qualified by the
limitations that appear in the statute.
Paragraph (b) (10) requires a statement
whether, in the manufacturer's opinion, a repair
of the defect or noncompliance is possible. GM
asked that "feasible" be substituted for "possible"
and the agency makes the change in agreement
that it more clearly reflects the judgement made
by a manufacturer in choosing its preferred
remedy. The MVMA and Chrysler made the
more basic objection that (b) (10) assumes that
a defect or noncompliance exists prior to the
court's ruling, and that it requires unjustified
effort to develop repair parts and facilities before
a decision is readied on the validity of the Ad-
ministrator's determination. The agency is of
the view that the level of detail specified is justi-
fied in these cases and necessary to fulfill the
purpose of provisional notification contemplated
by Congress. The agency has modified the word-
ing to make clear that reimbursement for ex-
penses are limited to those necessary and
reasonable for repair.
With regard to proposed paragraph (b)(12),
the MVMA asked that only notification and not
remedy be mentioned. There will be a discussion
of remedy in the notification, however, and the
owner should be encouraged to inquire further
as to this aspect of the notification.
Firestone and the Automotive Parts and Ac-
cessories Association felt that the regulations
should apply to the agency and that it should
be required to advise the owner, purchaser, and
dealer in the event its determination is not up-
held by the courts. The statutoi-y scheme being
implemented by Part 577 concerns manufacturer
obligations under §§ 151 through 160 of the Act
to notify and remedy safety problems in vehicles.
The agency does not consider an expansion of
the regulations beyond this purpose as appro-
priate. Nothing, of course, prevents the manu-
facturer from making such a notice to the owner
or others.
Paragraph (c) of § 577.6 deals with final
notification following a coui-t decision in the
Administrator's favor, and it is adopted, with
corrections similar to those made in the other
sections. Because the MVMA objected to ref-
erence to being "upheld in a proceeding in a
United States District Court" as the basis for
the post-litigation order, the agency has sub-
stituted the language of the Act. Also, reference
to "a date" on which provisional notification was
ordered is corrected to "the date" to reflect that
it will in all cases be a specific date.
TIME AND MANNEE OF NOTIFICATION
The major problem with regard to the time
and manner of notification concerned the statu-
tory requirement (§ 153(c)(1)) that notification
be,
§ 153 * * *
(c) * * *
(1) in the case of a motor vehicle, by first
class mail to each person who is registered
PART 577— PRE 15
Effective: June 28, 1977
under State law as the owner of such vehicle
and whose name and address is reasonably
ascertainable by the manufacturer through
State records or other sources available to
him;
PACCAR, Volkswagen, and IH expressed
their doubts that all State records would be
available or that alternative services would pro-
vide timely information. The agency has in-
corporated the statutory requirements in this
regulation word-for-word and, on that basis, de-
clines to modify it. As for the suggestion that
"reasonably ascertainable" be defined, it is the
agency's view that the phrase is only given
meaning by the separate factual situations that
arise. The agency cannot agree with PACCAR
that records are not "reasonably ascertainable"
simply by virtue of delay in retrieving them.
Sheller-Globe Corporation asked if certified
mail would be considered the equivalent of first
class mail for meeting the requirements. As a
school bus manufacturer, Sheller-Globe wanted
certainty of notification to school districts and
other customers. The NHTSA does not consider
them equivalent in view of relevant legislative
history. Congi-ess considered the U.S. Postal
Service regidation that prohibits fonvarding of
certified mail and they concluded that first class
mail would be a superior means of obtaining
notification.
With regard to the maximum times permitted
for issuance of notification, the Center asked
that the period be reduced to 30 days in the
case of all Administration-ordered notifications.
Some manufacturers asked that the 30-flay period
for provisional notification be expanded to 60
days. B.F. Goodrich stated that notification
letters cannot he printed in advance of actual
mailing, because the date for earliest remedy
must be included in the letter. The agency has
weighed the conflicting views, and concludes that
a 60-day period is justified for administration-
ordered recalls. The provisional notification re-
quirement is amended accordingly.
IH suggested that public notice of defects or
noncompliances in items of replacement equip-
ment would be adequate, and that notice to the
most recent purchaser should be optional. The
agency has simply conformed its regulation to
the statutory requirements of § 153(c).
OTHER MATTERS
The MVA suggested that the disclaimer sec-
tion of the regulation could be clarified by an
additional paragraph permitting manufacturer
statements that a notification does not "constitute
an admission by the manufacturer that it has
been guilty of negligence or other wrong doing."
The agency views this statement as exactly the
type of disclaimer that could contribute to a
reader's decision not to take action in response to
notification and accordingly declines to adopt the
MVMA recommendation.
With regard to the MVMA concern that tech-
nical violations of the regidations not be pursued
as a violation of the Act under § 577.9, the
agency expects to continue to enforce the Act
and its regulations in a reasonable manner, calcu-
lated to avoid arbitrariness or iiTationality.
After-market equipment manufacturers and
their associations expressed the view that the
notification sclieme was unworkable for notice
to equipment purchasers, that wear of parts in
normal use conflicted with the concept of safety-
related defects, and tliat the 8-year period for
remedy without charge was too long. Also, the
establishment of a cut-off based on the date of
retail sale appeared impractical, because records
of these transactions are not maintained. As a
response, the agency notes that the regulation
conforms to the statute's language and clearly
expressed Congressional intent. Experience to
date with the requirements does not demonstrate
that they are in fact unworkable. The issues of
improper installation and remanufactured parts
were not addressed by the statute, and resolution
of these issues wil require some experience with
situations as they arise.
The RVIA asked that the agency exercise its
authority to require the submission to manufac-
turers by dealei-s of the names and addresses of
purchasers. The agency takes this recommenda-
tion under advisement but, as it is beyond the
scope of Part 577, does not act on it in this
notice.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 577,
"Defect Notification," of Title 40, Code of Fed-
PART 577— PRE 16
Effective: June 28, 1977
eral Regulations, is renamed "Defect and Non- Issued on December 22, 1976.
compliance Notification" and is amended to read
as set forth below.
Effective date : June 28, 1977. John W. Snow
(Sees. 108, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. Administrator
718; Sec. 102, 103, 104, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat.
1470 (15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1407, 1411-1420; 41 F.R. 56813
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50) December 30, 1976
PART 577— PRE 17-18
'(
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 577
Defect and Noncompliance Notification
(Docltet No. 80-17; Notice 1)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the defect and non-
compliance notification regulation to require that
manufacturers include the agency's toll free Auto
Safety Hotline number in their defect and non-
compliance notification letters. The amendment is
being made to provide a means of easy access to
the agency by consumers who may have com-
plaints about the recall and remedy of their
vehicles or equipment. Since it is a minor technical
amendment, it is being made effective immediate-
ly without notice or opportunity for comment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 22, 1981.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Murray, Office of Defects
Investigation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590,
202-426-2840
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice
makes a minor technical amendment to Part 577,
Defect and Noncompliance Notification, to require
manufacturers conducting recall campaigns to in-
clude the agency's toll free Auto Safety Hotline
number in the notification letters.
Existing notification letters are required to
state that a consumer may contact the agency if he
or she feels that remedy of a defect or non-
compliance is not being made without charge or in
a reasonable time. Manufacturers also frequently
include their address and a toll free number that
consumers can call to complain to the manufac-
turer about the status of a remedy. The agency
believes that the use of manufacturer toll free
numbers is a good idea and has decided that the
agency's toll free number should also be included
in the letter. This will provide easy access for con-
sumers to the agency for reporting any complaints
concerning the recall or remedy of their vehicles.
It also will provide timely information to our En-
forcement office pertaining to the compliance with
our regulations by the manufacturers.
Since this is a minor technical amendment and
will result in little impact upon manufacturers, the
agency finds for good cause shown that it is in the
interest of safety to make the amendment effec-
tive immediately without notice and opportunity
for comment.
In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 577, Defect and
Noncompliance Notification, is amended by revis-
ing the introductory sentence in paragraph
577.5(g)(l)(vii) to read as follows:
(vii) A statement informing the owner that he
or she may submit a complaint to the Administra-
tor, National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20590 or call the toll free Auto Safety Hotline at
800-426-9393 (Washington, D.C. area residents may
call 426-0123), if the owner believes that—
The principal authors of this notice are Mr.
James Murray of the Office of Defects Investiga-
tions and Roger Tilton of the Office of Chief
Counsel.
Issued on January 14, 1981.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
46 FR 6971
January 22, 1981
PART 577-PRE 19-20
PART 577— DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION
(Docket No. 72-7; Notice 2)
Sec.
577.1 Scope.
577.2 Purpose.
577.3 Application.
577.4 Definitions.
577.5 Notification pursuant to a manufacturer's
determination.
577.6 Notification pursuant to the Administrator's
determination.
577.7 Time and manner of notification.
577.8 Disclaimers.
577.9 Conformity to statutory requirements.
Authority: Sees. 108, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563;
80 Stat. 718; Sees. 102, 103, 104, Pub. L. 93-492,
88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1408, 1411-
1420; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.51
and 49 CFR 501.8)
§ 577.1 Scope.
This part sets forth requirements for notifica-
tion to owners of motor vehicles and replacement
equipment about the possibility of a defect
which relates to motor vehicle safety or a non-
compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard.
§ 577.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to ensure that
notifications of defects or noncompliances ade-
quately inform and effectively motivate owners
of potentially defective or noncomplying motor
vehicles or items of replacement equipment to
have such vehicles or equipment inspected and,
when necessary, remedied as quickly as possible.
§ 577.3 Application.
This part applies to manufacturers of com-
pleted motor vehicles, incomplete motor vehicles,
and replacement equipment. In the case of
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages,
compliance by either the manufacturer of the in-
complete vehicle, any subsequent manufacturer,
or the manufacturer of affected replacement
equipment shall be considered compliance by
each of those manufacturers.
§ 577.4 Definitions.
For purposes of this part:
"Act" means the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C.
1391 et seq.
"Administrator" means the Administrator of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion or his delegate.
"First purchaser" means the first purchaser
in good faith for a purpose other than resale.
"Owners" include purchaser.
§ 577.5 Notification pursuant to a manufacturer's
determination.
(a) When a manufacturer of motor vehicles
or replacement equipment determines that any
motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment
produced by him contains a defect which relates
to motor vehicle safety, or fails to conform to an
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,
he shall provide notification in accordance with
paragraph (a) of § 577.7, unless the manufac-
turer is exempted by the Administrator (pur-
suant to section 157 of the Act) from giving
such notification. The notification shall contain
the information specified in this section. The
information required by paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section shall be presented in the form
and order specified. The information required
PART 577-1
by paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section
may be presented in any order. Notification
sent to an owner whose address is in either the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Canal Zone
shall be written in both English and Spanish.
(b) An opening statement: "This notice is sent
to you in accordance with the requirements of
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act."
(c) Whichever of the following statements is
appropriate:
(1) "(Manufacturer's name or division) has
determined that a defect which relates to
motor vehicle safety exists in (identified motor
vehicles, in the case of notification sent by a
motor vehicle manufacturer; identified replace-
ment equipment, in the case of notification
sent by a replacement equipment manufac-
turer);" or
(2) "(Manufacturer's name or division) has
determined that (identified motor vehicles, in
the case of notification sent by a motor vehicle
manufacturer; identified replacement equip-
ment, in the case of notification sent by a re-
placement equipment manufacturer) fail to
conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. (number and title of standard)."
(d) When the manufacturer determines that
the defect or noncompliance may not exist in
each vehicle or item of replacement equipment,
he may include an additional statement to that
effect.
(e) A clear description of the defect or non-
compliance, which shall include—
(1) An identification of the vehicle system
or particular item(s) of motor vehicle equip-
ment affected.
(2) A description of the malfunction that
may occur as a result of the defect or non-
compliance. The description of a noncom-
pliance with an applicable standard shall
include, in general terms, the difference between
the performance of the noncomplying vehicle
or item of replacement equipment and the per-
formance specified by the standard;
(3) A statement of any operating or other
conditions that may cause the malfunction to
occur; and
(4) A statement of the precautions, if any,
that the owner should take to reduce the chance
that the maifunction will occur before the de-
fect or noncompliance is remedied.
(f ) An evaluation of the risk to motor vehicle
safety reasonably related to the defect or non-
compliance.
(1) When vehicle crash is a potential occur-
rence, the evaluation shall include whichever
of the following is appropriate:
(i) A statement that the defect or non-
compliance can cause vehicle crash without
prior warning; or
(ii) A description of whatever prior warn-
ing may occur, and a statement that if this
warning is not heeded, vehicle crash can
occur.
(2) When vehicle crash is not a potential
occurrence, the evaluation must include a state-
ment indicating the general type of injury to
occupants of the vehicle, or to persons outside
the vehicle, that can result from the defect or
noncompliance, and a description of whatever
prior warning may occur.
(g) A statement of measures to be taken to
remedy the defect or noncompliance, in accord-
ance with paragraph (g) (1) or (g) (2) of this
section, whichever is appropriate.
(1) When the manufacturer is required by
the Act to remedy the defect or noncompliance
without charge, or when he will voluntarily so
remedy in full conformity with the Act, he
shall include—
(i) A statement that he will cause such
defect or noncompliance to be remedied
without charge, and whether such remedy
will be by repair, replacement, or (except
in the case of replacement equipment) re-
fund, less depreciation, of the purchase
price.
(ii) The earliest date on which the defect
or noncompliance will be remedied without
charge. In the case of remedy by repair,
this date shall be the earliest date on which
the manufacturer reasonably expects that
dealers or other service facilites will receive
necessary parts and instructions. The manu-
facturer shall specify the last date, if any,
PART 577-2
on which he will remedy tires without
charge.
(iii) In the case of remedy by repair
through the manufacturer's dealers or other
service facilities:
(A) A general description of the work
involved in repairing the defect or non-
compliance; and
(B) The manufacturer's estimate of the
time reasonably necessary to perform the
labor required to correct the defect or non-
compliance.
(iv) In the case of remedy by repair
through service facilities other than those of
the manufacturer or its dealers:
(A) The name and part number of each
part that must be added, replaced, or
modified;
(B) A description of any modifications that
must be made to existing parts which shall
also be identified by name and part number;
(C) Information as to where needed parts
will be available;
(D) A detailed description (including ap-
propriate illustrations) of each step required
to correct the defect or noncompliance;
(E) The manufacturer's estimate of the
time reasonably necessary to perform the
labor required to correct the defect or non-
compliance; and
(F) The manufacturer's recommenda-
tions of service facilities where the owner
should have the repairs performed.
(v) In the case of remedy by replacement,
a description of the motor vehicle or item of
replacement equipment that the manufacturer
will provide as a replacement for the defective
or noncomplying vehicle or equipment.
(vi) In the case of remedy by refund of
purchase price, the method or basis for the
manufacturer's assessment of depreciation.
(vii) A statement informing the owner that
he or she may submit a complaint to the Ad-
ministrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 or call the toll-free
Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393
(Washington D.C. area residents may call
426-0123), if the owner believes that—
(A) The manufacturer, distributor, or
dealer has failed or is unable to remedy
the defect or noncompliance without
charge.
(B) The manufacturer has failed or is
unable to remedy the defect or noncom-
pliance without charge—
(1) (In the case of motor vehicles or
items of replacement equipment, other
than tires) within a reasonable time,
which is not longer than 60 days in the
case of repair after the owner's first
tender to obtain repair following the
earliest repair date specified in the no-
tification, unless the period is extended
by the Administrator.
(2) (In the case of tires) after the
date specified in the notification on
which replacement tires will be avail-
able.
(2) When the manufacturer is not required
to remedy the defect or noncompliance with-
out charge and he will not voluntarily so
remedy, the statement shall include—
(i) A statement that the manufacturer is
not required by the Act to remedy without
charge.
(ii) A statement of the extent to which
the manufacturer will voluntarily remedy,
including the method of remedy and any
limitations and conditions imposed by the
manufacturer on such remedy.
(iii) The manufacturer's opinion whether
the defect or noncompliance can be remedied
by repair. If the manufacturer believes that
repair is possible, the statement shall in-
clude the information specified in paragraph
(g) (1) (iv) of this section, except that—
(A) The statement required by para-
graph (g) (1) (iv) (A) of this section shall
also indicate the suggested list price of
each part.
(B) The statement required by para-
graph (G) (1) (iv) (C) of this section shall
also indicate the manufacturer's estimate
of the date on which the parts will be
generally available.
PART 577-3
§ 577.6 Notification pursuant to Administrator's
determination.
(a) Manufacturer-ordered-notification. When
a manufacturer is ordered pursuant to section
152 of the Act to provide notification of a defect
or noncompliance, he shall provide such notifica-
tion in accordance with §§ 577.5 and 577.7, ex-
cept that the statement required by paragraph
(c) of § 577.5 shall indicate that the determina-
tion has been made by the Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
(b) Provisional notification. When a manu-
facturer does not provide notification as required
by paragraph (a) of this section, and an action
concerning the Administrator's order to provide
such notification has been filed in a United States
District Court, the manufacturer shall, upon the
Administrator's further order, provide in accord-
ance with paragraph (b) of § 577.7 a provisional
notification containing the information specified
in this paragraph, in the order and, where spec-
ified, the form of paragraphs (b) (1) through
(b) (12) of this section.
(1) An opening statement: "This notice is
sent to you in accordance with the require-
ments of the National Traffic and Motor Ve-
hicle Safety Act."
(2) Whichever of the following statements
is appropriate:
(i) "The Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
determined that a defect which relates to
motor vehicle safety exists in (identified
motor vehicles, in the case of notification
sent by a motor vehicle manufacturer; iden-
tified replacement equipment, in the case of
notification sent by a replacement equipment
manufacturer);" or
(ii) "The Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
determined that (identified motor vehicles,
in the case of notification sent by a motor
vehicle manufacturer; identified replacement
equipment, in the case of notification sent
by a replacement equipment manufacturer)
fail to conform to Federal Vehicle Safety
Standard No. (number and title of stand-
ard)."
(3) When the Administrator determines that '
the defect or noncompliance may not exist in
each such vehicle or item of replacement
equipment, the manufacturer may include an
additional statement to that effect.
(4) The statement: "(Manufacturer's name
or division) is contesting this determination in
a proceeding in the Federal courts and has
been required to issue this notice pending the
outcome of the court proceeding."
(5) A clear description of the Admini-
strator's stated basis for his determination, as
provided in this order, including a brief sum-
mary of the evidence and reasoning that the
Administrator relied upon in making his de-
termination.
(6) A clear description of the Adminis-
trator's stated evaluation as provided in his
order of the risk to motor vehicle safety rea-
sonably related to the defect or noncompliance.
(7) Any measures that the Administrator
has stated in his order should be taken by the
owner to avoid an unreasonable hazard result-
ing from the defect or noncompliance.
(8) A brief summary of the evidence and
reasoning upon which the manufacturer relies
in contesting the Administrator's determina-
tion.
(9) A statement regarding the availability
of remedy and reimbursement in accordance
with paragraph 9(i) or 9(ii) below, whichever
is appropriate.
(i) When the purchase date of the vehicle
or item of equipment is such that the manu-
facturer is required by the Act to remedy
without charge or to reimburse the owner
for reasonable and necessary repair expenses,
he shall include—
(A) A statement that the remedy will
be provided without charge to the owner
if the Court upholds the Administrator's
determination.
(B) A statement of the method of rem-
edy. If the manufacturer has not yet
determined the method of remedy, he shall
indicate that he will select either repair,
replacement with an equivalent vehicle or
item of replacement equipment, or (except
PART 577-4
in the case of replacement equipment) re-
fund, less depreciation, of the purchase
price; and
(C) A statement that, if the Court up-
holds the Administrator's determination,
he will reimburse the owner for any rea-
sonable and necessary expenses that the
owner incurs (not in excess of any amount
specified by the Administrator) in repair-
ing the defect or noncompliance following
a date, specified by the manufacturer,
which shall not be later than the date of
the Administrator's order to issue this
notification.
(ii) When the manufacturer is not re-
quired either to remedy without charge or
to reimburse, he shall include—
(A) A statement that he is not required
to remedy or reimburse, or
(B) A statement of the extent to which
he will voluntarily remedy or reimburse,
including the method of remedy if then
known, and any limitations and conditions
on such remedy or reimbursement.
(10) A statement indicating whether, in the
manufacturers opinion, the defect or noncom-
pliance can be remedied by repair. When the
manufacturer believes that such remedy is
feasible, the statement shall include:
(i) A general description of the work and
the manufacturer's estimate of the costs in-
volved in repairing the defect or noncom-
pliance;
(ii) Information on where needed parts
and instructions for repairing the defect or
noncompliance will be available, including
the manufacturer's estimate of the day on
which they will be generally available;
(iii) The manufacturer's estimate of the
time reasonably necessary to perform the
labor required to correct the defect or non-
compliance; and
(iv) The manufacturer's recommendations
of service facilities where the owner could
have the repairs performed, including (in
the case of a manufacturer required to re-
imburse if the Administrator's determination
is upheld in the court proceeding) at least
one service facility for whose charges the
owner will be fully reimbursed if the Ad-
ministrator's determination is upheld.
(11) A statement that further notice wil be
mailed by the manufacturer to the owner if
the Administrator's determination is upheld
in the court proceeding; and
(12) An address of the manufacturer where
the owner may write to obtain additional in-
formation regarding the notification and rem-
edy.
(c) Post-litigation notification. When a man-
ufacturer does not provide notification as re-
quired in paragraph (a) of this section and the
Administrator prevails in an action commenced
with respect to such notification, the manufac-
turer shall, upon the Administrator's further
order, provide notification in accordance with
paragraph (b) of § 577.7 containing the informa-
tion specified in paragraph (a) of this section,
except that—
(1) The statement required by paragraph
(c) of § 577.5 shall indicate that the determina-
tion has been made by the Administrator and
that his determination has been upheld in a
proceeding in the Federal courts; and
(2) When a provisional notification was is-
sued regarding the defect or noncompliance
and the manufacturer is required under the
Act to reimburse—
(i) The manufacturer shall state that he
will reimburse the owner for any reasonable
and necessary expenses that the owner in-
curred (not in excess of any amount specified
by the Administrator) for repair of the de-
fect or noncompliance of the vehicle or item
of equipment on or after the date on which
provisional notification was ordered to be
issued and on or before a date not sooner
than the date on which this notification is
received by the owner. The manufacturer
shall determine and specify both dates.
(ii) The statement required by paragraph
(g) (1) (vii) of § 577.5 shall also inform the
owner that he may submit a complaint to
the Administrator if the owner believes that
the manufacturer has failed to reimburse
adequately.
PART 577-5
(3) If the manufacturer is not required un-
der the Act to reimburse, he shall include—
(i) A statement that he is not required
to reimburse, or
(ii) When he will voluntarily reimburse,
a statement of the extent to which he will
do so, including any limitations and condi-
tions on such reimbursement.
§ 577.7 Time and manner of notification.
(a) The notification required by § 577.5 shall—
(1) Be furnished within a reasonable time
after the manufacturer first determines the
existence of a defect which relates to motor
vehicle safety, or of a noncompliance.
(2) Be accomplished—
(i) In the case of a notification required
to be sent by a motor vehicle manufacturer,
by first class mail to each person who is reg-
istered under State law as the owner of the
vehicle and whose name and address are rea-
sonably ascertainable by the manufacturer
through State records or other sources avail-
able to him. If the owner cannot be reason-
able ascertained, the manufacturer shall
notify the most recent purchaser known to
the manufacturer.
(ii) In the case of a notification required
to be sent by a replacement equipment man-
ufacturer—
(A) By first class mail to the most re-
cent purchaser known to the manufacturer,
and
(B) (Except in the case of a tire) if
determined by the Administrator to be
necessary for motor vehcile safety, by pub-
lic notice in such manner as the Admin-
istrator may determine after consultation
with the manufacturer.
(iii) In the case of a manufacturer re-
quired to provide notification concerning any
defective or noncomplying tire, by first class
or certified mail,
(b) The notification required by any para-
graph of § 577.6 shall be provided:
(1) Within 60 days after the manufacturer's
receipt of the Administrator's order to provide
the notification, except that the notification
shall be furnished within a shorter or longer
period if the Administrator incorporates in his
order a finding that such period is in the pub-
lic interest; and
(2) In the manner and to the recipients
specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 577.8 Disclaimers.
(a) A notification sent pursuant to § 577.5 or
§ 577.6 regarding a defect which relates to motor
vehicle safety shall not, except as specifically
provided in this part, contain any statement or
implication that there is no defect, that the defect
does not relate to motor vehicle safety, or that
the defect is not present in the owner's vehicle
or item of replacement equipment.
(b) A notification sent pursuant to § 577.5 or
§ 577.6 regarding a noncompliance with an ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard
shall not, except as specifically provided in this
part, contain any statement or implication that
there is not a noncompliance or that the non-
compliance is not present in the owner's vehicle
or item of replacement equipment.
§ 577.9 Conformity to statutory requirements.
A notification that does not conform to the re-
quirements of this part is a violation of the Act.
38 F.R. 2215
January 23, 1973
PART 577-6
Effective: September 30, 1978
PREAMBLE TO PART 579— DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY
(Docket No. 75-30; Notice 2)
This notice issues a new regulation, Part 579,
Defect and Noncompliwnce Responsibility. The
purpose of the regulation is to allocate between
motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers the
responsibilities under the 1974 Motor Vehicle and
Schoolbus Safety Amendments for recalling and
remedying defective or noncomplying motor ve-
hicles and equipment. The regulation makes tire
manufacturers responsible for original equipment
tires as well as tires sold as replacement equip-
ment. Otherwise, the regulation adopts the re-
sponsibility scheme in the 1974 Amendments.
With this notice, the agency defers final action
on its proposal concerning the responsibilities
of original equipment manufacturers that supply
equipment to five or more vehicle manufacturers.
Effective date : September 30, 1978.
Addresses: Petitions for reconsideration should
refer to the docket number and be submitted to :
Koom 5108, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
For further information contact :
Mr. James Murray, Office of Defects Inves-
tigation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2840).
This notice issues a new regulation. Part 579,
Defect a/nd Noncompliance Responsibility. A
notice of proposed rulemaking was published on
December 5, 1975 (40 F.R. 56930) proposing
some reallocation between motor vehicle and
equipment manufacturers of the responsibilities
for safety-related defects and noncompliances
with safety standards. These responsibilities in-
clude the duty to notify purchasers of any safety-
related defects or noncompliances with safety
standards and to make remedy without charge
to the purchaser. Currently, the allocation of
defect and noncompliance responsibility is gov-
erned by section 159(2) of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as
amended, (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1419(2)).
The Act authorizes the agency to allocate
equitably responsibility for defects and noncom-
pliances between equipment and vehicle manu-
facturers. The substance of the agency's 1975
NPRM was to shift the burdens of compliance
somewhat from the vehicle to the equipment
manufacturer. As the NPRM on this issue stated,
the legislative history of the Act indicates that
the Congress intended for the agency to ensure
that its defect and noncompliance regulations re-
flect the realities of the relationship between
equipment and vehicle manufacturers.
Comments were received from equipment and
vehicle manufacturers and from their representa-
tives. All comments were considered. The Ve-
hicle Equipment Safety Commission did not
submit comments.
General Motors Corporation suggested that
section 579.1 be changed to indicate that the
regulation applies only to Part B of the Act,
Discovery, notification, and remedy of motor ve-
hicle defects, not to Part A, General provisions.
Since this regulation exercises the authority
granted by section 159 of the Act and that section
specifically states that it applies only to Part B
of the Act, the agency has incorporated GM's
recommended change.
The Midland Ross Corporation suggested that
the agency add several minor definitions to the
list of definitions. They suggested, for example,
that the agency define phrases such as "an item
of motor vehicle equipment," and "an item of
defective or noncomplying equipment."
With respect to "motor vehicle equipment," the
agency notes that the term is defined in the
Act at section 102(4). Since the agency does
not intend to alter that definition, the term is
not defined in this section.
PART 579— PRE 1
Effective: September 30, 1978
"Defective and noncomplying equipment" also
does not require definition for purposes of this
section, since "noncomplying equipment" ob-
viously means equipment that does not comply
with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standard. "Defective equipment," on the other
hand, cannot be defined in a fashion that would
be appropriate for all cases. "VVliether equipment
is defective in a manner that requires action
under the Act would depend upon the type of
the equipment involved as well as the nature
and extent of the defect. As such, "defective"
is a legal determination made on a case-by-case
basis and the t«rm, therefore, cannot be abso-
lutely defined in advance.
Many manufacturers complained about
NHTSA's definition of "original equipment."
The Eaton and Bendix Corporations, for ex-
ample, indicated that they thought NHTSA
had violated its authority to issue regulations
with respect to this term. They suggested that
section 159 does not grant sufficient latitude for
the agency to alter the Act's definitions to the
extent found in the regulation. The agency
disagrees. The language in section 159, "Except
as otherwise provided in regulations of the Sec-
retary," and the legislative history of that sec-
tion very clearly permit the agency to modify the
definitions of section 159 of the Act if the agency
determines that it would be in the interest of an
equitable distribution of enforcement respon-
sibilities upon the various manufacturers. In this
instance, the agency has determined that the
minor definitional changes included in this reg-
ulation will better meet the needs of both the
agency and the manufacturers for efficient re-
calls and remedies.
Several commenters questioned the term "ex-
press authorization" as it is used in Part 579.4
(a)(2). The agency stated in the NPKM pre-
amble that express authorization was not limited
to written authorization and that "any type of
express authorization given by the vehicle manu-
facturer for the installation of equipment should
be sufficient to make the manufacturer respon-
sible for that equipment." The preamble went
on to state that "what constitutes adequate au-
thorization will depend upon the facts of each
case." Since the issuance of the preamble, noth-
ing has occurred that leads to a simplified defini-
tion of the term "express authorization." There-
fore, the agency declines to adopt a definition
for this term and restates that it depends upon
the circumstances of each case.
Several commenters indicated that proposed
paragraph (1) under section 579.4(a) was over-
broad in that it required a vehicle manufacturer
to be responsible for equipment manufactured by
him even when that equipment was not in-
stalled by him or at his direction. NHTSA
agrees with these commenters and has deleted
paragraph (1) from that section and renumbered
the section accordingly.
Section 579.4(b) defines "replacement equip-
ment" to include tires. The commenters on this
paragi'aph, Goodyear and Firestone, agreed with
this definition. They stated that they thought
it appropriate for tire manufacturers to be re-
sponsible for defects and noncompliances in their
equipment.
With respect to the application of this regula-
tion to the tire manufacturers, several misunder-
standings occurred. Fruehauf Corporation
indicated that the fabricating manufacturer of
a tire should be the one responsible for the recall
of those tires and not the brand name owner.
The agency has held the brand name manufac-
turer responsible in the past for tire identification
and recordkeeping (Part 574). The Act in sec-
tion 159(1) holds brand name owners of tires
responsible for defects and noncompliances by
specifying that the brand name owner shall be
deemed the manufacturer of the tires. The agency
sees no reason to alter this established pattern
of responsibility. However, a fabricating manu-
facturer and brand name manufacturer might
establish by contract that the fabricating manu-
facturer would conduct all notification and recall
campaigns.
In the preamble to the NPRM, the agency
erroneously stated that tire manfacturers were
required to retain the names and addresses of the
owners of vehicles upon which their tires were
mounted as original equipment. Tire manufac-
turers pointed out that this was inaccurate. Part
574 requires tire manufacturers to retain lists of
people to whom their tires were sold, including
vehicle manufacturers. The vehicle manufac-
turer would have the names of the owners of the
PART 579— PRE 2
Effective: September 30, 1978
vehicles upon which potentially defective or non-
complying tires were mounted and, if necessary,
would supply that list to a tire manufacturer
undertaking a recall campaign.
Proposed Part 579.5(a) and (b) received very
few comments. Commenters to these provisions
suggested only minor modifications in their lan-
guage. GM and the Motor Vehicle Manufac-
turers Association suggested that the term
"safety-related" be added to both sections before
defect to indicate that manufacturers only had
responsibilities for such defects. Under the Act,
manufacturers need only recall and remedy de-
fects that are in fact determined to be safety-
related. Accordingly, the agency agrees with the
commenters and amends the language of the sec-
tion accordingly.
GM stated that the last part of paragraph (a)
of proposed section 579.5 is unnecessary. That
part of the sentence that read "installed on or
in the vehicle at the time of its delivery to the
first purchaser" is identical to the sentence in
section 579.4(a) that defines original equipment.
Therefore, its inclusion at this point is redundant
and unnecessary. The agency has modified the
section by the deletion of that portion of the
sentence.
NHTSA is publishing this regulation without
taking final action on proposed section 579.5(c),
and is modifying 579.5(a) to delete all reference
to paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) would have
placed defect and noncompliance responsibilities
upon equipment manufacturers that supplied
equipment to five or more vehicle manufacturers.
This action is being taken without making any
substantive determination on the merits of para-
graph (c). A subsequent notice will deal with
that paragraph and the comments thereon. How-
ever, due to the delay in the issuance of this
Part and mindful of the fact that the modified
definitions are important to the agency's enforce-
ment scheme, NHTSA has determined that it
is in the interest of efficiency to adopt the
definitions sections of this regulation as proposed
with some minor modifications, while retaining
a responsibility section that basically retains the
same responsibility provisions as the Act.
The agency has reviewed this regulation with
respect to its potential costs and other impacts
and has determined that any costs or other im-
pacts will be minimal.
Accordingly, Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by the addtion of Part
579
(Sees. 103, 108, 112, 113, Pub. L. 89-563, 80
Stat. 718, Sec. 102, Pub. L. 93-^92, 88 Stat. 1470
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1401, 1411-1420; delega-
tion of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on August 24, 1978.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 38833-38834
August 31, 1978
PART 579— PRE 3-4
PART 579— DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY
Sec.
579.1 Scope.
579.2 Purpose.
579.3 Application.
579.4 Definitions.
579.5 Defect and noncompliance responsibility.
§ 579.1 Scope.
This part sets forth the responsibilities under
Part B of the Act of manufacturers for safety-
related defects and noncompliances with Federal
motor vehicle safety standards in motor vehicles
and items of motor vehicle equipment.
§ 579.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to facilitate the
notification of owners of defective and non-
complying motor vehicles and items of motor
vehicle equipment, and the remedy of defective
and noncomplying vehicles and items of equip-
ment, by equitably reapportioning the respon-
sibility for safety-related defects and noncom-
pliances with Federal motor vehicle safety
standards among manufacturers of motor vehicles
and motor vehicle equipment.
§ 579.3 Application.
This part applies to all manufacturers of
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
§ 579.4 Definitions.
(a) "Original equipment" means an item of
motor vehicle equipment (other than a tire)
which was installed in or on a motor vehicle at
the time of its delivery to the first purchaser if—
(1) The item of equipment was installed on
or in the motor vehicle at the time of its delivery
to a dealer or distributor for distribution; or
(2) The item of equipment was installed by
the dealer or distributor with the express au-
thorization of the motor vehicle manufacturer.
(b) "Replacement equipment" means—
(1) Motor vehicle equipment other than
original equipment as defined in paragraph (a)
of this section; and
(2) Tires.
(c) "The Act" means the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.
§ 579.5 Defect and noncompliance responsibility.
(a) Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle
shall be responsible for any safety-related defect
or any noncompliance determined to exist in the
vehicle or in any item of original equipment.
(b) Each manufacturer of an item of replace-
ment equipment shall be responsible for any
safety-related defect or any noncompliance deter-
mined to exist in the equipment.
43 F.R. 38835
August 31, 1978
PART 579-1-2
Effective: March I, 1973
PREAMBLE TO PART 580— ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
(Docket No. 72-31; Notice 2)
The purpose of this notice is to estabish a reg-
ulation that will require a person who transfers
ownership in a motor vehicle to give his buyer
a written disclosure of the mileage the vehicle
has traveled. The regulation carries out the di-
rective of section 408(a) of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law
92-513, 86 Stat. 947, and completes the provi-
sions of the Act under Title IV, Odometer
Requirements.
The regulation was first proposed in a notice
published in the Federal Register on December 2,
1972 (37 F.R. 25727). As a result of numerous
comments on the proposal, the regulation as is-
sued today differs in some respects from its ini-
tial form.
As stated in the proposal, the agency's goals
were to link the disclosure statement as closely
as possible to the documents required for transfer
of ownership, so that buyers and sellers would
know of the need for disclosure, and to do so in a
manner that would not introduce an additional
document into motor vehicle transactions. The
agency therefore proposed the use of the certifi-
cate of title as the document for odometer dis-
closure.
Upon review of the comments, it became evi-
dent that in most jurisdictions it would not be
feasible to use the title certificate to convey odom-
eter information. The main drawback to its use
lies in the prevalence of state laws providing
that if a vehicle is subject to a lien, the title is
held by the lienholder. As a result, it appears
that in a majority of cases private parties selling
motor vehicles do not have possession of a cer-
tificate of title, and convey their interest by other
means.
In those States that permit the owner of a
vehicle subject to a lien to retain the title, the
lienholder will be unable to make the odometer
disclosure on the title if he attempts to sell the
vehicle after repossession. In many States,
furthermore, the title certificate is not large
enough to contain an adequate odometer dis-
closure, and the existing data processing and
filing equipment would not accommodate an en-
larged certificate.
There appears to have been some apprehension
that the Federal government intended to compel
the States to amend their certificates of title.
The Act does not, however, confer any authority
over the States in this regard. Even if the regu-
lation were lO require transferor disclosure on the
title, the States could decline to provide a form
for disclosure on the title. This voluntary aspect
of the States' participation is a further impedi-
ment to the use of the title certificate.
After review of the problems created by the
use of the certificate of title, the agency has de-
cided that the purposes of the Act are better
served by prescribing a separate form as the dis-
closure document in most cases. Section 580.4
has been amended accordingly. To avoid the
need for duplicate State and Federal disclosures
in States having odometer disclosure laws or
regulations, the section permits the State form
to be used in satisfaction of the Federal require-
ment, so long as it contains equivalent informa-
tion and refers to the existence of a Federal
remedy.
It should be noted that although the certificate
of title is no longer required to be used for dis-
closure, it can still be used as the disclosure
document if it contains the required information
and if it is held by the transferor and given by
him to the transferee. The basic concept is that
the disclosure must be made as part of the trans-
fer, and not at some later time.
PART 580— PRE 1
Effactiva: March 1, 1973
In addition to the changes from the proposal
represented b>' the change from the certificate of
title to a separate form, there are other differences
from the proposal in the regulation. For pur-
poses of convenience, the following discussion
treats the amended sections in sequence.
In section 580.3, the proposed definition of
transferor might in some jurisdictions include a
l>erson who creates a security interest in a vehicle.
This type of transaction was not intended to be
regulated, and the definitions have been amended
iii'cordiii jrly.
In section .580.4, in addition to the changes dis-
cussed above, other modifications have been made.
In response to a comment suggesting that the
disclosure would be made after the purchaser
had become committed to buying the vehicle,
the order of § 580.4(a) has been rearranged to
specify that the odometer disclosure is to be
made before the other transfer documents are
executed.
The items listed under § 580.4(a) have been
increased to allow for additional identification
of the vehicle and owner that would be necessary
on a separate disclosure document. If the dis-
closure is a part of another document, however,
§ 580.4(a)(1) provides that items (2) through
(4) need not be repeated if found elsewhere in
the document. A number of comments noted
that the items under (a) might often be redun-
dant.
A new paragraph (b) has been inserted in
§ 580.4 to require a reference to the sanctions
provided by the Act. No specific form is re-
quired, but the inclusion of such a statement is
considered essential to notify the transferee of
the reason why he is being given the odometer
information.
The former paragraph (b) of § 580.4 has been
reiuimbered as (c), and the alternative methods
for odometer disclosure discussed above are found
as paragraphs (d) and (e).
A new section, § 580.5, Exemptions, has been
added in response to a number of comments that
objected to the application of the requirements
to categories of vehicles for which the odometer
is not used as a guide to value. Buses and large
trucks, for example, are routinely driven hun-
dreds of tliousands of miles, and their main-
tenance records have traditionally been relied on
by buyers as the principal guide to their condi-
tion. The NHTSA is in agreement with the
position taken by Freightliner, WTiite, and the
National Association of Motor Bus Operators,
and has therefore created an exemption for larger
vehicles. The exemption applies to vehicles
having gross vehicle weight ratings of more than
16,000 pounds.
A second category of exempt vehicles has been
created for antique vehicles, whose value is a
function of their age, condition, and scarcity, and
for which the odometer mileage is irrelevant. A
third exempt category consists of vehicles that are
not self-propelled, such as trailers, most of which
are not equipped with odometers.
Several vehicle manufacturers stated that the
proposal would require them to give disclosure
statements to their distributors and dealers, and
that such a requirement would be both burden-
some and pointless. Upon consideration of the
nature of manufacturer-dealer transactions, it has
been decided to exempt transfers of new vehicles
that occur prior to the first sale of the vehicle for
purposes other than resale.
The odometer disclosure form set forth in
§ 580.6 has been reworded to make it clearer.
Space for additional information about the ve-
hicle and owner has been included so that the
vehicle will be readily identifiable if the dis-
closure statement becomes separated from the
other transfer documents. In accordance with
the instructions of the Act, the transferor is
directed to state that the mileage is unknown if
he knows that the actual mileage differs from
the mileage shown on the odometer. Although
several comments suggested that the true mileage,
if known, should be stated, such a statement is
not provided for in the Act and would not
afford the buyer with reliable information about
the vehicle.
The effective date proposed in the notice was
to have been six months after issuance. Two
States, perhaps under the impression that they
were required to change their forms, requested
an additional six months. Other comments,
notably that of the National Automobile Dealers
Association, urged an immediate effective date in
order to make the disclosure requirements coin-
PART 580— PRE 2
Effsclivs: March I, 1973
cide with the effectiveness of the other parts of
Title IV of the Act. Upon consideration of the
important contribution the disclosure require-
ments make to the effectiveness of the Act's
other provisions, it has been decided that an ef-
fective date earlier than six months after issuance
is advisable.
Accordingly, the regulation is to become effec-
tive March 1, 1973. Although it is likely that
most private persons will remain unaware of the
disclosure requirements for some time after
March 1, 1973, a person who does not know of
the requirement will not have "intent to defraud"
under section 409(a) of the Act and will there-
fore not be subject to liability solely because he
has failed to make the required statement. The
persons most immediately affected by the dis-
closure requirements are commercial enterprises
such as dealers and wholesalers, and of these the
largest group, represented by NADA, has
already indicated its desire for an early effective
date. The earlier effective date is therefore con-
sidered appropriate.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new Part
580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, is added
to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to read
as set forth below.
Issued under the authority of .section 408(a)
of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act, P.L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 947, and the
delegation of authority at 49 C.F.R. 1.51.
Issued on January 23, 1973.
Douglas W. Toms,
Administrator.
38 F.R. 2978
January 31, 1973
PART 580— PRE 3-4
Effective: January 1, 1978
PREAMBLE TO PART 580— ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
(Docket No. 77-03; Notice 2)
This notice amends the odometer disclosure
statement that must be executed upon each sale
of a motor vehcile. The fonner statement often
proved confusing and was sometimes used in a
misleading manner. The amended statement is
clearer and less likely to be misused.
Effective date: January 1, 1978.
For further information contact :
Kathleen DeMeter, Office of the Chief Coun-
sel, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1834).
Supplementary information: The disclosure
statement is required by 49 CFR Part 580, Odom-
eter Disclosure Requirements, a regulation issued
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration (NHTSA) to implement the require-
ments of the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513, as amended
by Pub. L. 94-364; 15 U.S.C. 1901-1991). The
regulation, which has been in effect since March 1,
1973, requires each transferor of a motor vehicle
to give the transferee a written statement attest-
ing to the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer.
Experience with the regulation has shown sev-
eral respects in which it should be improved. In
response to a petition for rulemaking submitted
by the National Automobile Dealers Association,
and in recognition of the need for improvements
in the disclosure statement, the NHTSA issued a
notice on February 9, 1977 (42 F.R. 9045) which
proposed changes in the form and content of the
odometer disclosure statement.
Differences between proposed and final rule.
The final rule differs from the proposed rule in
several respects. The notice had proposed to re-
quire the disclosure form to include the last
license plate number. State and year. In view of
the number of commenters who stated that this
information was not needed to identify a vehicle
or to trace a vehicle's history, the agency has de-
cided to delete this requirement from the final
rule.
The notice proposed a substantial enlargement
of the disclosure form, including a certification
that the odometer was either not altered, or al-
tered for repair or replacement purposes only.
This certification had been proposed in response
to the NADA petition, and drew few critical
comments. Two commenters raised Fifth Amend-
ment questions concerning these additional boxes.
The Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare's Office of Consumer Affairs noted that these
alternative certifications might give rise to pos-
sible violations of the transferor's right against
self-incrimination since a willful false certifica-
tion may amount to an admission of a violation
of the Act. The NHTSA, however, believes that
no Fifth Amendment problem could arise. In
cases dealing with this issue the Supreme Court
has held that where the dominant purpose of a
record-keeping requirement is to compel criminals
to keep incriminating records, the statute is in-
valid and the 5th Amendment may be invoked.
However, where the record-keeping requirements
have an independent purpose and do not involve
a selective group which is inherently suspect of
criminal activities, the statute is valid and the
5th Amendment may not be invoked. All busi-
nessmen, as well as all consumers, who sell auto-
mobiles would be required to execute odometer
disclosure statements. Statements are not re-
quired only of those individuals who are most
often found to tamper with odometers. The pri-
mary purpose of a statement is to inform a poten-
tial buyer of the car's mileage so that he may
have an index to the condition and value of the
vehicle. The fact that individuals who tamper
with vehicle odometers would be executing in-
PART 580— PRE 5
Effective: January ], 1978
criminating records is not the dominant purpose
of this requirement. Consequently, these provi-
sions will be retained in the final rule with one
minor change suggested by a commenter. In
view of the fact that these certifications actually
involve three separate statements, instead of two
as indicated in the NPRM, the NHTSA had de-
cided to divide the second certification into two:
first, that the odometer was altered and the
mileage is identical to that before repair; and
second, that the odometer was altered and reset to
zero, with a statement of the mileage on the
original odometer or the odometer before repair.
Several commenters suggested that the trans-
feree's name and address should be provided in a
disclosure statement, in addition to his signature.
This would provide a useful tool in tracing the
vehicle's history and consequently, the NHTSA
has decided to require that this information be
included.
With the gradual conversion to the metric sys-
tem now going on in the United States, the regu-
lation has also been changed to provide for
odometer readings that are expressed in kilo-
meters where the vehicle records the distance
traveled in metric units.
The bulk of the comments received were favor-
able. The primary objection was that the pro-
posed final effective date of April 15, 1977, did
not allow adequate time for new forms to be pre-
pared and printed. In addition, it would have
increased costs because it would not have allowed
sufficient time for stocks of the present form to be
depleted. In response to these comments, the
agency has adopted an effective date of January
1, 1978.
One of the original goals of NHTSA was to
link the disclosure statement as closely as possible
to the documents required for transfer of owner-
ship, so that buyers and sellers would know of
the need for disclosure. To accomplish this goal
in a manner that would not introduce an addi-
tional document into motor vehicle transactions,
the agency proposed to use the certificate of title
as the document for odometer disclosure.
The comments to that initial proposal per-
suaded the agency that providing the odometer
reading on the title would not be feasible as the
sole method of disclosure. NHTSA still believes,
however, that placing odometer information on
the certificate of title will be useful both to con-
sumers and to law enforcement officials. This
belief is substantiated by a recent resolution of
the National Association of Attorneys General,
which endorsed odometer information on State
certificates of title as the most effective means to
ensure a permanent record of the mileage history
of a motor vehicle, and by the development by
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Ad-
ministrators of model procedures for the disclo-
sure of odometer information on vehicle titles.
Such a record would be easily accessible to gov-
ernmental enforcement agencies as well as pro-
spective purchasers of used motor vehicles.
The notice of February 7, 1977, proposed to
allow the use of a State document containing
odometer disclosure information if tlie State
document contained "all" of the infomiation re-
quired on the Federal form. A comment from
the Attorney General of Ohio pointed out that it
would be difficult for States to include "all" of
the odometer information on their titles because
of the limited space available. Consequently,
NHTSA has decided to revise § 580.4(f) to ac-
commodate those States that provide odometer
information on their titles by establishing a pro-
cedure under which States can have their titles
approved for use as odometer disclosure state-
ments. In view of the utility of titles and their
limited space, the procedure would permit short-
ening the odometer provisions on the title where
necessary. Although a shorter disclosure might
sacrifice clarity to a degree, the agency regards
this as an acceptable price for gaining the bene-
fits of a combined title and odometer disclosure.
States that wish to have their certificates of
title satisfy the Federal odometer disclosure re-
quirements must meet the basic provisions of the
Federal requirement, with the following excep-
tions :
(1) The citation to the Federal law may be
deleted in favor of a reference to State law. The
reference provisions could then state that "Fed-
eral and State regulations require you to state the
odometer mileage upon transfer of ownersliip.
(Citation to State law instead of Federal law)."
PART 580— PRE 6
Effective: January 1, 1978
(2) The initial statement of the odometer read-
ing and the following alternate certifications
should be included on the title. States may, how-
ever, condense that information as long as none
of the certifications are lost. An example of such
condensation could be "I certify to the best of my
knowledge that the odometer reading is
and reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle de-
scribed herein or (check if applicable).
□ 1. The amount of mileage stated is in ex-
cess of 99,999 miles, or
□ 2. The odometer reading is not the actual
mileage."
3. The transferee's signature must still appear
on the title but it need not expressly indicate
acknowledgement of receipt of the disclosures.
4. The certification that the odometer was
either not altered or altered for repair or replace-
ment purposes may be deleted.
All deviations on the certificate of title from
the Federal requirements must be approved by
the NHTSA prior to the use of State titles as
substitutes for the Federal form. The exceptions
noted above are to be used by the States only as
guides in preparing conforming titles. In order
for the citizens of a State to use the certificate of
title as their odometer disclosure form, the Ad-
ministrator of the State Department of Motor
Vehicles must first request an exemption from the
provision of the disclosure requirement by sub-
mitting such request in writing with a copy of
the proposed certificate of title. The NHTSA
will then notify the Administrator of its decision
to accept or refuse the request and the reasons
for its decision. Upon receipt of the NHTSA 's
acceptance of the request for an exemption, the
State may proceed with a campaign to notify
consumers, dealers and distributors of such ac-
ceptance. It shall be the State's responsibility
to publicize that its title may be used in place of
the odometer disclosure statement.
Additional comments. One commenter asked
whether there would be specifications for size.
There are none, with the understanding that all
print should be legible to the naked eye. Another
commenter suggested that section 580.4(c) (3) be
changed to add the word "believed" so that the
reading would be "I hereby certify that to the
best of my knowledge the odometer reading as
stated above is believed NOT to be the actual
mileage. . . ." NHTSA considers this addition
unnecessary because the certification already
states "to the best of my knowledge."
A commenter proposed that the form should be
amended to say that the names and addresses of
prior owners are available from a State agency.
NHTSA has determined that this should not be
added. The addresses are not available from
some State agencies and such a provision would
therefore be of limited utility. Another addition
that was suggested was to add a reference to the
minimum damages and attorneys fees available
under the Federal law. This was proposed to
alert consumers to the fact that certain impedi-
ments to enforcement, such as the expense of
lawyers and proof of actual damages, are re-
moved by the Act. These references, like any
other additions desired by the States or trans-
ferors, may be added, but will not be required
due to space limitations and to a determination
that they are not necessary if there is sufficient
publicity of the law.
An individual commented that the seller should
be allowed to estimate the amount of mileage
difference and explain the error. There is cer-
tainly no prohibition against a seller doing so,
but NHTSA sees no benefit to be gained in re-
quiring this. A buyer can, and certaintly should,
request such information, but anyone who has
violated the Act will, nonetheless, not provide a
truthful statement of the mileage difference or
the reason for that difference. The result could
be that a buyer is unknowingly led into reliance
on this false statement, whereas an independent
check of his own could have produced the truth.
It was suggested that positive introductory
statements be used for the certification sections.
The commenter noted that in its experience, when
a positive introductory statement is lacking, the
seller fails to check any box. Its proposal would
modify the statement as follows: "I
state that the odometer now reads
miles and I hereby certify that to the best
of my knowledge the odometer reading as stated
above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle
PART 580— PRE 7
Effective: January 1, 1978
described below, unless one of the following state-
ments is checked.
□ (1) I hereby certify that the odometer
reading reflects the amount of mileage in ex-
cess. . . ."
□ (2) I hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge the odometer reading as stated above
is NOT . . ."
The NHTSA has not experienced the failure to
check a box when a positive introductory state-
ment is lacking and consequently, will retain the
statement in the proposed rule. Should it become
evident that a positive introductory statement is
needed, further rulemaking will be undertaken.
It should be noted that the form suggested by
this commenter would significantly shorten the
length of this provision, thus it would be an
acceptable alternative only where the odometer
disclosure is on the certificate of title.
A suggestion was made to provide a notice that
an auxiliary odometer had been used in the ve-
hicle. The auxiliary odometer would interrupt
the operation of the regular odometer and cause
it to register less than the vehicle's actual mile-
age. The seller would therefore be required by
the present language of the regulation to notify
the buyer of the odometer error. In view of this,
NHTSA considers it unnecessary to refer spe-
cifically to an auxiliary odometer.
It was also suggested that the owner of a ve-
hicle be allowed to replace or adjust the odometer
to reflect actual mileage. The commenter noted
that occasionally odometers jump ahead 10, 20,
or 30 thousand miles and if the odometer cannot
be altered to read the actual mileage instead of
the mileage on the odometer before repair or re-
placement, the trade-in value would be drastically
decreased to the harm of the owner. NHTSA
believes that the few cases in which the odometer
malfunctions and rolls forward too fast are too
slight to justify this provision. Such a provision
would create a loophole for those who wanted to
roll back their odometer and then claim that it
was rolling over too fast and they had to fix it
by moving it backward. Anyone whose odometer
did jump could replace or repair the odometer,
set it to zero so that a buyer would not be misled
by the odometer reading, and upon sale provide
a statement to the buyer that the mileage is NOT
actual and that the actual mileage is less than
that shown on the odometer or on the repair or
replacement sticker. More importantly, it should
be noted that the repair and replacement pro-
visions, wherein the owner is required to reset the
odometer to the mileage before repair or replace-
ment or to zero, are part of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (section
407(a)). Consequently, they are not susceptible
to change by NHTSA, but only by Congress.
Requests by commenters that odometer read-
ings be required on registration forms, that state-
ments be required to be retained, and that
manufacturers be required to furnish 6 digit
odometers are not applicable to this rulemaking
action. It should be noted that a retention re-
quirement for odometer disclosure statements will
be issued soon and that a proposed rule requiring
tamper-proof odometers which indicate when
they have exceeded 100,000 miles or kilometers
was issued on December 7, 1976. The proposed
effective date of the latter rule is September 1,
1979.
In consideration of the foregoing. Part 580,
Odometer Disclosure Requirements is amended. . .
The lawyer principally responsible for this rule
is Kathleen DeMeter.
(Sec. 408, Pub. L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 962, as
amended by Pub. L. 94-364, 90 Stat. 983 (15
U.S.C. 1988) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
501.8(i).)
Issued on July 25, 1977.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
42 F.R. 38906-38908
August 1, 1977
PART 580— PRE 8
Effective: March 9, 1978
PREAMBLE TO PART 580— ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
(Docket No. 77-06; Notice 2)
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized
by the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act to specify requirements for retention
of odometer statements by dealers and distribu-
tors of motor vehicles. This notice prescribes the
manner in which this information should be re-
tained. The intended effect of this regulation is
to afford the government and aggrieved parties
documentation necessary to prove a violation of
the Act, and to pinpoint exactly where the viola-
tion occurred.
Effective date : March 9, 1978.
For further information contact :
Kathleen DeMeter, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1834).
Supplementary information : The Motor Ve-
hicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L.
92-513, 86 Stat. 947-963, 15 U.S.C. 1901-1999)
directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue
regulations to require each transferor of a motor
vehicle to give the transferee a written statement
of the mileage shown on the vehicle's odometer
and to advise the transferee if the mileage shown
on the odometer was known to be different from
the vehicle's actual mileage. A regulation was
issued pursuant to section 408 of the Act to pre-
scribe the manner of disclosure (49 CFR Part
580), but the Secretary chose not to exercise the
authority given him under subsection 408(a) to
specify the manner in which such information
was to be retained.
The 1976 amendments to the Act (Pub. L.
94-364, 90 Stat. 981) conferred extensive investi-
gative powers upon the Secretary. One effect of
these new powers is to enhance the value of a
record retention requirement as an investigatory
tool. The disclosure statement plays an impor-
tant role in the investigation of odometer tamper-
ing and fraud. In order to prove that an
odometer has been rolled back or otherwise tamp-
ered with in violation of the Act, it must be pos-
sible to ascertain the amount of actual mileage
the vehicle has been driven. An effective way of
discovering this information is by examining pre-
vious odometer mileage statements required to be
executed by all owners in the chain of title.
To enhance the ability of the statement to pro-
tect all future transferees a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) was issued on November 1,
1977, which would not only require the dealers
and distributors to retain for four years the state-
ments issued to them but would also require them
to retain for four years a copy of each statement
which they issued. Such retentions would afford
the government and aggrieved parties the neces-
sary documentation to prove a violation of the
Act, and also to pinpoint exactly where that vio-
lation occurred. All of the comments submitted
in response to the NPRM have been considered
and the most significant ones are discussed below.
The final rule is almost identical to the NPRM.
The NPRM proposed that odometer mileage
statements be retained in chronological order.
The final rule permits mileage statements to be
retained in an order appropriate to the business
requirements of each dealer and distributor. A
majority of comnienters objected to the chrono-
logical order provision. A number of other
methods of filing were suggested, such as by ve-
hicle identification number and alphabetical order
by the customer's last name. Due to the wide
variety of methods of filing presently used, the
NHTSA believes that a single mandated method
of filing would result in unnecessary cost and
duplication. Therefore, the new section permits
dealers and distributors to retain odometer mile-
age statements in a manner consistent with their
PART 580— PRE 9
Effective: March 9, 1978
existing recordkeeping procedures. The section
requires that however the recordkeeping system
is organized, it must permit a systematic retrieval
of odometer statements.
One commenter suggested that a longer lead-
time was necessary to accommodate changes in
filing procedures. However, since recordkeeping
requirements need not be changed, there should
be no lead time problems.
Several commenters objected to the scope of
the rule. There appeared to be some confusion
among tlie commenters as to whether the rule
applied to insurance companies, manufacturers
and financial institutions. The final rule applies
to all dealers and distributors of motor vehicles.
A "dealer" is defined in section 402 of the Act as
"any person who has sold 5 or more motor ve-
hicles in the past 12 months to purchasers who
in good faith purchase such vehicles for purposes
other than resale." A "distributor" is defined in
the same section as "any person who has sold 5
or more vehicles in the past 12 months for re-
sale." Given these definitions, a manufacturer
would be a "distributor." However, § 580.5 of
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations specifically
exempt manufacturers who sell vehicles to dealers
from the requirements of executing disclosure
statements. Section 583.7 of this final rule has
been reworded to make it clear that only those
"dealers" and "distributors" who are required to
execute disclosure statements must retain them.
Financial institutions and insurance companies do
not fall within any of the exemptions set forth in
§ 580.5, so they must execute and retain the state-
ments unless the transfers involve vehicles that
are so badly damaged that they cannot be re-
turned to the road. In such transfers, the agency
has ruled that the damaged vehicles are no longer
"motor vehicles" for purposes of the disclosure
regulations.
In light of the foregoing, Part 580, Odometer
Disclosure Requirements, of Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth
below.
The lawyer principally responsible for this rule
is Kathleen DeMeter.
The rule does not require any persons to create
additional records or to alter their business prac-
tices apart from keeping records they might once
have discarded. In view of the expected benefits
to the Department's enforcement program, it is
found for good cause that the rule may be issued
with an immediate effective date.
(Sees. 408, 414, Pub. L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 947,
as amended Pub. L. 94-364, 90 Stat. 981 (15
U.S.C. 1988, 1990(d)); delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50(f).).
Issued on March 7, 1978.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 10921-10922
March 16, 1978
PART 580— PRE 10
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 580— ODOMETER DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS
(Docket No. 77-06; Notice 4)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice allows States to use an
abbreviated odometer disclosure statement on all
motor vehicle ownership documents. The existing
regulation permitted the shortened form to be used
merely on the certificate of title. The purpose of
this expansion is to increase State usage of
odometer disclosure statements.
DATE: The effective date is the date of publication
in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen DeMeter, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590. (202-426-1834).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 408 of
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
act (15 U.S.C. 1988) requires each transferor of a
motor vehicle to provide to the transferee a
written disclosure of the distance travelled by the
vehicle. 49 CFR Part 580 prescribes the informa-
tion to be included on the disclosure statement. On
August 1, 1977, NHTSA amended the odometer
disclosure statement (42 FR 38906). The amended
statement is clearer than the former statement
and less likely to be misused, but it is also longer.
NHTSA has urged the States to include the
odometer statement on the title. Six States had
included the original statement. In commenting on
the longer statement, several States observed that
the title, with its size limitations, presented more
problems with inclusion of the odometer statement
than did other documents relating to the transfer
and ownership of motor vehicles. Because of this,
the 1977 amendment specifically allowed a
shortened form to be used on certificates of title,
but not on other ownership documents.
On May 7, 1979, the NHTSA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking in which it granted a petition
by the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) to amend the Federal
odometer disclosure requirements to allow the
abbreviated form to be used on ownership
documents other than the certificate of title (44 FR
28032). The AAMVA emphasized that many of the
State documents used to evidence ownership of
motor vehicles are too small to accommodate the
additional information required. They argued that
States should not have to rely on separate
odometer forms for these transfers but should be
allowed to use the shortened form on all documents
which evidence ownership, not only on the
certificate of title.
Seven States responded to the notice of proposed
rulemaking. Comments were received from the
motor vehicle departments in Virginia,
Washington, Delaware, Wisconsin, New Jersey,
Texas, and Oregon. Most comments were
favorable. The Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles
asked that the short form be acceptable on all
applications for title. The more State documents
that contain mileage information the more difficult
it will be for odometer rollbacks to go undetected.
Consequently, the NHTSA encourages the use of
the short form on applications for title as well as
certificates of title.
Washington and Wisconsin suggested respec-
tively that the introductory paragraph citing the
Federal law be deleted or shortened due to
document size limitations. The August 1, 1977,
amendment to the disclosure form noted that a
reference to State law may be substituted for the
citation to the Federal law.
Consistent with this interpretation, it is the
agency's opinion that the actual law need not be
cited if a warning statement appears such as that
suggested by Washington, "Warning False
Statements Violate Federal Law."
PART 580; PRE- 11
The Texas State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation offered the only negative
comments to the proposal. It argued that a pur-
chaser who finances a motor vehicle could not
execute a form on the certificate of title at the time
of sale because the certificate is held by a bank or
financial institution as security. Although the
Texas comment illustrates the difficulties of trying
to require the use of titles for odometer disclosure,
the amendment is permissive and would not
require Texas to change its practices in any way.
In accordance with Executive Order 12044, the
regulation has been reviewed for environmental
and economic impacts. It has been determined that
the cost of implementing this regulation will be
mmimal. There are no additional requirements
The regulation permits States to provide certain
information on ownership documents but does not
require them to do so. There are no environmental
or other economic impacts, therefore, this regula-
tion is not significant.
Issued on December 20, 1979.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
45 F.R. 784
January 3, 1980
PART 580; PRE-12
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 580
Odometer Disclosure Requirements
[Doclcet No. 81-13; Notice 2]
ACTiON: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends 49 CFR Part 580 to
exempt from the Odometer Disclosure
Requirements all sales of new motor vehicles by a
motor vehicle manufacturer directly to any
agency of the United States. The purpose of this
exemption, which is being issued pursuant to a
petition by , General Motors Corporation, is to
relieve manufacturers of the burden of complying
with this requirement.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1982.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since
March 1, 1973, a regulation (49 CFR Part 580) has
been in effect which requires the transferor of a
motor vehicle to make written disclosure to the
transferee concerning the odometer reading and
its accuracy. This regulation lists four exceptions
where the transferor need not disclose the
vehicle's mileage.
On December 1-0, 1981, in response to a petition
from General Motors Corporation, NHTSA
published (46 F.R. 60482) a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposed creating a
fifth category of exempt transactions. That
category consists of all sales in conformity with
contractual specifications of motor vehicles by a
manufacturer directly to any agency of the
United States. GM noted that most of a vehicle
manufacturer's transfers are already exempt
from the disclosure requirements and this
exemption would merely extend the existing
exemption. GM stressed that the disclosure
requirements were designed to protect
consumers against odometer fraud in retail
transactions. The conditions lending themselves
to fraud in the retail market are, GM argued, non-
existent in manufacturer-to-government sales.
Two comments were received in response to
the NPRM. Chrysler Corporation supported the
proposed change without qualification. PACCAR,
Inc. supported the concept of the additional
exemption and the rationale behind it, but
expressed reservations about the unsettled issue
of NHTSA's authority to promulgate any
exemption to the odometer disclosure regulation.
PACCAR noted correctly that two Federal
District Courts have invalidated the exemption
for trucks over 16,000 GVWR on the basis that
the NHTSA is not authorized to make any
exemptions to the law.
Section 408 (a) of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1988)
states that the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation shall prescribe rules requiring
transferors to give written mileage disclosures to
transferees in connection with the transfer of
ownership of a motor vehicle. It is the
interpretation of NHTSA that this grant of
rulemaking authority empowers the agency to
also make exceptions to the requirement where it
is shown that no mileage statement is necessary.
NHTSA recognizes that there is a conflict
between its interpretation of the Act and the
interpretation of the United States District
Courts for the Districts of Nebraska and Idaho.
While these decisions are not binding precedent
in other Federal courts, they may, however, be
used as guidance and followed should the issue
arise in the future with respect to the same or one
of the other exemptions. Therefore, NHTSA has
advised interested persons of the two court
opinions and their conflict with the current
language of the regulation and forewarned them
PART 580: PRE 13
that the issue has not been resolved. NHTSA is legal counsel to determine what course of action
proceeding with this rulemaking action on the will most effectively protect their legal rights,
basis that its interpretation is correct, but is also Issued on October 5, 1982.
advising manufacturers to consult with their
Raymond A. Peck, Jr.
Administrator
47 F. R. 51884
November 18, 1982
PART 580; PRE 14
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 580
Odometer Disclosure Requirements
(Docket No. 87-09; Notice 4)
ACTION: Final rule
SUMMARY: This rule implements the Truth in Mile-
age Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-579). As required by that
statute, this rule requires that the seller (or other
transferor) of a motor vehicle must provide mileage
disclosure on the title document or, if the title docu-
ment does not include a space for mileage disclosure
(during the phase-in period) or if the motor vehicle
has not been previously titled, it requires that the
seller or other transferor must make a written dis-
closure of mileage on a separate document. Also as
required by the statute, this rule requires that title
documents be manufactured or otherwise set forth by
a secure process to deter counterfeiting and altera-
tion; requires that, at the time of issue, the titles
include the mileage disclosure; adds disclosure re-
quirements for lessors and lessees; and adds a record
retention requirement for lessors and auction com-
panies. In addition, consistent with the statute, this
rule amends the form and content of the odometer
disclosure statement and sets forth the procedures
that a State may follow in requesting technical
assistance, extensions of time or approval of alternate
State mileage disclosure requirements. Finally, this
rule clarifies the definition of transferor and trans-
feree in the current regulation and extends the cur-
rent record retention requirement for dealers and
distributors.
DATES: Sections 580.10, 580.11 and 580.12 shall be
effective September 6, 1988. As provided by the
statute, all other provisions are effective April 29,
1989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Truth in Mileage Act of 1986
After hearing testimony that odometer fraud costs
consumers hundreds of dollars per purchase, in ex-
cess of $2 billion annually; that a significant part of
this fraud involves high mileage, recent vintage
vehicles; and that odometer fraud occurs frequently
under conditions where cars have been sold through
mass sales techniques such as auctions. Congress
determined that, for the protection of consumers,
legislation was needed to strengthen the provisions
of the current law with respect to disclosure of motor
vehicle mileage when motor vehicles are transferred,
and enacted the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, Pub.
L. 99-579. This Act amends Title IV of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1981-1991. The Truth in Mileage Act (TIMA) re-
quires that any transfer of ownership and any applica-
tion for retitling or licensing of any transferred motor
vehicle be accompanied by the title of the vehicle. The
title must include a space for the mileage of the vehi-
cle and be printed by secure process, or if not printed,
be set forth by a secure system, in order to decrease
the possibility of counterfeiting or altering titles. New
applications for titles must be accompanied by the
transferor's (seller's) title, and if that title contains
a space for the transferor to disclose the vehicle's
mileage, that information must be included and the
statement must be signed and dated by the transferor.
The new law also requires the lessor of vehicles with
long-term leases to advise his lessee that the lessee
is required by law to disclose the vehicle's mileage
to the lessor upon the lessor's transfer of ownership,
and the penalty for noncompliance. In addition, the
new law requires that auction companies establish
and maintain records for at least four years follow-
ing the date a vehicle is sold at the auction. The
records must include the name of the most recent
owner of the vehicle, the name of the buyer, the vehi-
cle identification number and the odometer reading
on the date the auction took possession of the vehicle.
Finally, the new law directs this agency to provide
technical assistance at the request of any State to con-
form its laws to this rule and to the Truth in Mileage
Act, and authorizes the agency to provide extensions
of time in the event that any State requires additional
time beyond April 29, 1989, in revising its laws to
meet the new Federal criteria. It also directs the
agency to approve of alternate motor vehicle mileage
disclosure requirements if they are consistent with
the purposes of the new law.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to this statutory mandate, NHTSA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
on July 17, 1987. 52 FR 27028 (1987). The NPRM
PART 580-PRE 15
proposed to make mileage disclosure a condition of
title and require that titles be set forth by a secure
process, amend the form and content of the odometer
disclosure statement, add disclosure requirements for
lessors and lessees, extend the current record reten-
tion requirement for dealers and distributors and add
a record retention requirement for lessors and auc-
tion companies. In addition, we proposed procedures
that a State may follow in requesting technical assist-
ance, extensions of time or approval of an alternative
State mileage disclosure requirement. Finally, we
proposed to clarify some aspects of the current regula-
tion by redefining transferor and transferee and add-
ing a definition of mileage.
The agency received numerous comments on the
NPRM, representing the opinions of new and used
car dealers, auto auctions, leasing companies. State
motor vehicle administrators, and enforcement and
consumer protection agencies involved in odometer
enforcement. Each of these comments has been con-
sidered and the most significant points are addressed
below.
The NPRM contained a detailed discussion of the
provisions of the Truth in Mileage Act and explained
the agency's rationale for proposing each of the re-
quirements. This preamble follows a similar organiza-
tional format, to allow the reader to easily compare
the two documents, with additional detail given to the
disclosure requirements.
Definitions
To clarify that the liability for issuing a false
odometer disclosure statement could be placed on a
person acting as an agent for the owner of a vehicle,
we proposed to amend the definition of the term
"transferor" to include the transferor's agent. Sim-
ilarly, we proposed to expand the definition of trans-
feree to include the transferee's agent. One commen-
ter stated that the proposed definitions were simple
and straightforward and the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA) supported the objective
of the modifications to the extent that they will assist
in the successful prosecution of wrongdoers who have
avoided convictions based on a technicality. How-
ever, NADA and other commenters did express some
concern.
Anglo American Auto Auction, Inc. (Anglo) feared
that the definition of transferor may be misconstrued
to require that every agent who participates in the
transfer must complete an odometer statement and
suggested that the definition be amended to include
that "transferor" also "means any person, who as
agent makes the disclosure of odometer information"
required by the regulation. However, Anglo correctly
noted that the definition of transferor and transferee,
if prop^rly construed, would not include salespersons
or clerks who may play a role in the transfer process,
but who, as a legal matter, do not actually transfer
the ownership of the vehicle. Since no other com-
menters misconstrued the definition and since we
have the opportunity to clarify the definition of
transferor in this preamble, we will not adopt Anglo's
proposal.
The National Auto Auction Association (NAAA)
asserted that the expansion of the definitions goes
beyond the intent of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act ("Cost Savings Act") and the
Truth in Mileage Act, and exceeds NHTSA's rule-
making authority. NAAA noted that neither the Cost
Savings Act nor the Truth in Mileage Act defines
transferor and transferee; that transfer is defined in
the Cost Savings Act; and that NHTSA was directed
by the Cost Savings Act to promulgate rules concern-
ing a written disclosure by the transferor to the
transferee. NAAA argues that there is nothing in
either statute which gives NHTSA the authority to
define transferor and transferee. Furthermore,
NAAA argues that an administrative agency cannot
alter a duly enacted statute through the use of its own
regulations and cannot distort plain and obvious
statutory language.
As NAAA correctly notes, neither statute defines
transferor and transferee. Furthermore, the legisla-
tive history of these statutes does not define these
terms and Congress did not explicitly direct NHTSA
to promulgate definitions of them. However, Congress
directed NHTSA to prescribe rules requiring any
transferor to give a written mileage disclosure to the
transferee in connection with the transfer of owner-
ship under section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Informa-
tion and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1988. Implicit
in this directive is the authority to define the terms.
The District Court for the District of Columbia has
held that where Congress has delegated certain in-
terpretive powers, either explicitly or implicitly, the
agency's interpretation should receive deference.
Where neither the statute nor legislation history ex-
plicitly define a statutory term, an agency's inter-
pretation must be accepted if it is "based on a per-
missible construction of the statute, ..." Pa. Public
Utility Com'n v. United States, 749 F.2d 841, 849 (D.C.
Cir. 1984), citing Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1983).
The definitions, as proposed, are consistent with the
definition of "transfer" which is "to change owner-
ship by purchase, gift, or any other means." 15 U.S.C.
§ 1982(2). Furthermore, rather than going beyond the
legislative intent or distorting the statutoiy language,
these definitions help to further the expressed Con-
gressional intent of "establishing safeguards for the
protection of consumers with respect to the sale of
vehicles having altered odometers," 15 U.S.C. § 1981.
It closes loopholes which have limited the Govern-
ment's ability to prosecute certain violations of the
odometer laws because of an ambiguity in the defini-
tion. (See, U.S. V. Powell, 806 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir.
PART 580-PRE 16
1986)). Therefore, these definitions do not exceed
NHTSA's statutory authority. Finally, in accordance
with the Administrative Procedures Act, these defini-
tions are promulgated pursuant to notice and com-
ment. See also, 37 FR 25727 (1972); 38 FR 2978 (1973).
NAAA also objected to the proposed definitions be-
cause "this exposes a variety of persons to liability . . .
who are not owners of the motor vehicles being
transferred. In addition to including employees and
independent contractors working for the transferor,
this expanded definition would include any person us-
ing a power of attorney from the transferor, and fre-
quently, that person not only has no knowledge re-
garding the accuracy of the odometer reading, but has
no means of conducting an investigation to ascertain
the accuracy of the odometer reading." NAAA asked
that the definitions be limited to including employees
working for the owner or authorized to transfer
ownership of the motor vehicle. Further concern
about the definition of transferor was expressed by
a coalition of commenters, "the coalition," consisting
of NADA, NAAA, the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), the Automotive
Trade Association Executives (ATAE), the American
Car Rental Association (ACRA) and the National In-
dependent Automobile Dealers Association (NIADA).
The coalition asserted that those who accurately com-
plete a transferor's mileage disclosure based on the
transferor's secure power of attorney (a power of at-
torney that is set forth by a secure printing process
or other secure process) should not be considered
agents of the transferor and asked that these individ-
uals be specifically excluded from the definition of
transferor. However, the coalition did not include any
rationale in support of its position. Similarly, the
Texas Automobile Dealers Association proposed,
without additional comment, that anyone who com-
pletes a disclosure statement on behalf of a transferor
based upon a power of attorney should be excluded
from the definition of transferor. We will not incor-
porate these suggestions into the final rule. Contrary
to the assertion of NAAA, the expansion of the defini-
tions does not expose more people to liability, but
merely closes a loophole where defendants have es-
caped liability due to ambiguity in the cmrent regula-
tion. While the case law has limited the Government's
ability to prosecute a company employee who falsely
certifies odometer mileage on the ground that the
employee is not a transferor {see, U.S. v. Powell, 806
F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986)), we believe that where ap-
propriate under general legal principles of agency, an
employee or other agent of a principal should be liable
for his actions and that a principal should be liable
for the actions of its agents. With regard to whether
a person has any "knowledge" concerning the ac-
curacy of the reading j the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act itself recognizes that in order
to be found liable under the Act, a person must have
an intent to defraud for civil liability, or knowingly
and willfully commit any act in violation of the Act
to be convicted criminally. Through these definitions,
we are stressing the importance of mileage. It is in-
cumbent upon anyone acting as an agent, even those
with a power of attorney, to obtain mileage informa-
tion from the appropriate source. The definitions of
transferor and transferee are adopted as proposed.
We proposed a definition of mileage for two reasons.
First, the definition makes clear that there is a dif-
ference between mileage and odometer reading. Sec-
ond, the proposed definition reflects the agency's posi-
tion that a person may lawfully replace odometers
which register kilometers with those that register
miles traveled. No comments were received on this
proposal and it is adopted in this final rule.
Definitions of lessee and lessor, consistent with the
TIMA definition of leased motor vehicle, were pro-
posed to clarify all references to these persons. The
National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA)
and PHH Group, Inc. (PHH) requested that the defini-
tion of lessee be expanded to include the agent for the
lessee. PHH noted that expanding the definition of
lessee would allow for flexibility since a lessee could
be an entity other than the operator of the vehicle.
NAFA noted that an expanded definition of lessee
would be more flexible and would allow the lessee's
drivers to sign the disclosure statements in accord-
ance with current business practices. In addition,
NAFA commented that the expanded definition
would parallel the definitions of transferor and
transferee. The agency agrees with the commenters
and has expanded the definition of lessee to include
the agent of the lessee, which is consistent with the
definitions of transferor and transferee. Also, for con-
sistency, the agency has expanded the definition of
lessor to include the agent of the lessor.
In accordance with the Congressional intent to en-
courage new technologies which will provide in-
creased security for titles, we proposed to broadly
define the terms "secure printing process" and "other
secure processes" as "any process which deters and
detects counterfeiting and/or unauthorized reproduc-
tion and allows alterations to be visible to the naked
eye." 3M requested that the definition be amended
to read, in lieu of "visible to the naked eye," "easily
detected under recommended viewing conditions."
3M stated that the definition, as proposed, could be
interpreted to mean without the aid of a verification
device and asserted that any verification process that
precludes the use of a supporting device is too restric-
tive. We have not adopted 3M's suggestion. The in-
tent of the Truth in Mileage Act is to provide a paper
trail for the protection of consumers. Therefore, any
alteration should be visible to the purchaser of a vehi-
cle who would not routinely have the aid of a verifica-
tion device. Furthermore, any alteration should be
visible to title clerks reviewing titles prior to the is-
PART 580-PRE 17
suance of new titles, and time constraints may pro-
hibit clerks from examining every title with the aid
of a verification device. We adopt the definition as pro-
posed. However, we note that this definition does not
preclude a State from utilizing any process which
would include a verification device for additional
document security.
Security for Motor Vehicle Titles
According to the new law, beginning on April 29,
1989, each State motor vehicle title must be set forth
by a secure printing process or other secure process.
To implement this statutory requirement, we pro-
posed the addition of a new section 580.4 concerning
the security of motor vehicle titles. To assist the
States in their efforts to issue motor vehicle titles
which comply with the requirements of the Truth in
Mileage Act and this rule. Appendix A, consisting of
a list of technologies that we proposed to deem to be
secure processes, was included. Comments were re-
quested on the appropriateness of the methods listed
in Appendix A and on whether our final rule should
contain a procedure by which a State could seek our
concurrence in an alternative method of document
security beyond those listed in the final rule.
The comments concerning the title and Appendix
A were divergent. At one extreme, 3M suggested that
NHTSA require the title be set forth by one of the
secure processes listed in Appendix A and that Ap-
pendix A be amended to include all available secur-
ity processes which would be ranked as to the level
of security they provide. At the other extreme,
AAMVA and several of its member jurisdictions com-
mented that Appendix A is superfluous and unnec-
essarily limiting, and urged that it be deleted. They
asserted that individual jurisdictions should remain
free to utilize any processes, including new technolo-
gies, without having to secure approval from NHTSA.
Other commenters suggested that security paper be
added to Appendix A. One commenter urged the ad-
dition of a hologram. Another noted that intaglio
printing with latent images is a combination of two
features and explained that high resolution printing
refers to how the original art was prepared.
To allow for maximum administrative discretion on
the part of the States, we will not adopt 3M's sugges-
tion to list and rank all secure processes. However,
in lieu of deleting Appendix A, we have expanded and
corrected it based on the comments received. Appen-
dix A has been included to aid the States in the selec-
tion of a secure process and in no way limits the States
or adds new requirements or restrictions beyond those
listed in the rule itself. Furthermore, States are not
required to seek our concurrence in an alternative
method of document security beyond those listed in
Appendix A. We defer to the States to establish
specific standards on secure processes and will not
limit the administrative discretion of the States.
However, if it becomes evident that the secure proc-
esses being used by the States fail to deter and detect
counterfeiting and/or unauthorized reproductions and
do not allow alterations to be visible to the naked eye,
further rulemaking may have to be undertaken on
the security of titles.
We also proposed as a requirement under this new
section 580.4, that if a State allows subsequent
reassignments of the vehicle to be recorded on a docu-
ment other than the title itself, the document used
to reassign title must be set forth by the same secure
process. AAMVA and several of its member jurisdic-
tions urged the agency to amend this requirement to
read, rather than by the "same" secure process, by
"a secure process." Arkansas asserted that it would
be a financial burden for the State to use a reassign-
ment document that incorporates the same secure
process as its title. Other commenters were opposed
to the proposal in its entirety. Texas, Vermont and
the Arkansas Independent Auto Dealers Association
cited cost burdens and indicated that the requirement
was beyond the terms of the statute. Wisconsin, on
the other hand, asked that NHTSA eliminate sepa-
rate reassignment documents, noting that NHTSA
expressed concern about issuing odometer disclosure
statements on a separate piece of paper. In the alter-
native, Wisconsin suggested that if reassignments on
a separate document are allowed, NHTSA should re-
quire the reassignment documents to bear control
numbers and that the number be included on the ti-
tle. Wisconsin also requested that NHTSA require the
States to record the control numbers of the reassign-
ment documents they give to each dealer and that
each dealer keep a record of the reassignment docu-
ment issued for each vehicle.
NHTSA has reconsidered its proposed requirement
in response to these comments. While separate reas-
signment documents are not mentioned in the Truth
in Mileage Act, they are often an integi-al part of the
transfer process. Since reassignment documents are
a logical extension of the title, requiring secure reas-
signment documents is a logical extension of the
statutory requirement. Allowing secure titles to be
transferred by a sheet of bond paper is incongi'uous.
Therefore, the final rule requires secui'e reassignment
documents. However, NHTSA has concluded that it
can satisfy its statutory obligations and avoid un-
necessary financial burdens upon the States by adopt-
ing the proposal of AAMVA and several of its member
jurisdictions. Accordingly, the final rule has been
changed to permit reassignment documents to be set
forth by "a secure process" in lieu of the requirement
that they be set forth by the same secure process as
the title. By requiring reassignment documents to be
secure, we hope to achieve deterrence of odometer
fraud without the elimination of their use. Further-
more, although adopting Wisconsin's suggestion that
secure reassignment documents be controlled may
PART 580-PRE 18
lessen the incidence of odometer fraud, we have no
explicit statutory authority to require that any title
documents be controlled in the manner suggested by
Wisconsin. We will not limit the administrative
discretion of the States in this area even though we
recognize that it is common practice to control secure
documents. Nothing in the Act or this rule should be
read as precluding a State from using control tech-
niques on these documents.
Odometer Disclosure Requirements
A. Titles Issued by States
According to the new law, in addition to being
secure, each State motor vehicle title must "indicate
the mileage disclosure required to be made under
subsection (a). . ." 15 U.S.C. § 1988(dX2XAXii). Sub-
section (a) refers to the disclosure requirements pro-
mulgated by NHTSA. To implement this provision,
paralleling the language of the statute, we proposed,
"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 ..."
Recognizing the importance of knowing whether the
odometer reading on the title represents the actual
distance a vehicle has traveled, Wisconsin proposed
several qualifying notations or "brands" to include
with the odometer reading. These brands would accom-
pany the odometer reading on the face of the newly
issued title. These proposed brands include:
(1) ACTUAL MILEAGE; (2) MILEAGE EXCEEDS
THE MECHANICAL LIMITS; (3) TRUE MILEAGE
UNKNOWN; (4) EXEMPT FROM ODOMETER DIS-
CLOSURE; and (5) ODOMETER TAMPERING VER-
IFIED. Wisconsin noted that AAMVA adopted a
resolution (Resolution 19) at its 1987 International
Conference in Washington, D.C., which states that "all
jurisdictions include, in conjunction with the odometer
reading which is to be recorded on the certificate of
title, a notation that the recorded mileage is actual,
not actual, or exceeds the mechanical limits."
Since the definition of mileage is "actual distance
that a vehicle has traveled," the title must include
a notation as to whether the odometer reading reflects
the actual mileage, exceeds the mechanical limits or
does not reflect the actual mileage. With regard to
the brands proposed by Wisconsin, we do not adopt
the brand "TRUE MILEAGE UNKNOWN." As we
discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, true
mileage unknown does not take into account situa-
tions where although the odometer does not reflect
the actual mileage, it is not unknown. 52 FR 27026
(1987). Therefore, the brand should read "NOT THE
ACTUAL MILEAGE." With regard to the brand
"EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE REQUIRE-
MENTS," while NHTSA will not require this nota-
tion. States are not prohibited under this final rule
from adopting it. Finally, with regard to the brand
"ODOMETER TAMPERING VERIFIED," we feel
that this brand may lead to confusion upon subse-
quent sale of a vehicle because this statement is not
included as part of the disclosure statement; however,
States may use this brand in addition to the brand
"NOT THE ACTUAL MILEAGE."
B. Disclosure on Title
With regard to the disclosure of mileage, we pro-
posed that "[a]t the time of transfer of ownership of
a motor vehicle, each transferor shall disclose the
mileage to the transferee in writing on the title or
on the document being used to reassign title." We in-
vited comments on how titles could be made available
to transferors where the vehicle is subject to a lien
in order to meet the specific requirements of the law.
The majority of comments to the NPRM have cen-
tered around this provision. Several commenters en-
dorsed this requirement. Wisconsin firmly declared
that the vehicle documentation should accompany the
vehicle itself, otherwise, the buyer's best efforts to pro-
tect himself are effectively limited to a quick visual
inspection of the vehicle and the odometer. The Na-
tional Association of Consumer Agency Administra-
tors (NACAA) stated that having the title accompany
the vehicle is the most efficient mechanism for achiev-
ing meaningful and accurate disclosure to consumers.
The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles whole-
heartedly supports the strict odometer disclosure and
title transfer requirements of the proposed regula-
tions. The National Odometer Enforcement Associa-
tion passed a resolution supporting the proposed rule.
Other commenters either asked that NHTSA define
"transfer of ownership" or proposed definitions of the
term. The Virginia Independent Automobile Dealers
Association opined that transfer of ownership is a
process that begins when funds are received by the
dealer and ends when the customer receives either
the new title or the document necessary to secure new
title. NAFA asked NHTSA to define transfer of
ownership as the point in time when title changes
hands. AAMVA expressed concern that this require-
ment would be interpreted to mean that the title be
present at the time the vehicle itself is transferred.
AAMVA noted that over forty jurisdictions allow the
lienholder to hold title and that this requirement
would result in extensive regulatory and/or legisla-
tive change. AAMVA noted that this would be incon-
sistent with Congress' intent that the Truth in Mile-
age Act would have minimal impacts on the States.
Other commenters consistently stressed the burden
upon transferors when the vehicles are under lien in
States where the lienholder holds the title. The trans-
feror could not obtain the title unless the lien is paid,
and he may not be able to pay it off until he sells the
vehicle. NIADA asserted that "... it is impossible in
many situations for a dealer to conclude a transac-
tion with the title present at the time of sale." Nu-
PART 580-PRE 19
merous car dealers exclaimed that if dealers had to
have titles when selling vehicles, burdensome and
costly changes in their recordkeeping practices would
result. The Credit Union National Association noted
that its members expressed concern that if financial
institutions were unable to retain titles, they may feel
the necessity to curtail car lending programs. Senator
J. James Exon, Representative Thomas J. Tauke and
Representative John Bryant asserted that "Congress
never intended to require odometer disclosures, which
are currently made at the time of a sales transaction,
to be placed upon, and made only through, the title
document itself. Such a requirement would needlessly
increase regulatory burdens and disrupt the purchase
and sale of used automobiles, not only by dealers but
also by individual consumers. Rather, Congress in-
tended that the mileage recorded on the new title be
consistent with the mileage disclosed when the buyer
and seller signed the sales contract." Anglo summed
up its concerns by stating that a requirement that the
title be present at the time of initial sale is inap-
propriate because of the unnecessary disruption of the
efficient operation of the used car vehicle market it
would cause for individuals and automobile dealers
alike.
To alleviate the burden that might result if NHTSA
were to require the title to be present at the time of
sale, the coalition urged the Agency to accept an
"owner copy" title procedure. Under the owner copy
title procedure, title sets consisting of a title and a
designated owner copy would be set forth by a secure
printing process or other secure process and each
would contain an appropriate Federal odometer dis-
closure statement or statements. In cases where the
initial transferor does not have possession of the ti-
tle at the time of sale or trade-in, the coalition pro-
posed that NHTSA shall permit the transferor to dis-
close the mileage on the designated owner copy pro-
vided that the disclosure statement is fully completed,
dated, and signed by the transferor. The owner copy
and all subsequent reassignments would be presented
with any application for new title. In addition, the
coalition suggested that if the transferor does not
have either the owner copy or the title, NHTSA
should permit the use of a special power of attorney,
which would also be submitted at the time of applica-
tion for new title.
Some commenters, aware of the suggestion of a two
part title system, expressed concern over the expen-
ses which might result from its implementation.
Delaware stated that there would be costly form and
programming changes.
NHTSA has carefully evaluated these comments in
light of the Truth in Mileage Act, Congressional in-
tent, policy considerations and investigative experi-
ence. To alleviate unnecessary cost burdens on the
States and the automobile industry while continuing
to provide a paper trail in accordance with the law
and Congressional intent, we have amended the lan-
guage in the proposed regulation concerning the time
of the disclosure. The words, "In connection with the
transfer of ownership. . . " will replace "At the time
of transfer of ownership. . ." as the introductory
phrase of section 580.5(c).
In issuing interpretations of the Motor Vehicle In-
formation and Cost Savings Act, NHTSA has stated
that "transfer of ownership" is determined by State
law. Therefore, we have not, now, attempted to de-
fine the phrase.
Furthermore, Congress noted that "[o]ne of the ma-
jor barriers to decreasing odometer fraud is the lack
of evidence or 'paper trail' showing incidence of roll-
backs, " and enacted Section 2 of the Truth in Mileage
Act. Section 2 prohibits the licensing of any vehicle
for use in any State unless the title which is issued
by the State to the transferee following a transfer
"contains a space for the transferee to disclose (in the
event of a future transfer) the mileage at the time of
such future transfer and to sign and date the dis-
closure." It also states that a motor vehicle may not
be licensed for use in any State unless, if the trans-
feror's title contains a space for a mileage disclosure,
the disclosure is signed and dated by the transferor.
Section 408(d) of the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1988(d). Under these
provisions, a disclosure must be made on the title. In
the Committee Report accompanying the new law,
Congress specifically noted that the amendments re-
quire that "any transfer of ownership or licensing of
any vehicle be accompanied by the title of such vehi-
cle." H.R. Rep. 833, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess., 18 (1986).
We recognize that the remarks of Senator Exon and
Representatives Bryant and Tauke differ from the
Congressional intent set forth in this Committee
Report. However, these comments were set forth in
their letter to the Agency after the enactment of the
statute, and although we have given their comments
careful consideration, we note that postenactment
statements of legislators have no probative weight in
interpreting statutes and represent only the personal
views of the legislators. Bread Political Action Com-
mittee u. Federal Election Commission, 455 U.S. 577
(1982); Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Additionally, if we were to adopt the comments of
these legislators, there would continue to be a dupli-
cation of disclosure since there would be a separate
odometer disclosure statement and the disclosure of
odometer information on State titles because the ma-
jority of the States also require this information. In
the regulatory evaluation prepared to analyze the
details of this rule, NHTSA estimates that annual
savings of $2.6 million would result from the elimin-
ation of the separate odometer disclosure statement
for used vehicle transfers.
We recognize that, under State laws, "transfer of
ownership" may not occur at one point in time, but
PART 580-PRE 20
is a process. Under this final rule, at some point dur-
ing that process, the title, containing the disclosure
statement completed and signed by the transferor,
must be given to, and signed by, the transferee. The
transferee may obtain the title in person or the title
may be mailed to the transferee. We caution dealers
and distributors who are required by this part to re-
tain a copy of each odometer statement which they
issue that, if they mail the title, they must ensure that
they obtain a copy of the statement signed by the
transferee in accordance with the record retention re-
quirements of this part.
Under this requirement, the integrity of the paper
trail has been maintained since the disclosure will be
on the title and consumers will be able to see the
disclosures and examine the titles for alterations,
erasures or other marks. Furthermore, consumers
will learn the names of previous owners that appear
on the title.
We have not adopted the suggestion of the coalition
to permit the use of a special power of attorney. A
secure power of attorney would not allow transferees
to see the actual title document, including the dis-
closures, and could easily be discarded. A forged sub-
stitute could then be submitted to the titling office.
This final rule is flexible in permitting the disclosure
in connection with the transfer of ownership and will
not result in the burdens anticipated by the coalition.
NAAA argued that nothing in the Truth in Mileage
Act requires that the title be the sole and exclusive
means of making the full disclosure and that nothing
prohibits the use of an odometer disclosure statement
on a form separate from the title or reassignment
forms. NHTSA agrees that the Act does not require
the title to be the only means of making a disclosure.
A seller may issue a separate odometer disclosure
statement in addition to the one on the title. As we
noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, dealers
and distributors who elect to issue a disclosure state-
ment in addition to the one on the title, must retain
a copy of these separate disclosure statements, and
a copy of the front and reverse sides of the title.
Recognizing a doubled paperwork burden and result-
ing cost increases, NHTSA will not require a dis-
closure statement apart from the disclosure on the
title.
C. Information Required to Be Disclosed
With regard to the information to be disclosed, the
proposed section 580.5 continued to require certain
information that the agency had already required and
included some additional provisions. The proposal
continued to require the transferor to sign the
disclosure and to certify whether to the best of his
knowledge the odometer reading reflects the vehicle's
actual mileage. No comments were received on this
proposal and it is adopted in the final rule.
We also proposed to continue to require the trans-
feror to disclose whether the odometer reading reflects
the amount of mileage in excess of the designed
mechanical odometer limit, while proposing to delete
any reference to specific designed mechanical odom-
eter limitations. NADA urged NHTSA to eliminate
any requirement for the certification that the odom-
eter reading reflects the amount of mileage in excess
of the designed mechanical limit, stating that it is not
required by the Act and it is redundant with the re-
quirement that the transferor certify that the odom-
eter reading does not reflect the actual distance a
vehicle has traveled. The Minnesota Automobile
Dealers Association (MADA) noted that in situations
where the odometer has a mechanical limit of 99,999
and the vehicle has traveled in excess of 200,000
miles, there would be no way to indicate this since
the language of the proposed regulation requires the
transferor to certify if he knows "the odometer
reading reflects the amount of mileage in excess of
the mechanical limit." This rule does not adopt these
suggestions. Knowing whether a vehicle has traveled
over 100,000 miles is important in determining its
condition and value.
Additionally, to allow someone with a vehicle that
has traveled over 100,000 miles to merely certify that
the odometer reading does not reflect the actual
mileage permits unscrupulous transferors to make
oral misrepresentations as to the vehicle's actual
mileage. Furthermore, it is unusual for passenger
vehicles to travel in excess of 200,000 miles. While
trucks and buses register such high mileage,
transferors of vehicles having a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating over 16,000 pounds are exempt from the
disclosure requirements. K transferors of vehicles that
have travelled in excess of 200,000 miles wish to issue
a disclosure statement, they may make a line through
the words "the amount of," or alternatively, add an
additional statement that would indicate how much
over the mechanical limit the reading is. The require-
ment that the transferor disclose whether the odom-
eter reading reflects the amount of mileage in excess
of the designed mechanical odometer is adopted as
proposed.
As an alternative to certifying that the mileage is
actual or exceeds the mechanical limits, we proposed
that if the odometer reading does not reflect the ac-
tual mileage and should not be relied upon, the
transferor must continue to disclose this fact. We also
proposed that this disclosure include a warning notice
to alert the transferee that a discrepancy exists be-
tween the odometer reading and the actual mileage.
We received two comments about the warning notice.
Delaware asserted that a warning notice would be
burdensome because it would increase the required
space on the reverse side of the title. From another
perspective, NACAA applauded the addition of the
warning notice which provides additional consumer
PART 580-PRE 21
protection. NHTSA has adopted this requirement as
proposed in the NPRM. The addition of a warning
notice which may be as simple as "WARNING
ODOMETER DISCREPANCY" will not increase the
size of the title, but may appear in space which is nor-
mally available at the end of the certification state-
ment. For an example of the spacing of the warning
notice, see Appendices B and C.
In addition, we proposed to continue to require the
transferee's signature. Although NHTSA has re-
quired the transferee's signature on the disclosure
statement since 1977, we received many comments
on this proposal because the disclosure will be, in
many instances, on the title. NACAA, NADA and
Comerica (an automobile leasing company) support
this proposal. Other commenters had concerns.
Arkansas asserted that requiring the signature of the
transferee is neither expressed nor implied in the
Truth in Mileage Act and is an "absolute misinter-
pretation of Section 2." Alabama stated that the pur-
chaser is unavailable at the time the transaction is
consummated and opposed this requirement.
Although the Truth in Mileage Act does not require
the transferee's signature, it also was not intended
to lessen the tools available to law enforcement of-
ficers in the enforcement of odometer laws. Again, we
note that this is not a new proposal. Rather, it has
been a requirement since 1977, authorized by the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. As
noted in the preamble to the NPRM, NHTSA con-
siders the transferee's signature to be essential
because it is an acknowledgement that the purchaser
is aware of the mileage or any problems with the
odometer reading. The signature prevents the pur-
chaser from later alleging that he was not informed
of the mileage or that the mileage on the vehicle's
odometer was different from that appearing on the
odometer disclosure statement. Furthermore, the
buyer's signature is important to investigative and
prosecutorial efforts. Since we have expanded the
period of time in which the mileage disclosure may
be made, Alabama's concern has been addressed be-
cause, at some point in connection with the transfer
of ownership, the purchaser will be available to sign
the title.
Judging from the comments, some aspects of the
proposed requirement for the transferee's signature
were misunderstood. The Delaware Department of
Motor Vehicles (Delaware) stated that the transferee
should not be required to sign the disclosure state-
ment if required to sign the document elsewhere.
NHTSA agrees. If the transferee's signature is re-
quired to reassign title, and if the disclosure appears
in the same section of the title as the reassignment,
the title does not need to include another space for
the transferee's signature. As NHTSA has said in the
past, information concerning the disclosure need not
be repeated if found elsewhere on the document. See
38 FR 2978 (1973). NAFA suggested that NHTSA con-
sider adding a provision noting that an increase in
mileage may have taken place prior to the signature
of the transferee. NAFA was concerned that a
"transferee may balk at attesting to" a disclosure
statement if the odometer shows a higher reading.
This final rule does not adopt NAFA's suggestion
since the transferee does not attest to the disclosure
statement, but rather acknowledges receipt of it.
We proposed to continue to require the transferor's
current address, the vehicle's model and a reference
to the Federal odometer law, including a statement
of liability and penalties. Although the address, model
and reference are required under the current regula-
tion, they were the subject of some comments.
Noting that the disclosure would be on the title,
Delaware feared that requiring the transferor's cur-
rent address would increase the size of the title. As
indicated by Appendix B, if the transferor's address
is on the title, and normally it is on the face of the
title, it does not have to be included again. Therefore,
the titles should not increase in size and we have
adopted the requirement for the transferor's current
address as proposed.
With regard to the proposal to require a vehicle's
model, Delaware asserted that many States do not in-
clude the model. Citing cost concerns, Delaware asked
that a requirement for model apply to 1989 models
and newer. The Oregon Department of Transporta-
tion Motor Vehicle Division (Oregon) noted that its
legislature recently removed a model requirement
from Oregon law relating to odometers. Oregon as-
serted that this information is obtainable through the
Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and should not
be required to be listed separately.
Vehicle identifying information, including the
model, is currently required so that the vehicle would
be readily identifiable if the disclosure statement
became separated from the other transfer documents.
See, 38 FR 2979. This rationale is still valid since
separate disclosure statements will continue to be
issued by transferors of new vehicles which have not
been previously titled and by transferors of vehicles
titled on nonconforming titles during the phase-in
period. Furthermore, the model helps individuals to
verify the correctness of the VIN and two-thirds of the
States already include the model on their titles.
Therefore, we have adopted the proposal to require
the model, which is consistent with the current regu-
lation, into this final rule.
As for the reference to the Federal odometer law,
we proposed that the disclosure statement "refer to
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
and State law, where applicable, and shall state that
incorrect information may result in civil liability and
civil or criminal penalties." Delaware claimed that
the wording is too lengthy and will never be read.
NADA proposed to change this requirement to read
PART 580-PRE 22
that "each document containing one or more odom-
eter disclosures shall contain a statement in capital
letters as follows: AN INACCURATE OR UN-
TRUTHFUL STATEMENT MAY MAKE YOU LI-
ABLE FOR DAMAGES AND FOR CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL PENALTIES UNDER APPLICABLE
LAW." N ADA'S stated purpose in this proposal is to
simplify the statement and make it more forceful. Re-
quiring that it be stated only once on a multi-dis-
closure document will afford States the flexibility to
combine titles with multi-assignment documents.
NADA's proposal was supported by the coalition.
While we have not adopted NADA's proposal in
form, we agree to simplify and strengthen the refer-
ence to the law and penalties. Therefore, the proposal
is amended to require a reference to the "Federal
odometer law" in lieu of the Motor Vehicle Informa-
tion and Cost Savings Act. This is consistent with the
agency's opinion that the actual law need not always
be cited. 45 FR 784 (1980). For clarification, we have
added a requirement that the reference indicate that
"failure to complete," in addition to providing false
information, will result in liability. To make the state-
ment more forceful, references to "civil liability and
civil or criminal penalties" will be amended to read
"fines and/or imprisonment." To allow for flexibility
for States and transferors, reference to State law is
discretionary. Finally, if the required information ap-
pears once on the document, it does not have to be
repeated.
Section 580.5, as proposed, differed from the cur-
rent section 580.4 in the following ways. We proposed
in section 580.5(f) that the transferee, in addition
to signing the odometer disclosure statement, print
his name. Recognizing that the printed name is help-
ful in the course of an investigation to identify the
person signing the statement where signatures are
difficult to read, NACAA supported the proposal. On
the other hand, NADA asserted that the requirement
for the transferee's printed name should be deleted
as redundant with the proposed requirement for
the transferee's name and current address, section
580.5(c). NHTSA agrees that in some instances the
provisions may result in the same information. How-
ever, the transferee whose name and address are re-
quired under section 580.5(c) may be a dealer, corpora-
tion or other business entity. The signature of these
transferees is the signature of the employee or agent
acting in their behalf. The employee or agent would
print his name. Therefore, the requirements of sec-
tion 580.5(f) are not redundant and will be adopted
as proposed.
In section 580.5(c) we also proposed that the odom-
eter reading cannot include tenths of miles. NACAA
and NADA supported this proposal and no comments
were received in opposition to it. Therefore, we have
adopted this proposal in the final rule.
In addition, we proposed to shorten the odometer
disclosure form by eliminating the second set of cer-
tifications. No comments were received on this pro-
posal and it is adopted in this final rule.
While no one commented on the elimination of the
second set of certifications, we received several pro-
posals for additional certifications. An individual
suggested that in order to provide as much informa-
tion as possible in a formal manner to the transferee,
the disclosure statement should include the follow-
ing: "Optional: the correct mileage is ."
While there is no prohibition against a seller pro-
viding this information, NHTSA sees no investigative
or consumer benefit to be gained in adding this re-
quirement which would outweigh the burden of in-
cluding another statement on the title, in light of
space limitations. A buyer can, and certainly should,
request such information. Yet, anyone who has de-
liberately violated the odometer laws is likely to pro-
vide an untruthful statement. Therefore, NHTSA will
not adopt this suggestion.
Another commenter suggested that a provision be
added to require the transferor "to certify that the
odometer was repaired or replaced, reset to zero, the
mileage on the original odometer was , and
that the mileage on the present odometer reflects the
mileage on the vehicle in excess of that amount." The
commenter asserted that this disclosure would allow
sellers to explain the odometer discrepancy and create
a paper trail as a backup to the notice posted on the
left door frame. Without this statement, the com-
menter felt that unscrupulous sellers could repair or
replace the odometer, then simply disclose that the
odometer reading is not the actual mileage. Due to
space limitations, we must reject this suggestion.
Although a shorter disclosure might sacrifice clarity
to a degree, NHTSA regards this as an acceptable
price for gaining the benefit of combined title and
disclosure. Note that there is no prohibition against
the seller advising the purchaser of the reason for cer-
tifying that the odometer reading does not reflect the
actual mileage.
While the proposed regulation sets forth the infor-
mation which must be disclosed, it also includes, in
Appendices B and C, sample forms which may be
used. Appendix B is a sample disclosure form which
a State may wish to include on its titles. Appendix
C is a sample disclosure form which may be used if
a vehicle has not been previously titled such as a
new vehicle or a vehicle imported into the United
States from a foreign country. 3M endorsed the in-
clusion of Appendices B and C and noted that they
provide standard formats. 3M suggested that the
placement of information relevant to security, section
580.5(c)(l)-(5), be located consistently in one position
on the certificate of title and on other ownership
documents. To allow the States the maximum admin-
PART 580-PRE 23
istrative discretion possible, we will not adopt 3M's
suggestion, but have included sample forms in appen-
dices B and C to the final rule. These appendices have
been changed from the appendices as proposed to con-
form to the requirements of the final rule. We wish
to repeat that the purpose of these appendices is to
serve as examples; they do not introduce new re-
quirements or restrictions into the rule.
Recognizing that titles for vehicles issued prior to
the enactment of a State law or regulation implement-
ing the title requirements of the final rule may not
contain all the information required by this rule, in
section 580.5(g) we proposed that the written dis-
closure be executed as a separate form when the title
does not conform to the final rule. NADA supported
the use of a separate disclosure statement when "old,"
nonconforming titles are involved in the transfer.
However, the Chairman of the Consumer Affairs and
Protection Committee of the New York State As-
sembly feared that this section creates a loophole.
Discussing the disclosure information on the title, he
noted that "to be effective, this information should
appear on the title itself, because this document must
accompany each vehicle transfer, and is recorded by
most state Departments of Motor Vehicles. This may
mean instituting a phase-in period for all States to
develop titles containing appropriate spaces." Rather
than creating a loophole, section 580.5(g) recognizes
the necessity of a phase-in period. As noted in the
preamble to the NPRM, the Truth in Mileage Act does
not say that motor vehicles can only be licensed if the
transferee includes with the application the transfer-
or's title which includes a disclosure. Rather, the law
states that only "... if that title contains the space
referred to in paragraph (2XAXiii). . ." would the
transferor sign and date a disclosure statement.
Therefore, section 580.5(g) is adopted in this final rule
as proposed.
D. Power of Attorney
Prior to the issuance of the NPRM, NIADA asked
whether a power of attorney could be gi-anted so that
the transferor could sign on behalf of the transferee
to avoid any problems in making a disclosure on the
title where the vehicle is subject to an existing lien.
Although the proposed rule did not include a provi-
sion concerning powers of attorney, in the preamble
to the proposed rules, we recognized that powers of
attorney are necessary in transfers involving an in-
competent or deceased owner. However, we em-
phasized that powers of attorney that allow the same
person to sign a disclosure statement as both the
transferor and transferee result in only one party to
the transfer being aware of the previous mileage
disclosures. This could jeopardize the integi'ity of the
"paper trail" and defeat the purpose of the Act.
AAMVA agi-eed with our position, noting that
where the transferee holds the power of attorney of
the transferor, the same party is signing the title as
seller, to transfer ownership and to disclose mileage,
and as the buyer. AAMVA stated that this situation
is ripe for fraud if the person holding the power of at-
torney is intent on rolling back the vehicle's mileage.
Several of AAMVA's member jurisdictions concurred
in this position.
Wisconsin suggested that a new paragraph be added
to section 580.5 providing that no person may sign
a disclosure as both the transferor and transferee.
Wisconsin also suggested that the additional para-
graph provide that no transferor may give his power
of attorney or otherwise appoint as the transferor
agent, any agent or employee of the transferee for
the purpose of executing an odometer disclosure
statement.
An automobile dealer in an area with a large
military population declared that the new law would
preclude a member of the military from giving a
spouse a power of attorney to sell a vehicle and to
verify the odometer reading.
Other commenters, concerned that the title had to
be present at the time of sale, hoped that the use of
a power of attorney would ease the burden that title
present might have imposed. NIADA noted that if the
power of attorney is submitted with the old title when
applying for a new title, and a copy is required to be
maintained by the dealer, any alteration would be im-
mediately apparent and the paper trail would be
maintained. The coalition, as noted above, suggested
the use of a special power of attorney which (i) is set
forth by a secure process; (ii) contains the appropriate
Federal odometer disclosure statement and (iii) is
fully completed, dated and signed by the transferor.
Upon receipt of the transferor's title, the initial
transferee would negotiate the title and complete the
transferor's statement based on the transferor's power
of attorney and mileage disclosure thereon. The title,
together with the power of attorney and all subse-
quent title reassignments, shall be presented with
any application for title.
To guard against a situation ripe for fraud, we have
adopted a new pai-agraph 580.5(h) which provides that
no person may sign a disclosure statement as both the
transferor and transferee in the same transaction. It
also provides that no transferor may give his power
of attorney or otherwise appoint as the transferor's
agent, any transferee of the same vehicle in the same
transaction for the purpose of executing an odometer
disclosure statement. Conversely, no transferee may
give his power of attorney or otherwise appoint as the
transferee's agent, any transferor of the same vehi-
cle in the same transaction for the purpose of ex-
ecuting an odometer disclosure statement.
We have not adopted the coalition's suggestion. The
burden that a "title present" requirement might have
presented has been alleviated since disclosure must
now occur in connection with the transfer of owner-
PART 580-PRE 24
ship. In addition, the integrity of the paper trail with
a secure power of attorney would not be maintained
because one party to the transaction would not see
the title and the power of attorney could be easily
discarded and a new one forged. Furthermore, this
process would place a burden on State titling offices
to review additional documentation, check for
conformity of the information contained on the
documents and maintain additional records.
Exemptions
We proposed a new section 580.6 which exempts cer-
tain transferors from issuing odometer disclosure
statements. With one exception as noted below, this
new section exempts the same transferors exempted
by former section 580.5.
3M questioned why any exemptions are allowed,
asserting that in 3M's opinion, the odometer reading
of any vehicle, regardless of its age, weight, or method
of sale, is a significant contributor to the vehicle's
worth. In response to 3M's inquiry, NHTSA notes that
the odometer reading is not used as a guide to the
value of certain vehicles. For example, maintenance
records have traditionally been relied upon as the
principal guide to the condition of trucks and buses.
Antique vehicles are primarily valued because of fac-
tors such as rarity and age rather mileage. 38 FR
2978 (1973).
Several Federal courts have reviewed NHTSA's
authority to create exemptions and reached different
conclusions concerning the validity of former section
580.5. See, Witkowski v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 712 F.2d
1352 (11th Cir. 1983); Barker v. Cawthon Motor Co.,
629 F.2d 410 (5th Cir. 1980); Mitchell v. White Motor
Credit Corporation, 627 F. Supp. 1241 (M.D. Tenn.
1986); Davis v. Oils Motor Co., 566 F. Supp. 1360
(S.D.W. Va. 1983). Nevertheless, as noted in the
preamble to the NPRM, while some courts have deter-
mined that NHTSA's authority to create exemptions
may be limited, we believe that NHTSA has the
authority to create exemptions for transferors of
vehicles for which the odometer reading is not relied
upon as an indicator of vehicle mileage or condition.
47 FR 51885 (1982). Therefore, we have adopted sec-
tion 580.6 as proposed, with one exception.
We proposed to exempt a transferor of a vehicle that
is twenty-five years old or older from the require-
ments of issuing a disclosure statement. We received
numerous requests to lower the vehicle age. AAMVA,
several of AAMVA's member jurisdictions and the
coalition suggested that the exemption be given to a
transferor of a vehicle that is ten years old or older.
This suggestion is based on studies done in Wiscon-
sin and Iowa which indicate that the incidence of
odometer tampering on vehicles over ten model years
old is disproportionately small as compared to the
vehicle population represented by that age group. The
commenters also noted that the selling price of
vehicles over ten years old is not typically based on
the odometer reading. AAMVA and several of its
members felt that extending the exemption to the
transferor of a vehicle ten years old and older would
not frustrate the Congressional intent behind the
odometer laws since the odometer reading on a vehi-
cle of this age is not used to determine the condition
or value of the vehicle. NACAA recommended that
the absolute maximum age of vehicle for which the
transferor should be required to issue an odometer
statement is fifteen years. Based on a study the
California Department of Motor Vehicles conducted
for NHTSA in 1981, the Director of the Department
proposed that the regulation be changed to exempt
transferors of vehicles that are six years old and older.
Oregon noted that the State legislature, after express-
ing strong concern about the cost effectiveness of re-
quiring odometer disclosures on vehicles older than
eight years, amended Oregon law to require odometer
disclosure information only for vehicles eight years
old and newer.
NHTSA has reconsidered its proposed requirement
in response to these comments. Purchasers of vehicles
six and eight years old still rely on the odometer
reading to determine the condition and value of the
vehicle. While the California study may indicate that
odometer tampering is not as prevalent in vehicles
six years old and older, the study concerned leased
vehicles and does not represent the total used car
population. For vehicles over 10 years old, the value
is mostly determined by the overall condition and ap-
pearance, not primarily mileage. Accordingly, the
final rule has been changed to exempt a transferor
of a vehicle that is ten years old and older.
Finally, we have not adopted the proposal of
American Bankers Association which suggested that
the rule exempt from the disclosure requirements,
lessors when selling the leased vehicle to the lessee
at the end of the lease period. To adopt this sugges-
tion would permit an unscrupulous lessee to purchase
the car, roll back the odometer, and sell the car to an
unsuspecting buyer for more than its actual value.
The lessee's purchaser would be unable to ascertain
the veracity of the disclosure statement he receives
from the lessee since there would be no previous
disclosure record.
Leased Vehicles
In accordance with the Congressional mandate, we
proposed a new section 580.7 applicable to leased
vehicles. Under the proposed section 580.7, lessors
were required to provide written notice to the lessee
that ownership of the vehicle is being transferred,
that the lessee is required by law to provide the lessor
with a written disclosure regarding the mileage and
the penalties for noncompliance. The American
Automotive Leasing Association (AALA) urged
NHTSA to delete the requirement that "ownership
PART 580-PRE 25
of the vehicle is being transferred," since notifying
lessees at that time would be financially burdensome.
AALA claimed that a rule requiring a notice that is
contemporaneous with the decision to terminate the
lease and a separate notice for each car is unwar-
ranted. Rather, AALA and PHH requested that the
regulations permit flexibility as to when the lessor
gives notice to the lessee of the lessee's obligation to
make the required disclosure. Both noted that there
are various possibilities for notifying lessees. The
notification could be incorporated into the lease agree-
ment, in mailings sent to the clients throughout the
year and in forms completed by the lessee to initiate
transfer. We have considered these comments and
have determined that the requirement that the lessor
give notice to the lessee that "ownership of the vehi-
cle is being transferred" is not required by the law
and may result in an unnecessary burden for lessors.
Therefore, we adopt AALA's proposal and this re-
quirement has been deleted from the final rule. This
will allow flexibility as to when the notice of the
lessee's disclosure requirements and penalties for
noncompliance is given. Furthermore, we will not re-
quire a separate notice for each vehicle. Should this
flexibility impede or delay investigative action, fur-
ther rulemaking may need to be undertaken on this
matter.
As noted above, the proposed rule also provided that
the lessor must give written notice to the lessee that
the lessee is required by law to disclose the mileage
of the lease vehicle and the penalties for failure to
disclose the information. PHH emphasized that the
penalties for lessee noncompliance should be explic-
itly stated in the notice and recommended that Ap-
pendix D, the Disclosure Form for Leased Vehicles,
be amended to explicitly state the nature of the civil
or criminal penalties to which a lessee is subject for
failure to comply. PHH believes that a more explicit
statement of penalties will help to stress the lessee's
risk in noncompliance, will encourage greater ac-
curacy of odometer readings and will motivate the
prompt return of the lessee disclosure form to the
lessor. We agi-ee with PHH's comments. Therefore,
consistent with our decision to amend the citation to
the law under section 580.5(c), section 580.7(a) will
require that the lessor's notice to the lessee contain
a reference to the Federal odometer law and state that
failing to complete the disclosure or providing false
information may result in fines and/or imprisonment.
For purposes of consistency, we will not require a
more detailed statement. However, lessors may in-
clude additional information such as an explicit state-
ment of the fines and imprisonment term provided by
law. Accordingly, we have amended the reference to
the law contained in Appendix D and note that Ap-
pendix D is only an example of the minimum re-
quirements under the law.
The disclosure required to be made by the lessee
under our proposal paralleled that made by the
transferor. It required that the person making the
disclosure print his name, provide the current
odometer reading (not to include tenths) and date the
statement. In addition, we proposed that the
disclosure include the lessee's name and current ad-
dress; the lessor's name and current address; the iden-
tity of the vehicle including its make, model, year,
body type and vehicle identification number; and the
signature of the lessor. We received no comments on
these proposals and they have been incorporated in-
to this final rule.
We also proposed that the disclosure include the
date that the lessor notified the lessee of disclosure
requirements and the date that the completed
disclosure was received by the lessor. Delaware
asserted that it did not understand the importance
of these dates. According to Delaware, the date re-
quirement merely necessitates more paper work and
filing of records. NADA requested, without comment,
the elimination of these date requirements. We will
not grant NADA's request. These dates are important
for investigative purposes. Our experience shows that
dealers and distributors who have been required to
maintain odometer disclosure statements under our
regulations, upon request for those records, con-
sistently ask investigators for the date of the record.
Requiring these dates, in addition to the date of the
statement, will aid in the investigation of allegations
that the lessor never notified the lessee or that the
lessee never gave the lessor a statement. Thei-efore,
subsections 580.7(b)(7) and (8) are adopted as
proposed.
In addition, we proposed that the lessee certify
whether the odometer reading reflects the actual
mileage, whether it reflects the amount of mileage
in excess of the designed mechanical limit or whether
it is not the actual mileage. As it did with regard to
the disclosure by the transferor, NADA urged
NHTSA to eliminate the requirement that the
disclosure of mileage is in excess of the designed
mechanical limit of the odometer. Again, we have not
adopted NADA's suggestion. As noted above, to allow
someone with a vehicle having over 100,000 miles to
certify that the odometer does not reflect the actual
mileage permits oral misrepresentations as to the
vehicle's actual mileage. Furthermore, while not
specifically referencing the requirement as it applied
to leased vehicles, MADA expressed concern with the
requirement that a person certify that "the odometer
reading reflects the mileage in excess of the designed
mechanical limits." NHTSA has addressed this con-
cern above as it relates to the disclosure by the
transferor. For the same reasons, we have not adopted
MADA's suggestion to amend the statement. The cer-
tification requirements are adopted as proposed.
PART 580-PRE 26
To implement section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage
Act, section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 1988(e), we proposed to
permit a lessor who transfers ownership of a vehicle,
without obtaining possession of the vehicle, to
disclose, on the title, the mileage indicated by the
lessee unless he has reason to believe that the lessee's
disclosure does not reflect the actual mileage of the
vehicle. PHH noted that it is not unusual for vehicles
to be driven substantial distances by the lessee after
the lessee's disclosure statement is received by the
lessor. PHH asked whether it is NHTSA's intention
for lessors to certify, in connection with the transfer
of ownership, that the odometer does not accurately
reflect the mileage of the vehicle. If the lessee had
certified that the odometer reading reflected the ac-
tual mileage the vehicle had traveled, it is not
NHTSA's intention that lessors indicate that the
odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage.
When the lessee certifies that the odometer reading
reflects the actual mileage, the lessor may also cer-
tify that the odometer reading reflects the actual
mileage. This certification would be based upon the
lessee's statement and the lessor's knowledge of the
additional mileage.
Several commenters raised issues that had not been
considered in the NPRM. The National Vehicle Leas-
ing Association (NVLA), AALA and PHH noted that
the proposed rule did not refer to the situation where
the lessee fails to provide the lessor with a disclosure.
PHH requested that NHTSA address the action a
lessor is expected to take when a lessee fails to pro-
vide an odometer statement or fails to provide a state-
ment in a reasonable time, and what remedies or
sanctions apply. AALA requested that NHTSA
affirmatively state that in cases where the lessor has
notified the lessee but the lessee has failed to provide
a disclosure, the lessor may sell the vehicle, making
the appropriate disclosure. NVLA took the AALA re-
quest one step further, by suggesting what constitutes
an appropriate disclosure. NVLA proposed that where
the vehicle is to be transferred to the lessee, the lessor
should be permitted to complete the transaction and
certify that the mileage information is "unknown."
If the lessee failed to provide a disclosure and the
lessor is selling the vehicle to a third party, NVLA
proposed that the lessor should be permitted to cer-
tify that to the best of the lessor's knowledge, the
odometer reading, provided to the lessor by the third
party purchaser, reflects the actual mileage.
Congress expressly stated that "[i]f the lessee fails
to comply, the lessor who has provided the required
notice is not intended to be precluded from trans-
ferring ownership of the vehicle." H.R. Rep. 833, 99th
Cong., 2nd Sess. 33 (1986). Therefore, the lessor may
sell the vehicle and make the disclosure based upon
available information. When the lessor is selling the
vehicle to the lessee, we will not permit the lessor to
complete the transaction and certify that the mileage
is unknown. The lessor has leverage in this situation
and may retain possession of the title to influence the
lessee to provide a disclosure. When the lessor is sell-
ing a vehicle to a third party purchaser, the lessor
must make a certification to the best of his knowledge
based upon the available information, including con-
dition reports, maintenance receipts, previous history
of lessee vehicle returns and similar business records.
To permit a lessor who does not take possession of a
vehicle to routinely certify that the odometer reading
reflects the actual mileage, as suggested by NVLA,
opens the door to fraud on the part of the third party
purchaser who obtains possession of the vehicle from
the lessee. In this situation, the third party purchaser
could tell the lessor the odometer reading is less than
it actually is, resulting in an inaccurate statement
by the lessor, and then roll back the odometer.
Finally, PHH requested that NHTSA address the
remedies that are available to the lessor against a
lessee who fails to provide a disclosure. Under section
409 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Sav-
ings Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1989, the lessor may bring a civil
action against the lessee. Note that under this sec-
tion, the lessor must prove an intent to defraud. If the
lessor included a provision concerning the disclosure
in the lease agreement or contract, the lessor may
have an additional cause of action. The requirement
that lessees provide a disclosure is also enforceable
by the chief law enforcement officer in the State
where the violation occurred and by the Federal
government.
Record Retention
The NPRM proposed a new section 580.8 concern-
ing the retention of odometer disclosure statements
by motor vehicle dealers, distributors and lessors.
This proposed section increased, from four to five
years, the length of time dealers and distributors who
are required by this part to issue an odometer
disclosure statement shall retain odometer disclosure
statements. Lessors shall retain for five years follow-
ing the date they transfer ownership of the leased
vehicle, the odometer statement they receive from
their lessee. These dealers, distributors and lessors
shall retain the original or a photostat, carbon or
other facsimile copy of each odometer statement they
issue and receive. The proposal was phrased broadly
to include any media by which such information may
be stored, provided there is no loss of information.
Some commenters felt that the extension to five
years was both reasonable and logical given the five
year statute of limitations for criminal violations of
the Federal odometer laws. Others raised questions
concerning the necessity of retaining, in whole or in
part, copies of disclosure statements.
One commenter asserted that since the odometer
disclosure statement will be on the title, it will be
PART 580-PRE 27
cumbersome and difficult for the transferor to retain
a copy. The commenter stated that it is unlikely that
States will provide multiple copy titles and that a
large number of dealers do not have access to a
photocopy machine. This commenter also claimed
that it is against the law in California, and possibly
in other States, to photocopy a title document.
NHTSA does not find this retention requirement to
be overly burdensome. In light of increased tech-
nology, portable photocopy equipment is available at
reasonable prices. The rule allows flexibility in reten-
tion, provided there is no loss of information. Finally,
while it may be illegal to possess as true or genuine
a false or forged document, it does not appear to be
illegal to copy a title solely for the purpose of main-
taining records. Alan Metier of the California Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles, Legal Office, stated that
neither the California Vehicle Code nor the Califor-
nia Government Code prohibits the photocopying of
titles for record retention purposes. In the course of
its investigations, NHTSA has received copies of titles
from auto auctions, dealers, leasing companies and
State departments of motor vehicles, including the
California Department of Motor Vehicles.
NAFA asked whether the transferor is required to
retain a copy of the full disclosure signed by the
transferee or if he is only required to maintain a copy
of his disclosure. The rule requires the transferor to
retain a copy of the full disclosure, including the
transferee's signature. In addition, for purposes of
meeting the requirement to retain a copy of the
disclosure statement which includes the buyer's
signature, AALA asked NHTSA to allow the
transferor who is also a lessor to obtain a power of
attorney from the buyer authorizing the transferor
to sign the mileage disclosure on behalf of the buyer.
Because this would allow the transferor to sign as
both the transferor and transferee, thus creating a
situation ripe for fraud, AALA's suggestions has not
been adopted.
PHH asserted that it is not reasonable to place a
legal requirement on the transferor to retain records
over which he does not have control and that any
transferee with intent to commit fraud by tampering
with the title document, will simply alter the docu-
ment after the transferor's copy has been made. PHH
argued that since the States will be receiving and re-
taining fully executed title documents, there seems
to be little net benefit to require transferors to
duplicate these records. Therefore, PHH requested
that the final rule require only that the transferor re-
tain a copy of the disclosure statement prior to release
of the document to the transferee. AALA suggested
that the regulation allow a transferor who is also a
lessor to fulfill the retention requirements when he
retains a copy of the disclosure statement which he
forwards for the buyer's signature and requests the
buyer to sign the statement and return a copy.
We have not adopted the requests of AALA or PHH.
Requiring the transferor to retain a copy of the
disclosure signed by the transferee is essential to en-
forcement. It prevents a buyer from altering the
mileage and later alleging that the altered mileage
is the mileage he received from the transferor, since
the transferor would have a copy of the disclosure
with the higher mileage and the transferee's
signature. This unaltered copy would not be on file
with the State titling office. In addition, requiring the
transferor to retain a copy of the disclosure signed by
the transferee protects the transferor. With regard to
the reasonableness of a legal requirement on the
transferor to retain records over which he does not
have control, NHTSA assesses civil penalties for
failure to retain records in accordance with section
412 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Sav-
ings Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1990b. This assessment takes
into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
gravity of the violation of the retention requirement
committed, and other matters as justice may require.
Consistent with the requirements of the Truth in
Mileage Act, we also proposed the addition of a new
section 580.9 which concerns the odometer record
retention by auction companies. We proposed that
each auction company retain, for five years, the
following information: the name of the most recent
owner on the date the auction took possession of the
motor vehicle, the name of the buyer, the vehicle iden-
tification number and the odometer reading on the
date the auction company took possession of the motor
vehicle. This information can be retained in any way
that is systematically retrievable. We did not propose
to require that this information be included on any
special form, but noted that it may be part of the auc-
tion invoice or other document currently used by auc-
tion companies or be maintained as a portion of a com-
puter data base.
The New Jersey State Police (New Jersey) ques-
tioned the requirement that auction companies retain
the odometer reading on the date which the auction
"took possession of the vehicle." The commenter was
concerned that auctions could assert that they do not
"take possession," but merely act as a broker between
the buyer and seller. In lieu of a requirement that the
odometer reading on the date the auction took posses-
sion be retained. New Jersey proposed that the
reading on the date of sale be retained.
We have not adopted New Jersey's proposal. While
an auction does not take ownership of vehicles, it does
routinely take physical possession of them. When the
cars are registered for sale, the keys to each vehicle
are given to the auction which prepares the cars for
auction and drives them onto the auction block. Fur-
thermore, the language in the rule is consistent with
the provisions of the Truth in Mileage Act.
NAAA, while not specifically addressing the reten-
tion requirements as they relate to auctions, did
PART 580-PRE 28
declare that the retention requirements are more
than reasonable and are necessary to enable suc-
cessful prosecutions. No other comments were re-
ceived on this proposal and it has been adopted in the
final rule.
Procedures for State Requests
for Assistance, Approval or Extension
Section 408(dXl) and (2) of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1988(d)(1) and (2), requires the Secretary of
Transportation to assist a State in revising its laws
to comply with the new disclosure requirements for
transferors and transferees, upon "application" from
the State. In response to this statutory mandate, the
agency proposed a new section 580.10 which sets forth
the procedures a State may follow to apply for
technical assistance. No comments were received con-
cerning the procedures for requests for assistance and
they are adopted in the final rule as proposed.
Section 408(f) of the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1988(f), states that
subsection (d), concerning motor vehicle titles, and
subsection (e), concerning lessors and lessees, shall
apply in a State unless the State has in effect alter-
nate motor vehicle mileage requirements approved
by the Department. We proposed, in a new section
580.11, that a State may petition for an exemption
from the disclosure requirements and stated that
notice of either grant or denial of a petition for ap-
proval of alternate motor vehicle disclosure re-
quirements would be issued to the petitioner. We
received no comments on this section. However, for
consistency, and to better reflect the provisions of the
Truth in Mileage Act, we have changed the language
in the title of this section and its subsection (a) from
"exemption from disclosure requirements" to "ap-
proval of alternate motor vehicle disclosure re-
quirements." In all other respects, the proposal is
adopted in this final rule.
We proposed a new section 580.12 which specified
the procedures that may be followed by a State to re-
quest an extension of time in the event that it re-
quires additional time beyond April 29, 1989, to con-
form its laws to the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act and this part. The proposed section
580.12 also allowed for the renewal of an extension
of time.
The agency received three comments on proposed
section 580.12. NACAA recommended that NHTSA
not extend the compliance deadline except where a
need has been demonstrated along with significant
evidence that the State is making progress toward
compliance through realistic efforts calculated to
meet the compliance date. The association stressed
that the rule cannot really be effective until all States
are in compliance. If one State does not require
mileage disclosures on the title, title laundering will
continue. Arkansas explained that it had just pur-
chased a two year supply of titles and noted that a
severe financial burden would result if it was pro-
hibited from using them. The Motor Car Dealers
Association of Southern California (MCDASC) asked
the agency to postpone certain provisions of section
580.5.
NHTSA has considered these comments. Never-
theless, the proposal will be adopted into this final
rule. Section 2 (c) of the Truth in Mileage Act allows
for extension of time upon a request from a State. Con-
sistent with the statute, we will provide extensions
of time in the event that any State needs additional
time in revising its laws to meet the new Federal
criteria, beyond April 29, 1989, the new law's effec-
tive date. Because the statute requires NHTSA to en-
sure that the State is making reasonable efforts to
achieve compliance, we must deny MCDASC's re-
quest for a blanket extension of time. We will only
consider requests on a State by State basis. NHTSA
agrees with NACAA that noncompliance with the
Federal odometer laws and this rule would allow ti-
tle laundering to continue. However, in light of the
statutory guidelines, we will not amend the pro-
cedures set forth in the proposal. Finally, with regard
to Arkansas' concern about discarding titles it may
have on April 29, 1989, the agency will take into ac-
count financial and administrative burdens and will
make every effort to grant reasonable extensions of
time so that States may expend their current supply
of titles.
Federalism Assessment
This rule has federalism implications affecting the
relationship between the national government and
the States. I certify that it has been assessed in light
of the principles, criteria and requirements as out-
lined in Executive Order 12612. By limiting the ef-
fects on the States to the minimum required by the
law, this final rule furthers the principles of
federalism established by the Framers of the Con-
stitution while striking an appropriate level of
Federal involvement. Odometer fraud is national in
scope with motor vehicles frequently being trans-
ferred over State lines in order to "wash" the titles.
For this reason. Congress directed NHTSA to deter-
mine methods most effective for combatting the prob-
lem, through the implementation of the Truth in
Mileage Act of 1986. NHTSA has consulted with the
States to implement the law and has examined the
comments submitted by approximately thirty-four
States, AAMVA, NACAA and NOEA. While this rule
requires that titles issued by the States be secure, and
include a mileage reading and a space for the
transferee to make a mileage disclosure at the time
of a future transfer, this rule is consistent with the
statutory mandate and allows the States the max-
imum administrative discretion possible in comply-
PART 580-PRE 29
ing with these requirements. We have not required
the States to seek our concurrence in an alternative
method of document security beyond those listed in
Appendix A nor have we required the States to in-
clude the disclosure information in a specific format.
It is estimated that this rule will impose an additional
cost on the States. The likely source of funding for
the States will be from revenues generated by increas-
ing the cost of titling motor vehicles. Over the past
ten years, the States have demonstrated their abil-
ity to fulfill the purposes of this rule by reviewing and
amending their titles in attempts to deter odometer
fraud.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 580 of Title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is revised to
read as follows:
PART 580-ODOMETER DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
580.1 Scope
580.2 Purpose
580.3 Definitions
580.4 Security of Title Documents
580.5 Disclosure of Odometer Information
580.6 Exemptions
580.7 Disclosure of Odometer Information for
Leased Motor Vehicles
580.8 Odometer Disclosure Statement Retention
580.9 Odometer Record Retention for Auction
Companies
580.10 Application for Assistance
580.11 Petition for Approval of Alternate
Disclosure Requirements
580.12 Petition for Extension of Time
Appendix A to Part 580 Secure Printing Processes
and Other Secure
Processes
Appendix B to Part 580 Disclosure Form for Title
Appendix C to Part 580 Separate Disclosure Form
Appendix D to Part 580 Disclosure Form for
Leased Vehicles
Authority: 15 U.S.C.1988; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50(f) and 501.8(eXl).
§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 sec-
tions 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 re-
quiring the retention 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 amended, 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 con-
dition of title and by requiring lessees to disclose to
their lessors the vehicle's mileage at the time the
lessors transfer the vehicle. In addition, the purpose
of this part is to preserve records that are needed for
the proper investigation of possible violations of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and
any subsequent prosecutorial, 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.
"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 the owner-
ship in a motor vehicle is transferred, or any person
who, as agent, accepts transfer of ownership in a
motor vehicle for another, by purchase, gift, or any
means other than by creation of a security interest.
"Transferor" means any person who transfers his
ownership or any person who, as agent, transfers the
ownership of another, in a motor vehicle by sale, gift,
or any means other than by creation of a security
interest.
§580.4 Security of Title Documents.
Each title shall be set forth by means of a secure
printing process or other secure process. In addition,
any other documents which are used to reassign the
title 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
PART 580-PRE 30
transferor when ownership of the vehicle was
transferred and contain a space for the information
required to be disclosed under paragraphs (c), (d), (e)
and (f) of this section at the time of future transfer.
(h) Any documents which are used to reassign a ti-
tle shall contain a space for the information required
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
on the document being used to reassign the title. This
written disclosure 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 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 iden-
tification 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 com-
plete or providing false information may result in
fines and/or imprisonment. Reference 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 ac-
tual 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 that 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 and print his name.
(g) If the vehicle has not been titled or if the title
does not contain a space for the information required,
the written disclosure shall be executed as a separate
document.
(h) No person shall sign an odometer disclosure
statement as both the transferor and the transferee
in the same transaction.
§580.6 Exemptions.
Notwithstanding the requirements of §580.5:
(a) A transferor 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
than 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.
§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 required
to provide a written disclosure to the lessor regarding
the mileage. This notice shall contain a reference to
the federal law and shall state that failure to com-
plete or providing false information may result in
fines and/or imprisonment. Reference may also be
made to applicable State law.
Gd) 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 information required by
paragraph (a) of this section, shall contain the follow-
ing 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 iden-
tification 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
PART 580-PRE 31
(2) If the lessee knows that the odometer reading
reflects the amount of mileage in excess of the
designed mechanical odometer limit, he shall in-
clude a statement to that effect; or
(3) If the lessee knows that the odometer reading
differs from the mileage and that the difference 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 with-
out 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 les-
see 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 dis-
closure statement shall retain for five years a photo-
stat, 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 per-
mits 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 re-
ceive from a lessee. They shall retain all odometer
disclosure statements at their primary place of busi-
ness in an order that is appropriate to business re-
quirements and that permits systematic retrieval.
§580.9 Odometer Record Retention for Auction
Companies.
Each auction company shall establish and retain
at its primary place of business in an order that is
appropriate to business requirements and that per-
mits systematic retrieval, for five years following the
date of sale of each motor vehicle, the following
records:
(a) The name of the most recent owner (other than
the auction 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.
§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 Administration,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590;
(3) Include a copy of current motor vehicle titling
and/or disclosure requirements 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. 1 1 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 and 580.7 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 Administration,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590;
(3) Set forth the motor vehicle disclosure require-
ments 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) Notice of either a grant or denial of a petition
for approval of alternate motor vehicle disclosure re-
quirements is issued to the petitioner. The effect of
a grant of a petition is to relieve a State from respon-
sibility to conform the State motor vehicle titles with
§§580.5 and 580.7 of this part during the time of the
extension. The effect of a denial is to require a State
to conform to the requirements of §§580.5 and 580.7
of this part until such time as the NHTSA approves
any alternate motor vehicle disclosure requirements.
§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 February 28, 1989, to the Of-
fice of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590;
PART 580-PRE 32
(3) Set forth a chronological analysis of the efforts
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 peti-
tion 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 ter-
mination 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 an extension of time.
(e) If a petition for a renewal of the extension of
time which meets the requirements of §580. 12(b) is
filed, the extension of time will continue until a deci-
sion is made on the renewal petition.
Appendix A — Secure Printing Processes and Other
Secure Processes
1. Methods to deter or detect counterfeiting and/or
unauthorized reproduction.
(a) Intaglio printing— a printing process utilized in
the production of bank-notes and other security
documents whereby an engraved plate meets the
paper under extremely high pressure forcing the
paper into the incisions below the surface of the plate.
(b) Intaglio Printing With Latent Images— a print-
ing process utilized in the production of bank-notes
and other security documents whereby an engraved
plate meets the paper under extremely high pressure
forcing the paper into the incisions below the surface
of the plate. The three dimensional nature of intaglio
printing creates latent images that aid in verification
of authenticity and deter counterfeiting.
(c) High Resolution Printing— a printing process
which achieves excellent art clarity and detail qual-
ity approaching that of the intaglio process.
(d) Micro-line Printing— a reduced line of type that
appears to be a solid line to the naked eye but con-
tains readable intelligence under strong
magnification.
(e) Pantograph Void Feature— wording incor-
porated into a pantograph by varying screen density
in the pantograph. The wording will appear when at-
tempts are made to photocopy on color copiers.
(f) Hologram— a defraction foil substrate, produc-
ed from a negative which was made by splitting a
laser beam into two separate beams to produce a three
dimensional effect.
(g) Security Paper— paper containing a security
watermark and/or a security thread.
2. Methods to allow alterations to be visible to the
naked eye.
(a) Erasure Sensitive Background Inks— a process
whereby the text is printed in a dark color ink over
a fine line erasure-sensitive prismatic ink tint.
(b) Security Lamination— retro-reflective security
laminate is placed over vital information after it has
been entered to allow for detection of attempts to alter
this information.
(c) Security Paper— paper which has been
chemically treated to detect chemical alterations.
Appendix B to Part 580— Disclosure Form for Title.
ODOMETER DiSCLOSURE STATEMENT
Federal law (and State law, if applicable) requires
that you state the mileage in connection with the
transfer of ownership. Failure to complete or pro-
viding a false statement may result in fines and/or
imprisonment.
I state that the odometer now reads
(No Tenths)
miles and to the best of my knowledge that it reflects
the actual mileage of the vehicle described herein,
unless one of the following statements is checked.
(1) I hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge the odometer reading reflects the amount
of mileagi in excess of its mechanical limits.
(2) I hereby certify that the odometer reading is
NOT the actual mileage. WARNING-ODOMETER
DISCREPANCY.
(Transferor's Signature) (Transferee's Signature)
(Printed Name)
Date of Statement _
Transferee's Name.
(Printed Name)
Transferee's
Address
(Street)
(City)
(State)
(ZIP Code)
Appendix C to Part 580— Separate Disclosure
Form
ODOMETER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Federal law (and State law, if applicable) requires
that you state the mileage upon transfer of ownership.
Failure to complete or providing a false statement
may result in fines and/or imprisonment.
PART 580-PRE 33
I,-
. state that the odometer
(Transferor's name, Print)
now reads miles and to the best of my
(no tenths)
knowledge that it reflects the actual mileage of the
vehicle described below, unless one of the following
statements is checked.
(1) I hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge the odometer reading reflects the amount
of mileage in excess of its mechanical limits.
(2) I hereby certify that the odometer reading is
NOT the actual mileage. WARNING-ODOMETER
DISCREPANCY.
Make.
.Model.
Body Type.
Vehicle Identification Number
Year
(Transferor's Signature)
(Printed Name)
Transferor's
Address
(Street)
(City) (State) (ZIP Code)
Date of Statement
(Printed Name)
Transferee's Name.
Transferee's
Address
(Street)
(City)
Appendix D to Part 580— Disclosure Form for
Leased Vehicle
ODOMETER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
(LEASED VEHICLE)
Federal law (and State law, if applicable) requires
that the lessee disclose the mileage to the lessor in
connection with the transfer of ownership. Failure to
complete or making a false statement may result in
fines and/or imprisonment. Complete disclosure form
below and return to lessor.
.state
I,
(name of person making disclosure. Print)
that the odometer now reads miles and to
(No Tenths)
the best of my knowledge that it reflects the actual
mileage of the vehicle described below, unless one of
the following statements is checked.
(1) I hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge the odometer reading reflects the amount
of mileage in excess of its mechanical limits.
(2) I hereby certify that the odometer reading is
NOT the actual mileage.
Make.
.Model.
Body Type
Vehicle Identification Number
Year
Lessee's
Name
(Transferee's Signature) Lessee's
Address.
(Street)
(City)
(State (ZIP Code)
Lessee's
Signature .
Date of Statement_
Lessor's
Name
(State) (ZIP Code)
PART 580-PRE 34
Lessor's Lessor's
Address Signature .
(Street)
(City) (State) (ZIP Code)
Date Disclosure Form sent to
Issued on August 2, 1988
Lessee Diane K. Steed
Administrator
Date Completed Disclosure Form Received from
53 F.R. 29464
Lessee August 5, 1988
PART 580-PRE 35-36
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 580
Odometer Disclosure Law
(Docket No. 87-09; Notice 6)
RIN: 2127-AC42
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the provisions of
the odometer disclosure regulation that require the
transferor of a motor vehicle to disclose to his trans-
feree, in writing, information concerning the odom-
eter reading. Specifically, this rule permits the trans-
feror to use either an odometer disclosure statement
containing two sets of certifications or an abbreviated
disclosure form to disclose the mileage to his trans-
feree. This change should help minimize the costs of
the transition to the new disclosure forms required
after April 29, 1989.
DATES: This final rule is effective February 23, 1989.
It shall remain in effect until April 29, 1989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To implement
the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 and to make needed
changes in the Federal odometer laws, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pub-
lished a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
July 17, 1987. 52 FR 27028 (1987). The agency re-
ceived numerous comments on the NPRM, represent-
ing the opinions of new and used car dealers, auto
auctions, leasing companies. State motor vehicle
administrators and enforcement and consumer pro-
tection agencies. Each of the comments was consid-
ered and a final rule was published on August 5,
1988. 53 FR 29464 (1988).
A portion of August 1988 rule, which will become
effective on April 29, 1989, amends the form and
content of the current odometer disclosure state-
ment. Currently, a transferror is required to issue
to his transferee an odometer disclosure statement
containing two sets of certifications. In the first set
of certifications, the transferor must certify whether
or not the odometer reading reflects the actual mile-
age of the vehicle, or whether it reflects the mileage
in excess of the designed mechanical limit of the
odometer. In the second set of certifications, the
transferor must disclose information about whether
the odometer was altered (repaired or replaced), set
back, or disconnected. However, if the transferor
discloses the mileage to his transferee on the certif-
icate of title or other State document that evidences
ownership of a vehicle, the transferor is not currently
required to disclose whether the odometer was altered,
set back, or disconnected. In view of the advantage
of having a disclosure on the title, the agency per-
mitted this shortened disclosure on documents
issued by the State due to the practical limitations of
space. See, 42 FR 38907 (1977); 45 FR 784 (1980).
Because we see no reason to differentiate between
the disclosure on documents issued by the States
and the disclosure on separate disclosure state-
ments, the August 1988 rule eliminates the second
set of certification requirements for transferors who
issue an odometer disclosure statement that is nei-
ther on the title nor on any other document issued
by a State. 52 FR 27024 (1987). As noted above, the
August 1988 rule is effective on April 29, 1989.
The agency received a letter from the Virginia Inde-
pendent Automobile Dealers Association (VIADA) con-
cerning the use of a shortened odometer disclosm-e
statement. VIADA requested that transferors be per-
mitted to use the shortened odometer disclosure state-
ment immediately, to minimize the cost burdens of the
transition to the new form. The Oregon Independent
Auto Dealers Association submitted a letter to the
agency in support of VIADA's request. As a result of
these letters, we published an NPRM on January 19,
1989, which proposed to revise paragraph (d) of section
580.4 to read as follows: "In addition to the informa-
tion provided under pai-agraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this
section, the transferor may also certify * * * " informa-
tion concerning the disconnection or service of the
odometer. (Emphasis has been added to highlight the
discretion given to the transferor). 54 FR 2171 (1989).
The agency received one comment on the NPRM.
The National Automobile Dealers Association agrees
that permitting the use of the shortened odometer dis-
closure statement will minimize the potential costs
associated with the change to an abbreviated state-
ment. The NPRM is adopted as proposed.
There is good cause for an effective date earlier than
thirty days; minimizing the economic impacts of the
final rule of August 1988 and gaining the investi-
gative and consumer benefits of additional informa-
tion on the new forms. Therefore, consistent with the
PART 580-PRE 37
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
this revision to paragraph (d) of section 580.4 be effec-
tive immediately upon publication of this rule in the
Federal Register. This amendment shall remain in ef-
fect until April 29, 1989. On April 29, 1989, the
August 1988 final rule becomes effective, and a new
section 580.5 will amend the current section 580.4 as
revised by this rulemaking action. As noted in the
preamble to the August 1988 final rule, there is no
prohibition against a seller providing information
concerning the odometer reading in addition to the
information required by the regulation. 53 FR 29470
(1988) However, the long form currently in use does
not meet the requirements of the August 1988 final
rule and may not be used after April 29, 1989.
(1) The odometer was not altered for repair or
replacement purposes while in the transferor's pos-
session, and he has no knowledge of anyone else
doing so;
(2) The odometer was altered for repair or replace-
ment purposes while in the transferor's possession,
and the mileage registered on the repaired or re-
placement odometer was identical to that before
such service; or
(3) The odometer was altered for repair or replace-
ment purposes, the odometer was incapable of regis-
tering the same mileage, it was reset to zero, and the
mileage on the odometer before repair was
miles/kilometers.
Section 580.4(d) is revised as follows:
§580.4 Disclosure of odometer information.
(d) In addition to the information provided under
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the trans-
feror may also certify that:
Diane K. Steed
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrator
54 FR 7772
February 23, 1989
PART 580-PRE 38
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 580
Odometer Disclosure Law
(Docket No. 8709; Notice 9)
RIN: 2127-AC42
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
SUMMARY: This interim final rule is in response to
a recent amendment to the Truth in Mileage Act
(contained in the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization
Act of 1988). The amendment concerns powers of at-
torney used in connection with mileage disclosures
and requires NHTSA to promulgate regulations con-
cerning their use.
This rule permits, in limited circumstances when a
title document is physically held by a lienholder, the
uses of a secure power of attorney form. It allows a
transferor to make the required odometer disclosure
on a secure power of attorney form, issued by a State,
that would authorize the transferee to exactly restate
the mileage on the title document on the transferor's
behalf. Similarly, this rule allows a transferee to
authorize this transferor to sign the disclosure on the
title document, on behalf of the transferees. To the ex-
tent that they are consistent with the new law, this
rule grants, in whole or in part, three petitions for
reconsideration.
This notice is published as an interim final rule
without notice and the opportunity for comment.
However, NHTSA requests comments on this rule.
Following the close of the comment period, NHTSA
will publish a notice responding to the comments and,
if appropriate, NHTSA will amend the provisions of
this rule.
DATES: Comments on this interim rule are due no
later than April 7, 1989. This interim final rule
becomes effective on April 29, 1989, unless a perma-
nent final rule is issued thirty days prior to that date.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
To implement the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 and
to make some needed changes in the Federal odom-
eter regulations, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) published a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 17, 1987. 52 FR
27022 (1987). The agency received numerous com-
ments on the NPRM, representing the opinions of
new and used car dealers, auto auctions, leasing
companies. State motor vehicle administrators, and
enforcement and consumer protection agencies. Each
of the comments was considered and a final rule was
published on August 5, 1988. 53 FR 29464 (1988).
As required by the Truth in Mileage Act, the
August 1988 final rule requires the transferor of a
motor vehicle to provide a mileage disclosure on the
title document or, if the title document does not in-
clude a space for the mileage disclosure (during the
phase-in period), or if the vehicle has not been pre-
viously titled, it requires the transferor to make a
written disclosure of mileage on a separate docu-
ment. Also as required by that statute, that final
rule requires that title documents be manufactured
or otherwise set forth by a secure process to deter
counterfeiting and alteration; requires that at the
time of issue, the titles include the mileage disclo-
sure; adds disclosure requirements for lessors and
lessees; and adds retention requirements for lessors
and auction companies. In addition, consistent with
the statute, the rule amends the form and content of
the odometer disclosure statement. The August
1988 rule also prohibits a person from signing the
disclosure as both the transferor and transferee in
the same transaction in order to guard against a
situation where only one party to the transaction
would be aware of the disclosure. Finally, that rule
clarifies the definition of transferor and transferee
and extends the record retention requirement for
dealers and distributors.
The Agency received seven petitions for reconsid-
eration of the August 1988 final rule. In addition, we
received numerous letters concerning the final rule
and supporting the petitions. These petitions re-
quested that NHTSA reconsider the provisions of
the final rule that: (1) Prohibit a person from signing
the odometer disclosure statement as both the trans-
feror and transferee in the same transaction; (2)
define "transferor" and "transferee"; (3) define
"secure printing process"; (4) concerned the language
included on the odometer disclosure statement; and
(5) require dealers and distributors to retain, for five
years, a copy of every odometer disclosure state-
ment, including the transferee's signature, that
PART 580-PRE 39
they issue and receive. These petitions and letters
have been placed in the docket. Before the Agency
could fully consider the petitions, Congress enacted
the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act of 1988, Pub.
L. 100-561.
Section 401 of the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization
Act, which amends section 408(d)(1) of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C.
1988(d)(1), concerns the use of certain powers of attor-
ney in connection with the required mileage disclo-
sure. Although the Truth in Mileage Act generally
requires that a vehicle seller (or other transferor)
make the required disclosure on the vehicle's title,
Congress determined that, under certain limited con-
ditions when the title document is physically held by
a lienholder, the transferor should not be precluded
from making the disclosure on a secure power of at-
torney form which includes a space for the required
odometer disclosure information. This secure power
of attorney form would be given to a buyer (trans-
feree), authorizing him to restate, on the title docu-
ment, the mileage disclosed by the seller on the
secure power of attorney form, if State law otherwise
permits. Congi-ess found that precluding such uses of
powers of attorney could cause an undue burden on
dealers when a consumer's title is held by a bank or
other lienholder. Because the consumer does not have
the vehicle's title document, the consumer would be
unable to complete the disclosure on the title unless:
(1) The consumer returned to the dealer after the
dealer paid off the lien and received the title from the
lienholder, or (2) the title was mailed by the dealer to
the consumer, completed by the consumer, and mailed
back to the dealer. Both of these alternatives were
seen by Congress as interfering with usual commer-
cial transactions. 134 Cong. Rec. H10079 (daily ed.
October 12, 1988) (remarks of Rep. Dingell).
To resolve this problem and to alleviate potential
costs for dealers and consumers, the new amendment
specifies that a secure power of attorney form, which
includes a mileage disclosure by the transferor, may
be used when the transferor's title document is phys-
ically held by a lienholder, if otherwise permitted by
State law. The new law directs the agency to pre-
scribe the form and content of the power of attorney/
disclosure document and reasonable conditions for
its use by the transferor, "consistent with this Act
and the need to facilitate enforcement thereof."
More specifically, the new law requires that the
form: (1) "be issued by a State to transferees in ac-
cordance with paragraph {2)(AXi) * * * " (Paragraph
(2)(AKi) concerns the issuance of documents that are
set forth by a secure printing process or other secure
process.); (2) include an odometer disclosure state-
ment and other information as NHTSA deems neces-
sary; and (3) be submitted to the State by the person
granted the power of attorney. It also requires
NHTSA's rule to provide for the retention of a copy
of the power of attorney and to ensure that the per-
son granted the power of attorney completes the dis-
closure on the title consistent with the disclosure on
the power of attorney form.
Scope
Consistent with the statutory mandate, this in-
terim final rule grants, in whole or in part, three of
the petitions for reconsideration. This interim final
rule also implements the portion of the Pipeline
Safety Reauthorization Act of 1988 that concerns
the use of powers of attorney to disclose mileage.
NHTSA has also granted, in whole or in part, four
petitions for reconsideration in a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) published in today's Federal
Register. Generally, the NPRM concerns the defini-
tion of transferor and transferee with regard to the
person who acts as agent for the transferor and
transferee. It also concerns the relationship between
the retention requirement applicable to dealers and
distributors and the requirement that the trans-
feree's signature appear on the odometer disclosure
statements.
NHTSA has denied, in whole or in part, three peti-
tions for reconsideration of the final rule published
on August 5, 1988, because they are inconsistent
with the new statute. For reasons discussed in the
document denying the petitions, two other petitions
were also denied. The denial notice is published in
today's Federal Register.
Misuse of Powers of Attorney in
Odometer Fraud Schemes
Although the July 1987 proposed rule to imple-
ment the Truth in Mileage Act did not include a
regulatory provision explicitly concerning the use of
powers of attorney, we stated in the preamble to the
proposed rule that we recognize that powers of attor-
ney are necessary in certain transactions. Someone
acting on behalf of a deceased or incompetent owner
would use a power of attorney from those owners to
transfer the vehicles to a third party. In addition,
the spouse of overseas military personnel, or of
someone out of town or otherwise unavailable, may
have a power of attorney from a husband or wife to
transfer a vehicle to a third party. However, we em-
phasized that powers of attorney that allow a person
to sign a disclosure as both the transferor and trans-
feree result in only one party to the transaction
being aware of the previous mileage disclosures.
This could jeopardize the integrity of the "paper
trail," the evidence of rollbacks that Congress in-
tended to enhance by enacting the Ti-uth in Mileage
Act. 52 FR 27026 (1987).
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Ad-
ministrators (AAMVA), the Wisconsin Department
PART 580-PRE 40
of Transportation (Wisconsin), and the National
Association of Consumer Agency Administrators
(NACAA) agreed with our position. AAMVA noted
that a power of attorney that allows a person to sign
the disclosure as both the buyer and the seller creates
a situation ripe for fraud, if that person is intent on
rolling back the vehicle's odometer. Several of
AAMVA's members concurred in this position.
Wisconsin suggested that a new paragraph be added
to section 580.5 providing that no person may sign a
disclosure as both the transferor and transferee.
Other commenters, concerned that the title had to
be present at the time of sale ("title present"), hoped
that the use of a power of attorney would ease the
burden that title present might have imposed. A coa-
lition of commenters (the "coalition"), consisting of
AAMVA, the National Auto Auction Association
(NAAA), the National Automobile Dealers Associa-
tion (NADA), the National Independent Automobile
Dealers Association (NIADA), the Automotive
Trade Association Executives, and the American
Car Rental Association, suggested the use of a
special power of attorney. (Although the coalition
used the term "secure power of attorney," we are
referring to its suggestion by the term "special
power of attorney." This helps to differentiate be-
tween the statutorily permitted secure power of
attorney and the coalition's suggestion.) The coali-
tion proposed that this special power of attorney
would (1) Be set forth by a secure process; (2) contain
the appropriate Federal odometer disclosure state-
ment; and (3) be fully completed, dated, and signed
by the transferee. Upon receipt of the transferor's
title, the initial transferee would negotiate the title
and complete the transferor's statement based on
the transferor's special power of attorney and mile-
age disclosiu-e thereon. The title, together with the
special power of attorney and all subsequent reas-
signments, would be presented to the State with any
application for title.
We reviewed AAMVA's comments and the sugges-
tions of Wisconsin and the coalition in light of our
investigative experience which showed that powers
of attorney had been abused in the furtherance of
odometer fraud schemes. The following two schemes,
uncovered during NHTSA's investigations, are il-
lustrative of the use of a power of attorney to commit
odometer fraud:
(A) The transferor, a leasing company, sold several
vehicles to a wholesale dealer and gave this dealer a
power of attorney to execute the odometer disclosxire
statements on its behalf. The buying dealer rolled
back the odometer on the vehicles, entered the lower
mileage on the disclosure statements, and signed
the disclosures as both the buyer and the seller. The
buyer then sent a copy of the statements to the leas-
ing company where they were filed.
(B) A new car dealer purchased a used vehicle and
received a separate odometer disclosure statement
on which his transferor certified that the odometer
reflected the actual mileage of the vehicle. The new
car dealer sold the car before he received the title,
certifying that the odometer reflected the vehicle's
actual mileage. The new car dealer then received
the title, which had a blatantly altered odometer
reading in the reassignment space on the reverse
side of the title. Using the power of attorney that he
received from his buyer, the new car dealer signed
the disclosure as both the transferor and transferee.
He never advised his buyer of the mileage problem.
[Note: Other title problems that could be ignored by
unscrupulous persons include higher mileage on the
face of the title than on the reassignment on the
reverse side and a certification that the odometer
reading does not reflect the actual mileage.]
Based on the comments from AAMVA, NACAA,
and Wisconsin and our own investigative experi-
ence, we adopted Wisconsin's suggestion and added
a new §580. 5(h). This provision prohibits a person
from signing the disclosure as both the transferor
and transferee in the same transaction.
We did not adopt the suggestion of the coalition of
commenters for several reasons. First, we had modi-
fied the proposed requirement in the NPRM of July
1987 that the title be present at the time of transfer of
ownership and addressed the primary concern of the
commenters by permitting the disclosure to be made
"in connection with the transfer of ownership,"
rather than "at the time of transfer of ownership."
Second, we were concerned that the coalition's sug-
gestion would interfere with the integrity of the
paper trail, which Congress intended to enhance by
enacting the Truth in Mileage Act. Under the coali-
tion's suggestion, only one party to the transfer
would see the odometer disclosure (which would have
been on the title). The power of attorney could be
easily discarded and a new one forged and submitted
to the State by any of the parties to subsequent
transfers, since the issuance of the special power of
attorney forms would not be controlled in any way.
Finally, this process would place a burden on State
titling offices to review additional documentation,
check for conformity of the information contained on
the documents, and maintain additional records. Ac-
cordingly, the final rule of August 1988 implemented
the Truth in Mileage Act, where allowing the States
the maximum discretion in complying with these re-
quirements. 53 FR 29469, 29472, 29475 (1988).
Petitions for Reconsideration
In petitions filed with the agency, NADA, NIADA,
and NAAA asked NHTSA to reconsider §580.5(h),
the provision which prohibits a person from signing
the disclosure as the transferor and transferee in the
PART 580-PRE 41
same transaction. The agency also received many
letters in support of the petitions. The petitioners
claimed that customers would not return to dealers
to sign the disclosure on the title. They alleged that
a customer's failure to return would result in costs
associated with locating these people, administrative
costs for mailing and/or duplicating titles, and in-
creased inventory costs in States where the dealer
must have the title present at time of sale. This would
result in higher vehicle prices as dealers would pass
these expenses on to the consumer. Alternatively,
they argued that if customers did return, this return
visit would result in lost time at work and other costs.
They also claimed that a person signing the disclo-
sure as the buyer and the seller did not create a situa-
tion ripe for fraud, that the provision conflicted with
State laws and was contrary to Federal law. Addi-
tional information concerning these petitions is in-
cluded in the denial of petitions for reconsideration
published in today's Federal Register.
The petitioners asked that NHTSA eliminate sec-
tion 580.5Gi). Alternatively, the petitioners suggested
that NHTSA permit the use of a special power of at-
torney or require title sets, a two-part title system
where the owner holds the title and the lienholder
holds a notice of security interest filing.
Congressional Mandate
Before the agency could fully consider these peti-
tions. Congress enacted the Pipeline Safety Reau-
thorization Act, Pub. L. 100-561. Section 401 of the
Act, which amends section 408(d)(1) of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15
U.S.C. 1988(d)(1), concerns the use of limited powers
of attorney in connection with mileage disclosiu^e.
The purpose of this provision is to resolve a technical
problem for purchaser: of used motor vehicles
(dealers), without increasing the burden on States or
lessening our ability to fight odometer fraud. 134
Cong. Rec. H10079 (daily ed. October 12, 1988)
(remarks of Rep. Whittaker). Congress determined
that NHTSA's August 1988 final rule, which pro-
hibits a person from signing an odometer disclosure
statement as both the transferor and transferee in
the same transaction, could have the effect of
precluding the use of a power of attorney in certain
instances. Recognizing that the Truth in Mileage
Act of 1986 requires a disclosure, including the
transferee's signature, on the title, Congress found
that limiting the use of powers of attorney could
cause an undue burden on dealers and consumers
when a consumer's title is held by a bank or other
lienholder. Because the consumer does not have the
vehicle's title in these instances, the consumer, as a
transferor, would be unable to complete the disclo-
sure on the title unless: (1) The consumer returned
to the dealer after the dealer paid off the lien and
received the title from the lienholder, or (2) the title
was mailed by the dealer to the consumer, completed
by the consumer, and mailed back to the dealer.
Both of these alternatives were rejected by Con-
gress. "It is not reasonable to assume that the con-
sumer will come back to the dealer several days or
weeks later to fill in a title received from the bank
by the dealer after paying off the lien. It is also not
safe to rely on the mails to send the valuable title
document to the consumer or to rely on the con-
sumer to return the document in a timely fashion."
134 Cong. Rec. H10079 (daily ed. October 12, 1988)
(remarks of Rep. Dingell).
To resolve the problem and alleviate potential
costs for dealers and consumers, the new law specifies
that a power of attorney authorizing the dealer to
disclose mileage on the title on behalf of the con-
sumer may be used when the transferor's title docu-
ment is physically held by a lienholder, if otherwise
permitted by State law. The new law does not require
the States to allow the use of a power of attorney for
the purpose of mileage disclosure. However, if a
State chooses to permit the use of powers of attorney
in connection with mileage disclosure, the State
itself must issue the power of attorney form, and the
form must be consistent with the requirements of
the law and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
The new law directs the agency to prescribe the form
and content of the power of attorney/disclosure docu-
ment and reasonable conditions for its use by the
transferor. More specifically, the new law requires
that the form: (1) "be issued by a State to transferees
in accordance with paragraph (2XAXi) * * *"
(Paragraph (2XAXi) concerns the issuance of docu-
ments that are set forth by a secure printing process
or other secure process.); (2) include an odometer dis-
closure statement and other information as NHTSA
deems necessary; and (3) be submitted to the State
by the person granted the power of attorney. It also
requires NHTSA to provide for the retention of a
copy of the power of attorney form and to ensure that
the person granted the power of attorney completes
the disclosure on the title consistent with the dis-
closure on the power of attorney form.
We note that in some States, a secure power of
attorney is not necessary to ensure that the mileage
disclosure of the customer trading in a vehicle to a
dealer is included on the vehicle's title document.
For example, some States record all lien information
on computerized recordkeeping systems and allow
the registered owner to hold the title document.
Other States have adopted a two-part title system
under which the registered owner holds the title
document and the lienholder holds a notice of secu-
rity interest filing. Under either system, because the
vehicle owner would have the title document, he
could make the disclosure on the title and would not
PART 580-PRE 42
need to use a power of attorney form. In these States,
the provisions of the new law would not apply, and
the disclosure signed by the transferor would con-
tinue to be required on the vehicle's title document.
Interim Final Rule
This notice is published as an interim final rule,
without prior notice and opportunity to comment.
NHTSA believes that there is good cause for finding
that notice and comment rulemaking is impractica-
ble, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest
in this instance, since it would prevent compliance
with the February 1, 1989 statutory deadline for
issuance of a final rule. This finding is also based on
the agency's view that given the April 29, 1989 ef-
fective date of NHTSA's August 1988 final rule
which could result in an undue burden on dealers
and consumers when a consumer's title is held by a
bank or other lienholder, relief from the August
1988 rule is imperative.
As an interim final rule, this regulation is fully in
effect and binding after its effective date, unless
NHTSA issues a permanent final rule thirty days
prior to that time. No further regulatory action by
NHTSA is essential to the effectiveness of this rule.
However, in order to benefit from comments which
interested parties and the public may make, we are
requesting that comments be submitted to the
docket for this notice. All comments submitted in
response to this notice will be considered by the
agency. Following the close of the comment period,
NHTSA will publish a notice responding to the com-
ments and, if appropriate, NHTSA will amend the
provisions of this rule.
Consistent with the provisions of the new law con-
cerning the security of the power of attorney forms,
this interim final rule revises §580.4, which con-
cerns the security of title documents. Although the
legislative history indicates that the power of attor-
ney forms must be "no less secure than the title
document itself, 134 Cong. Rec. H10079 (daily ed.
October 12, 1988) (remarks of Rep. Dingell), we
believe that we can satisfy our statutory obligation
to require secure forms and avoid unnecessary
financial burdens upon the States by including a
provision that is consistent with our position on the
security of reassignment documents. Since the
August 1988 final rule requires that reassignment
documents be set forth by "a secure process", not
necessarily the same process used to secure the title,
this rule requires that the power of attorney forms
also be set forth by "a secure process". Accordingly,
we are changing the title of §580.4 to read "Security
of titles documents and power of attorney forms",
and we are amending that section to require that
power of attorney forms issued pursuant to §580.13
and §580.14 be set forth by a secure process.
The new law does not give NHTSA explicit statu-
tory authority to require the States to control the
power of attorney forms by any type of numbering
system. Therefore, we have not limited the adminis-
trative discretion of the States in this area even
though we recognize that it is common practice to
control secure documents. This is also consistent
with our position concerning reassignment docu-
ments. However, nothing in the Act or this rule
should be read to preclude a State from using control
techniques on these documents.
Since section 401 of the Pipeline Safety Reauthor-
ization Act has the effect of allowing a person to sign
an odometer disclosure statement on the title as both
the transferor and the transferee in specified cir-
cumstances, we are amending §580.5(h), which pro-
hibits a person from signing an odometer disclosure
statement as both the transferor and transferee in
the same transaction. This amendment to §580. 5(h)
permits a person to sign an odometer disclosure
statement as both the transferor and transferee if
the requirements of the new §580.13 and §580.14,
which NHTSA is adding below, have been met.
In accordance with the Congressional mandate, we
are adding a new §580.13. Under this section, if per-
mitted by State law, a transferor whose motor vehi-
cle title document is physically held by a lienholder
may give his transferee a power of attorney for the
purpose of mileage disclosure on the title document.
The power of attorney must be on Part A of a secure
form issued by the State and must contain a space
for the transferor to disclose the mileage.
The disclosure required to be made by the trans-
feror to the transferee on the power of attorney form
parallels the disclosure required to be made by the
transferor to the transferee on the title and on a
separate odometer disclosure statement. While this
rule sets forth the information which must be dis-
closed, we are adding, in Appendix E, a sample
power of attorney form that the States which elect to
provide power of attorney forms may adopt. The
form must be separated into parts A, B, and C. How-
ever, each State is free to organize, in each part, the
information required by this rule in any way it wishes.
As required by the new law and to ensure the
integrity of the paper trail, we are requiring the
transferee exercising the power of attorney to restate
the mileage on the transferor's title exactly as it
appears on the transferor's disclosure on the power
of attorney form. In addition, this rule requires the
transferee to submit the original power of attorney
form to the State with an application for title and
the transferor's title. This could be accomplished at
one of two times. The transferee could apply for title
in his own name and submit the secure power of attor-
ney form and his transferor's title. Alternatively, the
transferee could submit the secure power of attorney
PART 580-PRE 43
form after selling the vehicle, with the title and his
purchaser's title application, provided his purchaser
permits him to apply for title on behalf of the pur-
chaser. As noted by Representative Clement, "Limit-
ing the use of the power of attorney to this "first
sale" instance should assist auto dealers in com-
pleting the sales transaction while affording suffi-
cient safeguards against odometer fraud." 134 Cong.
Rec. H10081 (daily ed. October 12, 1988) (remarks of
Rep. Clement). It would ensure that the State would
be able to compare the transferor's disclosure on the
power of attorney form with the transferee's disclo-
sure, on behalf of the transferor, made on the title
pursuant to the power of attorney. If the transferee
were not required to submit the power of attorney to
the State with the application for title and the
transferor's title, the integrity of the paper trail
would be at risk, because subsequent transferors
could discard the power of attorney, forge a new one,
and alter the mileage on the title. (As noted above,
we recognize that even with securely printed titles,
some alterations have been, and may continue to be,
undetected upon initial review by State Depart-
ments of Motor Vehicles.) Additionally, the paper
trail would be in jeopardy if the transferee sub-
mitted only the power of attorney form and no title
documents. This could result in the transfer on the
vehicle to an out-of-state buyer. The title would be in
one State and the secure power of attorney form in
another; they could not be easily compared. This
would be similar to the problems with the current
use of a separate odometer disclosure statement.
Therefore, we believe that this submission of the
original power of attorney form to the titling State is
necessary to prevent the misuse of the forms and to
facilitate enforcement of the anti-fraud provisions of
the law.
As requested during the debate in the House of
Representatives on the amendment, NHTSA has also
considered other instances when a seciu-e power of
attorney may be necessary so as not to alter or inter-
fere with proper business transactions. We have con-
sidered whether to permit a transferee to give his
power of attorney to his transferor for the purpose of
acknowledging the mileage disclosure. For example,
if the transferor is a dealer who does not have
possession of the title, because the vehicle was a
trade-in and the lienholder has not yet released title,
should the buyer, the transferee, be permitted to
give a power of attorney to the transferor/selling
dealer to acknowledge the mileage disclosure on his
behalf? This power of attorney from the transferee to
the transferor would allow the transferor to sign the
title as both the transferor and transferee in the
same transaction. To alleviate any potential com-
mercial or business problems that could result in
costs to dealers when they have not yet received the
title upon which they must make a mileage disclo-
sure, because the title is physically held by the lien-
holder of the person who traded in a car to the dealer,
we are adding a new §580.14 that permits a trans-
feree to give his power of attorney to his transferor
for the purpose of reviewing the title and any reas-
signment documents to determine whether there are
any mileage discrepancies and, if there are no mile-
age discrepancies, to sign the title, acknowledging
the disclosure. This power of attorney must include
a disclosure from the transferor to the transferee
that parallels the disclosure required to be made by
the transferor to the transferee on the title docu-
ment and on the separate odometer disclosure state-
ment. In addition, because this power of attorney
would allow the same person to sign the title as the
transferor and transferee in the same transaction,
the appointment of the transferor as the transferee's
attorney-in-fact must be made on Part B of the same
secure power of attorney form, issued by a State,
upon which the transferor was appointed the
attorney-in-fact by his transferor pursuant to
§580.13. This will enable purchasers to examine the
previously issued power of attorney for alterations,
erasures, and other marks, and to learn the name of
the prior owner without the additional cost of a title
search. This is the same information that purchasers
would receive if the title was not held by a lienholder
since, under the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, the
transferor is required to disclose mileage on the
vehicle's title, if the title contains a space for the
disclosure. This rule requires that a transferee who
is granted a power of attorney from his transferor
and who applies for title in his own name must show
his purchaser, upon his purchaser's request, a copy
of the previous owner's title, including the odometer
disclosure completed on behalf of the previous
owner, and a copy of the power of attorney form com-
pleted by the previous owner. Similarly, if a pur-
chaser decides not to appoint his transferor as his
attorney-in-fact pursuant to §580.14, the transferor
must show his purchaser a copy of the previous
owner's title and a copy of the power of attorney
form completed by the previous owner.
To ensure that a person who exercises a power of
attorney, either under §580.13, alone, or under
§§580.13 and 580.14, is fully aware of his obligation
and his liability for any action that is inconsistent
with the power of attorney, this interim final rule re-
quires, under a new §580.15, that the person exercis-
ing a power of attorney, either under §580.13 or
under §§580.13 and 580.14, complete, on Part C of
the secure power of attorney form issued by the
State, a certification that he has received and
reviewed the title and any reassignment documents
and that there are no indications of mileage discrep-
ancies. Any mileage discrepancies void the powers of
PART 580-PRE 44
attorney. A violation of this section could result in
fines and/or imprisonment.
We have also considered other instances in which
a secure power of attorney that would allow a person
to sign a disclosure as the transferor and transferee
in the same transaction should be permitted. Some
have suggested that a secure power of attorney
should be permitted when a title is lost or misplaced.
We have carefully balanced the potential conve-
nience of permitting a power of attorney in this cir-
cumstance against the serious potential for under-
mining the law enforcement purposes of the law. (As
we have explained above, a person signing a mileage
disclosure as both the transferor and transferee
creates a situation ripe for fraud when the person
signing the disclosure is intent on rolling back the
odometer.) On balance, we have concluded that the
possible increase in inconvenience does not outweigh
the increased opportunity for odometer fraud. Fur-
thermore, we have not been made aware of any busi-
ness or commercial problems associated with this
conclusion that would be comparable to the problems
associated with titles physically held by lienholders.
Especially because lost or misplaced titles can be
replaced, and because we can limit the possible
misuse of secure power of attorney forms, we have
not extended the use of these secure powers of at-
torneys to situations in which the transferor's title
is lost or misplaced.
NHTSA invites comments on other situations in
which a secure power of attorney form may be neces-
sary and appropriate.
Finally, section 401 of the Pipeline Safety Reau-
thorization Act requires NHTSA to promulgate a
regulation that provides for the retention of a copy of
the power of attorney form. Therefore, we are amend-
ing §580.8 which concerns odometer disclosure state-
ment retention by adding a new paragraph (c).
Under this new paragraph, motor vehicle dealers
and distributors who are granted a power of attor-
ney by their transferor are required to retain, for
five years, a photostat, carbon, or other facsimile
copy of each power of attorney form that they
receive. These documents must be retained at the
primary place of business of the dealer or distributor
in an order that is appropriate with business re-
quirements and that permits systematic retrieval.
This new paragraph (c) is consistent with the reten-
tion requirements of the August 1988 final rule that
is applicable to dealers, distributors, and lessors.
Like that final rule, the storage provision of this
amendment is phrased broadly to include any media
by which information may be stored, provided there
is no loss of information.
Federalism Assessment
Congress found that limiting the use of powers of
attorney in connection with mileage disclosure could
cause an undue burden on dealers and consumers
when a consumer's title is physically held by a bank
or other lienholder. To resolve the problem and
alleviate potential costs for dealers and consumers,
the new law specifies that a power of attorney may
be used, if otherwise permitted by State law. The
law specifies that the form be securely printed and
include a disclosure. This interim final rule does not
impose any requirements upon the States other than
those imposed by the law. Nevertheless, this action
has been analyzed in accord- ance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612,
and it has been determined that this interim final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assess-
ment. The States may decide not to allow the use of
powers of attorney in connection with mileage dis-
closure and, therefore, would not be required to
print conforming forms.
Section 580.4 is revised to read as follows:
§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 addition,
any other documents which are used to reassign the
title shall be set forth by a secure process. Power of
attorney forms issued pursuant to §§580.13 and
580.14 shall be issued by the State and shall be set
forth by a secure process.
Section 580.5 is amended by revised paragraph (h)
to read as follows:
§580.5 Disclosure of odometer information.
(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 §580.14.
Section 580.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
§580.8 Odometer disclosure statement retention.
(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 appropriate to business require-
ments and that permits systematic retrieval.
Section 580.13 is added to read as follows:
PART 580-PRE 45
§580.13 Disclosure of odometer information by
power of attorney.
(a) If the transferee's title is physically held by a
lienholder 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 paragraph (b), (c), (d),
and (e) of this section and in Part B, a space for the
information required to be disclosed under §580.14.
The form shall contain, in Part C, a space for the cer-
tification required to be made under §580.15.
(b) In connection with the transfer of ownership of
a motor vehicle, each transferor whose title is
physically held by lienholder 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 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, body type, and vehicle identification
number.
(c) In addition to the information provided under
paragraph (b) of this section, the power of attorney
form shall refer to the Federal law and state that
providing false information or the transferee's fail-
ure to submit the form to the State may result in
fines and/or imprisonment. Reference may also be
made in 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 mile-
age; or
(2) If the transferor knows that the odometer read-
ing reflects mileage in excess of the designed
mechanical odometer limit, he shall include a state-
ment to that effect; or
(3) If the transferor knows that the odometer read-
ing differs from the mileage and the difference is
greater than that caused by calibration 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 trans-
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
transferee shall submit the original power of attor-
ney form to the State, with the application for title
and the transferor's title.
A section 580.14 is added to read as follows:
§580.14 Power of attorney to review title
documents and acknowledge disclosure.
(a) If the transferor does not have the title document
of the vehicle because it is physically held by the
lienholder of his transferor and if otherwise permitted
by State law, the transferee may give a power of at-
torney to his transferor to review the title and any
reassignment documents for mileage discrepancies,
and if no discrepancies are found, to acknowledge
disclosure on the title. 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, the infor-
mation required to be disclosed under §580.13. The
form shall also contain, in part B, a space for the infor-
mation 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.
(b) In connection with the transfer of ownership of a
motor vehicle, each transferee of a transferor who does
not have the title document because it is physically
held by the lienholder of his transferor and who was
granted a power of attorney by his transferor for the
purpose of mileage disclosure, may appoint his trans-
feror as his attorney-in-fact to review the title and any
reassignment documents. This power of attorney
must include a mileage disclosure from the transferor
to the transferee and must be signed by the trans-
feror, including the printed name, and contain the fol-
lowing 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 ciu-rent address;
(4) The transferee's name and current address; and
(5) The indentity of the vehicle, including its
make, model, year, body type, and vshicle identifica-
tion number.
(c) In addition to the information provided under
paragraph (b) of this section, the power of attorney
form shall refer to the Federal law and state that
providing false information or the transferee's
failure to submit the form to the State may result in
fines and/or imprisonment. Reference may also be
made to applicable State law.
PART 580-PRE 46
(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 mile-
age; or
(2) If the transferor knows that the odometer read-
ing reflects mileage in excess of the designated
mechanical odometer limit, he shall include a state-
ment to that effect; or
(3) If the transferor knows that the odometer read-
ing differs from the mileage and the difference is
greater than that caused by calibration 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 discrep-
ancy exists between the odometer reading and the
actual mileage.
(e) The transferee shall sign the power of attorney
form, print his name.
(f) The transferor shall give a copy of the power of
attorney form to his transferee.
(g) If a transferee elects to return to his transferor
to sign the disclosure on the title when the transferor
obtains the title from the lienholder and does not
give his transferor a power of attorney to review the
title and any reassignment documents, upon the
transferee's request, the transferor shall show to the
transferee a copy of the power of attorney that he
received from his transferor.
Qi) Upon subsequent transfer of the vehicle and
upon request of the purchaser, the transferor, who
was granted the power of attorney by his transferor
and who now holds the title to the vehicle in his
own name, must show to his purchaser the copy of
the previous owner's title and power of attorney
form.
A section 580.15 is added to read as follows:
§580.15 Certification by person exercising
power(s) of attorney.
(a) A person who exercises a power of attorney
either under §580.13 and 580.14 must complete a
certification that he has reviewed the title and any
reassignment documents for mileage discrepancies
and that no discrepancies exist. This certification
shall be under Part C and on 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 person
exercising the power of attorney;
(2) The address of the person exercising the power
of attorney; and
(3) The date of the certification.
(b) Any mileage discrepancies void the powers of
attorney.
An Appendix E is added to read as follows:
Appendix E— Power of Attorney Disclosure Form
Warning: This Form May Be Used Only When
Title Is Physically Held By Lienholder. This Form
Must Be Submitted To The State By The Person
Exercising Powers Of Attorney. Failure To Do So
May Result In Fines And/Or Imprisonment.
Year.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Make
Model
Body Type
Vehicle Identification Number
Part A. Power of Attorney to Disclose Mileage
Federal law (and State Law, if applicable) requires
that you state the mileage upon transfer of owner-
ship. Providing a false statement may result in fines
and/or imprisonment.
I,
(transferor's name. Print)
appoint
(transferee's name, Print)
as my attorney-in-fact, to disclose the mileage, on
the title for the vehicle described above, exactly as
stated in my following disclosure.
I state that the odometer now reads
(no tenths) miles and to the best of my knowledge
that it reflects the actual mileage unless one of the
following statements is checked.
(1) I hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge the odometer reading reflects the mile-
age in excess of its mechanical limits.
(2) I hereby certifj' that the odometer
reading is NOT the actual mileage.
WARNING-ODOMETER DISCREPANCY.
(Transferor's Signature)
(Printed Name)
Transferor's Address (Street)
(City) (State) (ZIP Code)
Date of Statement
(Transferee's Signature)
(Printed Name)
Transferee's Name
Transferee's Address (Street)
(City) (State) (ZIP Code),
PART 580-PRE 47
Part B. Power of Attorney to Review Title
Documents and Acknowledge Disclosure.
(Part B is invalid unless Part A has been completed.)
I, .
(transferee's name, Print)
appoint
(transferor's name, Print)
as my attorney-in-fact, to sign the mileage
disclosure, on the title for the vehicle described
above, only if the disclosure is exactly as the
disclosure completed below.
(Transferee's Signature)
(Printed Name)
Transferee's Name
Transferee's Address (Street)
(City),
_(State)_
. (ZIP Code).
Federal law (and State Law, if applicable) requires
that you state the mileage upon transfer of owner-
ship. Providing a false statement may result in fines
and/or imprisonment.
I,
(transferor's name. Print)
state that the odometer now reads (no tenths)
miles and to the best of my knowledge that it reflects
the actual mileage unless one of the following state-
ments is checked.
(1) I hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge the odometer reading reflects the mile-
age in excess of its mechanical limits.
(2) I hereby certify that the odometer
reading is NOT the actual mileage.
WARNING-ODOMETER DISCREPANCY.
(Transferor's Signature)
(Printed Name)
Transferor's Address (Street)
(City) (State) (ZIP Code)
Date of Statement
Part C. Certification
I
(person exercising above powers of attorney. Print)
hereby certify that I have received and reviewed the
title for the vehicle described above and that there
are no indications of mileage discrepancies.
(Signature)
(Printed Name)
Address (Street)
(City) (State)
Date
(ZIP Code).
Issued on March 3, 1989.
Diane K. Steed,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrator
54 FR 9809
March 8, 1989
PART 580-PRE 48
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 580
ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
(Docket No. 87-09; Notice 10)
RIN: 2127-AC42
ACTION: Final Rule
SUMMARY: This final rule clarifies the respon-
sibilities imposed on all parties in conjunction with
the disclosure of odometer mileage information when
transfering ownership of motor vehicles. It clarifies
the definitions of transferor and transferee in situa-
tions where a person acts as an agent for the trans-
feror or transferee. In addition, this rule requires a
transferee to return to his transferor a signed copy
of the odometer disclosure statement that he received
from the transferor. This rule also provides that to
be valid, title reassignment documents must be issued
by a State. Finally, this rule expands the circum-
stances in which a secure power of attorney form
issued by the State may be used to make the required
odometer disclosure to include situations in which the
title has been lost. The power of attorney would
authorize the transferee to restate exactly the mileage
on the title document on the transferor's behalf. When
such vehicles are resold, this rule allows a transferee
to use the same power of attorney form to authorize
his transferor to sign the disclosure on the title docu-
ment on behalf of the transferee.
DATES: The portion of section 580.4 concerning the
power of attorney form, section 580.5(h), section
580.8(c) and sections 580.13, 580.14, 580.15, and
580.16 are effective August 30, 1989. All other sec-
tions become effective September 29, 1989.
Under section 553(d) of the Administration Pro-
cedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a substantive rule may
become effective before thirty days after its publica-
tion where it relieves a restriction, or as otherwise
provided for by the agency for good cause. The sec-
tions that are immediately effective are those deal-
ing with powers of attorney. These sections, although
subject to the alterations discussed herein, were
already effective. Moreover, the substantive changes
relieve restrictions on the use of powers of attorney
and, therefore, may be made effective upon
publication.
Background
To implement the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986,
Pub. L. 99-579, and to make some needed changes in
the Federal odometer regulations, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
on July 17, 1987. 52 FR 27022 (1987). The agency
received numerous comments on the NPRM repre-
senting the opinions of new and used car dealers, auto
auctions, leasing companies. State motor vehicle ad-
ministrators, and enforcement and consumer protec-
tion agencies. Each of the comments was considered,
and a final rule was published on August 5, 1988. 53
FR 29464 (1988).
The agency received seven petitions for reconsidera-
tion of the August 1988 final rule. These petitions re-
quested that NHTSA reconsider the provisions of the
final rule that: (1) prohibit a person from signing the
odometer disclosure statement as both the transferor
and transferee in the same transaction; (2) define
"transferor" and "transferee;" (3) define "secure
printing process;" (4) concern the language included
on the odometer disclosure statement; and (5) require
dealers and distributors to retain, for five years, a
fully completed and signed copy of every odometer
disclosure statement, including the transferee's
signature, that they issue and receive.
In response to the petitions for reconsideration,
NHTSA published two notices in the Federal Register
on March 8, 1989. In granting certain aspects of those
petitions, NHTSA issued an NPRM, 54 FR 9858
(1989), that proposed to clarify the definitions
"transferor" and "transferee," require the transferee
to return a completed disclosure statement to his
transferor, and require that, to be valid, title reassign-
ment documents must be issued by a State. Other
aspects of the petitions for reconsideration were
denied. 54 FR 9816 (1989).
While the petitions for reconsideration were pend-
ing before the agency. Congress enacted the Pipeline
Safety Reauthorization Act of 1988 (PSRA), Pub. L.
100-561 (October 31, 1988). Section 401 of the PSRA,
which amends section 408(d)(1) of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA), 15
U.S.C. 1988(d)(1), authorizes the use of powers of at-
torney in connection with the required mileage
disclosure under certain circumstances. The new law
directs the agency to prescribe the form and content
PART 580-PRE 49
of the power of attorney/disclosure document and to
establish reasonable conditions for its use by the
transferor "consistent with this Act and the need to
facilitate enforcement thereof." It also requires
NHTSA's rule to provide for the retention of a copy
of the power of attorney by the person exercising it
and to ensure that the person granted the power of
attorney completes the disclosure on the title consis-
tent with the disclosure on the power of attorney form.
Finally, the statute provides that the original power
of attorney form must be submitted back to the State
by the person exercising the power of attorney.
To implement these provisions, NHTSA issued an
interim final rule/request for comments on March 8,
1989. 54 FR 9809 (1989). The interim final rule per-
mits, in limited instances when the title is physically
held by a lienholder, an individual to sign the
odometer disclosure as both transferor and transferee
through the use of a secure power of attorney form,
issued by a State. When such vehicles are resold, the
interim final rule allows a transferee to use the same
power of attorney form to authorize his transferor to
sign the disclosure on the title document on his behalf.
The March 1989 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
Definitions
To clarify that the liability for issuing a false
odometer disclosure statement could be placed on a
person acting as an agent for the owner of the vehi-
cle, in an NPRM published on July 17, 1987, NHTSA
proposed to amend the definition of "transferor" to
include the agent of the transferor who transfers the
ownership of another and the definition of
"transferee" to include an agent of the transferee who
accepts transfer of ownership in a motor vehicle. 52
FR 27023 (1987). The definitions were adopted as
proposed. 53 FR 29464 (1988).
The National Auto Auction Association (NAAA)
and the National Independent Automobile Dealers
Association (NIADA) requested NHTSA to reconsider
these definitions. NAAA and NIADA suggested that
the definitions should be expressly limited to the prin-
cipal or agent who signs the required disclosure on
behalf of the owner. Because the suggestions of
NAAA and NIADA were consistent with NHTSA's
intention to clarify that the liability for issuing a false
statement could be placed on the person acting as an
agent for the owner of a vehicle, in the March 1989
NPRM we proposed to amend the portions of the
definitions of transferor and transferee concerning the
transferor's and transferee's agents. We proposed to
define "transferor" to include the transferor's agent
who signs any odometer disclosure statement on
behalf of the transferor. Similarly, we proposed to
define "transferee" to include the transferee's agent
who signs any odometer disclosure statement on
behalf of the transferee.
We have received four comments on the proposed
changes to the definitions. The Delaware Department
of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles
(Delaware), and the National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA) agree with the proposed defini-
tions. The National Vehicle Leasing Association
(NVLA) "urge[s] NHTSA to provide that only one
transferor need provide an odometer disclosure state-
ment to a transferee." Furthermore, NVLA requests
that NHTSA amend the definitions to read "or" in
lieu of "and" and to amend sections 580.5(c), which
requires "each" transferor to make a disclosure. The
National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) recommends
that the agency retain the definitions contained in the
1988 final rule. It believes that the proposed defini-
tions create a "gaping loophole" and explains its posi-
tion by reference to the following scenario:
[A] manager of an incorporated dealership or auc-
tion engaged in making false disclosures need only
have another employee such as an office clerk sign
the disclosure statements to avoid liability. The
manager could argue that he or she was not a
transferor under the first part of the new defini-
tion because the manager had no "ownership."
The manager would then argue that the second
part of the definition also did not apply because
while he or she was admittedly an agent and it
had been proven that he or she was responsible
for a false disclosure, the manager did not "sign"
the disclosure statement.
Therefore, NCLC suggests that the definitions be
amended to include any person who, as agent, "causes
to be" made or signed an odometer disclosure
statement.
To assist those involved in the transfers of vehicles
to more fully understand the requirements of the law
and the proposed definitions, in the preamble to the
March 1989 NPRM, we addressed several different
scenarios and explained which parties are transferors.
As noted in the scenarios, the person who actually
signs the disclosure statement may depend upon the
relationship between the parties. It is not NHTSA's
intention to require that the transferee receive multi-
ple disclosure statements. Therefore, we have adopted
NVLA's suggestion and amended section 580.5(c) to
state that only one transferor need disclose the
mileage to the transferee. However, we have not
adopted NVLA's suggestion to amend the definitions
to read in the disjunctive as opposed to the conjunc-
tive. If more than one party is, in fact, the transferor,
the relationship between the parties determines who
issues the odometer disclosure statement.
We have not adopted the proposal of the NCLC. Sec-
tions 412 and 413 of the MVICSA, 15 U.S.C. 1990b
and 1990c, include as persons covered by the re-
quirements of that Act, a person who "causes to be
PART 580-PRE 50
done" any act. The manager who "caused" the other
employee to sign the disclosure statement would be
in violation of statute for causing the employee, as
transferor or transferee, to violate another section of
the MVICSA or NHTSA's regulations. Therefore, the
regulatory definitions do not need to be expanded to
protect against the scenario described by the NCLC,
and the original purpose of the amended definition,
to close "loopholes which have limited the Govern-
ment's ability to prosecute certain violations of the
odometer laws because of ambiguity in the defini-
tions", 53 FR 29465 (1988), has been met.
Record Retention
In response to a petition for reconsideration of the
August 1988 final rule submitted by the National
Association of Fleet Administrators, Inc. (NAFA), in
the March 1989 NPRM, we proposed to place a new
requirement upon a transferee. In addition to sign-
ing the disclosure and printing his or her name, the
transferee would be required to return a copy of the
signed odometer disclosure statement to his or her
transferor. We anticipated that this provision would
ensure that transferees who obtain the title from their
long-distance transferors will return a copy of the
completed disclosure statement to their transferors
and that these long-distance transferors will thus be
able to retain the signed odometer disclosure state-
ment, as required by section 580.8(a).
Delaware, NADA, NAFA, and NVLA support this
proposal. Because we received no comments in opposi-
tion to our proposal, it is adopted as proposed.
We note that, with regard to the transferee's obliga-
tion to return a completed odometer disclosure state-
ment, NVLA also asserts that "it is vitally important
that the regulation indicate that a transferor who has
sent the odometer disclosure statement to the trans-
feree, requested that the transferee sign the state-
ment and return a copy to the transferor and informed
the transferee of potential liability for failure to
return the copy should be protected against having
violated the regulation in the event that the
transferee does not return the copy." Therefore,
NLVA suggests that section 580.8, which concerns
the dealers retention requirements, be amended.
NHTSA specifically considered and rejected a
similar suggestion proposed by NAFA and the PHH
Group, Inc. in their petitions for reconsideration of
the August 1988 final rule. As noted in the preamble
to the August 1988 final rule and the March 1989
NPRM which granted, in part, those petitions, we
stated that pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1990b, in exercis-
ing its enforcement discretion NHTSA must take into
account the nature, circumstances, extent, and grav-
ity of a violation and that we cannot provide a com-
plete listing of the circumstances in which failure to
retain the required documents will be excused. We
continue to believe that it would be inappropriate to
PART 580-
include, in the regulation, what constitutes a "good
faith effort" to retain the completed odometer dis-
closure statement. NVLA requests that we do just
that by adopting its suggestion and, therefore, its
request is denied.
Security of Reassignment Documents
In the March 1989 NPRM, we proposed to amend
section 580.4 concerning the security of reassignment
documents. Specifically, we proposed to require that
in addition to being set forth by a secure printing pro-
cess, reassignment documents will not be valid unless
they are issued by a State. Delaware and NADA sup-
port this proposal. The American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) states that this re-
quirement is "consistent with the language of the
1988 amendment to the Truth in Mileage Act and
NHTSA's final rule which requires that secure
powers of attorney be issued by the jurisdictions."
AAMVA notes that some States will phase out the
use of separate reassignment forms and others may
contract with third-party agents for printing, issuing,
and controlling secure reassignment documents. No
one has commented in opposition to the proposal, and
it is adopted in this final rule.
Exemptions
After publication of the August 1988 final rule,
NHTSA was asked whether the lessee of a vehicle
having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more
than 16,000 pounds or of a vehicle that is ten years
old or older must furnish to his lessor a written state-
ment regarding the vehicle's mileage. Because the
lessor, when transferring a vehicle with a GVWR of
more than 16,000 pounds or a vehicle ten years old
or older, is not required to give his transferee an
odometer disclosure statement, we could see no reason
to require a lessee of any of these types of vehicles,
or of any vehicles that are not self-propelled, to give
their lessor a written statement concerning the vehi-
cle's mileage. Accordingly, NHTSA proposed to
amend section 580.6 to exempt the lessees of certain
vehicles from the odometer disclosure requirements
of section 580.7. Likewise, NHTSA proposed to
exempt the lessors of certain vehicles from the
notification requirements of section 580.7. The agency
received no comments on this proposal and, accord-
ingly, it is adopted as proposed.
The March 1989 Interim Final Rule
Security of Powers of Attorney
The PSRA provides that "consistent with the pur-
poses of this Act and the need to facilitate enforce-
ment thereof," if a State permits their use, power of
attorney forms shall be "set forth by means of a secure
printing process (or other secure process)." To imple-
■PRE 51
ment this requirement, the interim final rule revised
section 580.4, which concerns the security of title
documents and reassignment documents, to require
power of attorney forms to meet the security criteria
applicable to reassignment documents. The August
1988 Final Rule requires that reassignment docu-
ments be set forth by "a secure process," not
necessarily the same secure process used to secure
title documents. The Delaware DMV commented that
secure forms will entail some costs to the States, but
did not oppose the provision. This aspect of the
interim final rule is retained in this final rule.
Signature of Same Person as Transferor and
Transferees
Since the PSRA has the effect of allowing a person
to sign an odometer disclosure statement on the title
as both the transferor and transferee in specified cir-
cumstances, the interim final rule amended section
580.5(h), which prohibited a person from signing an
odometer disclosure statement as both the transferor
and transferee in the same transaction. This amend-
ment to section 580.5(h) permits a person to sign an
odometer disclosure statement as both the transferor
and transferee if the requirements of sections 580.13
and 580.14, which NHTSA also added in the interim
final rule, have been met. No commenters opposed
this amendment and it is retained in the final rule.
Elements of the Power of Attorney Form
Under section 580.13 of the interim final rule, if per-
mitted by State law, a transferor whose motor vehi-
cle title document is physically held by a lienholder
may give his transferee a power of attorney for the
purpose of making the mileage disclosure on the title
document. The power of attorney must be on Part A
of a secure form issued by a State and must contain
a space for the transferor to disclose the mileage. The
disclosure required to be made by the transferor to
the transferee on the power of attorney form parallels
the disclosure required to be made on the title by sec-
tion 580.5. In addition, when such vehicles are resold,
section 580.14 of the interim final rule provides that
if State law permits, the subsequent purchaser may,
on Part B of the same form, give his power of attorney
to his transferor to acknowledge the transferor's
mileage disclosure. The power of attorney must also
contain a space in Part B for the transferor to disclose
the mileage. The disclosure required to be made by
the transferor to the transferee on Part B of the power
of attorney form also parallels the disclosure required
to be made on the title by section 580.5.
Section 580.15 of the interim final rule provides
that the power of attorney form must also contain a
certification in Part C of the form, to be completed
by the person exercising the power of attorney, that
he has reviewed the title and that no discrepancies
exist. While the rule sets forth the information which
must be disclosed, and the form must be separated
into parts A, B and C, each State is free to organize,
in each part, the information required by the rule in
any way it wishes. While the language of the required
certification has been clarified, these aspects of the
interim final rule are otherwise retained in this final
rule.
Submission of Power of Attorney Form to the
State
The PSRA provides that the "original [of the power
of attorney form shall] be submitted back to the State
by the person granted such power of attorney." In con-
formity with this requirement, and to ensure appro-
priate enforcement of the odometer disclosure require-
ments, section 580.13(f) of the interim final rule re-
quired the transferee to submit the original power of
attorney form to the State that issued it with an ap-
plication for title and the transferor's title. In the
preamble, NHTSA identified two ways in which this
might be accomplished. The transferee could submit
the power of attorney form after selling the vehicle,
with the old title and his purchaser's title application,
provided his purchaser (and the State) permits him
to apply for title on behalf of the purchaser. Alter-
natively, the transferee could apply for title in his own
name and submit the secure power of attorney form
and his transferor's title with that application.
NHTSA received several comments in opposition to
this provision of the rule. These comments assert that
when the subsequent purchaser is another dealer,
particularly an out-of-State wholesale dealer, under
the law of most States, the initial dealer (transferee)
would have to adopt the second alternative and re-
title vehicles in his own name. This so-called "reti-
tling requirement," it is argued, is a misinterpreta-
tion of the statute and will "disrupt existing commer-
cial practices" of dealers, who would otherwise
reassign the old title but will now have to apply for
a title themselves, and for the States, who will have
to process increased numbers of title applications.
NHTSA agrees that some dealers will have to re-
title in their own names, although NHTSA disagrees
that it has misinterpreted the statute to "require"
retitling. Rather, given our experience with State
titling procedures, these appear to be the only viable
methods to preserve the integrity of the paper trail
and conform to the requirements of the statute.
Moreover, we do not agi-ee that any retitling that
becomes necessary will present a significant burden
to dealers or to States. First, a majority of all vehicles
taken in trade will not have to be retitled in the
dealer's name. Second, and perhaps more important,
retitling will not prevent cars from being promptly
resold. In a majority of States, a vehicle may be sold
without the title being present. Thus, standard com-
mercial practice in many places has traditionally been
for vehicles to be sold without the title present and
PART 580-PRE 52
for the title to "catch up" with the vehicle at a later
point. Any retitling necessitated by this rule will not
disturb this practice. The only difference is that the
"new" title will be reassigned instead of the "old"
title. At most it will add a small amount of time re-
quired for the title to "catch up" with the vehicle
because dealers can often secure titles to vehicles in
their own names within a day or two through existing
dealer retitling arrangements with State departments
of motor vehicles.
Even in the States that do require the title to be
present before sale, retitling should not cause signifi-
cant disruption of existing practices because dealers
must already wait for the title to arrive from the
lienholder, or for reissued titles to be sent from the
State before they can resell vehicles. Any retitling in
the dealer's name will only extend briefly the period
the dealer must wait before he can resell. Thus,
although there will be some retitling costs and some
costs associated with delay, these costs will not be un-
duly burdensome. Further, in most instances, reti-
tling will not interfere with the standard flow of com-
merce because vehicles will continue to be sold pend-
ing arrival of the title, as they have been in the past.
Commenters have suggested alternatives to the
ones we have presented. However, these cannot be
adopted because they would be inconsistent with the
statute. For example, NIADA, NADA and the Iowa
Department of Transportation each proposed that the
dealer granted power of attorney not be required to
submit the original power of attorney form back to
the issuing State. They suggested that the dealer
should, instead, be allowed to reassign title and the
dealer/person next applying for title should be allowed
to submit the form back to the issuing State. This
proposal cannot be adopted because the PSRA clearly
requires "the original [secure power of attorney form]
to be submitted back to the State by the person grant-
ing such power of attorney." (Emphasis added.)
Alternatively, NADA has suggested allowing the
original power of attorney to be submitted with the
application for title in the new titling State, whether
or not that State was the issuing State. Under such
an arrangement, NADA suggests that the person
granted the power of attorney could attach the
original power of attorney to the old title and note
or stamp "POA" in the reasignment block. There are
several problems with this alternative. First, to do so
would be in contravention of the statute. Not only
would the dealer who exercised the power of attorney
not be returning the form, but the form would not be
going "back" to the issuing State. NADA has at-
tempted to read the statute to allow for the return
of the form to any State. However, we do not believe
that the statutory language requiring the secure
power of attorney form be issued by "the State" and
"submitted back to the State" is susceptible of that
interpretation. Rather, it is clear that Congress in-
tended the secure power of attorney form to be re-
turned to the same State that issued it by the person
who was granted and exercised the power of attorney.
Moreover, submission of the power of attorney form
to a State other than the one that had issued it would
jeopardize the integrity of the paper trail. In contrast
to the issuing State, another State would be less
familiar with the forms, and therefore less likely to
detect improperly completed or fraudulently submit-
ted forms. Although certain information must be
disclosed, and the power of attorney form must be
organized into Parts A, B, and C, each State is free
to organize, in each part, the information required by
the rule in any way it wishes. States may also add
information or incorporate other things into the power
of attorney forms. Allowing a State to receive another
State's power of attorney forms would also interfere
with the issuing State's ability to control the forms
because the issuing State would not know whether,
or to where, its forms were being returned.
It has also been suggested that the dealer be allowed
to file the power of attorney form with the issuing
State, either absent any other documentation or with
a copy of the reassigned title that has been passed to
a buyer. If the person granted power of attorney were
not required to submit the power of attorney to the
State with the application for title and the
transferor's title, enforcement of the anti-fraud pro-
visions of the law would be hampered. First, the in-
tegrity of the paper trail would be at risk because
subsequent transferors could discard the power of at-
torney, forge a new one, and alter the mileage on the
title. (We recognize that even with securely printed
titles, some alterations have been, and may continue
to be, undetected upon initial review by State Depart-
ments of Motor Vehicles.) Additionally, the paper trail
would be jeopardized if the person granted the power
of attorney submitted only the power of attorney form
and no title documents, particularly if the vehicle
were sold to an out-of-State buyer. The title would be
in one State and the power of attorney form in
another; they could not easily be compared. This
would create problems similar to those experienced
with the current use of separate odometer statements.
Allowing the power of attorney form to be filed with
the issuing State separately, even along with a copy
of the reassigned original title, would also make
retention of the form less likely. The States currently
retain copies of all title applications and accompany-
ing materials. Separately submitted documents are
frequently disposed of by the States. Thus, if the
power of attorney form is part of a title application
package, a copy of the form, independent of the dealer
and customer copies, will exist. Having this indepen-
dent source of documentation will aid in enforcement,
for although a dealer would face penalties for failure
PART 580-PRE 53
to retain the secure power of attorney form as re-
quired by Section 580.8, an unscrupulous dealer
might choose to face that penalty rather than risk re-
taining damaging paperwork. The State's records
would provide the evidence to catch such an
unscrupulous dealer. Further rulemaking on this
issue might be appropriate if, in the future, it is deter-
mined that the States had adopted adequate methods
to retain power of attorney forms submitted without
title applications.
NADA has also suggested that "NHTSA also may
want to consider a requirement that states which
receive out-of-state power of attorney forms as part
of title applications either return those forms to the
states of issuance or, more reasonably, make copies
available to the states of issuance upon request." This
suggestion suffers from the same drawbacks as the
other suggestions discussed above. First, any arrange-
ment in which the power of attorney form is sub-
mitted to any State other than the issuing State, or
is submitted to the issuing State by someone other
than the person who exercised the power of attorney
is inconsistent with the PSRA. Second, under this pro-
posed arrangement, the record retention problem
would continue to exist because the issuing State
would be receiving the power of attorney form
separately from any application for title. As discussed
above, this represents an unjustified risk to
enforcement.
Availabilty of Secure Powers of Attorney
Although the PSRA explicitly authorizes the use of
powers of attorney to disclose odometer information
only when the title is "physically held by a
lienholder," during the floor debate in the House of
Representatives, Rep. Dingell stated that he expected
NHTSA to examine other situations in which the use
of a power of attorney to disclose odometer informa-
tion might be appropriate. See 134 Cong. Rec. H10080
(daily ed. Oct. 12, 1988). In response to this direction,
NHTSA has considered other such instances. To
facilitate commercial practices in situations where a
power of attorney was used at the time the vehicle
was sold to the dealer, the interim final rule author-
ized use of the same power of attorney form for the
dealer's sale of the vehicle. Thus, section 580.14 per-
mits, if allowed by State law, a transferee under these
circumstances to give his power of attorney to his
transferor (i.e., the dealer) for the purpose of review-
ing title documents and any reassignment documents
to determine whether there are any mileage
discrepancies and, if there are no mileage discrepan-
cies, to sign the title, acknowledging the disclosure.
This power of attorney must include a disclosure from
the transferor to the transferee that parallels the
disclosure required to be made by the transferor to
the transferee on the title document. In addition, the
appointment of the transferor as the transferee's
attorney-in-fact must be made on Part B of the same
secure power of attorney form, issued by the State,
upon which the transferor was appointed the
attorney-in-fact by his transferor pursuant to section
580.13. This enables purchasers to examine the
previously issued power of attorney for mileage
disclosure alterations, erasures or other marks, and
to learn the name of the prior owner without the ad-
ditional cost of a title search.
NADA and NIADA submitted comments (supported
also by NAAA) criticizing the fact that the interim
final rule does not allow for the use of secure powers
of attorney in situations where the customer's title
is not present because the customer has lost or
misplaced the title. NADA and NIADA contend that
this aspect of the interim final rule will cause a
disruption to standard business practices because the
title replacement process takes too long. When the
title is replaced, it is usually mailed to the dealer,
thereby requiring a return trip by the customer to
make the disclosure. Moreover, even if the replace-
ment title is mailed to the previous owner, after mak-
ing the disclosure, he or she will either have to return
to the dealer or send the title back to the dealer by
mail. Further, NADA and NIADA maintain that the
legislative history of the PSRA demonstrates Con-
gress' intention that the use of secure powers of at-
torney be extended to cover lost title situations.
We do not agree that it was Congress' manifest in-
tent that secure powers of attorney be available in
lost title situations. Nevertheless, we have deter-
mined that the security of the power of attorney
forms, combined with the control that the States plan
to exercise over the forms, will serve to counteract the
increased opportunity for fraud that will arise from
allowing the use of powers of attorney in lost title
situations. We are, therefore, adopting NADA's and
NIADA's suggestion. This final rule allows, if State
law permits, a secure power of attorney to be used for
the purpose of odometer disclosure where the title is
not present because it has been lost by the person to
whom it was issued by the State. In order for a power
of attorney to be used in the lost title situation, the
transferee (i.e., the dealer) must apply for the
duplicate title on behalf of the transferor. Under these
conditions, the powers of attorney will be available
to facilitate consumer vehicle sales transactions, but
will not be available in other than consumer sales
transactions where the risk of fraud is considerably
greater. If experience demonstrates that this use of
powers of attorney does lead to additional odometer
fraud, we may decide to revise this expansion of
authority.
NVLA submitted comments regarding another
aspect of the limited availability of secure powers of
attorney. NVLA expressed concern that, as written,
PART 580-PRE 54
the regulation prevents leasing companies, acting as
transferors, from using powers of attorney to
acknowledge for their purchasers the mileage
disclosures they make, even when the leasing com-
panies titles are held by their lienholders. The in-
ability to use a power of attorney in this situation,
NVLA argues, presents a problem because the "buyer
may live a great distance from the lessor's place of
business" and that the buyer would face a "signifi-
cant hardship" in appearing to sign the lessor's
disclosure on the title.
NVLA suggests that the rule be amended to per-
mit the use of a secure power of attorney whenever
the title is held by "a lienholder", rather than by the
transferor's lienholder. Second, NVLA suggests allow-
ing Part B of the secure power of attorney form to be
used, without the completion of Part A. Under this
proposal. Part A would contain only the vehicle in-
formation when the form is used for the Part B power
of attorney only. Finally, NVLA suggests requiring
the secure power of attorney form for which Part A
is not completed be retured to the State with an ap-
plication for title. These suggestions are not adopted.
NVLA seems to misapprehend the intended use of
secure powers of attorney under the rule. Further, the
"solution" suggested by NVLA would not appear to
remedy the perceived problem.
Use of a secure power of attorney was never in-
tended in the situation where a leasing company (or
other business) is seeking to sell a vehicle it owns;
neither is such use necessary. The availabilty of a
secure power of attorney is intended to facilitate con-
sumer vehicle transactions. Often the consumer car
owner is unable to present his title at the time of the
sale of the vehicle because the title is held by the con-
sumer's lienholder and the consumer cannot satisfty
the lien by himself; the power of attorney arrange-
ment enables the consumer to sell the vehicle to the
dealer, who can pay off the lien, and allows the dealer
to complete the required odometer disclosure on the
title when the title arrives without bringing the con-
sumer back into the transaction either through use
of the mails or by having the consumer return to the
dealership in person. The legislative history of the
Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act reinforces this
intention: "The amendment. . .specifically refers to
situations where a vehicle's title, because of financ-
ing, is held by a lienholder, such as a bank, and not
the consumer. In such cases, the consumer cannot fill
in the mileage because he or she does not physically
hold the title." (Remarks of Rep. Dingell, 134 Cong.
Rec. H10079 (daily ed. Oct 12, 1988)).
In the case of a leasing company, the leasing com-
pany would itself be paying off the lien, not the buyer.
Thus, even if the title was not present at the time of
sale, after the leasing company received the title from
its lienholder, the company could make the disclosure,
mail it to the buyer, have the buyer sign it and mail
a copy back to the leasing company. Thus, no power
of attorney is necessary.
Although nowhere explicitly stating so, NVLA
seems concerned about the mailing of required paper-
work. With the establishment in this final rule of
penalties for the transferee's failure to return re-
quired paperwork, this concern should be amelior-
ated. Moreover, any problem presented by mailing
titles would also occur when mailing the secure power
of attorney form. Even under NVLA's proposal, in
order for the buyer to see the leasing company's
disclosure on the secure power of attorney form and
to sign the power of attorney, either the buyer would
have to appear at the lessor's place of business or the
lessor would have to mail the form to the buyer and
rely on the buyer to complete his portion of the form
and mail it back. NVLA does not explain how this
situation differs from having the buyer appear to sign
the title, or mailing the title to the buyer, nor how
the use of a power of attorney would be less burden-
some. Moreover, even if NHTSA were to allow the use
of secure powers of attorney where the leasing com-
pany's title was held by its lienholder, the "problem"
NVLA complains of would still exist where the title
was not being held by a lienholder, but by the leas-
ing company itself. NVLA does not suggest that the
use of a secure power of attorney be allowed where
the leasing company already has the title to the
vehicle it is selling.
In addition, NHTSA is concerned about the in-
creased risk to enforcement resulting from extending
the availability of powers of attorney to transactions
like the ones outlined by NVLA. Any use of a power
of attorney increases the possibility of fraud and en-
tails some additional risk to enforcement efforts.
NHTSA does not believe that the increased possibility
for fraud is warranted in this situation, particularly
because the use of a power of attorney in this situa-
tion would not significantly facilitate transactions
that are otherwise impeded.
The Certification Requirements
To ensure that a person who exercises a power of
attorney, whether under section 580.13 or both sec-
tions 580.13 and 580.14, is fully aware of his obliga-
tions and his liability for any action that is incon-
sistent with the power of attorney, the interim final
rule required, under section 580.15, that the person
exercising the power of attorney complete, on Part C
of the secure power of attorney form issued by the
State, a certification that he has "reviewed the title
and any reassignment documents for mileage dis-
crepancies and that no discrepancies exist." Pursuant
to section 580.15(b), any mileage discrepancies would
void the power of attorney.
NADA and NIADA have both objected to this cer-
PART 580-PRE 55
tification requirement. Both groups have asserted
that the requirement is neither required nor intended
under the statute, and that NHTSA was, therefore,
without authority to institute it. We disagree. Section
401 of the PSRA directs NHTSA to impose by rule
"reasonable conditions" on the use of powers of at-
torney. Moreover, the statute provides that NHTSA's
rules must be "consistent with the purposes of [the
Cost Savings] Act and the need to facilitate enforce-
ment thereof." The Truth in Mileage Act requires
that the odometer disclosure appear on the title to
enable consumers to see these disclosures on titles and
the chain of ownership of the vehicle. The use of a
power of attorney, although commercially useful, in-
terferes with that aspect of the Truth in Mileage Act
because, when using the secure power of attorney
form, the dealer is the only person who actually gets
to see the title. The certification requirement will
facilitate enforcement, without imposing a significant
burden on dealers, and is appropriate to carry out
Congi-ess' intention to protect the interests of con-
sumers in connection with motor vehicle sales
transactions.
Substantively, NADA's comments reflect a concern,
shared by NIADA, that "the certification provi-
sion . . . appears to impose a wholly new responsibility,
that is, to review and attest to the validity of prior
disclosures." It has never been NHTSA's intent that
this certification requirement place new liabilities on
dealers. Further, the dealers are not expected to verify
or attest to the validity of prior disclosures. Rather,
under the certification requirement, dealers must
check the title and compare the disclosure on the
power of attorney against the mileage on the title for
discrepancies between the disclosures.
NADA points out that current common law and
statutory duties already require the dealer to act in
a lawful manner and that accepting and/or submit-
ting to the State paperwork that contained discrepan-
cies would currently subject the dealer to liability
under the MVICSA and many State laws. We agree.
The certification requirement is not intended to create
liabilities beyond those already existing, but rather
to discourage the dealer from passing on to his buyer
a false disclosure received from his transferor on the
secure power of attorney form, by encouraging the
dealer to "look twice" before acting.
Upon reflection, we have concluded that the current
language in Part C of the power of attorney form re-
quiring the dealer to certify that "there are no indica-
tions of mileage discrepancies" may not have clearly
reflected our intent. Accordingly, we have decided to
adopt, with minor modification, a proposal submitted
by NADA and NIADA in their June 14, 1989, sup-
plemental comments to change the language of the
certification. This final rule amends section 580.15
to provide that a person who exercies a power of at-
torney under section 580.13 and 580.14 must com-
plete a certification that he has disclosed the mileage
on the title document consistent with the mileage
disclosed to him on the power of attorney form and
that he has examined the title and the mileage
disclosure made on the title pursuant to the power
of attorney is greater than the mileage previously
stated on the title.
The certification we are requiring differs from the
NADA/NIADA proposal in three minor respects.
First, consistent with the terms of existing section
580.15 and the purposes of the certification require-
ment. Part C will provide that the dealer has re-
viewed any reassignment documents that are at-
tached to the title as well as the title itself. Second,
we are requiring that the person exercising the power
of attorney certify that the mileage he enters on the
title "is higher" than the mileage already appearing
on the title, rather than, as was proposed, "appears
higher." The number entered on the title either will
or will not be higher than the mileage disclosed on
the power of attorney form; thus, "appears" is not ap-
propriate. Finally, we are requiring the person exer-
cising the power of attorney to make his certification
"upon examination" of the title, rather than "upon
normal visual examination." We consider the term
"examination" in this context to be self-defining.
Moreover, the term "normal" is vague and its use
would only likely cause confusion among dealers as
to what constitutes a "normaU'examination.
We are aware that at least one State has begun
printing secure power of attorney forms with a Part
C that contains the language of the certification re-
quired under the interim final rule. Since we view the
amendments to Part C made in this final rule as a
clarification of our prior rule, rather than a substan-
tive change, in order to avoid hardship to that State,
and any others that may have already invested in
secure power of attorney forms, NHTSA will construe
the certification on those forms as carrying the same
meaning as if they were worded as required under
this final rule. However, to avoid any possible confu-
sion, we urge those States to switch to the current
language as soon as possible.
It has been suggested that the certification require-
ment is most fitting to the "second sale" situation
where the subsequent purchaser's only link to the
title will be the dealer. We think there is merit to this
argument. Thus, in this final rule, we are amending
section 580.15 to provide that the certification re-
quirement will apply only when the dealer is exer-
cising a power of attorney for both the "first sale" and
"second sale" customers, as provided for in sections
580.13 and 580.14. If the title is present at the time
of the second sale, the purchaser will be able to review
the title himself to assure that the mileage is entered
in accordance with the initial transferor's power of
PART 580-PRE 56
attorney and is higher than the mileage appearing
on the title and reasignment documents. (As a prac-
tical matter, the mileage entered by the dealer could
never be lower than the mileage already on the title,
since if the power of attorney set forth a lower
mileage, it would void the power of attorney, and the
dealer would not be authorized to sign the disclosure
on behalf of the transferor.)
Section 580.15(b) of the interim final rule provides
that any mileage discrepancies void the power of
attorney. NAD A and NIADA have suggested that
"mistakes by a grantee" should not void the power
of attorney. However, we continue to believe that this
provision is vital; if the mileage appearing on the title
(or reassignment documents) is greater than the
mileage disclosed by the first sale transferor on the
power of attorney form, or if the title disclosure does
not exactly match the disclosure on the power of
attorney, the power of attorney should not be used to
pass on inaccurate information. It is immaterial
whether the discrepancy occurs through design or
mistake, or whether it is caused by the grantor,
grantee, or someone else. The power of attorney is
voided by the existence of a discrepancy, not by an
action causing a discrepancy. For these reasons, the
suggestion that grantee mistakes should not void the
power of attorney is rejected.
Transferee Access to Previous Title and
Power of Attorney Documents
Under section 580.14(h) of the interim final rule, if
the transferee who is granted a power of attorney
from his transferor applies for title in his own name,
the transferee must show his purchaser, upon his pur-
chaser's request, a copy of the previous owner's title,
including the odometer disclosure completed on behalf
of the previous owner, and a copy of the power of
attorney form completed by the previous owner.
Similarly, under section 580.14(g) of the interim final
rule, if a second-sale purchaser decides not to appoint
his transferor (i.e., the dealer) as his attorney-in-fact
pursuant to section 580.14, the transferor must show
his purchaser ? copy of the previous owner's title and
a copy of the power of attorney form completed by the
previous owner. No one commented in opposition to
these provisions and they are retained in the final
rule. However, for organizational clarity, these pro-
visions have been separated out of section 580.14, and
appear, renumbered, as new sections 580.16(a) and
580.16(b).
Record Retention
Section 401 of the PSRA requires NHTSA's rules
to provide for the retention of the power of attorney
form. The interim final rule amended section 508.8,
which concerns odometer disclosure statement reten-
tion, by adding a new paragraph (c). Under this
paragi-aph, motor vehicle dealers and distributors
who are assigned a power of attorney by their
transferors are required to retain, for five years, a
photostat, carbon, or other facsimile copy of each
power of attorney they receive. These documents must
be retained at the primary place of business of the
dealer or distributor in an order that is appropriate
with business requirements and that permits
systematic retrieval. This paragi-aph is consistent
with the retention requirement of the August 1988
final rule that is applicable to dealers, distributors,
and lessors. Like the August rule, the storage provi-
sion of this amendment is phrased broadly to include
any media by which information may be stored, pro-
vided there is no loss of information. No one has com-
mented in opposition to this retention requirement,
and it is retained unchanged in this final rule.
Miscellaneous Matters
In addition to the matters discussed above, some
minor changes to the language of sections 580.13,
580.14, and 580.15 have been made. The purpose of
these changes is merely to simplify or clarify the text
of the rule. No alterations of rights or duties, except
to the extent already discussed above, are intended.
AAMVA asked NHTSA to provide clarification on
the use of secure power of attorney in two situations.
The first question presented is whether or not the
power of attorney provisions apply to the practice of
"floor planning." ("Floor planning" is a practice by
which a financial institution will physically hold a
title as security for financing, without formally fil-
ing or recording a security interest, on a vehicle of-
fered for sale by a dealer.) This "floor planning"
arrangement does not qualify for use of the power of
attorney. The PSRA allows for the use of a secure
power of attorney in cases where "a transferor to
whom title to a motor vehicle has been issued by a
State" does not have the title because the title is being
physically held by the lienholder. Thus, because the
dealer is not the person to whom the title was issued
by the State, the dealer may not use a power of at-
torney form for purposes of mileage disclosure under
these circumstances. Moreover, even in situations in
which a dealer has retitled a vehicle in his own name
prior to surrendering the title under a "floor plan-
ning" arrangement use of a power of attorney is not
available, because the financial institution is not con-
sidered a lienholder because no formal lien has been
filed and recorded with the State. Because NHTSA
believes that the statutory language clearly enough
settles this matter, adding qualifying language on
"floor planning"to the final rule, as AAMVA has sug-
gested, is not considered appropriate.
The second situation about which AAMVA is seek-
ing clarification is where the lending institution that
financed the vehicle's purchase is located in a State
PART 580-PRE 57
that requires the lienholder to hold the title as
security, but the vehicle is registered in a different
State, which allows the owner, rather than the
lienholder to hold the title. Under the PSRA, the
availability of secure powers of attorney is always
subject to State permission. States that choose to
make secure powers of attorney available for transac-
tions in which a consumer's title is unavailable
because it is held by an out-of-state lienholder may
do so. In States that choose not to allow the use of a
secure power of attorney, in some or all cir-
cumstances, a transferor not in possession of his or
her title at the time of sale will have to return to the
dealership to sign the title when it is received, or else
complete the transaction by mail.
NAAA submitted comments concerning the im-
plications of the general prohibition on the same per-
son signing as transferor and transferee in the same
transaction for auto auctions in so-called "chain-of-
title" States. In most States, auto auctions are brokers
between buyers and sellers, facilitating sales between
interested parties. As part of the service auctions pro-
vide, many auctions regularly act as agents under a
power of attorney for their sellers to complete the
necessary paperwork accompanying the sale, in-
cluding making the required odometer disclosure. In
Arizona, California and Colorado, however, auctions
have been required by law to appear in the "chain
of title." In these states, NAAA notes, "auctions
simultaneously take a reassignment from the seller
and give a reassignment to the buyer", thereby ap-
pearing, however briefly, to own the vehicle. Hence,
under the rule, in these states the seller must disclose
the mileage to the auction and the auction must ex-
ecute a separate disclosure to the buyer. Furthermore,
the auction is prevented under section 580.8(h) from
using the seller's power of attorney to make the
disclosure for the seller to the auction and then sign-
ing the disclosure as transferee.
The NAAA has appealed to NHTSA to amend sec-
tion 580.6 to include an exemption from the disclosure
requirement for auctions which are required by State
law to take reassignment from the seller and give it
to the buyer, provided that the selling customer
makes a disclosure to the buyer, who acknowledges
it as required. NHTSA declines to adopt the sugges-
tion of the NAAA. We understand N AAA's concerns;
however, we consider the problem faced by auctions
in the "chain-of-title" States essentially one to be
worked out by those States and the affected auctions.
We are concerned that a proliferation of exemptions
to the regulatory requirements will inhibit enforce-
ment of the statute. Therefore, NHTSA considers the
creation of another category of exempted transferors
inappropriate.
Finally, the Florida DMV expressed concern that
the sample secure power of attorney form appearing
at Appendix E of the interim final rule does not em-
power the attorney-in-fact to actually transfer owner-
ship of the vehicle, and that another form will be re-
quired. The sample form at Appendix E represents
only the minimum acceptable elements of a power of
attorney for the purpose of mileage disclosure.
Nothing in the interim final rule, or this final rule,
prevents a State from including a space on the power
of attorney form for a grant of power of attorney for
the purpose of transferring title.
Federalism Assessment
In adopting the PSRA, Congress apparently found
that limiting the use of powers of attorney in connec-
tion with mileage disclosure could cause an undue
burden on dealers and consumers. To resolve the prob-
lem and alleviate the potential costs for dealers and
consumers, the new law specifies that power of
attorney may be used in certain circumstances, if
otherwise permitted by State law. This final rule does
not impose any requirements upon the States other
than those imposed by the law. Nevertheless, this ac-
tion has been analyzed in accordance with the prin-
ciples and criteria contained in Executive Order
12612, and it has been determined that this final rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The States may decide not to allow the use of powers
of attorney in connection with mileage disclosure and,
therefore, would not be required to print conforming
forms. Those States that choose to allow the use of
powers of attorney will incur some costs from process-
ing applications, maintaining records and issuing new
titles resulting from the requirement that the power
of attorney form be returned to the State along with
a title application. However, as the States may decide
not to allow the use of powers of attorney in connec-
tion with mileage disclosure, they would not be re-
quired to incur these costs. Additionally, while it is
estimated that the final rule would result in addi-
tional costs to the States for printing secure title
reassignment documents and power of attorney forms,
the cost to each State is minimal and could easily be
recouped from those who are applying for the forms.
Under section 553(d) of the Administrative Pro-
cedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a substantive rule may
become effective before thirty days after its publica-
tion where it relieves a restriction, or as otherwise
provided for by the agency for good cause. The sec-
tions that are immediately effective are those deal-
ing with powers of attorney. These sections, although
subject to the alterations discussed herein, were
already effective. Moreover, the substantive changes
relieve restrictions on the use of powers of attorney
and, therefore, may be made effective upon
publication.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 580
is amended as follows:
1. In section 580.3, the definitions of "transferor"
PART 580-PRE 58
and "transferee" are revised to read as follows:
§580.3 Definitions.
"Transferee"means any person to whom ownership
of a motor vehicle is transferred, by purchase, 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 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 in-
terest, and any person who, as agent, signs an
odometer disclosure statement for the transferor.
2. Section 580.4 is revised to read as follows:
§580.4 Security of title documents and power of at-
torney forms.
Each title shall be set forth by means of a secure
printing process or other secure process. In addition,
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.
3. Section 580.5 is amended by revising paragraphs
(c), (f) and (h) to read as follows:
§ 580.5 Disclosure of odometer information
(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
on the document being used to reassign the title. 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 addi-
tion to the signature and printed name of the
transferor, the written disclosure must contain the
following 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 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 identifica-
tion number.
(f) The transferee shall sign the disclosure state-
ment, print his name, and return a copy to his
transferor.
*****
(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
580.14.
4. Section 580.6 is amended by revising the in-
troductory text and paragraph (a) and by adding a
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 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 than 16,000
pounds;
(2) A vehicle that is not self-propelled:
(3) A vehicle that is ten 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.
(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 requirements of §
580.7.
5. Section 580.8 is amended by revising paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
§ 580.8 Odometer disclosure statement retention.
(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, car-
bon, 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 appropriate to business requirements and that
permits systematic retrieval.
6. Section 580.13 is revised to read as follows:
§ 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 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 the cer-
tification required to be made under § 580.15.
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
PART 580-PRE 59
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 writ-
ten disclosure must be signed by the transferor, in-
cluding the printed name, and contain the following
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 address;
(4) The transferee's name and current address; and
(5) The identity of the vehicle, including its make,
model year, body type and vehicle identification
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 submit the
form to the State may result in fines and/or imprison-
ment. 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 reading reflects the ac-
tual mileage; or
(2) If the transferor knows that the odometer
reading reflects mileage in excess of the designed
mechanical odometer limit, he shall include a state-
ment 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 a calibration 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 warn-
ing 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 the
application for new title and the transferor's title. If
the mileage disclosed on the power of attorney form
is higher than the mileage appearing on the title the
power of attorney is void and the dealer shall not com-
plete the mileage disclosure on the title.
7. Section 580.14 is revised to read as follows:
§ 580.14 Power of attorney to review title
documents 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 discrepancies, 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 con-
tain a space for the information required to be dis-
closed under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this sec-
tion and, in Part C, a space for the certification re-
quired to be made under § 580.15.
(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 following 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 address;
(4) The transferee's name and current address; and
(5) The identity of the vehicle, including its make,
model year, body type and vehicle identification
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 submit the
form to the State may result in fines and/or imprison-
ment. 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 reading reflects the ac-
tual mileage; or
(2) If the transferor knows that the odometer
reading reflects mileage in excess of the designed
mechanical odometer limit, he shall include a state-
ment 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 a calibration 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 warn-
ing 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, and print his name.
(f) The transferor shall give a copy of the power of
PART 580-PRE 60
attorney form to his transferee.
8. Section 580.15 paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised
to read as follows:
§ 580.15 Certification by person exercising powers
of attorney.
(a) A person who exercises a power of attorney under
both §§ 580.13 and 580.14 must complete a certifica-
tion that he has disclosed on the title document the
mileage as it was provided to him on the power of
attorney form, and that upon examination of the title
and any reassignment documents, the mileage
disclosure he has made on the title pursuant 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 person
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.
9. Section 580.16 is added to read as follows:
§ 580.16 Access of transferee to prior title and power
of attorney documents
(a) In circumstances in which a power of attorney
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 the transferee's re-
quest, 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.
10. The warning and Part C, Certification, of the
sample power of attorney form in Appendix E are
amended to read as follows:
Appendix E— Power of Attorney Disclosure
Form
Warning: This Form May Be Used Only When
Title Is Physically Held By Lienholder Or Has Been
Lost. This Form Must Be Submitted To The State By
The Person Exercising Powers Of Attorney. Failure
To Do So May Result In Fines And/Or Imprisonment.
Part C. Certification (To Be Completed When Parts
Aand B Have Been Used)
I, , (person exercising above powers of
attorney. Print), hereby certify that the mileage I
have disclosed on the title document is consistent with
that provided to me in the above power of attorney.
Further, upon examination of the title and any
reassignment documents for the vehicle described
above, the mileage disclosure I have made on the title
pursuant to the power of attorney is gi-eater than that
previously stated on the title and reassignment
documents. This certification is not intended to create,
nor does it create any new or additional liability
under Federal or State law.
(Signature)
(Printed Name)
Address (Street)
(City)
Date
(State)
(Zip Code)
Issued on (no date provided)
Jeffrey Miller
Acting Administrator
54 F.R. 35879
August 30, 1989
PART 580-PRE 61-62
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.
"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
ownership 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 state-
ment 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.
(54 F.R. 35879— August 30, 1989. Effective:
September 29, 1989)]
§ 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. (54 F.R.
35879— August 30, 1989. Effective: August 30, 1989)1
§ 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. 8/30/89)
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
on the document being used to reassign the title.
This written disclosure must be signed by the
transferor, including the printed name. [In connec-
tion with the transfer of ownership of a motor vehi-
cle 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 information: (54 F.R.
35879— August 30, 1989. Effective: September 29,
1989)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 Jhe odometer
reading differs«ftom the mileages^d the the dif-
ference is greaffiF.than that'^used by odometer
calibration errc^^e sj^all include a statement that
the odometer i^^ujt does not reflect the actual
mileage, and shouMnot 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. (54 F.R. 35879— August 30, 1989. Effec-
tive: September 29, 1989)]
(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 follow-
ing motor vehicles need not disclose the vehicle's
odometer mileage: (54 F.R. 35879— August 30, 1989.
Effective: September 29, 1989)
(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. (54 F.R. 35879— August 30,
1989. Effective: September 29, 1989)1
§ 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. 8/30/89)
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 sh> old 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 followdng
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.
[(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)]
§ 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 follovdng
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 580-3
§ 580.10 Application for Assistance.
(a) A State may apply to NHTSA for assistance
in revising its laws to comply with the re-
quirements of 408(dXl) and (2) of the Motor Vehi-
cle 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 requirements 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 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) Notice of either a grant or denial of a petition
for approval of alternate motor vehicle disclosure
requirements is issued to the petitioner. 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. The effect of a denial is
to require a State to conform to the requirements
of §§ 580.5 and 580.7 of this part until such time as
the NHTSA approves any alternate motor vehicle
disclosure requirements.
§ 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 February 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
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
(Rev. S/30/89)
PART 580-4
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 sec-
tion. If a State permits the use of a power of at-
torney 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 re-
quired 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 at-
torney 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. (54 F.R. 35879— August 30, 1989.
Effective: August 30, 1989)1
(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 designed
mechanical odometer limit, he shall include a state-
ment 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 a calibration 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 at-
torney 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 at-
torney form. The transferee shall submit the
original power of attorney form to the State that
issued it, with the application for a new title and
the transferor's title. [If the mileage disclosed on
the power of attorney form is higher than the
mileage appearing on the title, the power of at-
torney is void and the dealer shall not complete the
mileage disclosure on the title. (54 F.R.
35879— August 30, 1989. Effective: August 30, 1989)1
[§ 580.14 Power of attorney to review title docu-
ments and acknowiedge disciosure.
[(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
discrepancies, 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 imder § 580.15.
(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);
(Rev. B/30/89)
PART 580-5
(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
appUcable 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. (54 F.R.
35879— August 30, 1989. Effective: August 30, 1989)1
[§ 580.15 Certification by person exercising
powerts) of attorney.
[(a) A person who exercises a power of attorney
under both SS 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
(Rev. 8/30/89)
PART 580-6
APPENDIX A
Secure Printing Processes and Other Secure Processes
1. Methods to deter or detect counterfeiting
and/or unauthorized reproduction.
(a) Intaglio printing— a printing process utilized
in the production of bank-notes and other security
documents whereby an engraved plate meets the
paper under extremely high pressure forcing the
paper into the incisions below the surface of the
plate.
(b) Intaglio Printing With Latent Images— a
printing process utilized in the production of bank-
notes and other security documents whereby an
engraved plate meets the paper under extremely
high pressure forcing the paper into the incisions
below the surface of the plate. The three dimen-
sional nature of intaglio printing creates latent im-
ages that aid in verification authenticity and deter
counterfeiting.
(c) High Resolution Printing— a printing process
which achieves excellent art clarity and detail
quality approaching that of the intaglio process.
(d) Micro-line Printing— a reduced line of type
that appears to be a solid line to the naked eye but
contains readable intelligence under strong
magnification.
(e) Pantograph Void Feature— wording incor-
porated into a pantograph by varjing screen den-
sity in the pantograph. The wording will appear
when attempts are made to photocopy on color
copiers.
(f) Hologram— a defraction foil substrate, pro-
duced from a negative which was made by splitting
a laser beam into two separate beams to produce a
three dimensional effect.
(g) Security Paper— ^paper containing a security
watermark and/or security thread.
2. Methods to allow alterations to be visible to
the naked eye.
(a) Erasure Sensitive Background Inks— a pro-
cess whereby the text is printed in a dark color ink
over a fine line erasure-sensitive prismatic ink tint.
(b) Security Lamination— retro-reflectWe secur-
ity laminate is placed over vital information after it
has been entered to allow for detection of attempts
to alter this information.
(c) Security Paper— paper which has been
chemically treated to detect chemical alterations.
PART 580-Appendix Page 1-2
APPENDIX B
Disclosure Form for Title
Odometer Disclosure Statement
Federal law (and State law, if applicable) requires that you state the mileage upon transfer
of ownership. Failure to complete or providing a false statement may result in fines and/or
imprisonment.
state that the odometer now reads .
miles and to
(No Tenths)
the best of my knowledge that it reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below, unless
one of the following statements is checked.
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odometer reading reflects the
amount of mileage in excess of its mechanical limits.
I hereby certify that the odometer reading is NOT the actual mileage.
WARNING-ODOMETER DISCREPANCY.
(Transferor's Signature)
(Transferee's Signature)
(Transferor's Printed Name)
(Transferee's Printed Name)
(Street Address)
(Street Address)
(City)
(State) (Zip Code)
(City)
(State) (Zip Code)
Date of Statement .
PART 580- Appendix Page 3-4
APPENDIX C
Separate Disclosure Form
Odometer Disclosure Statement
Federal law (and State law, if applicable) requires that you state the mileage upon transfer
i^pTonment. '" """'''' " ^""'"^ ^ ''''' ^^^^^"^^"^ "^>- -ulf in fines and/or
— , state that the odometer now reads
miles and to
(No Tenths)
the best of my knowledge that it reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below, unless
one of the following statements is checked.
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odometer reading reflects the
amount of mileage in excess of its mechanical limits.
I hereby certify that the odometer reading is NOT the actual mileage.
WARNING-ODOMETER DISCREPANCY.
Make
Model
Vehicle Identification Number (VID)
Body Type
Year
(Transferor's Signature)
(Transferee's Signature)
(Transferor's Printed Name)
(Transferee's Printed Name)
(Street Address)
(Street Address)
(City)
(State) (ZIP Code)
(City)
(State) (ZIP Code)
Date of Statement
PART 580- Appendix Page 5-6
APPENDIX D
Disclosure Form for Leased Vehicle
Odometer Disclosure Statement (Leased Vehicle)
Federal law (and State law, if applicable) requires that you state the millage upon transfer of
ownership. Failure to complete or making a false statement may result in fines and/or
imprisonment.
I,
, state that the odometer now reads .
miles
(No Tenths)
and to the best of my knowledge that it reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below,
unless one of the following statements is checked:
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odometer reading reflects the
amount of mileage in excess of its mechanical limits.
I hereby certify that the odometer reading is NOT the actual mileage.
WARNING-ODOMETER DISCREPANCY.
Make
Model
Body Type
Year.
Vehicle Identification Number (VID)
Date Disclosure Form sent to
lessee:
Date Disclosure Form received from
lessee:
(Lessee's Signature)
(Lessor's Signature)
(Lessee's Printed Name)
(Lessor's Printed Name)
(Street Address)
(Street Address)
(City)
State
(ZIP Code)
(City)
State
(ZIP Code)
Date of Statement
PART 580-Appendix Page 7-8
APPENDIX E
Power of Attorney Disclosure Form
Warning: [This form may be used only when title is physically held by lienholder or has been lost. This
form must be submitted to the State by the person exercising powers of attorney. Falure to do so may
result in fines and/or imprisonment.! *
Year.
Make.
Vehicle Description
Model
Body Type
Vehicle Identification Number .
Part A. Power of Attorney to Disclose Mileage
Federal law (and State law, if applicable) requires that you state the mileage upon transfer of ownership.
Providing a false statement may result in fines and/or imprisonment.
I,
(Print transferor's name)
, appoint
(Print transferee's name)
as my attorney-in-fact, to disclose the mileage on the title for the vehicle described above, exactly as stated
in the following disclosure.
I state that the odometer now reads .
miles (no tenths) and to the best of my knowledge
that it reflects the actual mileage unless one of the following statements is checked:
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odometer reading reflects the amount
of mileage in excess of its mechanical limits.
I hereby certify that the odometer reading is NOT the actual mileage.
WARNING-ODOMETER DISCREPANCY.
(Transferor's Signature)
(Transferee's Signature)
(Transferor's Printed Name)
(Transferee's Printed Name)
(Street Address)
(Street Address)
(City)
(State)
(Zip Code)
(City)
(State)
(Zip Code)
Date of Statement .
*54 F.R. 35879— August 30, 1989. Effective: September 29, 1989
PART 580-Appendix Page 9-10
Part B. Power of Attorney to Review Title Documents and Acknowledge Disclosure
Part B is invalid unless Part A has been completed.
I, , appoint
(Print transferee's name)
(Print transferor's name)
as my attorney-in-fact, to sign the vehicle mileage disclosure on the title for the vehicle described above,
only if the disclosure is exactly as the disclosure completed below.
Federal law (and State law, if applicable) requires that you state the millage upon transfer of ownership.
Providing a false statement may result in fines and/or imprisonment.
I,
, state that the odometer now reads
miles
(Transferor's name)
miles (no tenths) and to the best of my knowledge that it reflects the actual mileage unless one of the following
statements is checked:
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odometer reading reflects the mileage
in excess of its mechanical limits.
I hereby certify that the odometer reading is NOT the actual mileage.
WARNING-ODOMETER DISCREPANCY.
(Transferor's Signature)
(Transferor's Printed Name)
(Transferor's Printed Name)
(Transferor's Street Address)
(City)
State
(ZIP Code)
Date of Statement
PART 580- Appendix Page 11-12
Part C. Certification
[(To be completed when Parts A and B have been used)
I, , hereby certify that the mileage
(Print name of person exercising above powers of attorney)
I have disclosed on the title document is consistent with that provided to me in the above power
of attorney. Further, upon examination of the title and any reassignment documents or the vehicle
described above, the mileage disclosure I have made on the title pursuant to the power of attorney
is greater than that previously stated on the title and reassignment documents. This certification
is not intended to create, nor does it create any new or additional liability under Federal or State
law. ] *
(Signature) (Printed Name)
(Street Address)
(City) State (ZIP Code)
Date of Statement
[54 F.R. 35879— August 30, 1989. Effective: September 29, 1989]
PART 580- Appendix Page 13-14
Effacrive: September I, 1978
PREAMBLE TO PART 581— BUMPER STANDARD
(Docket No. 74-11; Notice 12; Docket No. 73-19; Notice 9)
This notice establishes a new bumper standard,
limiting damage to vehicle bumpers and other
vehicle surfaces in low-speed crashes.
The standard, 49 CFR Part 581, is issued
under the authority of Title I of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act,
Public Law 9^513, 15 U.S.C. 1901-1991. In
addition to specifying limitations on damage to
non-safety-related components and vehicle sur-
face areas, it also incorporates the safety require-
ments currently contained in Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Pro-
tection.
Since the enactment of the Motor Vehicle In-
formation and Cost Savings Act, the NHTSA
has issued four proposals to establish a front and
rear end damage ability standard that fulfills
the objectives espoused in the law. Title I
(Bumper Standards) directs the NHTSA to de-
velop standards which "shall seek to obtain the
maximum feasible reduction of costs to the pub-
lic and to the consumer. . . ." Improving the
damage resistance of a vehicle in low-speed im-
pact situations will, in the opinion of Congress,
save the consumer a significant amount of money.'
During the past several years of ongoing rule-
making in the bumper area, the NHTSA has
continued to conduct studies and examine input
from all interested persons. The most recent
proposal was published March 12 of this year
(40 FR 11598). After thoroughly reviewing the
available data and comments submitted to the
docket, the NHTSA has concluded that the pro-
visions contained in the March notice would con-
stitute a large step towards accomplishment of
the goals described in Title I.
On January 2, 1975, the NHTSA proposed a
reduction in the impact speeds specified in Stand-
ard 215 and proposed in Part 581 (40 FR 10).
The NHTSA's proposal was based primarily on
the results of two agency-sponsored studies which
indicated that the cost and weight of many cur-
rent production bumpers, in light of inflation and
fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost-
beneficial. Information presented at public hear-
ings on the notice and comments submitted to
the docket brought to light additional data which
the NHTSA carefully examined. After review-
ing its previous studies in light of this new evi-
dence, the agency concluded that the 5-mph
protection level (and the 3-mph corner impact
level associated with it) should not be reduced.
In its March 12, 1975, notice (40 FR 11598) the
NHTSA fully explained this decision. Com-
ments have been received from Toyo Kogyo,
Volkswagen, Nissan, Motor Vehicle Manufactur-
ers Association, Chrysler, General Motors, Toy-
ota, and Gulf & Western urging the NHTSA to
reconsider its rejection of the lower impact test
speeds proposed in January.
For the reasons discussed in the March Federal
Register notice the NHTSA has determined that
the pendulum and barrier impact speeds should
not be reduced and should remain at 5 mph.
General Motors (GM) submitted two docu-
ments, dated January 9, 1976, and January 15,
1976, which analyzed the costs and benefits of
1974 bumper systems based on field surveys con-
ducted in Fort Wayne, Indiana and Milford,
Michigan. The conclusion reached by GM in
these studies was that the 1974 model year
bumper systems were not cost-beneficial. They
requested, based on the result of this study, that
any raising of the current bumper standard re-
quirements be delayed until longer-tei'm benefit-
cost analyses are made.
The NHTSA has examined this study and has
concluded that the proposed Part 581 damage-
ability standard, which will upgrade the bumper
requirements, should be implemented in accord-
PART 581— PRE 1
Effaclive: September 1, 1978
ance with the time sclie(hile set fortli in this
notice. GM in its study has cliosen to analyze
the cost-effectiveness of bunii)er systems (lesi<rne(l
solely for safety component i)r()tection. The
costs considered by GM ha\e been those occa-
sioned not only by daina<!:e to safety-related
components, but to non-safety-related vehicle
areas, as well. While it may be true that a
bumper system that is desijrned primarily for
safety component protection will also provide
some degree of protection against non-safety-
related damage, it is unreasonable to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of such a system on its capabil-
ity to perform outside its primary design func-
tion. A bumper system designed to comply witli
Title I would necessarily provide protection to
both safety and non-safety-related components
and would thereby reduce tlic degree of damage
suffered by most 1974 model vehicles involved in
front and rear impacts. The cost-effectiveness
of a Title I system, thus, cannot be realistically
measured by an examination of 1974 systems
which have been designed to provide a lower
level of damage protection.
GM gathered data only on its own 1974 model
cars and concluded that the impact of Standard
215 on all vehicles has not been cost-beneficial.
Conclusions based on such limited data, liowever,
are not sufficient reason for suspending further
rulemaking to improve tlie damage protection
capabilities of bumpers. As explained in the
March 12, 1975, notice, considerable data have
been presented indicating that the bumper sys-
tems on some current-model automobiles are
heavier and costlier than necessary. This un-
necessary weight not only adds to the initial
costs, but also increases the life-time operating
costs of the vehicle. The use of such bumpers,
it has been concluded, has been the result of im-
necessary design choices by motor vehicle manu-
facturers. Studies conducted by the XHTSA
and Houdaille Industries, Inc., a bumper manu-
facturer, indicate that bumper systems utilizing
current technology and designed to meet the Part
581 damageability requirements need not weigh
any more than [)re-standard-215 bumper systems.
Basing future rulemaking on the results of a
cost-benefit analysis utilizing bumper systems
that have not been optimized would be unreason-
able.
In the March 12, 1975, notice, the NHTSA
proposed alternative effective dates for imple-
mentation of the initial Part 581 test require-
ments. The applicable requirements call for
restricted surface damage except to components
that actually contact the impact ridge of the
pendulum test device or that fasten such compo-
nents to the vehicle chassis frame. Commcnters
were asked to address the feasiliility of satisfying
the proposed damage criteria by September 1,
1976, September 1, 1977, or September 1, 1978.
Chrysler said it could meet the prescribed damage
level by September 1, 1976, but only if certain
modifications in the test requirements were made.
Volvo also stated that it could comply by Sep-
tember 1976, but warned of a significant cost
penalty. Toyo Kogyo and British Leyland
stated they could meet a September 1, 1977 effec-
tive date. Toyo Kogyo, however, connnented that
this wo>dd occasion high development costs.
British Leyland, on the other hand, said that it
could satisfy an earlier effective date, but only at
significant cost. American Motors, Ford, and
Toyota urged a September 1, 1978, effective date
saying that amount of lead time was necessary
to obtain compliance.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
the National Association of Independent Insur-
ers, and State Farm urged a 1976 effective date
citing the need for regulation of damage to ve-
hicle components and. surface areas aside from
those directly related to safety. The Insurance
Institute supported its reipiest for a 1976 effective
date by stating that many existing cars are sub-
stantially able to meet the initial Part 581 re-
(luirements.
In the NHTSA's view, adoption of a 1976 or
1977 effective date would impose serious lead
time problems on a number of manufacturers.
Based upon information submitted by the auto-
mobile industry, bringing vehicles into compli-
ance by September 1, 1976 or 1977, if possible at
all, would entail the expenditure of large sums
of money for redesign and retooling. A Sep-
tember 1, 1978 effective date would assure satis-
factory compliance with the Part 581 require-
ments and would avoid the high costs that wouUl
occur as a result of an earlier effective date.
The XHTSA has, tiierefore, concluded that a
September 1, 1978, effective date should be
PART 581— PRE 2
Effective: September 1, 1978
adopted for implementation of tiie initial Part
581 damapeability requirements. This amount
of lead time appears necessary for all manufac-
turers to come into conformity with the provi-
sions.
Toyo Kopyo, American Motors, Motoi- Vehicle
Manufacturers Association. Chrysler, and Ford
urfred a delay in the proposed September 1, 1970
effective date for implementation of the "no
damajife" bumper requirements. Toyo Ko<>y'o re-
quested a 1983 effective date, while the other
manufacturers sujij^ested that no upgraded re-
quirements be scheduled until field data have
been gathered indicatin<i' the success of the in-
teiim requirements. The National ^Vssociation
of Independent Insurers, anxious for early im-
plementation of the full lanjre of bumper per-
formance requirements, supported adoption of
the proposed 1979 effective date.
The NHTSA has examined all of these com-
ments and has concluded that the September 1.
1979 effective date should be adopted. This
would provide a lead time of approximately 4
years, which appears sufficient to brinp; the ve-
hicles into compliance. Awaitin"' the results of
field data related to the interim requirements is
not practicable. The information currently be-
fore the ajrency indicates that the proposed 1979
surface damajre limitation is a substantial step
towards achievinj^ the le\'el of bumper efficiency
described by Con<rress in the Cost Savings Act.
AVaitinp- for the accumulation and analysis of
additional information would unnecessarily and
unreasonably delay the implementation of Part
581. a standard the agency is directed by law to
promulgate.
The NHTSA has proposed in several past
notices the adoption of test requirements that
would allow the manufacture of vehicles with
soft exterior surfaces. Currently, the Standard
Xo. 215 exterior protection standard prohibits
contact with Planes A and B of the pendulum
test de\ice since those areas represent parts of
the vehicle that house safety components such as
headlamps. Most vehicles constructed with soft
exterior surfaces would not be able to comply
with the Stantlard Xo. 215 requirements since by
their very nature they woidd yield to the impact
of the pendulum. The quality of soft face
bumper systems which is not taken into account
by the Planes A and R prohibition is that such
systems can be constructed in a manner that as-
sures retui'n of the system to its original contours
following an impact. The XHTSA proposal
would permit contact with the planes at limited
force and pressui'e levels. These force and pres-
sure limitations were intended to assure that the
bumper system wotdd yield in a collision to a
degree that would minimize damage to the other
vehicle's components.
Comments to the proposal to allow contact
with Planes A and B focused on that provision's
test conditions and its specification of pressure
limitations. According to conunenters, the pre-
sciibed instrumentation of Planes A and B is not
practicable since it would be costly with allegedly
unreliable test results.
British Leyland, Eenault, and Peugeot wanted
the agency to clarify the rule by specifying that
no instrumentation is necessary on the pendulum
where there is no contact during testing with
Planes A and B. Tliis fact shoidd be clear based
on prior interpretations given by the XHTSA.
It lias been stated many times in the past that a
manufacturer need only exercise due care in as-
suring that his vehicle would comply with the
requirement of a standard when tested by the
XHTSA in the manner prescrilied. The manu-
facturer need not conduct the tests prescribed in
the standard in order to satisfy this dutj'. De-
pending upon the circumstances there may be
otiier means by which he can certify his vehicles'
compliance. In tiie case at issue, the instrumented
pendulum would only serve to assure that impact
with the planes would not exceed the stated
maxinuun levels. If there is no contact with
these planes then obviously the instrumentation
would serve no purpose.
Voho suggested that the pro\ision permitting
Planes A and B contact not be added to the
standard until a measuring device can be better
defined. American Motors, however, presented a
suggestion that it contended would significantly
simplify the test procedure without diminishing
the desired level of vehicle protection. It sug-
gested that the 200-psi limitation be deleted and
that a force limitatioii of 2000 pounds .on the
condiined surfaces of Planes A and B above the
impact ridge and 2000 pounds total force on
Plane A below the impact ridge be adopted.
PART 581— PRE 3
Effective: September 1, 1978
American Motors stated that tlie 200-psi specifi-
cation was unnecessary in li<i:lit of tlie daniafje
limitations contained in the standard.
The initial Part 581 damajre criteria [proposed
to go into effect September 1. 1976, or 1977, or
1978 (made effective by this notice for September
1, 1978)] presented some problems for Volks-
wa<ren, American Motors, Cluysler, Volvo, and
Ford Avitli respect to the areas in wliicli damajje
would be permissible. The propo.sed section
(8r).3.8) limits chanjre to surface areas and safety
components, but permits daiiiafre to the bumper
face bar. The manufacturers arpued that dam-
a<re should also be permitted to cosmetic filler
panels, bumper jruards, nerf strips, license plate
brackets, stone shields, and other components
which are not specifically part of tlie vehicle
body. The support for this position is that these
components appear to be inchuled in the pro-
posal's description of items that would not be
subject to damage limitation during the interim
period.
The relevant language of Sr).8.8 states that
vehicles shall have no damage except to the
bumper face bar and the components and asso-
ciated fasteners that directly attach the bumper
face bar to the chassis fraiue. The bumper face
bar is defined as any component of the bumper
system that contacts the impact ridge of the
pendulum test device. Stone shields and cos-
metic filler panels would not be excepted from
the damage criteria unless they directly attach
the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Based
upon the information currently before the agency,
it has determined that neither stone shields nor
filler panels are intended to serve such a function.
Bumper guards and nerf strips which are lo-
cated in a position where they are contacted by
the impact ridge of the test device would be
considered as a bumper face bar with the lateral
metal component (commonly known as a bumper)
considered as a component that directly attaches
the b\nnper face bar to tiie vehicle chassis frame.
This reasoning would also, apply to bmuper sys-
tems that liave a layer of plastic, rubber, or some
other material covering the underlying load
bearing structure. The coveiing material would
be considered the bumper face bar and the under-
lying structure would be considered a component
that attaches the face bar to the chassis frame.
Toyo Kogyo commented that the damage cri-
tei'ia contained in 85.3.8 would necessitate the
addition of 13 pounds to the bumper which would
change the emission rank of some cars and
thereby increase tlieir fuel consiunption from 4
to 8 percent. The cost of counteracting the in-
creased fuel consumption would, according to
Toyo Kogyo, range from $100 to $200 per car.
The additional lead time allowed by the Sep-
tember 1, 1978 date for implementation of the
initial damage criteria should enable Toyo Kogyo
to concentrate its efforts on minimizing any in-
crease in the weight of complying vehicles.
State Farm expressed concern over the appli-
cation of the 85.3.8 damage criteria to vehicles
with soft face systems. They asserted tiiat al-
lowing damage to the bumper face bar and asso-
ciated components would, in the case of soft face
bumper systems, permit damage to the entire
front and rear end of the vehicle. This could
occur since some soft-face construction utilizes a
single large component in the front and rear
of the vehicle that takes on the appearance of
the veiiicle body, but by definition would be the
bumper face bar. It was State Farm's sugges-
tion that damage be permitted only to those
portions of the bumper face bar that actually
come in contact with the impact ridge of the
pendulum test device. This would in their opin-
ion avoid the possibility of widespread damage
to areas not actually contacted.
The \HT8A finds State Farm's concern un-
founded. The 2000-pound total force limitation
to the combined surfaces of Planes A and B of
the pendulum test device will have the effect of
preventing any substantial damage to the areas
mentioned by State Farm. For this reason, the
XHTSA denies State Farm's I'equest to revise
the language of 85.3.8.
Ford Motor Company criticized the provision
prohibiting breakage or release of fasteners or
joints (85.3.9) as unreasonable. It asserted that
efficient production re(iuires keeping to a mini-
mum the efforts involved in installing moldings
and insignia. Of importance, in tlieir opinion,
is assuring that tiie moldings and insignia resist
"popping'' on rough roads and during minor
parking lot impacts. However, they assert that
tlie performance level that would be achieved by
PART 581— PRE 4
Effective: September 1 , 1 978
S5.3.0 is unreasonably hifih since, in their view,
moldinfis which pop off can be easily reinstalled
with minimal cost and inconvenience to the car
owner.
The NHTSA disagrees with Ford's argument.
To allow the type of daniape described by Ford
would be partially to defeat the effectiveness of
the standard. Ornaments that fall off and trim
strips that pop off must be repaired if the value
of the vehicle is to be maintained. The time and
money invested by an individual who must ob-
tain such a repair followinjr a relatively minor
collision can be avoided if the manufacturer is
required to comply with the performance level
of Sr).3.0. The XHTSA disagrees with Ford's
assessment of the time, cost, and effort involved
in obtaining such repairs. The agency has there-
fore determined that to carry out the Congres-
sional intent to reduce the cost of low-speed
accidents, it must require ornaments and trim
strips to be immune from damage under the test
conditions of the standard.
There were numerous comments on the damage-
ability requirements proposed to go into effect on
September 1, 1979. Many of the manufacturers
suggested a change in the maximum dent limita-
tion (S5.3.11) and requested that a certain
amount of bumper set be allowed. In its March
12 notice, the XHTSA proposed to limit damage
to the bumper face bar to permanent dents no
greater than % inch from the original contour.
The proposed %-inch deviation was based on a
Louis Harris & Associates survey of public re-
actions to bumper damage at various depths.
This survey was commissioned by Houdaille
Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of bumpers.
International Nickel Co. and Toyota requested
that the provision be revised to allow a %-inch
deviation from the original bumper contour. In
light of the results of the Harris survey, which
indicated that consumers did not consider dam-
age to be significant until the dents reached a
depth of 1/4 to 1/2 inch, the NHTSA denies their
request and adopts the proposed %-inch limita-
tion. To allow deviations to a depth of % inch
would be to disregard the results of the survey
by permitting damage which would be considered
significant by many consumers. This would
undercut acliievement of the purpose of the Part
581 bumper standard to reduce consumer loss of
time and money.
Toyo Kogyo, American Motors, International
Nickel, and Houdaille urged that the provision
(S5.,3.11) be amended to permit a certain degree
of bumper set. It was pointed out that the im-
pact to a bumper during testing can result in
two types of contour change, dent and set.
Bumper set is an overall movement or flattening
of the bumper face bar which when minor is
rarely detectable by the unaided human eye.
Under the currently proposed provision the
%-inch deviation limitation would apply to both
setting and denting, with the total of these two
types of deviations limited to % inch. Thus, the
permissible degree of dent deviation would ac-
tually be less than % inch. Compliance with
such a requirement would, according to comment-
ers, result in the production of heavier and more
costly bumper sj'stems.
Since the NHTSA has based its %-inch devia-
tion limitation on consumer reaction to a dent of
that depth, it agrees with commenters that a
certain degree of bumper set could be permitted
in addition to dent without visibly altering the
level of allowable bumper damage. Minor set is
generally imperceptible. Thus, allowing it to
occur during imi)act tests would not significantly
reduce the level of performance currently assured
in the proposed provision. The NHTSA hereby
amends Part 581 to permit % inch of bumper
set in addition to dents of % inch.
Consumers Union asserted that the NHTSA
should not require near-zero level of damage on
all cars since such a regulation would prevent
manufacturers from offering as an option cars
with cheap, lightweight, expendable bumpers
which meet the standard's other requirements.
The NHTSA finds no merit in this suggestion
and for the following reasons denies the request.
First of all, to make compliance with the "no
damage'" provisions optional would be to dis-
regard the mandate of Congress in the Cost
Savings Act, Avhich instructs the agency to pro-
mulgate a standard that will reduce consumer
costs occasioned by bumper damage. Second,
cars produced with lower performance bumpers
would be less expensive than those meeting the
Part 581 criteria. They might, therefore, seem
more appealing to consumers who are unaware
PART 581— PRE 5
Effective: September 1, 1978
of the costly damage that mifrht be incurred
diirinii low-speed collisions. The purpose of
Title I of the Cost Savinjis Act is to protect
consumers from s\ich an eventuality. Third,
mass jn'oduction is the factor that will keep
manufacturinjr costs at a low le\el. If only
some vehicles are constructed witli damage-
resistant bumpers, the cost of tliose veliicles is
likely to be higher than necessary because of
this factor.
Nationwide Jfutual Insurance Co. and the
Xational Association of Independent Insurers
expressed concern that tlie %-incli deviation
limitation was too lenient. Nationwide felt that
the %-inch deviation constituted a relaxation of
the XHTSA's previous position that only a
dimple should be allowed to the bumper. The
NHTSA has concluded, based on tlie Harris sur-
vey, that a dent % inch in depth would be in-
consequential to most car owners. Prescribing
such a deviation as the maximum allowable in a
5-mph barrier or pendulum impact is, therefore,
in keeping with the goal of reducing economic
loss occasioned by low-speed collisions.
The National Association of Independent In-
surers suggested tliat tlie %-inch deviation be
upgraded to require that the dent extend over a
minimum area in a dishing fashion whicli would
be less noticeable. This suggestion is rejected
since the %-inch provision has been fully sup-
ported as providing a damage level that fulfills
tlie goals of Title I. In addition, prescribing a
dishing effect as a necessary element for compli-
ance would not take into account the various
types of impacts to which a vehicle is subject.
State Farm urged that the prohibition against
separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric
coatings, or other materials from the surface to
which tliey are bonded be extended to cover the
bumper face bar during barrier impact tests.
Under the current proposal these surface damage
limitations would apply only to parts of the
vehicle other than tlie bumper face bar. State
Farm asserted that the limitation of application
of the no-surface-damage reiiuirements to vehicle
surfaces other than the bumper face bar was in-
tended to accommodate the pendulum impact.
They therefore see no justification for applying
the same limitation during barrier impact testing.
The NHTSA denies State Farm's request.
While both barrier and pendulum impacts can
cause some chipping or flaking of chrome or soft-
face material (depending upon the type of system
being tested), such damage is insignificant. Ap-
plication of a no-surface-damage requii'ement to
the bumper face bar would probably result in
manufacturers having to upgrade their plating
process or use more sophisticated covering ma-
terials to assure compliance. This could result
in significant cost increases with little, if any.
increase in benefits.
Both State Farm and British Leyland re-
quested that S7.1.1 of Part 581 be clarified to
indicate that the pendulmn impacts from 16 and
20 inches are intended to be inclusive. Since
compliance with the pendulum impact require-
ments at any height between 16 and 20 inches
would necessitate meeting the damage criteria at
heights infinitesimally close to 16 and 20 inches,
the clarification requested by these commenters
is insubstantial. The NHTSA, however, amends
S7.1.1 to include the 16- and 20-incli heights as
subject to the damage criteria, since some persons
apparently considered it unclear.
Chrysler requested a modification of the Part
581 longitudinal pendulum impact test to specify
that the required pendulum impacts be at least
12 inches apart laterally and 1 inch apart ver-
ticallj' from any prior impact. The request is
denied, since such a modification would prohibit
more than one hit in the same area of the bumper.
Under the current Part 581 proposal, an impact
within 12 inches laterally must be separated from
any prior impact by 2 inches, vertically. Based
upon available accident data, the NHTSA has
concluded that a vehicle will be involved in an
average of approximately 2 to 3 bumper collisions
at speeds of 5 mph or less in its 10-year life.
On an individual vehicle basis, the distribution
or the area of the bumper affected b}' these im-
pacts cannot be predicted. In order to assure a
performance level that corresponds with real-
world conditions, the NHTSA has determined
that each bumper must be capable of meeting the
presci'ibed damage criteria when subjected to
more than one pendulum impact in the same ai'ea
of the bumper.
A substantial number of comments were re-
ceived fi'om individuals concerned that the Part
PART 581— PRE 6
Effective: September 1, 1978
581 bumper standard mifrht in some way limit
the recycling of bumpers in the aftermarket. This
concern is unfounded, since the requirements
contained in Part .581 ensure tliat a wide variety
of materials can continue to be used in bumper
systems. The provisions in no way restrict tlie
use of metals in bmnper systems.
Chrysler argued that the pendulum test device
should be used only as a means of assuring uni-
form bumper height. In its opinion, the pen-
dulum impact test does not constitute an appro-
priate means of evaluatinfr bumper damapeability
since the pendulum is rigid, heavy, and aggres-
sive.
The NHTSA does not find Chrysler's argument
meritorious. To delete the pendulum impact
test as a means of establishing bumper damage-
ability resistance would be to lower considerably
the proposed level of performance currently con-
tained in Part 581. The pendulum impact re-
quirements assure that a vehicle is capable of
involvement in various types of low-speed col-
lisions without sustaining significant damage.
They impose localized stresses at various points
on the bumper face bar while the barrier impacts
only establish a vehicle's overall ability to with-
stand impacts at specified energy levels, assuring
the basic strength of the front and rear bumper.
In order to satisfy its Congressional mandate by
reducing the economic loss occasioned by low-
speed collision damage, the NHTSA has con-
cluded that the Part 581 bumper standard must
prescribe test recjuirements that measure a ve-
hicle's damageability cliaracteristics in both bar-
rier and pendidum-type stress situations.
In light of the foregoing. Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended ....
1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
215, Exterior Protecthn (49 CFR 571.215), is re-
voked.
2. A new Part 581, Bumper Standard^ is added
to read as set forth below.
Effective date: September 1, 1978.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; sec. 102, Pub. L. 92-513,
86 Stat. 947 (15 U.S.C. 1912) delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.51.)
Is.sued on February 27, 1976.
James B. Gregory,
Administrator. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration
41 F.R. 9346
March 4, 1976
PART 581— PRE 7-8
Effective: September 1, 1978
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 581— BUMPER STANDARD
(Docket No. 74-11; Notice 17; Docket No. 73-19; Notice 14)
This notice responds to petitions for recon-
sideration of the March 4, 1976, Federal Kepister
notice (41 FR 9346) establishing a new bumper
standard that limits damage to vehicle bumpers
and other vehicle surfaces in low-speed crashes.
Effective Date: September 1, 1978.
Address: Petitions should be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20590.
For Further Information Contact:
Tim Hoyt, Office of Crashworthiness,
Motor Vehicle Programs,
National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2264).
Supplementai-y Information :
The standard, 49 CFR Part 581, issued under
the authority of Title I of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law
92-513, 15 U.S.C. 1901-1991, limits damage to
non-safety related components and vehicle sur-
faces and incorporates the safety-related damage
criteria of the current Standard No. 215, Ex-
terior Protection (49 CFR Part 571.215). Under
the new standard, all vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 1978, must be capable of
imdergoing prescribed pendulum and barrier
crash tests while experiencing damage only to
the vehicle bumper and those coi7iponents that
attach it to the vehicle frame. Vehicles manu-
factured on or after September 1, 1979, must be
capable of undergoing the same tests while ex-
periencing no damage to vehicle exterior surfaces
except on the bumper, where dents not exceeding
% inch and set not exceeding % inch may occur.
Petitions for reconsideration were received
from Greneral Motors (GM), Ford, Chrysler,
American Motors Corporation (AMC), Gulf &
Western, Nissan, and Leyland Cars. The issues
raised by petitioners focused primarily on Part
581's cost-benefit basis, its leadtime, and its dam-
age criteria.
GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC, Nissan, and Gulf &
^A'^est«m stated that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) failed
to present evidence that Part 581 would be cost
beneficial. Ford stated that the record support-
ing Part 581 gives no assurance that the public
will realize incremental savings once the stand-
ard is implemented. Chrysler, Nissan, and Gulf
&Western cited cost and weight increases which
they alleged would impose additional burdens
on car owners over and above those presently
experienced. AMC complained that the pro-
vision for escalating the bumper requirements
after one year would result in costly and complex
bumper designs, since such a schedule would pro-
hibit the optimization of bumper systems.
Petitioners requested that the agency demon-
strate that the requirements of Part 581 will
provide cost savings greater than those currently
provided by Standard No. 215, Exterior Protec-
tion. It was suggested by GM, AMC, and Ford
that the agency undertake field studies to gather
data to support the Part 581 standard. Several
manufacturers suggested that implementation of
Part 581 be postponed until such time as a field
study is completed.
Petitioners' arguments have been raised in past
comments to Federal Register notices proposing
a Part 581 bumper standard. The NHTSA
found them unpersuasive then and hereby rejects
them once again. The NHTSA and Houdaille
Industries conducted cost benefit studies on com-
pliance with the Part 581 bumper requirements.
The studies indicate that bumper systems using
current technology and designed to meet the
standard's requirements will provide a favorable
PART 581— PRE 9
Effective: September I, 1978
cost-benefit ratio. Petitioners have not presented
evidence tiiat effectively disputes tlie conclusions
reached in these studies.
Conductino; field studies as a means of jrather-
inof evidence to support implementation of the
Part 581 .standard is unrealistic aiul would not
demonstrate as accurately as the Houdaille and
NHTSA studies the positive cost-savinjr poten-
tial of the standard. Many manufacturers are
continuing; to comply with the current Standard
215 bumper requirements by means of inefficient,
unoptimized bumpers. Data jrathered on these
sy.stems tluis would not indicate tlie full possi-
bilities of l)umpers specifically desijrned to meet
the Part 581 requirements in an efficient manner.
Once manufacturers start util'zino: the technol-
ofry and materials available to them the full
benefits of the Part 581 bumper standard can be
realized. Until such time, however, manufac-
turers have it within their power to cause field
study results to be misleadin<i' and unrepresenta-
tive of the potential of Part 581.
The NHTSA has ample evidence in the record
that manufacturers are capable of meetinjr the
requirements of Part 581. It also has evidence
that compliance can be achieved in a cost -efficient
manner. There has been no evidence presented
by any of the petitioners that the standard would
have a negative cost-benefit impact if met in the
ways outlined by Houdaille and the XHTSA
in their studies. The agency therefore rejects
the cost-benefit objections raised by petitioners.
AMC requested additional leadtime to meet
the requirements of Part 581. It contended that
it needs 36 months" leadtime to comply with Part
581. It asked that the initial effective date of
the standard be delayed until September 1, 1979.
The NHTSA finds AMC's request without
nierit. The 30-month leadtime for the initial
requirements and the 42-montli leadtime for the
final requirements is considered adequate for
compliance. No other manufacturers have ex-
pressed concern over attaining the level of per-
formance prescribed for 1978, and evidence in
the record indicates that most vehicles already
come close to satisfying the specified damage
criteria. The request of AMC is thei-efore denied.
Geneial Motors objected in its petition to the
prescribed escalation of the bumper requirements
for September 1, 1979, only 1 year after the
standard's initial effective date. It stated that
compliance with two sets of bumper re(iuirements
within such short period of time would result
in unrecoverable costs relating to research, design,
development, and tooling, and would inhibit the
feasibility of optimizing its bumper systems.
Ford Motor Company stated that it plans to
redesign its passenger cars for 1981 due to the
requirements of the Energy Policy and Conser-
vation Act (Pub. L. 9-t-163) and associated legis-
lation. Ford explained that compliance with
Pai't 581 will entail some redesign. It therefore
requested that the bumper standard's effective
date be delayed until September 1, 1980, so that
these necessary redesigning efforts can be accom-
plished simultaneously.
The agency has found both General Motors'
and Ford's reqtiests persuasive. It has therefore
issued a notice proposing to delay for 1 year the
implementation of the second phase of bumper
requirements from September 1, 1979, until Sep-
tember 1, 1980. This action does not conform
exactly to F'ord's request. However, the NHTSA
does not know of any vehicles that would require
major design changes imtil implementatoin of
the more stringent second phase requirements.
Filler panels and stone shields were identified
in the March 4. 1976, final rule as exterior ve-
vehicle surfaces that must experience no damage
as a result of the prescribed test impacts. GM.
Chrysler, and AMC objected to this interpreta-
tion of the level of damage resistibility filler
panels and stone shields must achieve. GM con-
tended that these components are part of the
bumper system and provide the transition be-
tween the bumper face bar and body panels. It
stated that bumper .stroke causes unavoidable
surface scratches, abrasions, and displacements,
which could be eliminated only by using expen-
sive materials and mounting techniques. Chrysler
pointed out that filler panels are designed to flex
during bumper impacts and may not return to
exactly their original contour. According to
AMC, however, once a deformed humper is re-
paired following an impact, the flexible filler
panel will return to its original contour. All
three manufactui'crs requested that filler i)anels
be i)ermitted to su.stain some degree of damage
durine: testinsr.
PART 581— PRE 10
Effective: September 1, 1978
The aponcv has leexaniined the role of filler
panels and stone sliields in tlie biiiiiper system
and finds that althoujih they do not actually hold
the bumper to the veliicle frame, they are cos-
metic components that aio {)art of the entire sys-
tem tliat performs the task of attachin<r the
bumper to the frame of the cai'.
The \PITSA has concluded that permittinjr
damape to filler panels and stone shields will tiot
sif;nificantly dejrrade the level of ])erformance
I'equired for veliicles manufactured after Sep-
tember 1. 1978. Tlie flexibility of the filler panel
and stone sliield mateiial enables it to witlistand
deforming:- impacts without permanently losin<i'
its shape, but as lon<r as the bumper and com-
ponents attachin<r it to the vehicle frame arc
permitted to sustain damage as a result of im-
pacts, the filler panel and stone shield may like-
wise sustain some depree of damape. Since these
components are less visible than the bumper it-
self, the small amoimt of damage that they will
inctir will normally not be as significant as that
allowed to the bumper. Therefore, filler panels
and stone shields on vehicles manufactured from
September 1. 1978, to Atipust 31, 1979, will be
permitted to sustain damape durin<r the pre-
scribed test impacts. This, in essence, jrrants
the requests of petitioners. The ajrency will
address in an upcoming notice the application
of damafre criteria to stone shields and filler
panels on vehicles manufactured after September
1. 1979.
Ford and Clirysler charged that the Part 581
damajre criteria are impracticable and lackinp
in objectvity. Specifically, they objected to the
criteria that allow no separations or deviations,
and require certain systems to operate in a nor-
mal manner. Accordinp- to petitioners, these
criteria are not objective .since the requirements
of no separation and no deviations can be inter-
preted as meanin<r that even the most microscopic
deviations and separations are prohibited, or
altei'natively that only those deviations that are
readily apparent are prohibited. With regard
to the requirement that certain systems operate
in a normal manner, petitioners stated that the
meaning of "normar" is unclear and can be inter-
preted differently by different people. Ford and
Chrysler expressed concern that the agency will
interpret the meaning of these damage criteria
in a manner conflicting with their interpretation.
To resolve the situation to which it is objecting,
Chrysler suggested that tlie requirements be re-
vised to allow minimal and inconsequential de-
viations, while Ford suggested that the agency
withdraw Sr).3.2 and S5.3.5 and parts of S5.3.3,
Sr).3.8, Sr).3.10. and S5.3.11 pending development
of objective criteria to enable manufacturers to
predict accurately whether their vehicles will
comply.
The agency understands the petitioners* con-
cerns, but finds that a simple interpretation of
the cited requirements is adequate to satisfy tiieir
objections. The damage criteria allowing no
deviations and no separations are not intended
to apply to microscopic changes in the vehicle
following test impacts. The types of deviations
and separations addressed by Part ."iSl are those
that are perceptible without the tise of sophisti-
cated magnifying or measuring equipment. "What
is required is that the vehicle not reflect any
normally observable changes in the stated areas
following the prescribed test procedure. Damage
that is only identifiable by use of microscopically-
oriented equipment would not be considered as
prohibited imder Part .'i81.
With regard to the requirement that a vehicle's
hoo<l. trunk, and doors operate in the normal
manner, the standard is simply providing that
these systems continue to operate following the
test impacts in the same manner as they did be-
fore the impacts. This requirement lias been a
part of Standard No. 21.'). E.rterior Protections
.since its implementation <m September 1. 1972.
Xo compliance controversies have e\'er arisen con-
cei'ning it.
Leyland Cars and AMC requested that the
requirements of S.'5.3.11, allowing no more than
34-inch set and %-inch dent to the bumper face
bar, be made applicable to the component that
backs up the bumper face bar. Leyland Cars
explained that some of its bumpers are covered
by a rubber or plastic molding which, imder Part
581, would be considered as the bumper face bar.
It reque.sted that the component over which the
molding is placed be permitted to sustain the
same degree of set allowed for the bumper face
bar. AMC asked that the component underly-
PART 581— PRE 11
Effective: September 1, 1978
inj; the molding be permitted to experience dents
up to %-inch as is the bumper face bar.
Tiie NHTSA finds petitioners' concerns un-
founded. The proiiibition against set and dent-
ing applies to vehicle exterior surfaces. From
the description of tlie component supplied by
Ford and Chrysler it appears that it is com-
pletely covered by the molding and is not an
exterior surface area of the vehicle. Therefore,
it may experience damage duiing test impacts.
Tlie molding enveloping. the reinforcement would
represent the exterior surface tliat is subject to
the requirements of S5.3.11.
Nissan and Gulf & Western objected to the pre-
scribed limitations on set and denting contained
in S5.3.11. Nissan requested that the damage
criteria be revised to allow i^-inch dent and
1-inch set, instead of the currently required %-
inch dent and %-inch set. It was Nissan's con-
tention that such a revision would cause only a
slight change in the appearance of a damaged
vehicle, while enabling a considerable change in
a vehicle's cost and weight. Gulf & Western
alleged that there was no economic justification
for the %-inch dent and %-inch set requirements
since they are based solely upon a public opinion
poll. It requested that the Part 581 requirements
not be implemented until an economic justifica-
tion is presented.
The NHTSA finds both Nissan's and Gulf &
AVestern's requests lacking in merit. A survey
conducted by Louis Harris & Associates of public
reaction to various degrees of bumper damage
showed that a significant number of people con-
sider lA-inch dents to be damage they Avould
repair. Based upon this information and cost
and weight data contained in the various studies
upon wliich the agency relied in the fornnila-
tion of the standard, it has been determined that
the amendhient requested by Nissan would ad-
versely affect the results to be achieved by imple-
mentation of the Part 581 bumper standard.
The results of the Harris survey have definite
economic significance in that those individuals
indicating that a certain degree of damage was
significant enough that they would have it re-
paired were providing the pollster with cost data.
Damage tliat is repaired will have a financial
impact on the car owner. By tiie same token,
damage that is detectable and thereby have an
economic impact on the car owner. These cost
factors were all considered in deciding on the
%- and %-inch damage limitations. For these
reasons, the requests of Nissan and Gulf &
Western are denied.
Chrysler objected to the procedure prescribed
for naeasuring the depth of bumper dents
(S5.3.11(b) ), charging that it is unreasonable,
inaccurate, and lacks objectivity. Chrysler al-
leged that the end points of the straight line
described in the test procedure for connecting
the bumper contours adjoining the contact area
are locations that are subjective on bmnper face
bars with compound curvature. It also charged
that the specified measui'ement method lacks ob-
jectivity and can be used only for determining
the depth of dents in flat surfaces. Chrj'sler
requested that the agency clarify the provision.
Although the objections raised by Chrysler
illustrate that some configurations are more dif-
ficult to measure than others, it is the agency's
judgement that the method described in S5.3.-
11(b) is valid and still the mcst feasible means
of determining the extent of damage. Location
of the end points of the straight line used to
measure the depth of bumper dents does not, in
the opinion of the NHTSA, pose a problem. In
order to establish the exact location of the end
points, the manufacturer may either paint or
chalk the pendulum test device. In this way.
the pendulum will leave a mark on the precise
area of contact.
With regard to Chrysler's objections concern-
ing the measurement of dents, it should be noted
that the straight line measurement technique is
not necessarily a test procedure. Rather, the
language specifying that a deviation from orig-
inal contour not exceed %-inch when measured
from a straight line connecting the bumper con-
tour adjoining the contact area should be con-
sidered a definition of a dent. Deformations
outside the contact area on the bumper surface,
such as recessions of a larger area of the bumper,
are defined as set.
The agency realizes that the measurement of
dent and set on some bumpers with complex
curvature may not be a simple procedure. In
such cases, the testers must use measurement pro-
PART 581— PRE 12
Effective: September 1, 1978
cedures that will enable them to accurately
measure the dej;ree of dent the Inimper has in-
curred. In sitiuitions involving- a concave face
bar, a reforcncc line can be established by plac-
ing a strai<>ht line across the area of contact
prior to impact. After completion of the actual
impact the chanfje in bumper contour can be
measured from the previously established refer-
ence line. In situations involvin<r a convex face
bar. or more complex surfaces, it may be neces-
sary for the manufacturer to remove the bumper
followinji: impact in order to compare it with
an unimpacted bumper, or to make a cast of the
preimpact bumper for comparison with the
bumpei' for comparison with tlie bumpei' follow-
in<i; the prescribed testin<r.
Chrysler also requested that 8.5.3.11 be
amended to specify that bumper set be measured
relative to the vehicle frame in perpendicular,
parallel, and vertical directions with respect to
the vehicle's lonpitudinal centerline. It stated
that sucli a revision Avould rechice tlie task of
measurinfr permanent set to a reasonable level.
The XHTSA denies this request since Chrysler
has presented no information indicatinj:' that the
currently prescribed measurement procedure is
unfeasible. The a<iency knows of no reason why
reference lines relative to the vehicle frame can-
not be established from which bumper set can be
measured. To adopt Chrysler's sup>rested method
for measurement would unduly complicate the
procedure since determination of the vehicle lon-
gitudinal centerline is complex.
G^I charged that the XHTSA's definitioji of
bumper face bar may include license plate brac-
kets that are attached to the vehicle bumper,
since these components may contact the impact
ridjre of the pendulmu test device. If identified
as the bumi)er face bar, these license plate
brackets would be required to meet the level of
performance prescribed for bumpers. Accord-
in*: to GM. such a result would be extremely
costly. License plate brackets capable of comply-
in<r witli the bumper dama<re criteria would be
expensive to produce as well as to replace. This,
in GM's opinion, would have a negative cost-
benefit impact.
"While the XHTSA ajrrees that license plate
brackets should not be required to meet the dam-
ape criteria of the bumper face, the XHTSA
believes that it is }iood desijrn practice to locate
license plates in an area other than the bumper
face. However, recojinizinjr the limited space
available on the front of some cars for license
plate placement, the XHTSA is reluctantly will-
in<r to {rrant G^I's petition on this point. The
afrency will, in the future, review industry prac-
tice on the placement of license plates on new
automobiles in an effort to determine if future
rulemakiiifr on this matter would be desirable.
AMC requested in its petition that tlie
XHTSA amend the requirements limitinji the
total force on planes A and B to 2.000 pounds
(Sr).3.7) to permit a force of 2,000 pounds on
plane A below the impact rid<ie and a force of
2,000 pounds on the combined surfaces of planes
A and B above the impact ridjre. AMC based
its request on the premise that the cun-ent re-
quirement allows the full 2,000-pound force to
be exerted either above or below the impact lidfie
of the test device. It pointed out that the
XHTSA stated in an earlier notice that the
2,00()-pound limit would prevent any substantial
dania<ie to the veliicle. Based upon this. A IMC
arpued that allowin>;- 2.000 pounds of force both
above and below the impact ridpe would not ex-
pose those surface areas to any <ireater force tiian
would be allowed under the current require-
ments.
Tlie XHTSA disajrrees with ASIC's conten-
tion. The force limitation contained in Part .581
is intended to assure that the primary force of
the impact is directed at the bumper face bar.
Althouph all 2.000 pounds of allowable force
could be directed to the area either above or be-
low the impact ridpe, this total amount of force
would not be a sijiiiificant damajiP factor. How-
ever, if the areas covered by i)lanes .V and B
were allowed to sustain a total force of 4.000
pounds, the focus of primary force on the
bumper face bar would not be assured and the
type of ap-pressive bumper system Part o81 is
designed to prevent could be utilized. AMC's
request is therefore denied.
AMC requested that Part .581 be amended to
include a provision appearino; in the January 2,
1975, proposal (40 FE 10) that stated a vehicle
need not meet further requirements after havinjr
PART 581— PRE 13
Effective: September 1, 1978
been subjected to either the lon<i;itu(iinal pen-
(hiluin impacts followed by the baniei- impacts,
or the corner pendulum impacts.
The agency has stated in past notices that a
vehicle will be involved in an average of three
low-speed collisions in its 10-year life. There
is no way to predict which portion of the bumper
will be affected in these impacts. Therefore, it
was decided that vehicles shoidd be reijuired to
meet the prescril)ed damage criteria when sub-
jected to the entire series of test impacts. To
provide otlieiwise would be to establish a level
of performance lower than necesasry to protect
a vehicle from the full range of potentially dam-
aging impacts it is likely to incur during its on-
roa<l life. It was for tliis reason that the provi-
sion appearing in the January 2. 1975, proposal
was not adopted. It is for this same reason that
the agency denies AMC's re(iuest.
The text of tlie Title I bumper standard has
in previous notices and the March 4, 1976, final
rule been published in the format of a motor
vehicle safety standard. Since the bumper stand-
ard is actually an entire part within Chapter V
of the Code of Federal Regulations, the format
must be changed in order that it may be prop-
erly codified. The content of the standard will
remain the same. This notice, however, revises
the numbering system so that it conforms to the
Code of Federal Regulations format.
The principal authors of this notice aie Guy
Hunter, Office of Crashworthiness, and Karen
Dyson, Office of Chief Coun.sel.
In liglit of tlie foregoing, 49 CFR Part 581,
is amended and recodified. . . .
Effective date: September 1, 1978.
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-r)63, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; sec. 102, Pub. L. 92-513,
86 Stat. 947 (15 U.S.C. 1912) ; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.)
Issued on May 4, 1977.
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
42 F.R. 24056
May 12, 1977
PART 581— PRE 14
Effective: August 1, 1977
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 581— BUMPER STANDARD
(Docket No. 73-19; Notice 19 & Docket No. 74-11; Notice 22)
This notice corrects an inadvertent error in the
notice that changed the format of Part 581,
Bumper Standard, so that its numbering system
conformed to the Code of Federal Regulations
format (42 FR 24056; May 12, 1977). In that
notice, the new numbering was not totally in-
corporated into the body of the regulation.
For further information contact:
Mr. Tim Hoyt
Office of Crashworthiness
Motor Vehicle Programs
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Washington, D.C. 20590
202-426-2264
Supplemental information : On May 12, 1977,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration published a Federal Register notice (42
FR 24056; FR Doc. 77-13235) responding to
petitions for reconsideration of the March 4,
1976, notice (41 FR 9346) establishing a new
bumper standard. The May notice also changed
the format of Part 581. The text of the bumper
standard was previously published in the format
of a motor vehicle safety standard. Since the
standard is actually an entire part within Chap-
ter V of the Code of Federal Regulations its
numbering system was revised in order that it
could be properly codified.
When Part 581 was published with its revised
format, only the section headings were properly
renumbered. The texts of the various sections
were inadvertently left unchanged. This notice
revises the section references in the body of the
regulation to conform to the new format.
The principal author of this notice is Karen
Dyson, Office of Chief Counsel.
In accordance with the foregoing, changes
should be made to 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper
Standard. . . .
(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. ] 92, 1407) ; sec. 102, Pub. L. 92-513,
86 Stat. 947 (15 U.S.C. 1912); delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.)
Issued on July 26, 1977.
Robert L. Carter
Associate Administrator
Motor Vehicle Programs
42 F.R. 38909
August 1, 1977
PART 581— PRE 15-16
Effective: September II, 1978
PREAMBLE TO PART 581— BUMPER STANDARD
(Docket No. 73-19; Notice 24)
This notice responds to a request from Ford
Motor Company for further interpretation of
the bumper damageability requirements of Part
581, Bwnper Standard, and announces the photo-
graphic procedure NHTSA will use as an aid in
determining whether damage to filler panels and
stone shields (shielding panels) is normally ob-
servable for purposes of compliance with the
standard. This interpretation assists manufac-
turers in ascertaining whether contemplated
bumper designs will provide a level of perform-
ance consistent with the requirements of Part 581.
This notice also corrects an inadvertent error in
the previously announced effective dates for
Phase I of the bumper requirements.
Date: This interpretation and the correction to
Part 581 are effective immediately.
For further information contact:
Mr. Richard Hipolit, Office of Chief Counsel,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20590 (202-426-9512)
Supplementary information: NHTSA has
established, through issuance of Part 581,
Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), require-
ments for the impact resistance of vehicles in low
speed collisions. The effective dates of Part 581
are September 1, 1978, for components other than
the bumper face bar and certain associated fasten-
ers (Phase I), and September 1, 1979 for all ve-
hicle components (Phase II). On May 15, 1978,
the agency published a notice (43 FR 20804) sum-
marizing its interpretation of various aspects of
the Part 581 damage resistance requirements as
they relate to vehicle exterior surfaces. Ford
Motor Company has asked for additional clari-
fication of the requirement of paragraphs
581.5(c) (10) and (11) of the standard, in a June
22, 1978, request for interpretation that has been
placed in the public docket.
APPLICATION OF THE DAMAGE
CRITERIA TO BUMPER FACE BARS
AND ATTACHED COMPONENTS
The Phase II requirements prohibit permanent
deviations from the original contours of vehicle
exterior surfaces following pendulum and barrier
impacts. An exception is made for the "bumper
face bar," whose surface is permitted %-inch
deviation from its original contour and position
relative to the veliicle frame (set) and a %-inch
deviation from its original contour on areas of
contact with the barrier face or the impact ridge
of the pendulum test device (dent) (§ 581. (c)
(11)). Bumper face bar is defined in §581.4
as "any component of the bumper system that
contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test
device." NHTSA has stated that this definition
includes components of a multipiece bumper
which are connected as part of the same load
bearing structure to a bumper system component
which is contacted either by the pendulum test
device or the test barrier (43 F.R. 20804; May 15,
1978).
Ford has inquired as to the applicability of
this definition of bumper face bar to a variety
of components such as directional signals and
shielding panels, which may be mounted to a load
bearing structure while themselves performing
no structural function. Components which do
not perform a load bearing function are not nec-
essarily components of the bumper system (and
potentially bumper face bar) solely as the result
of their incidental mounting on or near a load
bearing structure of the bumper system. Com-
ponents must be examined on a case-by-case
basis to determine whether they constitute com-
ponents of the bumper system.
The agency stated in a previous notice that
sliielding panels are considered a component of
PART 581— PRE 17
Effective: September 11, 1 978
the bumper system and thus will qualify as
bumper face bar if contacted in testing (43 F.R.
20804; May 15, 1978). The same would be true
of other cosmetic components directly associated
with the bumper system's function such as manu-
facturing cut-out patches and tape strips the
primary funtcion of which is to hide protrusions,
primary function of which is to hide protrusions,
fasteners, or other unsightly aspects of the
Illumination devices, e.g., fog lamps and di-
rectional signals, are not associated with the
bumper system's function and could not qualify
as components of the bumper system, even if
contacted by the pendulum test device or barrier.
Still other components could be considered
components of the bumper system, depending on
their application in a particular vehicle design.
For example, a grille, which would generally be
associated with the vehicle body, could perform
a protective function as a component of a bumper
system in a soft-face configuration, and could
therefore qualify as a component of the bumper
system.
The agency recognizes that components
mounted to a bumper face bar, but not them-
selves considered face bar because they are not
part of the bumper system or are not impacted
in testing, will necessarily move with the set of
the bumper face bar, although they do not qualify
for the permissible %-inch set allowance of (c)
(11) (i). However, the stricter damage limita-
tions of paragraph 581.5(c) (10), applicable to
such components, are actually limited to "nor-
mally observable changes in the started area
following the prescribed test procedures" (42 F.R.
24058; May 12, 1977). "[MJovement of small
patches covering manufacturing process cut-outs
on the face bar" and movement of shielding
panels with the set of the bumper are not con-
sidered normally observable (43 F.R. 20804; May
15, 1978). Similarly, non-bumper (e.g., fog-
lamps) and other bumper system components
(e.g., tape strips), attached to or built into a
bumper face bar but not contactable by the test
device, would not be considered to have normally
observable damage when they simply move with
the set of the face bar. Such movement would,
iiowever, be normally observable if the function
of the mounted component were impaired, e.g.,
by misalignment, in the case of a fog lamp beam,
to the extent that it would not be adjustable to
its nonnal aim.
The thin, polymeric tape strips described above
typically are adliesively bonded to the surface
areas of the bumper face bar. The impact of the
jjendulum test device or test barrier with the
bumper face bar may cause distortions on por-
tions of the face bar not directly impacted during
testing and cause localized separation on these
tape strips from the face bar surface, in the form
of wrinkling or bubbling.
The agency had previously stated that, "while
both barrier and pendulum impacts can cause
some chipping or flaking of chrome or soft-face
material (depending on the type of system being
tested), such damage is significant" (41 F.R.
9346; March 4, 1976). This reasoning also gov-
erns minor damage to tape strips, such as wrin-
kling or bubbling, so long as the strips are
contactable and thus qualify as bumper face bar.
This interpretation would apply equally whether
the damage happened to fall at the area of im-
pact or elsewhere on the face bar.
Any component of the bumper system which
can be contacted by the impact ridge of the pen-
dulum test device in any permissible pendulum
stroke is considered bumper face bar for testing
of that bumper system, whether or not it was
actually contacted in a pai'ticular test sequence.
Further, tlie interpretation concerning non-con-
tactable but load bearing components of multi-
piece bumpers discussed above, although ori-
ginally annoimced in the context of metal
bumpers (43 F.R. 20804; May 15, 1978), would
also govern a multipiece bumper assembly
equipped with plastic or iiibber bumper guards
or nerf strips. Thus, all load bearing components
of the bumper assembly, whether plastic, rubber,
or metal would be considered bumper face bar
and be entitled to a %-inch set if they are con-
nected as a part of the same load bearing struc-
ture.
PART 581— PRE 18
Effective: September 11, 1 978
MEASUREMENT OF DAMAGE TO THE
BUMPER FACE BAR
Paragraph 581.5(c) (11) provides:
Thirty minutes after completion of each
pendulum and barrier impact test, the bumper
fac« bar shall have —
(i) No permanent deviation greater than
% inch from its original contour and position
relative to the vehicle frame; and
(ii) No permanent deviation greater than
% inch from its original contour on areas of
contact with the barrier face or the impact ridge
of the pendulum test device measured from a
straight line connecting the bumper contours
adjoining any such contact area.
Ford has inquired as to. the measurement tech-
niques the agency will use in determining com-
pliance with these damage limitations. NHTSA
has previously recognized that "the measurement
of dent and set on some bumpers with complex
curvature may not be a simple procedure" (42
F.R. 24056; May 12, 1977). In many cases there
may be more than one procedure by which
damage can be accurately measured. Innovations
in measurement techniques may be needed as new
bumper designs are developed. Therefore, while
the agency can express the basic measurement
geometry (which appears to be Ford's basic con-
cern) that establish compliance with the damage
limits, it cannot specify a particular method to
be used in measuring those distances in all cases.
Ford requested resolution of the inadvertent
inconsistency between agency statements in the
May 1978 interpretation that "the two types of
deviation are additive in an area of contact with
the barrier face or impact ridge" but that "the
localized deviation permitted by paragraph (ii)
is measured taking any contour in the area of
impact and measuring its movement from its
location prior-to-impact to post-impact." The
first statement accurately represents that the de-
viations are additive in the area of contact with
the barrier or pendulum. The second statement
failed to make the different and intended point
that the contour of the contact area is measured
from the contour previous to contact, but only
after movement of the surface position and con-
tour relative to the vehicle frame attributable to
set has been subtracted. It should be noted that
contour change attributable to set must result
from a generalized flattening of the bumper sur-
face outside the area of contact. Otherwise the
concept of dent would be indistinguishable from
contour set.
The agency rejects Ford's suggestion to merely
measure the contour in the contact area in rela-
tion to the surrounding contour following impact.
The best example of why the original contour
must serve as the baseline is the case in which
the contact area consisted of a %-inch protru-
sion from the surrounding area prior to impact
and a %-inch depression in relationship to the
surrounding contour following impact. The re-
sulting dent would actually be %-inch deep.
Ford further recommended that all dent meas-
urements be made in vertical sections of the
plane of impact which produced the dent.
Recognizing the need for flexibility in the meas-
urement of complex bumper configurations, Ford
has withdrawn this portion of its request for
interpretation.
Ford has questioned the portion of NHTSA's
previous interpretation (43 F.R. 20804; May 15,
1978) which stated that dent may be measured
"along any dimension, i.e., width, length, depth,"
from any line connecting the adjacent bumper
contours. The agency has decided that the %-
inch dent limitation of § 581.5(c) (11) (ii) should
presently be limited to depth measurements only.
Development of the Phase II face-bar contour
requirements and studies which formed the basis
for the %-inch dent requirements during the
rulemaking proceeding focused primarily on
limitation of the depth of deviations. A %-inch
dent limitation measured in any direction might,
at this time, impose an unanticipated burden in
some cases and perhaps restrict the flexibility of
manufacturers in selecting bumper systems for
different model sizes which provide a suitable
balance among the interrelated considerations of
damage resistance, weight reduction, and cost.
Should future testing and bumper design devel-
opments indicate that further face-bar dent limi-
tations would be beneficial, such a requirement
will be the subject of a future rulemaking notice.
PART 581— PRE 19
Effective: September 11, 1 978
Finally, Ford has asked whether there can be
more than one contact area for purposes of meas-
uring damage resulting from a particular im-
pact. It is clear that multiple areas of contact
between the bumper face bar and the impact
ridge or test barrier may exist, thus creating
multiple areas in which dent may occur. Given
the complexity of some bumper designs, it would
be unrealistic and impractical to require that all
damage incurred in an impact be combined for
measurement purposes. Deviations caused by
impact at non-contiguous locations on the bumper
system will be treated as separate contact areas,
and damage in each of these areas will be
measured separately, without reference to any
other area of contact.
PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCEDURES TO AID
IN EVALUATING DAMAGE TO
SHIELDING PANELS
NHTSA's previous interpretation of the Part
581 requirements (43 F.R. 20804; May 15, 1978)
addressed the problem of judging damage to ve-
hicle shielding panels for purix)ses of determin-
ing compliance with paragraph 581.5(c) (10).
That provision addresses all exterior surfaces
other than bumper face bar and prohibits per-
manent deviation from original contours or
separation of materials from the surface to which
they are bonded. The interpretation reiterated
that the agency does not consider damage to
shielding components to be in violation of the
standard if that damage is not "normally ob-
servable." In the case of shielding panels,
damage not Tnisible in good quality, photographic
prints of the suspect area would not be con-
sidered by the agency to be "normally observ-
able." The notice indicated that the Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), formerly
the Office of Standards Enforcement, would
establish standard procedures by which NHTSA
would take its evaluative photographs.
While NHTSA originally stated that 8 by 10
inch photographic prints would be employed, the
agency has concluded that the use of contact
prints of that size may present practical dif-
ficulties due to the limited availability and un-
wieldiness of large cameras. Further study of
existing photographs indicates that 4 by 5 inch
contact prints are adequate for the agency's
testing.
Upon completion of impact tests in accordance
with the test procedures of paragraph 581.7,
OVSC photographs shielding panel areas tliat
may have experienced permanent deviation or
separation of materials.
View Camera. OVSC uses a standard 4 by 5
inch View Camera with focal length of 127 mm,
a maximum aperture of f/4.7, a coated lens, and
available shutter speeds of 1 second to 1/400
second.
Film. OVSC uses type 52 Pola Pan 4 by 5
inch film for Polaroid prints.
Illwnination. OVSC takes the photographs
indoors using the following illumination proce-
dures: (11) illuminating the area to be photo-
graphed with crossligliting using two 1,000-watt
photofloods lamp for main light, and one 1,000-
watt photoflood lamp for fill-in light; and (2)
positioning the photoflood lamps so that the light
rays strike the subject area at a 45° angle from
a distance of 10 feet from the area being photo-
graphed.
Came.ra 'position. OVSC positions the camera
at a distance of 6 feet from the center of the
suspect area and utilizes ground glass focusing
to properly focus the camera for that distance.
Photographs are taken both at 90° and 45° angles
relative to the suspect area.
Exposure. OVSC utilizes a General Electric,
DeJur or Weston photoelectric exposure meter
to determine the exposure requirements. Light
readings are taken by measuring the intensity
of reflected light from a Kodak Gray Card placed
upon the area to be photographed. The meter
is placed near enough to the subject (gray card)
to indicate the average reflected light (at least
within a distance equal to the width of the sub-
ject being photographed). A light reading is
obtained and set opposite the film speed which
is indicated on the meter so that the f/stop or
the aperture settings and shutter speeds coincide.
The correct camera setting is read directly from
the meter.
PART 581— PRE 20
Effective: September 11, 1978
Photographic print. OVSC produces 4 by 5
inch black and white photographic contact prints
from the Polaroid film.
Examination of contact print. OVSC examines
the completed contact print with the unaided
eye for compliance with 581.5(c) (10).
CORRECTION OF PHASE I
EFFECTIVE DATES
On May 12, 1977, NHTSA published a Federal
Register notice (42 F.R. 24056) responding to pe-
titions for reconsideration and revising the format
of Part 581 as originally announced on March 4,
1976 (41 F.R. 9346). Those notices inadvertently
indicated that the Phase I exterior surface re-
quirements, now contained in paragraph 581.5
(c)(8), would apply to vehicles manufactured
from September 1, 1978 to August 1, 1979. The
requirements of paragraph 581.5(c)(8) actually
apply to vehicles manufactured until August 31,
1979, and the regulation is therefore corrected to
reflect the intended effective dates.
In consideration of the foregoing, the date
"August 1, 1979," contained in 49 CFR §581.5
(c)(8), is hereby corrected to read "August 31,
1979."
The program official and lawyer principally
responsible for this document are Nelson Gordy
and Richard Hipolit, respectively.
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; sec. 102, Pub. L. 92-513,
86 Stat. 947 (15 U.S.C. 1912) ; delegation of au-
thority at 49 CFR 1.50).
Joan Claybrook
Administrator
43 F.R. 40229-40232
September 11, 1978
PART 581— PRE 21-22
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 581
Bumper Standard
(Docket No. 73-19; Notice 29)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the Bumper
Standard to reduce the test impact speeds
required by that standard to 2.5 mph for
longitudinal front and rear barrier and pendulum
impacts and 1.5 mph for corner pendulum impacts.
The notice also amends the damage resistance
criteria of the standard to eliminate limitations
on the damage which may be incurred by the
bumper face bar and associated components and
fasteners in bumper testing.
The agency finds that under this action net
benefits will accrue to the public and to the
nation's consumers. This action is thus required
by the mandate of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act that any bumper standard
issued under that statute "seek to obtain the
maximum feasible reduction in costs to the public
and to the consumer," taking into account the
.-«ests and benefits of implementation, effects on
insurance and legal costs, savings in consumer
time and inconvenience and considerations of
health and safety.
Any reduction in costs related to bumper
systems, including savings from reduced fuel
consumption, will exceed any reduction in
benefits which may occur because of increases in
damage, insurance costs, delay and inconvenience,
and other matters. This action will thus increase
and seek to maximize the net consumer and
public benefits of the standard. The agency also
finds that this action will cause no reduction in
vehicle safety.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 4, 1982.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The "Part
581 Bumper Standard" (49 CFR Part 581) specifies
levels of damage resistance performance which
passenger motor vehicles must provide in low
speed collisions. Bumper performance is measured
in test impacts with both a fixed collision barrier
and a pendulum test device. Bumpers must meet
damage criteria which preclude any damage at all
to vehicle exterior surfaces, which ensure
protection of various safety-related components
of the vehicle, and which allow only minimal
damage to the bumper itself.
Background
The history of the Part 581 bumper standard
has been long, extremely controversial and
fraught with uncertainty. The current action is
the culmination of years of study, analysis and
agency action and reaction.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 215
In its initial efforts in the field of bumper
regulation, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) issued Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 215, Exterior
Protection, under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). 15 U.S.C. 1381
et seq. As initially implemented on September 1,
1972, that standard imposed requirements which
prohibited damage to specified safety-related
components and systems, e.g., headlights and fuel
systems, in a series of perpendicular barrier
impacts, at 5.0-mph for front and 2.5-mph for rear
bumper systems.
One year later, several new requirements
became effective under FMVSS 215. First, rear
barrier impact speeds were increased from
2.5-mph to 5.0-mph. Second, the standard specified
5.0-mph perpendicular front and rear pendulum
impacts and 3.0-mph corner front and rear
pendulum impacts. Third, a bumper height
requirement was in fact established by specifying
that the longitudinal pendulum impacts must be
PART 581; PRE 23
made between a height of 16-20 inches. (The
corner pendulum impacts were limited to a height
of 20 inches until September 1, 1975, when the
standard specified that they must be made within
the same 16-20 inch height range.)
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
On October 20, 1972, Congress enacted the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act,
("the Act"). 15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. The stated
purpose of Title I of the Act is to "reduce economic
losses associated with low speed collisions of
motor vehicles." 15 U.S.C. 1901(b). Section 102(a)
directed the Secretary of Transportation' to
promulgate buniper standards in accordance with
the criteria of section 102(b) which requires that
such standards —
seek to obtain the maximum feasible reduction
of costs to the public and to the consumer,
taking into account:
(A) the cost of implementing the standard and
the benefits attainable as the result of
implementation of the standard;
(B) the effect of implementation of the
standard on the cost of insurance and
prospective legal fees and costs;
(C) savings in terms of consumer time and
inconvenience; and
(D) considerations of health and safety,
including emission standards.
15 U.S.C. 1912 (bill)
The Act also provides that the bumper standards
must not conflict with motor vehicle safety
standards issued under the Safety Act. 15 U.S.C.
1912(b)(2).
Adoption of the Part 581 Standard
Pursuant to both the new authority of the Act
and that of the Safety Act. NHTSA established
the Part 581 Bumper Standard in 1976. 41 Fed.
Reg. 9,346 (March 4, 1976). As adopted, this
'The authority of the Secretary to promulgate safety
standards has been delegated to the NHTSA Administrator.
49 CFR 1.51(a).
standard combined the safety features of FMVSS
215 with new damage resistance criteria intended
to promote consumer cost savings.
The Part 581 standard established compliance
test procedures which consist of a series of five
test impacts on both the front and the rear
bumper. Each test series includes one longitudinal
barrier impact, two longitudinal pendulum impacts
and two corner pendulum impacts.
The Part 581 standard sets forth substantive
requirements in terms of damage resistance
criteria which took effect in two stages. The first
stage, or "Phase I" of the Part 581 standard,
became effective on Setpember 1, 1978, on which
date FMVSS 215 was ipso facto revoked. Phase I
incorporated the former FMVSS 215 safety
criteria, and added new damage resistance criteria
which prohibited damage to all exterior vehicle
surfaces, e.g., sheet metal, other than the bumper
face bar and related components and fasteners.
More stringent damage resistance criteria,
known as the "Phase 11" criteria, became effective
one year later, on September 1, 1979. The Phase
II criteria expanded Part 581 by also imposing
limits on the amount of "dent" and "set" damage
which could be sustained by the bumper face bar
itself in the same series of test impacts. "Dent"
refers to permanent deviation from the original
contour of the bumper face bar in areas of contact
with the barrier face or the impact ridge of the
pendulum test device. "Set" refers to permanent
deviation of the bumper from its original contour
and position relative to the vehicle frame. Phase
II limited allowable dent to 3/8 inch, and set to 3/4
inch, each as measured thirty minutes after
completion of each test impact.
Early Proposals and Evaluations of the
Bumper Standard
1973
NHTSA initially proposed a Part 581 standard
in August 1973, while FMVSS 215 was in force,
but after the passage of the Act. This 1973
proposal would have required protection against
damage in 5.0-mph test impacts. 38 Fed. Reg.
20,899 (August 3, 1973).
1975
NHTSA thereafter issued a second Part 581
proposal, in January 1975. This revised proposal
PART 581: PRE 24
would not only have reduced (at least temporarily)
the impact speeds required by FMVSS 215, but
also would have reduced the damage resistance
criteria contained in the Part 581 proposal still
pending from 1973. 40 Fed. Reg. 10 (January 2,
1975). These proposed reductions were based
primarily on the results of two intervening
agency-sponsored studies, which indicated that
the cost and weight of many of the then-current
production bumpers had made such bumpers no
longer cost-beneficial. The 1975 proposal would
also have reduced the number of longitudinal
pendulum impacts from six front and six rear, to
three front and three rear.
After considering information and arguments
submitted in response to the August 1973 and
January 1975 proposals, the agency issued yet
another proposal in March 1975. 40 Fed. Reg.
11,598 (March 12, 1975). At that time, the agency
withdrew the January 1975 proposal regarding
test speeds, and proposed instead only to amend
the still pending 1973 proposal to reduce the
number of longitudinal pendulum, impacts to two
front and two rear.
1976
The agency finally promulgated the Part 581
Bumper Standard in March 1976, specifying
5.0-mph test impact speeds and requiring a total
of five barrier and pendulum impact tests for the
front bumper and five for the rear.
1977
In 1977, however, NHTSA issued two further
rulemaking proposals. The first would have
delayed the effective date of the Phase II damage
criteria one year. 42 Fed. Reg. 10,862 (February
24, 1977). The second, which replaced the first,
proposed three alternatives: (1) a one-year delay
of Phase II; (2) a one-year delay with a consumer
information program on bumper performance in
the interim; and (3) an indefinite delay of Phase II
and substitution of the information program. 42
Fed. Reg. 30,655 (June 16, 1977). These proposals
were withdrawn by the agency in November of
that same year. 42 Fed. Reg. 57,979 (November 7,
1977).
Also in 1977, NHTSA decided to undertake a
series of long term studies of its existing and
proposed rulemaking efforts. As a part of this
initiative, it began a multi-year evaluation of the
Part 581 Bumper Standard. This evaluation which
was released in April 1981, is discussed in detail
below.
1978
In 1978, and after the effective date of the
5.0-mph, Phase I standard, the Senate
Appropriations Committee included in its report
on the fiscal year 1979 Appropriations Act for the
Department of Transportation a directive that
NHTSA conduct studies and analyses reevaluating
to the maximum extent feasible the question of
the level of bumper damage resistance which
would be most cost-beneficial to the consumer.
The Committee further directed the agency to
modify the Part 581 standard (i.e., the standard to
which this current rulemaking is addressed) in
accordance with the results of such analyses. S.
Rep. No. 938, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 25 (1978).
1979
In February 1979, the agency completed a
Preliminary Analysis which concluded that
2.5-mph bumpers offered approximately $77 more
net benefits than 5.0-mph bumpers. In March
1979, the agency published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on
its February analysis. The notice indicated that
the responses would be used to aid NHTSA in
preparing a final report to the Senate
Appropriations Committee and in determining
the possible need for changes in the Part 581
standard.
In June 1979, NHTSA published a "Final
Assessment of the Bumper Standard." That
document estimated the net benefits of alternative
bumper standards specifying test impact speeds
of 2.5 mph, 5.0 mph, and 7.5 mph. The agency at
that time concluded that a standard specifying
5.0-mph impact speeds should be retained since it
was believed to provide slightly more lifetime
vehicle net benefits ($39) than one specifying
2.5-mph impact speeds. In December 1979, the
agency updated its assessment based on
comments received from the automotive and
insurance industries. It concluded that the
advantage of the 5.0-mph standard over the
2.5-mph standard was less than previously
thought, offering only $11-29 more lifetime vehicle
net benefits than a standard specifying 2.5-mph
speeds.
PART 581; PRE 25
1980
In late 1980, during the final days of the 96th
Congress, a House-Senate conference committee
reported out a bill which would have statutorily
reduced the test speed in the Part 581 standard to
2.5 mph for a two-year period. H. R. Rep. No. 1371,
96th Cong., 2d Sess. 25 (1980). Sharp differences
of opinion regarding the relative merits of the
agency's two 1979 bumper analyses were
highlighted in the Congressional debates. See,
e.g., Senate debate of September 25, 1980, 126
Cong. Rec. S13499-501. However. Congress
adjourned without taking final action on the bill.
1981
In April 1981, NHTSA published a notice of
intent to review the Part 581 standard and propose
again to modify the requirements of the Part 581
Bumper Standard. 46 Fed. Reg. 21,203 (April 9.
1981).
Also in April 1981, NHTSA completed and
published its "Evaluation of the Bumper
Standard," which it had begun in 1977. Based
upon continually developing data and analyses,
this report addressed in still further detail the
costs and benefits of each phase of the agency's
bumper requirements, beginning with the initial
FMVSS 215 standard. The April 1981 Evaluation
incorporated newly developed data from various
agency studies on insurance claims for vehicles
manufactured since the Part 581 standard took
effect, on the incidence and extent of low speed
collision damage, and on bumper costs. Unlike
previous studies, the Evaluation separately
analyzed front and rear bumpers. It found that
regulated front bumpers tended to be cost
effective while rear bumpers were not. This
study, in accordance with both the Senate's 1978
directive and the provisions of Executive Order
12291, formed the basis for the agency's
undertaking the current rulemaking.
Current Rulemaking
October 1981 Proposal and Analysis
On October 1, 1981. NHTSA published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (the NPRM) seeking
comments on nine different alternatives for
amending Part 581. 46 Fed. Reg. 48,262. The
proposals ranged from one reducing the test
impact speed to 2.5 mph for rear bumpers only to
one eliminating all test impact requirements for
front and rear bumpers except as necessary to
maintain a height requirement. Specifically, the
nine alternatives were as follows:
— Alternative I A would have reduced the test
impact speeds for rear bumpers only to 2.5 mph
for longitudinal impacts and to 1.5 mph for corner
impacts. It would have maintained the test impact
speed for front bumpers at 5.0 mph and would
have maintained the Phase II damage resistance
criteria. (5.0 mph front/2.5 mph rear. Phase II)
— Alternative IB would have made the changes
included in alternative lA and substituted Phase I
damage resistance criteria for Phase II criteria for
front and rear bumpers. (5.0-mph/2.5-mph, Phase I)
— Alternative IIA would have eliminated the
damage resistance criteria for rear bumpers only,
with the exception of the criterion that is
intended to ensure uniform bumper height by
requiring bumper contact with a pendulum test
device within a specified height range. It would
have maintained the 5.0-mph test impact speed
and Phase II criteria for front bumpers. (5.0
mph/height only. Phase II)
— Alternative IIB would have made the changes
included in alternative IIA and substituted Phase
I criteria for Phase II criteria for the front
bumper. (5.0 mph/height only. Phase I)
— Alternative IIIA would have reduced the
test impact speed for front and rear bumpers to
2.5 mph for longitudinal impacts and 1.5 mph for
corner impacts. It would have retained the Phase
II damage criteria. (2.5 mph/2.5 mph, Phase II)
— Alternative IIIB would have made the changes
included in alternative IIIA and substituted
Phase I criteria for Phase II criteria for front and
rear bumpers. (2.5 mph/2.5 mph. Phase I. This
alternative is referred to below as the 2.5-mph/
2.5-mph alternative.)
— Alternative IVA would have reduced the test
impact speed for front bumpers to 2.5 mph for
longitudinal impacts and 1.5 mph for corner
impacts. It would also have eliminated the
damage criteria for rear bumpers with the
exception of the bumper height criterion. (2.5
mph/height only, Phase I)
— Alternative IVB would have made the changes
included in alternative IVA and substituted
Phase I criteria for Phase II criteria for front
bumpers. (2.5 mph/height only. Phase I)
PART 581; PRE 26
— Alternative V would have eliminated the
damage resistance criteria for front and rear
bumpers, with the exception of the bumper
height criterion, (height only/height only)
The alternatives set forth in the NPRM were
developed during the preparation of a Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) (Docket 73-19,
Notice 27, No. Oil).' The PRIA which was
published for public comment simultaneously
with the NPRM, built upon all of the agency's
earlier evaluations and assessments. To encourage
close scrutiny of the PRIA and the NPRM, and in
recognition of the limited empirical data on
several important issues, the agency specifically
requested comment on 25 detailed questions
which were set forth in the NPRM.
Using the present Part 581 standard for
comparison, the PRIA estimated the changes in
costs and benefits that were likely to occur if the
standard were modified in each of the ways set
forth in the October notice of proposed rulemaking.
The PRIA concluded that the differences in
probable net benefits among several alternative
bumper standards were small. The results of the
PRIA suggested that while 5.0-mph bumper
requirements had in fact reduced lifetime repair
costs for cars, they also had increased both car
purchase prices and fuel consumption. The 5.0-mph
bumper requirements had in fact reduced lifetime
repair costs for cars, they also had increased both
car purchase prices and fuel consumption. The
5.0-mph bumper requirements were found to have
decreased insurance company claims payments
and overhead, but also to have increased the
manufacturing costs of car companies.
Public Meetings
The agency conducted two public meetings on
the NPRM on October 22 and November 12, 1981,
in fulfillmment of the statory requirement that
'In preparing the PRIA, the agency also considered the
possibility of raising, as well as lowering the required test
impact speeds. The 1979 Final Assessment stated that a
7.5-mph bumper would have marginally greater net benefits
than a 5.0-mph bumper. However, the Executive Summary for
that document indicated that the conclusions regarding the
7.5-mph bumper were based on substantially less data than were
the conclusions regarding the 5.0-mph bumper and thus that
the conclusions about the 7.5-mph bumper were far less reliable.
Subsequently obtained data and analyses have not provided
any basis for placing more credence in those three-year-old
conclusions aboiit 7.5-mph bumpers.
all interested persons be given an opportunity to
present orally data, views and arguments on the
October 1981 NPRM. The agency scheduled two
separate meetings instead of a single extended
one in response to a request by insurance industry
representatives. Those representatives requested
an opportunity to introduce data relating to
suggested new compliance technologies whose
use would reportedly allow the existing
requirements of the Part 581 standard to be
retained with little if any modification, but at
greatly reduced economic cost. In the notice
announcing the meetings, the agency urged all
'nterested parties to provide technical and
economic data that would help focus the issues at
the first public meeting, and indicated that the
second meeting would be used to allow others to
respond to testimony at the first meeting. 46 FR
48958 (October 5, 1981).
The views and arguments advanced by
responding parties with substantial economic
interests at stake, e.g., the insurance and
automotive manufacturing industries, were
similar to those previously expressed in response
to earlier analyses, proposals, and requests for
comments. However, commenters did submit
significant new data on several issues, including
those relating to the cost and weight of bumpers
providing different levels of protection.
Positions of Interested Parties
Time impact speed. Insurance industry
representatives, generally joined by consumer
representatives, expressed their support for
retaining the current Part 581 requirements, based
upon assertions of favorable benefit and cost
analyses of the current standard, safety
considerations, and the legislative history of the
Act. Insurance representatives further
contended that the legislative history indicates a
Congressional intent that bumper standards be
established at a level of 5.0 mph. They strongly
opposed the option of adopting Regulation No. 42
of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (ECE).'
'ECE Regulation No. 42 requires that a car's safety systems
continue to operate normally after the car has been impacted
by a pendulum or moving barrier on the front and rear
longitudinally at 4 kilometers per hour (about 2.5 mph) and on a
front and rear corner at 2.5 kilometers per hour (about 1.5 mph)
at 455 mm (about 18 inches) above the ground under loaded and
unloaded conditions. See discussion under "Harmonization," below.
PART 581; PRE 27
Some insurance industry commenters contended
that the record in this proceeding is insufficient to
support any reduction of the damage resistance or
safety requirements of the Bumper Standard
below current levels. These commenters, joined
by an organization presenting arguments on
behalf of consumers, argued (1) that in order to
amend the standard the agency must be able to
establish affirmatively that any selected
alternative is one which uniquely meets the
statutory criteria of the Act and the Safety Act,
in a manner superior to any and all others, and (2)
that on the record the agency is not able to make
such a finding with respect to any particular
alternative.
Auto industry commenters overwhelmingly
supported the alternative proposing reduction of
test impact speeds to 2.5 mph in longitudinal
impacts and 1.5 mph in corner impacts, and
substitution of Phase I damage criteria for Phase
II criteria. Among the reasons stated in support of
this alternative were assertions of cost-benefit
analyses for that alternative more favorable to
the consumer, the results of the agency's prior
analyses, the similarity of this alternative to ECE
Regulation No. 42, the greater relevance of the
2.5-mph design speed to the speed of the typical
parking lot collision, and the enhanced prospects
of gathering field data on the relative merits of
2.5-mph and 5.0-mph bumpers.
Three foreign manufacturers stated that they
favored adoption of the requirements of ECE
Regulation No. 42, but that the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph
alternative was their second choice because of its
similarity to the European standard. Several
other manufacturers, while not advocating the
adoption of the ECE requirements as such, noted
the desirability of harmonizing United States and
European bumper requirements. Some domestic
and foreign automakers expressed reservations
about adoption of the ECE standard in its
entirety, but advocated adopting certain aspects
of that standard, such as eliminating the fixed
barrier test or establishing a single permissible
bumper height.
A trade association representing materials
suppliers registered its support for the 5.0-mph/
5.0-mph standard, asserting that the standard
provides the added advantage of affording actual
protection at speeds above 5.0 mph. One bumper
component manufacturer proposed the additional
alternative of lowering the pendulum impact
speed to 2.5 mph, while retaining the 5.0-mph
impact speed for barrier tests. That commenter
contended that the pendulum test, which
concentrates force on a particular area of the
bumper, is a disproportionately severe test which
prevents use of optimum 5.0-mph bumper designs.
A number of private individuals also submitted
views on the proposed alternatives. The majority
of those commenting favored retention of existing
Part 581 requirements, although apparently some
comments were based on factual representations
contained in media reports of the rulemaking
proceeding, instead of the data and issues
actually under review. See, e.g.. Docket 73-19,
Notice 27, No. 209. Insurance industry and public
interest commenters claimed that public opinion
favors the 5.0-mph/5.0-mph standard, and that
significant, if not determinative weight should be
given to such alleged preferences.
Phase I-Phase II damage resistance
requirements. Several commenters specifically
addressed the issue of differences between the
Phase I and Phase II damage criteria. Automakers
addressing the issue uniformly favored return to
the Phase I criteria. Two manufacturers advocated
elimination of all criteria addressed to damage to
non-safety components. The insurance industry
generally favored retention of the Phase II
criteria, as did a component parts manufacturer,
although one insurance industry commenter
advocated consideration of permitting nonself-
restoring energy absorbing devices.
Other test procedure modifications. Commenters
discussed several other alternative approaches to
the Phase I-Phase II issue, including merely
amending the bumper standard test procedures.
One modification discussed by several commenters
would allow manual repositioning of bumper or
shielding-panel components during testing. Both
insurance and auto industry commenters agreed
that manual repositioning would be a desirable
modification of the bumper system test procedure.
However, some auto industry commenters also
stated that eliminating the Phase II damage
criteria would serve to alleviate much of the need
for manual repositioning.
Three vehicle manufacturers and one component
supplier recommended limiting the number of
pendulum test impacts so that the bumper
standard test procedure would more closely
PART 581; PRE 28
approximate real life experience. These
commenters advocated reducing the number of
pendulum impacts to one longitudinal impact and
one corner impact per bumper, or to one
longitudinal and two corner impacts per bumper.
For additional details concerning comments on
the NPRM, see the appendix to this notice.
Agency Decision
Drawing on the best available data, public
comments submitted in response to the October
1981 NPRM, and comments presented atNHTSA's
public meetings on October 22 and November 12,
1981, NHTSA has now completed a Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) of the bumper
standard alternatives. Docket 73-19, Notice 29,
No. 001. Careful consideration was given to the
data and analyses contained in the FRIA and all
comments received in the rulemaking proceeding.
Responses to all significant comments are
contained either in this notice or the FRIA. Based
on its review of all of these materials, the agency
has decided to adopt the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph, Phase I
alternative. The alternative reduces to 2.5 mph
the front and rear longitudinal barrier and
pendulum impacts for testing compliance with
the safety and damage resistance criteria and
substitutes Phase I damage resistance criteria
for Phase II criteria.
In the agency's judgment, neither costs savings
nor safety considerations warrant the retention
of the current standard. Indeed, the agency
believes that the changes in the damage
resistance criteria and the compliance test speed
are necessary in order to comply with the
requirements of the Act that the standard seek to
provide the maximum feasible reduction in costs
to the public and the consumer.
As discussed in more detail below and in the
FRIA, the extensive data analyzed by the agency
and the reasoned assumptions made by the
agency after opportunity for public comment
have led the agency to the firm conclusion that
the current 5.0-mph/5.0-mph standard does not
meet the statutory requirements. Stated simply,
the current standard does not provide or seek to
provide the maximum feasible reductions in cost.
Therefore, the agency has determined that the
current standard can no longer be retained in
accordance with the Act. Similarly, it is clear that
a standard imposing a height-only requirement
for front and rear bumper systems would provide
fewer net benefits than other alternatives
considered in this rulemaking proceeding.
The agency recognizes that no single remaining
alternative is dramatically superior in terms of
net benefits over the wide ranges of reasoned
assumptions made about the values of certain
important variables. However, after careful
comparison of the current standard and the
specific proposed alternatives under ranges of
assumptions, the agency concludes that the
2.5-mph/2.5-mph, Phase I alternative best satisfies
the statutory criterion that the bumper standard
"seek to obtain the maximum feasible reduction
of costs to the public and to the consumer."
The agency has concluded that the alternatives
involving differential front and rear impact speed
requirements are less desirable because of
uncertainties surrounding the effects of impacts
between bumpers with different levels of
aggressivity. These alternatives received no
support among commenters. Alternatives
involving height-only requirements for rear
bumpers appeared to provide slightly less net
benefits than the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph and 2.5-mph/
2.5-mph alternatives under most sets of
assumptions considered.
Alternatives which have higher impact speed
requirements and would produce essentially the
same net benefits, differ from the selected
alternative principally in that they make an even
trade of additional dollars saved in avoided
damage for additional dollars spent for damage
protection at such higher speeds. Those
alternatives would thus fail to meet the test of
the statutory criteria with respect to "maximum
feasible reduction of costs." The initial direct
costs to consumers of the selected alternative are
less than those of that alternative which would in
the agency's judgment be most likely to provide
comparable net benefits, the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph
alternative.
The agency has also concluded that reducing
the impact speed to 2.5 mph and eliminating the
Phase II damage criteria will not have an adverse
effect on safety. Such amendments will have no
discernible effect on the number of accidents,
deaths or injuries that occur annually.
The new standard adopted in this notice will
provide greater latitude and incentive for car
manufacturers to improve bumpers through the
PART 581; PRE 29
innovative use of new designs and materials,
while conforming to the clear Congressional
directive that the agency promulgate and enforce
a minimum performance standard seeking
maximum feasible reductions in cost. Also, the
chosen alternative best advances the goal of
harmonization with international standards while
meeting applicable statutory requirements.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291, the agency
has concluded that there is a strong and
reasonable basis in the record of this rulemaking
proceeding for the factual conclusions and choices
of data and methodologies underlying the
selection of the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative.
Agency Rationale
The sharply opposed positions of the
commenters on the many complex technical,
analytical and policy issues raised in this
proceeding provide dramatic evidence of the
difficulty which the agency has faced in reaching
this decision. The primary issues involved in the
agency's decision are as follows.
Resolution of uncertainty. The Act directs not
only that a bumper standard be adopted and
maintained, but also that such standard be set at
the particular level of performance which "seeks to
provide the maximum feasible reduction of costs
to the public and to the consumer," taking into
account specified elements of costs and benefits.
On several of the issues presented in choosing
among the various alternatives, the agency was
confronted with uncertainties arising either from
conflicts among data or from the absence or
limited nature of relevent, reliable data.
Because of the prior history of the standard
and the sequence of technology used by
manufacturers to comply over time, field
performance data under real world conditions are
sharply limited to empirical data on two types of
systems, as discussed elsewhere in this notice. As
a result, the combination of the specificity of the
statutory language and the limited nature of the
data available has left the agency certain of the
need to act, but marginally less certain as to
which of the available alternatives and which
means of analysis of such alternatives will
produce the result most in conformity with the
intent of Congress.
For several years, the agency has been taking
all prudent steps to obtain more data to reduce
uncertainty with respect to the appropriate
standard and to analyze and account for the
possible effects of remaining uncertainties on
certain key variables. In a number of areas, more
reliable data could not be developed by the
agency. In the PRIA, the agency carefully
identified and explained the assumptions it made
in those areas and invited public scrutiny and
comment. To ensure full discussion of all of the
issues presented, the agency asked detailed
questions regarding those assumptions in the
October 1981 NPRM.
The agency's assumptions were the subject of
extensive public comment. The agency received
over two hundred comments from a full spectrum
of interested parties and sought to gather all
available data on the subject of this proceeding.
New data, estimates and arguments were received
which have assisted the agency in adjusting and
refining its analysis of the standard and the
alternatives.
The agency believes that sufficient information
exists to make all determinations required by
applicable statutory criteria. The uncertainties
confronting the agency now are significantly less
than those which existed when the current
standard was promulgated. The agency knows far
more now about the benefits and costs of bumper
standards with various levels of performance
requirements than it did then. In the agency's
judgment, there is no reasonable prospect of
obtaining more definitive data under the continued
application of the existing Part 581 standard.
The record is most clear on the issue of the
present standard's noncompliance with the criteria
in the Act. If the agency were now setting a bumper
standard for the first time, it could not justify
establishing a 5.0-mph/5.0-mph standard. The
existing 5.0-mph standard provides significantly
less net benefit to the public and consumers than
would several of the proposed alternatives with
less stringent performance requirements.
The record and empirical data before the
agency are less definitive with respect to some
aspects of the agency's assessment of the proposed
alternative standards. Some uncertainty continues
to exist with respect to several issues, including
the proper economic value to be assigned to delay
and inconvenience, the number of relevant low-
speed impacts which a car may be expected to
sustain over its lifetime, the proper economic
PART 581; PRE 30
value to be assigned to damage which car owners
themselves elect not to repair, the proper factor
to be applied to determine the relationship
between increases in bumper weight and resulting
increases in the weight of other vehicle systems
and structures to accommodate the heavier
bumpers (secondary weight), and the extent of
weight reductions which would accrue if various
alternative standards were adopted.
NHTSA has explored these areas of uncertainty
to the limits of available data and appropriate
analytical techniques. Ultimately, the agency has
relied in these areas upon inferences from
available data, informed judgment about
engineering, technical, economic and legal
matters, and the informed and expert opinion of
commenters on the issue of which alternative
level of performance requirements will best
achieve the policy objectives set forth in both the
Cost Savings and Safety Acts.
The agency has subjected its interim findings
and conclusions to sensitivity analyses, to
identify and isolate the most significant (i.e.,
outcome determinative) variables and to
determine the levels of confidence which may be
placed on the values ultimately assigned to such
variables. Where NHTSA could not with certainty
assign a single value to a variable determined to
be significant, the agency in all cases employed a
range of values based upon the best available
information. Those ranges generally include the
values recommended by the commenters. The use
of these ranges permitted the agency to examine
the sensitivity of the results of its analysis and
ensure the integrity of the outcome.
Finally, the agency identified the sets of
assumptions it believes are most probable, and
subjected each of its comparative analyses to
various combinations of such values. These
choices and related assumptions are discussed
below in this notice and in greater detail in the
FRIA itself.
Selection of test speeds, cost savings
considerations— threshold factors. In its efforts
to ensure the fullest consideration of the current
standard and the proposed alternatives, NHTSA
analyzed the net benefits of the standard and
each alternative both by the use of average
values and the use of extreme values for those
variables about which there was either a
significant measure of uncertainty or sharp and
irreconcilable differences of opinion among the
commenters. Some of the extreme assumptions
were favorable to the current standard, while
others were favorable to a reduced standard. The
extreme values so analyzed represent in most
cases neither a probable nor a reasonable
outcome of events. Such analysis illustrates the
most extreme of the possible outcomes in order to
ensure the fullest consideration of the results of
the agency's action.
Under the three sets of those extreme
assumptions deemed to be the more reasonable
by the agency, the net benefit calculation was
found to favor a reduced standard. In these
comparisons, all but one alternative proposal
proved superior to the 5.0-mph/5.0-mph standard
in terms of net benefits. See Table X-9 of the
FRIA.
Only under the fourth set of extreme
assumptions considered by the agency did the
current standard yield more net benefits than did
the alternatives. See Table X-9 of the FRIA.
However, the agency considers it virtually
impossible that the factual elements of that
combination of assumptions could occur in reality,
in large part because of inherent contradictions in
economic or behavioral results that would be
associated with such alignment. See Chapter XI
of the FRIA.
Therefore, the agency can not, consistent with
its statutory mandate, retain the existing
standard.
Similarly, alternative V, which would have
eliminated all but the height requirement for
both front and rear bumpers, also is found to fail
to maximize net benefits to the consumer under
the range of combinations of assumptions
considered. No set of assumptions or average set
forth in Tables X-9 and X-10 of the FRIA showed
superior net benefits for alternative V.
Accordingly, this alternative has been rejected
by the agency.
Given the relatively flat nature of the cost and
benefit curves over the range between the
5.0-mph/2.5-mph and 2.5-mph/height-only
alternatives, the choice among the remaining
alternatives is more difficult. Particular sets of
assumptions would suggest the superiority of
various alternatives which retain some level of
front bumper impact requirements but which
would eliminate all impact requirements, and
PART 581; PRE 31
retain only a height requirement, for rear
bumpers. However, any such apparent superiority
in each case occurs only in the unique event of one
combination of assumptions. Viewed as a whole,
the data and probabilities associated with all
combinations of assumptions preclude any
reasonable finding that an alternative is superior
where the range of necessary factual preconditions
is so narrow.
First, under the sets of assumptions considered
by the agency to be most likely or representative,
the 2.5-mph/unregulated alternative cannot be
found to be the alternative which is most likely to
maximize net benefits. See Table XI-4 of the
FRIA. Under all three sets of assumptions in that
table considered by the agency to represent the
most likely or average values for disputed
elements of fact, the 2.5-mph/unregulated
alternative provides fewer net benefits than does
the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative. Under two of
those sets of facts, the net benefits of the
2.5-mph/unregulated alternative are also inferior
to those of the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph alternative.
Second, while the net benefits of the 5.0-mph/
unregulated alternative are closer to those of the
5.0-mph/2.5-mph and 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternatives,
they are still inferior. The net benefits of that
alternative exceed those of the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph
alternative in only one instance in Tables X-9, X-10
and XI-4. In several instances, the 5.0-mph/
unregulated alternative yields less net benefits
than does either the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph or 2.5-mph/
2.5-mph alternative.
Finally, there is another consideration which
leads to the rejection of the 5.0-mph/unregulated
alternative. Any alternative not providing front
and rear impact protection at the same speed
raises uncertainty about the aggressivity results
or other effects of differential requirements.
Among the alternatives having differential
requirements, the 5.0-mph/unregulated alternative
has the most extreme differential. Since there are
not any hard data on the effects of this differential,
those effects could not be factored into the net
benefit calculations in the FRIA. However, the
agency's engineering judgment leads it to the
conclusion that implementing a standard with
such a differential would cause front bumpers to
be more aggressive than rear bumpers. This
aggressivity differential would cause rear ends of
cars to receive greater but presently unquantifiable
levels of damage in car-to-car collisions than they
would if the impact speed requirements were
identical.
The amount of any such additional rear end
damage would offset in whole or in part any
incremental benefits derived from requiring front
bumpers to comply with more stringent
requirements. Since these possibilities are not
reflected in the net benefit figures for
alternatives with differential front and rear
impact speeds in Chapters X and XI of the FRIA,
such net benefit figures would have to be
considered overstated in the event that
differential requirements were imposed.
The agency notes that implementing a standard
with different front and rear bumper requirements
could tend, in a front-to-rear collision between
two cars, to have the undesirable effect of
subsidizing some of the damage costs of the
driver of the striking vehicle, who is most likely
to be deemed under law to be at fault in causing
the collision.
Finally, although commenters differed on the
actual effects of differential impact speed
requirements for front and rear bumpers, no
commenter advocated adoption of a bumper
standard requiring different test impact speeds,
and some manufacturers suggested that
consumer expectations would make bumpers
subject to height-only requirements unacceptable
in the marketplace.
Selection of test speeds, cost savings
considerations —final decision. The considerations
discussed above and the requirement in section
102 that the agency's standard seek to maximize
cost reductions thus necessitated the determination
by the agency of which of the remaining
alternatives, i.e., the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph and 2.5-mph/
2.5-mph alternatives, would seek to provide the
greatest superiority in net benefits.
Based on the analysis in the FRIA, the agency
concludes that the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative
more fully satisfies all aspects of the statutory
mandate than does the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph
alternative. The agency's choice between these
two alternatives was reached after comparing the
estimated results of implementing these
alternatives under all examined sets of extreme
assumptions, as well as under those sets of
assumptions deemed by the agency most
representative or most likely to occur. Under the
PART 581; PRE 32
sets of extreme assumptions in Table X-9 of the
FRIA, an equal number of sets support the choice
of each of these two alternatives.
However, when the highly unlikely fourth set
of assumptions in Table X-9 is discarded, and the
net benefits developed using the first three sets
of assumptions in lines 1 through 3 of that table
are averaged to represent equal probabilities of
outcome for each of the sets of facts (See line 1 of
Table XI-4), the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative is
clearly superior. This alternative yields $42 in net
benefits relative to the current standard,
compared with $33 in net benefits for the 5.0-mph/
2.5-mph alternative.
The agency's direct comparison of these two
alternatives in Table XI-4 under other sets (lines
2 and 3 of that table) of assumptions discloses that
the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph and the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph
alternatives would yield varying net benefits that
do not differ greatly.
The agency has noted above the absence of
hard data that would be desirable in determining
precise values for some of the variables involved
in projecting costs and benefits. It is important to
note, however, that the variables about which the
sharpest disagreements of fact have arisen in the
record, e.g., the frequency of low speed accidents,
the value of delay and inconvenience, and the
appropriate factor to apply to arrive at secondary
weight, are in fact also those variables which are
the least significant to the outcome of the agency's
net benefit calculations. For example, as shown in
Table XI-2 of the FRIA, using the value for each
of these variables which most favors retaining
the current standard would reduce the net
benefits of the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative by
only $4-12 over the life of the car. A shift in the
values assigned to these variables would thus be
least likely to produce a change in the outcome of
the agency's determinative net benefit
calculations. Thus, the variables about which the
greatest controversy has arisen are in most cases
also those which are least important in the
decision-making process.
In selecting this alternative, the agency was
also guided by its conclusion that where two or
more alternatives yield net benefits or ranges of
net benefits which are difficult to distinguish, the
cost savings goal of the Act is most fully satisfied
by selecting the alternative with the requirements
which impose the lowest direct, immediate costs.
The 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative is the one
which imposes the least direct, immediate costs
on the consumer, i.e., the least increase in the cost
of a new car. To illustrate this point, if the
unregulated bumper is considered the baseline,
the agency's analysis indicates that the increase
in direct immediate cost to the consumer for
bumper system components alone would be $21-41
for a car equipped to comply with the 2.5-mph/
2.5-mph alternative, but $30-58, or 50 percent
higher, for a car equipped to comply with the
5.0-mph/2.5-mph alternative. The choice of the
2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative over the 5.0-mph/
2.5-mph alternative reduces the direct bumper
component cost increases by $9-17, and the
difference would be even greater if secondary
weight costs were considered. See Table VII-8 of
the FRIA.
Selection of the alternative with less stringent
requirements, and thus lower immediate costs,
avoids forcing consumers to spend more in
purchasing a new car in order to obtain what
would only eventually, if at all, amount to
equivalent net savings or benefits.
If the agency did not select the alternative with
the lower immediate costs, the consumer would
be required to spend additional money in pursuit
of benefits whose occurrence and amount are less
certain. The agency believes that the consumer is
best served by an approach which in close cases
favors the more certain over the less certain
equivalent net benefit. NHTSA believes that this
interpretation of the Act most fully implements
the objectives of the Congress and of Executive
Order 12291 and represents the soundest public
policy.
The agency also must recognize, and if possible
implement, the apparent distinction made in the
Act between obtaining the "maximum feasible
reduction of costs to the public and to the
consumer" (emphasis added). The legislative
history of the Act does not suggest a reason for
the apparent distinction between the public at
large and those who may purchase cars. One
possible interpretation of this distinction is that
Congress meant to seek the maximum possible
benefits for the public in general, including those
not purchasing cars. Once the agency has
determined that the net benefits of the 5.0-mph/
2.5-mph and 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternatives are
close, the agency believes that the only
PART 581; PRE 33
interpretation which would give appropriate
weight to the statutory distinction between the
"public" and "consumer" would be the alternative
which better permits the marketplace to work
efficiently and to produce innovative designs, the
implementation of which will reduce overall costs
to society as well as the purchasers of new cars.
Several automobile manufacturers and
component suppliers commented that reduction
of the test impact speed to 2.5 mph would facilitate
use of new components and technologies,
including plastics, ultra-high strength steel, and
single-unit bumper systems. NHTSA believes
that such design flexibility would be beneficial to
the public at this time for several reasons.
Innovation could result in more effective bumpers
at lower cost to the public than would otherwise
be available. Innovation and variety will allow
individual consumers to apply their own individual
value determinations on such important issues as
the cost of delay and inconvenience, by opting to
purchase more protection than would be cost-
beneficial to the consuming public at large under
the Act. Innovation, variety and a range of
implemented choices in the marketplace will
permit the agency to monitor cost and benefit
trends and collect data about different
performance levels of bumpers in the future.
The 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative will permit
more innovation than the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph
alternative because the former allows wider
design freedom. Moreover, the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph
alternative will increase the economic incentive
of the manufacturers to retool because the parts
for the new designs could be used on both the
front and rear bumper systems of a vehicle.
Without such innovation and retooling, the
designs of bumpers are more likely to remain
static, at least in the short run, and the benefits of
innovative designs will be unrealized or
significantly delayed.
There are other considerations that support
the selection of the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative.
As noted above, any alternative specifying the
same front and rear impact speed is deemed
preferable to alternatives involving differential
front and rear test impact speeds since an
alternative with symmetrical requirements
would not raise uncertainty about the effects of
differential requirements. Further, a bumper
standard requiring differential front and rear
impact speeds would lead to increased production
costs and an increase in replacement part
inventories as a result of probable losses in
commonality of front and rear bumper components.
Reduced commonality in a mass production
market would be likely to increase the consumer
cost of new vehicles and replacement parts.
In view of these differences between the
alternatives and the probable consequences of the
selection of each, the policies and requirements of
the Act favor the choice of the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph
alternative. As noted later in this preamble, the
goal of section 102 is not to provide maximum
protection against damage in low-speed collisions
without regard to the cost of such protection.
Instead, the goal is to reduce front and rear end
damage in low-speed collisions under a statutory
criterion and specific considerations that, when
read together, indicate the most appropriate
result is the one that minimizes the total consumer
and public expenditure related to such damage
and its prevention. The agency believes that the
distinctions it has drawn between and the choices
it has made among the alternatives are fully
consistent with, and required in furtherance of,
the policies of the Act.
Selection of test speeds; safety considerations.
As discussed in more detail later, adoption of the
2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative will not have any
measurable effect on the risk that future accidents
might be caused by safety components which
malfunction due to damage incurred in prior low-
speed collisions and which are left unrepaired.
Available data indicate that very few accidents
occur as a result of malfunctioning of those vehicle
components which are subject to the safety
criteria of the bumper standard. The agency
concludes that far fewer accidents could be
attributed, and only by speculation, to a failure to
repair such components after they had been
damaged in the only type of collision relevant to
this discussion, i.e., one which might occur at an
impact speed between 2.5 mph and 5.0 mph.
Similarly, the agency concludes that reducing
the bumper standard test speeds will not increase
the risk that safety components damaged in such
low-speed collisions will cause injury in subsequent
accidents caused by other factors. The only
safety-related system that is covered by the
safety criteria of the Part 581 bumper standard
and that might contribute to injury in the event
PART 581; PRE 34
of an accident is the fuel system. However, the
data relied upon by one commenter addressing
this issue predated the effective date of FMVSS
301, Fuel System Integrity. That safety standard
provides protection, independent of and
substantially superior to that of the bumper
standard, against the risk that fuel leaks will
create a safety hazard in an accident.
The agency concludes also that reducing the
test speeds for the safety criteria will not
measurably affect the high-speed crash energy
management of cars. The difference in the energy
management capability of 5.0-mph bumpers and
2.5-mph bumpers is negligible at crash speeds
such as those (30 mph) specified in the safety
standards regulating the crashworthiness of new
cars.
Finally, NHTSA concludes that reducing the
bumper standard test impact speeds will neither
create inconsistencies with any of the safety
standards nor make compliance with those
standards more difficult.
Comer impact speeds. It should be noted that
selection of a 2.5-mph test impact speed for
longitudinal impacts also necessitates the selection
of a 1.5-mph corner impact requirement. The
1.5-mph corner impact speed represents an
equivalent proportional reduction in the 3.0-mph
corner impact speed in the current standard as
compared to the reduction from 5.0 mph to 2.5
mph for longitudinal impacts. The agency has
always established corner impact speeds at lower
levels due to the greater damage potential of
corner pendulum impacts relative to longitudinal
pendulum impacts at the same speed. The greater
relative severity of the corner impact results
from the concentration of crash force on a single
location, which is inherent in a corner impact, and
the fact that impact absorbing devices are
designed to provide maximum protection in the
more common longitudinal impacts. If the
proportional relationship of the longitudinal and
corner impact speeds were not maintained, the
effort to maximize net benefits would be
frustrated.
Phase I versus Phase II. Making a choice
between Phase I and Phase II damage resistance
criteria was also difficult because of the limited
empirical data available for comparing
performance under the two sets of criteria. Phase
I of the Part 581 standard remained in effect for
only one model year (MY), 1979, and available
information indicates that many manufacturers
proceeded directly to bumper designs intended to
meet the Phase II requirements prior to their
effective date. The information that is available
from surveys of vehicle owners and from insurance
files indicates no discernible difference between
the net benefits of MY 1974-78 and MY 1980
bumpers. Even if this information did reveal a
difference, there are no data which the agency
could use to determine the relative contributions
of Phase I and Phase II to those benefits.
No compliance testing of MY 1979 models was
conducted by NHTSA. The agency's compliance
test results for MY 1980 suggest greater levels of
protection for MY 1980 cars than is found in
empirical data on real world damage experience
for Phase II bumpers. The agency believes that in
such cases agency decisions must be more strongly
influenced by real world data since they reflect
actual experience and are more reliable
indicators of future real world experience. The
insurance claim and survey data reflect the
myriad variations in accident conditions and
circumstances encountered in actual driving. In
contrast, the compliance tests involve a limited
and idealized set of conditions and circumstances.
Those tests were necessarily chosen by the
agency with the knowledge that they were
imperfect surrogates from which to predict on-
road experience.
Those commenters addressing the issue
generally noted the cost and weight savings
available by deleting the Phase II requirements.
Commenters also pointed out that the increased
use of non-metallic face bars has decreased the
visibility of dent and set and thus greatly changed
the circumstances under which such damage
must be evaluated. Moreover, as suggested in the
comments, deletion of Phase II would eliminate
present difficulties in evaluating minor damage in
compliance testing. The agency has been unable
to determine that there are any net benefits
associated with the Phase II damage criteria,
independent of impact speed requirements.
The agency has also noted and taken into
account the factual information and assertions
submitted by representatives of the insurance
industry concerning the possible use of more
economical compliance technology such as nonself-
restoring energy absorbers. The use of such
PART 581; PRE 35
technology is prevented by the current Phase II
requirements. The availability of such technology
on new bumper systems is a desirable result,
independent of the impact speed requirement
imposed by the bumper standard. Retaining the
Phase II requirements would inhibit the further
development of such technology.
Finally, the agency took into account the
importance of distinguishing in its analyses
among favorable net benefit results attributable
to impact speed reduction only, those results
attributable to action with respect to Phase II
only, and those results attributable to both
aspects of the decision. Factual data exist in the
record only with respect to the first and third of
these areas. Thus, any attribution of benefits to
the Phase II requirements would be too
speculative as a basis for agency decision. The
agency believes that the probable effect of its
current decision will be the introduction of
bumper systems exhibiting at least some
characteristics of 5.0-mph, Phase I bumpers.
Bumper face bars and reinforcements designed
for 5.0-mph impacts, and therefore most probably
capable of affording even greater actual protection
as a result of over-design to ensure compliance,
will undoubtedly continue to be used in at least
some new cars in the short term. Effectively,
5.0-mph, Phase I bumpers will thus be produced
under the new standard, on an interim basis and
for some portion of the new car fleet. The
performance of these cars can and will be
monitored closely by the agency to estimate the
actual effects of the shift to Phase I criteria.
For all of these reasons, the agency has
concluded that the Phase II criteria are not
justified and that those criteria should be deleted
from the standard.
Removal of optional equipment during
compliance testing. Several commenters
contended that existing Part 581 test procedures
restrict the installation of certain optional
equipment prior to sale of a vehicle to a first
purchaser. Although one domestic manufacturer
stated that its optional equipment sales were not
restricted, other automobile and equipment
manufacturers commented that existing test
procedures inhibit installation of fog lamps,
running lights, and headlamp washers.
Commenters recommended dealing with this
problem by removing such equipment prior to
testing, exempting such items from the
protective criteria, or limiting testing to standard
equipment only.
NHTSA believes that the safety value of
optional equipment such as fog lamps has yet to
be demonstrated conclusively. To the extent that
the equipment does serve a safety function,
permitting its removal during testing would
encourage its installation and thereby promote
safety. Further, distinguishing between optional
equipment installed before the purchase of a new
car and that installed after such purchase serves
little purpose, since equipment installed after
purchase would be just as likely to be damaged in
a low-speed collision. Moreover, such a distinction
unfairly discriminates in favor of aftermarket
suppliers at the expense of manufacturers and
dealers wishing to attach equipment prior to the
sale of new cars. The agency also notes that
possible cost savings from factory installation of
optional equipment are lost if such installation is
discouraged by the test requirements. For these
reasons, the agency has amended the standard to
permit removal of fog lamps, running lights,
other optional equipment attached to the bumper
face bar, and headlamp washers prior to testing.
Harmonization. The Trade Agreements Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. 2532(2)), requires that the agency
consider harmonization with international
standards in its regulatory actions. In the present
context, ECE Regulation No. 42 is relevant.
NHTSA has formally endorsed enhanced efforts
at harmonization between and among international
standards in presentations to the Group of
Experts on the Construction of Vehicles (Working
Party 29) which operates under the ECE's Inland
Transport Committee. Explicit harmonization of
a United States bumper standard with the ECE
regulation could have some positive economic
effects since domestic manufacturers might
experience lower costs due to reduced need for
differentiation in design and equipment between
cars for sale in this country and cars for export. In
addition, European manufacturers subject to the
ECE regulation could experience similar reduced
costs.
This consideration, however, cannot be deemed
to be controlling where United States law creates
specific performance or policy criteria for
regulatory action. With regard to ECE Regulation
No. 42, NHTSA has concluded that the Act
PART 581; PRE 36
imposes specific criteria relating to cost savings
which the ECE regulation does not address.
Further, it is noted that the Act mandates the
bumper standards issued thereunder be drafted
so that they regulate performance instead of
directly regulating bumper design. Certain
provisions of the ECE regulation would impose
statutorily impermissible design restrictions on
vehicles produced for sale in this country. Finally,
NHTSA has concluded that potential bumper
mismatch problems could result from substituting
the height requirement specified in that regulation
for the requirement in the Part 581 Bumper
Standard. NHTSA will continue to pursue the
question of harmonization in appropriate forums,
but at this time merely notes that the 2.5-mph/
2.5-mph, Phase I alternative selected in this
rulemaking is far more compatible with the ECE
regulation than the current Part 581 standard or
the 5.0-mph/2.5-mph alternative.
Number of pendulum impacts. Some commenters
suggested that the number of pendulum test
impacts required by the standard be reduced.
However, given the likelihood that some cars may
incur more than two low-speed bumper impacts in
their lifetime, and the possibility that all such
impacts may be either longitudinal or corner
impacts and may involve the same bumper, the
agency has concluded that the current procedure
is appropriate to assure that each bumper is able
to withstand the impacts to which it may in fact
be subjected over its lifetime.
Public opinion survey. Some commenters
alleged that public opinion strongly favors the
retention of bumper requirements at current
levels and should control the agency's decision in
this rulemaking. As evidence of public opinion,
two commenters cited a survey conducted by the
Opinion Research Corporation, Inc., (ORC) for the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
NHTSA disagrees with the commenters'
suggestion about public opinion. First, the level of
bumper standards established by the agency
under the Act cannot be determined merely on
the basis of what members of the public
understand to be the relevant facts and issues, or
what they themselves would prefer. The Congress
has determined the public policy which must be
applied by the agency, and the agency's decision
must be reached in accordance with the statutory
criteria. Those criteria do not include public
preferences as such, although as noted in the
FRIA, adequately demonstrated public preference
may be relevant to assessments of future market
demand and the response options available to the
auto manufacturing and insurance industries.
Second, the agency does not believe that the
ORC survey provides reliable evidence on public
preferences regarding economic values associated
with bumper alternatives before the agency. An
analysis of the text of the survey discloses that
the structure and specific questions asked did not
compensate for the public's general lack of
detailed information concerning the costs and
benefits of bumpers. Yet the survey asked a
variety of questions which could be meaningfully
answered only by persons knowledgeable about
such matters. Also, many of the specific questions
may have inadvertently encouraged respondents
to give inflated estimates of the value of the
current bumper standard. For these and other
reasons discussed in chapter III of the FRIA, the
agency regards the ORC survey as an inconclusive
indicator of informed public opinion.
Legal issues. Some commenters advocating
retention of the current standard have questioned
the adequacy of the record in this proceeding to
provide a basis for decision and have challenged
in advance the legal soundness of any decision to
amend the standard.
In this rulemaking proceeding, the agency has
compiled voluminous materials over a period of
years which have been used in analyzing
competing alternatives. Through the notice and
comment process and two public meetings, the
agency has received over two hundred comments
from a full spectrum of interested parties and has
gathered all available data on the subject of this
proceeding. New data, estimates and arguments
have been received which have assisted the
agency in refining its analysis of the standard.
As noted above, the agency recognizes that a
degree of uncertainty is present in some of its
calculations and conclusions by virtue of the
absence of conclusive real world data relating to
certain categories of benefits and costs. However,
this lack of factual certainty no more absolves the
agency of its duty under section 102 of the Act to
ensure that a bumper standard exists which in
fact complies with the requirement to seek
maximum feasible reductions in cost than could
similar uncertainties have arguably absolved the
PART 581; PRE 37
agency of its duty to issue a standard in the first
instance. Under the Act, the agency is directed to
adopt and maintain a standard. That standard is
further required to meet certain stautory criteria.
Implicit in this and any similar statutory
mechanism is both a prohibition against rescinding
an existing standard altogether and maintaining
a standard which, on the basis of a developing
evidentiary foundation is found either not to have
any net benefits, or to have fewer net benefits
than any one or more different standards. As
noted above, explicit instructions to the effect
were directed to the agency in 1978.
The agency does not accept an expansive view
of the limitations imposed on the agency's action
in this proceeding by the Act, as inferred by some
commenters from the provisions of the Act itself.
The agency is cognizant of the relevant statutory
criteria imposed by this organic Act and has
acted in accordance with them.
The statute does not require, and the legislative
history does not support, an inference of
Congressional intent that the agency be
completely certain regarding the relevant factual
issues before it conducts rulemaking under this
Act. To the contrary, the Act, its legislative
history and Congressional action to date have
emphasized the presence of significant uncertainty
on all of the relevant issues discussed in this
notice. Recognition of the uncertainty may be
seen in, for example, the wording of the criterion
in section 102 governing the setting of the level of
the bumper standard. The agency is not required
to establish a standard that produces the
maximum feasible reduction in costs, but one that
"seeks to obtain" such a reduction. The agency
has always considered itself bound to proceed
with continuing review and rulemaking even in
the presence of uncertainty. This conclusion and
interpretation of the statute is consistent with
the agency's actions since enactment, and is
explicity reasserted in this notice.
The statute also does not mandate that the
standard be set so as to require the use of the
most protective bumpers which can be produced.
From the beginning of its action under the
provisions of the Act, the agency has always
recognized that such bumpers would be so
expensive to produce and replace that their use
would involve a net economic loss for consumers.
38 Fed. Reg. 20,899 (August 3, 1973). As the
agency also noted in that notice, rulemaking
under the Act involves the balancing of many
factors to determine what level of performance is
most beneficial to the public and the consumer.
As the agency interprets the Act and its history,
the purpose of the Act's bumper provisions is to
secure cost savings for the public and the
consumer. The bumper provisions address the
issues of the costs of damage in low-speed
collisions and the costs of avoiding that damage
and authorize and direct the agency to set
standards that minimize the combined total of
these costs to the public and the consumer. The
goal of seeking cost savings is promoted by setting
the standards and as appropriate adjusting them
toward the level where the marginal benefits
equal marginal costs. That is, if raising bumper
performance from its unregulated level yields
more incremental benefits, reflected in damage
reduction, than the incremental costs of increased
damage protection, the standard should be raised.
The impact speed requirements should be raised
to the point where the incremental increase in
damage avoided equals the incremental increase
in costs. This is the point at which the cost
savings or net benefits are maximized.
Raising the requirements above that point of
equality would not provide the public and
consumer with any additional cost savings. Two
possibilities exist regarding the relationship of
incremental benefits and costs above the point.
One is that incremental benefits will be less than
the incremental costs at all points above the point
of equality. In that event, raising the requirements
above the point of equality would reduce the cost
savings achievable at that point. The other
possibility is a variation on the first in that
incremental benefits will equal or at least appear
to equal incremental costs over some range of
requirement levels immediately above the point
of equality. The FRIA suggests that there may be
a range over which incremental benefits and costs
appear to be roughly equal. Setting requirements
within such a range would not, however, increase
cost savings, and would thus be of questionable
validity. It would result in a simple trading of
dollars, that is, receiving only as much in reduced
damage as one pays for increased damage
protection.
In this rulemaking action, NHTSA has
determined that the 2.5-mph/2.5-mph alternative
PART 581; PRE 38
is more likely than the current standard and the
other alternatives to be the point of equality, that
is, where the incremental benefits first equal the
incremental costs. Accordingly, the agency has
selected that alternative as the new standard. As
noted above, setting a higher standard would not
increase the savings to the public and consumers.
A higher standard would only increase the direct,
immediate costs which each new car purchaser
must bear.
Some commenters have asserted that a 5.0-mph
test impact speed is necessary to satisfy the
expectations voiced in Congress during
deliberations on the Act. While these expectations
are relevant, the determinative fact in all
instances must be what the Congress in fact did
through legislative action. In the Act, the
Congress did not set a particular standard, but
instead adopted the maximum feasible cost
reduction criterion, and required that bumper
standards be set in accordance with it. The
criterion is a deliberately flexible one which
permits and even requires that bumper standards
be adjusted based on available information.
Some commenters suggested that the agency is
legally bound to maintain the Part 581 Bumper
Standard ai its present level because the standard
incorporates the safety criteria of former FMVSS
215. One insurer asserted that the criteria in
section 103(a) of the Safety Act must form a basis
for any decision to amend the Bumper Standard.
Those criteria require that safety standard be
practicable, be stated in objective terms, and meet
the need for motor vehicle safety. 15 U.S.C.
1392(a). Another insurer cited the legislative
history of the Act in support of the proposition
that Congress intended safety considerations to be
controlling in establishing bumper standards.
Given the hybrid nature of the Part 581
Standard, this rulemaking action was initiated
under the concurrent authority of the Act and the
Safety Act. Without deciding whether the criteria
established for safety standards under section 103
necessarily be applied in all cases under the Act
where any safety relationship can be asserted,
the agency has concluded, based on the discussion
in this notice and the FRIA, that its actions in this
proceeding are in all respects in accordance with
the applicable criteria of the Safety Act itself.
By the same token, this action does not conflict
with safety standards promulgated under the
Safety Act. To the extent that bumper standards
may be considered to be safety standards, the
5.0-mph safety criteria of Part 581 have been
determined to be unsupported, even under the
Safety Act criteria, and are amended by this
notice. Reducing the test speed does not make
compliance with any safety standard more
difficult. The changes made by this rulemaking
action do not necessitate any change in efforts to
comply with existing safety standards. To the
degree that pedestrian impact protection is a
relevant safety consideration, current agency
research on the subject suggests the possibility of
an adverse safety consequence from bumpers
designed for impact speeds of 5.0 mph or higher.
The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
NHTSA's FRIA estimates the changes in costs
and benefits likely to result from amending the
Bumper Standard. In assessing the relative merits
of the alternative bumper standard amendments
described in the notice of proposed rulemaking in
this proceeding, NHTSA has considered all
available evidence and viewpoints in order to
quantify and analyze the various factors relevant
to determining bumper system net benefits.
As discussed in the agency's FRIA, the primary
measure of benefits of the Part 581 Bumper
Standard is the economic cost of the damage
avoided by use of a bumper designed to provide
protection at a higher impact speed. In the
agency's FRIA, this cost was determined for each
alternative standard by computing the cost of
repaired damage and unrepaired damage. The
cost of damage was computed by first using the
results of vehicle owner surveys and insurance
company claim files to estimate the frequency of
damage to bumper systems. This figure was then
analyzed in terms of the projected effectiveness
of that bumper system in preventing damage, as
estimated from insurance records and by use of
engineering judgment.
Reduced levels of savings representing the
value of damage which the vehicle owner decides
not to have repaired were determined by first
estimating the repair costs for unrepaired
damage described by car owners. NHTSA then
reduced the repair cost by a range of values to
reflect the fact that the damage was not repaired,
the effect of vehicle age on the value of that
damage, and the absence of any out-of-pocket
expenses incurred by the car owner.
PART 581; PRE 39
The agency's calculation of benefits also took
into account insurance cost savings beyond the
value of the damage avoided by the bumper
system, i.e., through savings in administrative
expense. Savings in consumer time and
inconvenience resulting from damage avoidance
at various levels of bumper damage resistance
were also considered as benefits of bumper
regulation. Such savings include the value of time
saved at the scene of a low-speed accident,
reduced time and expense in obtaining repair
estimates, and savings in the avoided cost of
obtaining alternative transportation while
collision damage is repaired. Finally, although not
subject to quantification in the agency's economic
analysis, the agency considered the possible
beneficial or adverse effects of bumper
requirements on vehicle safety.
A very important cost impact of bumper
regulation is the increase in new car prices
attributable to the use of bumper systems
providing greater levels of damage resistance.
This cost consists of the cost of the bumper system
itself and the cost of upgrading other vehicle
components to support the additional weight of
more damage resistant systems (i.e., the cost of
secondary weight). The FRIA examines the
changes in such costs that would result from
adopting test speeds below those in the current
standard. The costs used in the agency's FRIA
represent the marginal change in costs resulting
from changing from the current bumper standard
to an alternative standard requiring lower levels
of bumper performance. Costs are calculated in
terms of actual cost to the consumer. Finance
charges associated with that portion of the
vehicle purchase price attributable to the bumper
are considered and taken into account as
appropriate.
In addition to the effect on the initial cost of
purchasing a car, the added operating cost of
driving a car with a heavier bumper system has
been considered. The agency has estimated the
additional fuel costs incurred in carrying the
extra primary and secondary weight associated
with bumper systems providing greater levels of
damage resistance performance. Costs and
benefits to be accrued in the future have been
discounted to reflect their value in current
dollars. Results of the FRIA have been stated in
terms of positive or negative net benefits for the
various alternative standards, as compared to the
costs and benefits of the current 5.0-mph/5.0-mph
standard. See chapters X and XI of the FRIA.
In the agency's analysis, several factual issues
are of particular importance, and the data and
opinion evidence relied upon by the agency are
summarized in greater detail below.
Frequency of bumper-related collisions. As
noted above, benefits derived from the damage
avoidance properties of bumpers are computed
by estimating first the frequency of bumper-
related collisions, and then the ability of the
bumper system to protect the car in those
collisions. Levels of protection thus computed
yield benefits in terms of the costs which would
otherwise have been incurred in connection with
the avoided damage.
In 1970, the Ford Motor Company conducted a
survey of actual observed damage to Ford cars in
parking lots. Based on that survey, earlier
NHTSA analyses estimated that the average car
experienced 3.63 low-speed collisions involving
its bumpers during its lifetime.
In the PRIA, the agency estimated the frequency
of unreported, low-speed collisions at a lower
number, based on the results of a telephone survey
of principal operators of cars. That survey was
conducted for NHTSA by Westat, Inc.
The agency's October 1981 NPRM specifically
requested that commenters address the issue of
the best method of estimating such low-speed
collision frequency. Responding commenters
disagreed on the relative merits of the cited
damage frequency estimates. While car
manufacturers argued for the use of figures
derived from the Westat study, insurers generally
favored higher estimates. Commenters addressing
this issue generally expressed the view that the
actual figure for low speed collision frequency
would be somewhere below the figure of 3.63
lifetime impacts estimated from the parking lot
surveys by Ford.
The agency agrees with commenters that the
Ford survey is inadequate for use in the current
context, by virtue of various factors, including its
concentration on urban areas. The agency believes
that the Westat survey, and the comments to the
record by interested parties represent superior,
and the best available, data on low-speed accident
frequency. They have been considered in the
computation of this factor. NHTSA has considered
PART 581; PRE 40
the possible use of crash recorders on cars to
assess accident frequency, but finds that this
approach would be prohibitively expensive and
not technically feasible at this time. For these
reasons, the FRIA incorporates a range of values
for low-speed accident frequency, using as the
bounds of the range the highest estimate
provided in the comments and the lower estimate
derived from the Westat survey data.
Bumper system effectiveness. On the question
of the effectiveness of bumper systems designed
to provide protection at differing impact speeds,
estimates used in the PRIA were based on
comparisons by agency experts between the
performance of cars with Part 581 bumpers and
with pre-standard cars. The agency was able in
the PRIA to make extensive use of field data to
determine the effectiveness of bumpers designed
to provide protection in 5.0-mph impacts. NHTSA
was able also to supplement insurance industry
data on reported accidents with Westat survey
data on damage incurred in unreported accidents.
However, no similar data on the effectiveness
of bumpers designed to provide protection at
other impact speeds exists. As a result, the
agency was forced to rely in its PRIA on data
concerning MY 1973 rear bumpers for its
estimates of 2.5-mph bumper effectiveness. These
were the only bumpers ever sold in this country
which were required to provide 2.5-mph
protection. As an alternative and cross-check, the
agency also considered in the PRIA estimates
which had been developed for use in the June
1979 Final Assessment of the Bumper Standard,
and which were based on engineering judgment
of the agency's experts regarding the relative
effectiveness of various bumper systems. The use
of these estimates was supported by the insurance
industry in its review of the 1979 Assessment.
Using this methodology, the agency estimated
that 2.5-mph bumpers would achieve 67 percent
of the effectiveness of 5.0-mph bumpers in low-
speed collisions. That is, 2.5-mph bumpers would
be two-thirds as effective in preventing damage
as 5.0-mph bumpers would be.
Car and insurance industry commenters joined
in arguing the unreliability of estimates based on
the performance experience of MY 1973 rear
bumpers. They stressed the lack of comparability
between these early bumpers and the 2.5-mph
bumper systems which would be produced today.
citing the absence of any uniform height
requirement for MY 1973 bumpers, the actual
similarity of MY 1973 bumpers to unregulated
bumpers of prior years, the increased uniformity
among bumper designs in the present vehicle
fleet, and other factors related to the vehicle fleet
mix. NHTSA agrees with commenters that data
on MY 1973 rear bumpers fail to provide an
accurate approximation of current 2.5-mph
designs. NHTSA has concluded therefore that the
methodology employing MY 1973 rear bumper
data should not be used in estimating current
levels of bumper effectiveness.
NHTSA has considered relying upon European
data relating to the performance experience of
bumpers designed in compliance with ECE
Regulation No. 42 to assess the effectiveness of
2.5-mph bumpers but has concluded that adequate
data of that type are not available. Although
alternative data sources were specifically sought
in NHTSA's October 1981 NPRM, no field data on
the effectiveness of alternative systems in other
countries were introduced into the record by
commenters. Moreover, European bumpers are
required to be designed to meet a safety standard
only, and are tested under different procedures
than American bumpers. Finally, differences in
fleet composition and average vehicle weight, as
well as the greater frequency of urban driving in
Europe, would limit the relevance of data based
on vehicles in use abroad to predicted vehicle
experience in American driving conditions.
Insurance industry commenters presented to the
record data on certain laboratory tests undertaken
on production vehicles alleged to have been
equipped with 2.5-mph bumpers, i.e., pickup trucks
and multipurpose passenger vehicles not subject to
the Part 581 requirements. NHTSA has concluded,
based on the evidence in the record, that the
damage levels reported in the insurance industry
tests are not sufficiently relevant to predict 2.5-mph
bumper performance. The tests reported upon were
of limited scope, and no data have been introduced
or are known to the agency from which to conclude
that the bumper systems tested were designed to,
or would in fact, comply with the Part 581
requirements in 2.5-mph barrier and pendulum
impacts. Moreover, a commenter from the auto
industry pointed out an instance in which the
insurance claim frequency for a car equipped with a
Part 581 bumper was actually higher than for its
PART 581; PRE 41
counterpart, the four-wheel drive, multipurpose
passenger vehicle version which was equipped with
an unregulated bumper. The agency has therefore
concluded that estimates based on extrapolation
from field data better account for factors such as
crash angle, impact speed, frequency of occurrence
and vehicle fleet mix. Thus, NHTSA makes use in
the FRIA of the 67 percent effectiveness figure
employed in the 1979 Assessment, but now applies
this factor to the superior lifetime damage
estimates derived from the 1981 Evaluation.
Primary bumper costs and weight. With respect
to the increase in costs associated with bumper
systems providing greater levels of damage
protection, many motor vehicle manufacturers
submitted previously unavailable estimates of
the cost and weight penalties associated with
providing bumpers meeting current 5.0-mph
performance requirements, as compared with the
cost of complying with a 2.5-mph, Phase I
requirement or with the ECE Regulation No. 42
bumper requirement.
The agency estimates in the FRIA that the
primary cost differences between 5.0-mph and
2.5-mph Phase II bumper systems can be best
expressed as a range from $18 to $35. The
corresponding range of weight differences is
estimated to be from 15 to 33 pounds. The $18 to $35
and 15 to 33 pound ranges are based on estimates
submitted to NHTSA by the manufacturers and
reflect the range of representative cost and weight
savings estimates submitted.
In their submissions to the rulemaking docket,
the manufacturers generally did not identify all
changes in design or components that would take
place if the bumper standard were reduced to 2.5
mph/2.5 mph. Certain changes were specifically
noted, however. Manufacturers stated that such a
reduction would allow the removal of self-
restoring, heavy duty energy absorbers and
noted that they would probably make that
change. Some manufacturers also identified
reducing face bar thickness and removing some
reinforcements as being among the changes
possible if the standard were reduced.
Although the estimates of cost and weight for
2.5-mph bumper systems included in the FRIA
generally agree with current estimates of
representative manufacturers, and are consistent
with those confidential submissions made in
response to the 1979 advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, other independent estimates have
been generated which indicate that even greater
weight reductions are possible if the Part 581
bumper standard were reduced to 2.5 mph/2.5
mph. For example, the 1979 Final Assessment
cited a weight reduction estimate of 43 pounds
developed by a design engineer under contract
with NHTSA. Since the 43 pound figure was
developed in reference to cars averaging 3,350
pounds in weight, the appropriate value
applicable to the lighter average car produced
today would be less. Assuming that weight loss in
primary bumper weight would be proportional to
total vehicle weight, the appropriate figure for
today's cars would be approxiamtely 36-37
pounds. Notwithstanding the higher value thus
represented, the upper range set forth in the
FRIA is 33 pounds. If the higher figures of 36-37
pounds were used, the weight and cost differential
between 5.0-mph and 2.5-mph bumpers, and thus
the benefits of the lower impact speed, would be
even greater.
In addition, other independent cost studies
submitted as evidence in the record indicate that
the actual costs for all manufacturers of
components such as energy absorbers may in fact
be higher than cost estimates by the car
manufacturers who submitted data on this point.
See, for example. Docket No. 81-07 Notice 1, No.
006. If the cost avoided by removing such energy
absorbers from a car were as high as $48, instead
of the $20 estimated in confidential submissions
responding to the 1979 advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (as updated to reflect the weight of
current cars), the additional cost savings of
reducing the Part 581 standard to 2.5 mph/2.5 mph
would be Increased by $28, thereby enhancing the
cost reduction attributable to that alternative. In
this case, although the result may be to
underestimate the benefit of the lower standard,
the agency has chosen to use in the FRIA the
lower cost and weight estimates submitted by the
manufacturers who commented in response to the
NPRM, since such lower values produce benefit
calculations less favorable to the regulatory
result urged by the car manufacturers involved.
Secondary weight and cost. On the subject of
secondary weight, NHTSA relied in its PRIA on
methodologies developed by the Transportation
Systems Center (TSC) of Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and General Motors. The TSC methodology
PART 581; PRE 42
assumes that, in the case of vehicles with unitized
bodies, the vehicle body will not be affected by
changes in bumper weight. This methodology
results in a secondary weight factor of .5; that is,
one half pound of secondary weight will be added
to the rest of the vehicle for each pound of added
bumper weight. The General Motors methodology,
based on actual component weights of MY 1974
General Motors products, assumes that all the
weight of a unitized vehicle body is affected by
secondary weight. This methodology results in a
secondary weight factor of about 1.0.
The agency has concluded, based on all
comments received, that the assumptions of the
TSC methodology concerning vehicles with
unitized bodies are extreme. One manufacturer
submitted an estimate of secondary weight based
on its analysis of its most efficient new car
designs. That analysis indicates a secondary
weight factor of 0.7 (i.e., seven-tenths of a pound
added for each pound of added bumper system
weight). Since all of these were new designs for
which secondary weight factors may be lower
than for for the fleet as a whole, the agency
considers that this estimate most likely represents
the lower bound of secondary weight factors in
the current vehicle fleet. Older, existing
production car designs, which would also be
affected by a reduced standard, would be likely to
have a secondary weight factor of 1.0 or higher.
The agency has concluded that there is no
adequate basis to establish a higher value than
that based upon actual component weight
analysis, and accordingly the agency makes use of
both the .7 and 1.0 factors in the FRIA.
Only two commenters addressed the issue of
the cost of secondary weight. Both commenters
suggested that NHTSA's estimate of $.72 per
pound in the PRIA represents the lower bound of
possible secondary weight costs, since it was
based only on the cost per pound of structural
components and did not include cost effects on
weight dependent subsystems such as tires and
brake linings. However, the agency believes that
while changes such as upgrading brake linings or
marginally increasing tire size to accommodate
increased bumper weight will undoubtedly occur
to some extent, they are impossible to quantify in
terms of dollar costs on the record before the
agency. Thus, the agency continues to use only
the cost of major structural materials such as
cold-rolled steel and aluminum to reflect
secondary weight cost more conservatively.
Because of an error discovered by the agency in
its original computation of the markup factor
used in the PRIA, the agency has now corrected
the cost of secondary weight and uses $.60 per
pound in the FRIA.
Use of consumer costs instead of manufacturer
variable costs. In calculating for the FRIA the
cost savings available from modified bumper
requirements, NHTSA considered manufacturers'
variable cost savings, but not reductions
attributable to savings on dealer markup, which
represent some additional potential consumer
savings. Several motor vehicle manufacturers
endorsed NHTSA's inclusion of variable cost
savings in its analysis and projected savings of 10
to 30 percent resulting from reducing the Bumper
Standard impact speed level to 2.5 mph. However,
the manufacturers also commented that consumer
cost (which includes dealer markup), rather than
variable cost, is a more realistic determinant of
the cost of bumper regulation.
The agency believes that use of consumer costs
is more consistent with the requirements of the
Act. Using the newly submitted cost savings
estimates supplied by the auto manufacturers,
and the agency's independent analysis of the
reasonableness of these estimates based on the
use of teardown studies, NHTSA stated cost
savings in terms of consumer costs in its FRIA.
The FRIA employs a sensitivity analysis to assess
the effect on consumer prices of various possible
bumper standard alternatives.
Finance charges. In its PRIA, NHTSA added the
cost of new car finance charges to the cost of current
bumper systems. While several auto industry
sources saw no difficulty with consideration of
finance changes from the standpoint of economic
theory, certain representatives of the auto and
insurance industries noted that the principal of a
car loan, in addition to the interest, should have
been discounted to estimate true consumer
savings. The agency agrees that the approach used
in the PRIA overstated consumer savings because
of the failure to discount the loan principal also.
In estimating new car costs in the FRIA, the
agency has discounted both the principal and the
interest of new car loans.
Percentage of new car purchases which are
financed. One commenter argued that the agency
PART 581; PRE 43
overestimated the percentage of vehicle purchases
which are financed, and the duration of the
financing obtained. However, the agency's
figures on loan duration and percentage of new
car sales financed are based on the latest available
information from the Federal Reserve Board. The
commenter based its alternate suggested
percentage figure on data which included used
car sales, which are less frequently financed.
Moreover, to the extent that a small percentage
of new car sales are not financed through
consumer credit, e.g., fleet sales, these sales are
nonetheless commonly financed through business
borrowing at an even higher interest rate. Thus,
the agency has not changed its analysis in
response to this comment.
Retooling costs. Comments by one domestic
manufacturer at NHTSA's public meeting on
bumpers indicated that that company would incur
a one time retooling cost of one million dollars if
the present bumper standard were amended to
reduce the test impact speed. Another major
domestic manufacturer contended that this cost
is irrelevant because, if it were not economically
favorable to manufacturers to retool, such
expenses would not be incurred. The agency has
concluded that in computing overall societal costs
of the regulation, this expense is relevant and
should be considered. However, retooling costs
have already been included in the agency's
estimates of new car costs and thus are not
addressed as a separate item in the FRIA.
Fuel consumption. In addition to the initial
expense of purchasing a bumper system providing
increased damage resistance performance, more
stringent bumper standards which require heavier
systems increase vehicle operating expenses. The
added weight of the bumpers causes an increase
in fuel consumption. As discussed above, projected
weight savings from reduction of the bumper
standard test impact speed to 2.5 mph would be
significant, even for smaller cars. In its PRIA,
NHTSA estimated that each additional pound of
weight adds 1.1 gallons to the lifetime fuel
consumption of a passenger vehicle. Some
commenters accepted this fuel penalty figure as a
reasonable approximation. One manufacturer
advocated use of a higher figure. However, the
source of the 1.1 gallon estimate, a major
domestic auto manufacturer, revised its estimate
downward to 1.0 gallons per pound, based on
testing and simulation studies on new, lighter
weight cars. The agency is using this revised
lower figure to be conservative in its estimates of
benefits associated with the proposed alternatives
to the current 5.0-mph standard.
NHTSA in its PRIA used a projected 1982 fuel
cost in 1981 dollars of $1.60 per gallon in calculating
the cost of the fuel consumed in carrying additional
bumper weight, with small additional real price
increases (in terms of 1981 dollars) in subsequent
years. The four major domestic automakers
concurred in the use of this figure in comments on
the notice of proposed rulemaking. However,
figures in the latest Department of Energy (DOE)
and Data Resources, Inc. (DRI) forecasts suggest
that an estimate of $1.28 per gallon more
accurately reflects current pricing trends.
Accordingly, the agency has used this figure as
the 1982 average price in the FRIA.
Discount rate. For purposes of its PRIA,
NHTSA used a discount rate of 10 percent in
assessing the current value of future costs and
benefits. This rate has been established by the
Office of Management and Budget for use in
Government analyses. Since, however, it is
arguable that a statutory mandate to consider
actual costs and benefits would require the
agency to at least analyze the actual discount rate
as well in reaching its conclusions, such an
analysis was undertaken. See Table III-6 of the
FRIA. Although one commenter suggested a
lower figure, NHTSA has concluded that, given
the insensitivity of net benefits to changes in the
discount rate, the 10 percent rate is appropriate
at this time. This figure represents a compromise
between competing schools of thought as defined
in economic literature, and has been used in past
agency regulatory analyses. Its continued use
facilitates the comparison of costs and benefits of
different regulatory actions. Thus, the 10 percent
figure has been retained as the basis for the
discount rate used throughout the FRIA, in
estimating the current value of both costs and
benefits.
Lifetime distribution of accident frequency.
NHTSA based its discounting in the PRIA on the
assumption that accident frequency is distributed
over a vehicle's lifetime, in proportion to the
number of miles traveled each year by the vehicle.
Car manufacturers differed on the validity of this
assumption, with some contending that accident
PART 581; PRE 44
rates are higher for older vehicles. If this were
true, then the net benefits of reducing the
bumper standard would be even greater than
estimated by the agency in the FRIA. However,
NHTSA has concluded that the evidence presented
on actual distribution of accidents over vehicle
lifetime is not sufficiently reliable to attempt
more specific yearly estimates, because, among
other things, it includes both high- and low-speed
accidents and the correlation between these types
of accidents has not been established. Thus, the
agency continues to use its original assumption
on this point.
Effect of non-bumper related design changes
on repair costs. A member of the insurance
industry contended that not all increases in
damage-per-claim figures occurring since
implementation of the bumper standard should be
attributed to the standard. According to that
commenter, new components, such as rectangular
headlamps and one-piece plastic front-end panels,
which have come into use since implementation of
Federal bumper standards, have added to damage-
per-claim figures used by NHTSA to assess the
effect of the bumper standard. Commenters made
no showing regarding the costs of the various
front-end components, the extent of their use in
given model years, or the frequency and extent of
their damage. Further, as several auto industry
commenters noted, the increased complexity of
the 5.0-mph bumper system makes that system
more expensive to repair or replace when
damaged in an impact above its design speed of
5.0 mph. Thus, the record provides no objective
basis for the agency to modify its analysis.
Value of unrepaired damage. In the PRIA,
NHTSA valued the cost of unrepaired damage at
the full cost to repair that damage. However,
several auto manufacturers commented that such
damage should be valued at some lesser figure or
should not be counted at all. One manufacturer
placed the figure at not more than 50 percent of
the cost to repair the damage. The agency's 1979
Final Assessment placed the figure at 75 percent.
NHTSA has concluded that unrepaired damage
clearly imposes some cost. The value of this cost,
however, would necessarily vary with the age of
the car, other cumulative damage, whether or not
bumper-related, and other factors. NHTSA
believes that a range of 50 to 75 percent of the full
cost of repair represents a reasonable balancing
of competing considerations and has used such a
range to approximate the value of unrepaired
damage in the FRIA.
One commenter suggested that consumer
tolerance for cosmetic vehicle damage increases,
and the value of such damage should therefore
decrease, with vehicle age. However, the agency
has no way of assessing this effect and therefore
considers it too speculative to include in the
FRIA. Therefore, the agency has not amended its
calculations in response to this comment.
Current versus future technology. Throughout
the consideration of bumper effectiveness, cost,
and weight, the agency has been faced with the
alternatives of relying on historical data based on
the experience of previous model year vehicles,
or on calculations based on present or future
technologies. The difficulty of the choice is
apparent. The former approach has the advantage
of greater and superior empirical data, but may
not fully account for the most recent advances in
design or materials technology. The latter
approach may more fully reflect state current and
future conditions, but the absence of any empirical
or field data introduces significantly greater
elements of uncertainty.
Insurance industry and consumer representatives
criticized the agency's analysis for relying on
bumper designs used in the late 1970's instead of
the best bumper technology available today.
These commenters contended that state-of-the-art
bumpers in use on the latest vehicle models are
lighter, more efficient, and cost less than
bumpers on earlier models and are more
representative of bumpers which will be used in
the future. An insurance industry representative
and one component supplier commented that new
technologies involving use of plastics could
positively affect the net benefits of 5.0-mph
bumpers. Motor vehicle manufacturers countered
that use of a representative current bumper
system as the basis for cost and weight estimates
is more realistic, because it is more reflective of
immediate cost/benefit impacts and because
styling considerations frequently limit the use of
the most efficient bumper design available.
The agency believes that analysis of the
bumper regulation should be based on real world
conditions and that it is unrealistic to assume that
the most advanced technology will be used in all
cases. While the use of alternative technologies
PART 581; PRE 45
could affect costs and benefits if such technologies
were widely adopted, no evidence has been
presented that cost, styling, production or other
constraints would permit universal acceptance of
these new technologies. More important, even if
designs more efficient in terms of costs and weight
were chosen to represent 5.0-,mph bumpers in the
FRIA, the effect of this change on the FRIA
outcome would be negated in large part by the
necessary parallel assumption that bumper
systems offering lower levels of protection would
also be designed and implemented at the most
efficient levels possible. Therefore, NHTSA has
concluded that projections of bumper net benefits
must continue to be based on data relating to real
world bumper systems.
Insurance premium increases. Many comments
submitted by insurance industry sources and
others noted that insurance premiums would
increase if the bumper standard impact speed
were lowered from its current levels. Insurers
generally concurred that the level of such collision
insurance premium increase would be 10 percent
if the bumper standard test impact speed were
reduced to 2.5 mph. The agency has reviewed in
detail the cost of increased collision damage costs
and the increased administrative overhead
burden that would be incurred. Based on this
analysis and on the assumption that only actual
cost increases would be approved by state
regulatory bodies for pass through and recovery
in the form of rate increases the agency can not
agree that such estimates are accurate. NHTSA
accounts for insurance cost increases through
estimates in the FRIA of increased collision
damage costs and administrative overhead.
Effect on insurance companies, bumper
component suppliers, and new car dealers. The
agency's October 1981 notice of proposed
rulemaking requested comments on the effect
which amendment of the bumper standard would
have on the insurance industry and bumper
component suppliers. Members of these
industries did not respond to this inquiry, except
with regard to the insurance premium estimates
noted above. Motor vehicle manufacturers
addressing this point generally concluded that
effects on related industries would not be major.
Although one source predicted a reduction in the
dollar sales volume of bumper component parts,
increased sales of replacement parts would tend
to offset to some extent the lower per unit cost of
bumper replacement parts.
One industry which did claim a major interest
in this proceeding was the automobile retail sales
industry, as represented by the National
Automobile Dealers Association. That organization
pointed out the devastating effects on its
membership of the recent depressed automotive
retail sales market and provided data indicating
the effect on car sales of price increases similar in
magnitude to those resulting from the Part 581
Bumper Standard.
Consumer time and inconvenience. Several
commenters addressed issues relevant to the
consideration by NHTSA, as mandated by the Act,
of the value of consumer time and inconvenience
related damage incurred in low-speed collisions.
NHTSA's PRIA incorporated a figure of $26 per
incident as the value of consumer time and
inconvenience associated with assessment and
repair of low-speed collision damage. Insurance
industry and consumer representative commenters
presented results of a survey conducted for that
industry by Opinion Research Corporation which
seemed to suggest that a much higher per
accident value should be placed on time and
inconvenience. However, NHTSA has concluded
that the results of this survey do not require
revision of the agency's estimates of the value of
delay and inconvenience.
Commenters citing the Opinion Research survey
placed values of $150 to $200 per incident on the
delay and inconvenience resulting from low-speed
accidents, in contrast to NHTSA's PRIA estimate
of $26. However, review of the survey results
suggests that these estimates may include the
value of repair costs to be borne by consumers,
i.e., the deductible amount of the consumers'
collision insurance, usually $100, a cost accounted
for elsewhere in NHTSA's analysis.
Also, the Opinion Research survey focused
attention on the delay and inconvenience involved
in having collision damage repaired. NHTSA's
estimates are based on average time loss for all
accidents, including those in which damage was
minimal and/or not repaired. The survey included
questions which could be accurately answered
only by persons with detailed knowledge of the
costs and benefits of bumper systems. Moreover,
apparent biases in some of the survey questions
may have inflated survey respondents' estimates
PART 581: PRE 46
of the value of damage avoidance. When the effect
of the above noted factors is accounted for, the
insurance industry and consumer representative
commenters' estimates and the NHTSA estimate
do not differ greatly.
Some automobile industry and consumer
representatives commented that the agency's
estimate of $10 per incident for the cost of
alternate transportation while low-speed collision
damage is repaired may be too low. A consumer
organization commented that the agency
underestimated the time lost at the scene of an
accident and in obtaining repair estimates. It
suggested that NHTSA had also understated the
expense of being without a car while collision
damage is repaired. It should be noted that the
agency's Analysis counts savings in delay and
inconvenience for all accidents, whether or not
damage is actually repaired. Since damage is not
always repaired, the agency's figures translate
into a higher per accident savings for those
accidents where repairs are actually made.
Nevertheless, after consideration of the
comments on these issues, the agency has now
used, and has performed a sensitivity analysis
using, a range of costs for time and inconvenience
of $26 to $50 in the FRIA.
Safety issues. Insurance industry and other
commenters expressed concern that reduction of
the test impact speed requirements of the
standard would pose a risk to vehicle safety due
to increased damage to safety-related
components. As evidence of the safety impact of
bumper regulation, one insurance industry
commenter cited a study in which it examined
accident claims involving rear impacts to MY
1973 and 1974 vehicles. According to this
commenter, the results of this study indicate
reductions in trunk lid and taillamp damage on
certain models when the bumper standard for
rear bumpers was upgraded in MY 1974. This
commenter also noted reductions in trunk lid,
trunk latch and tailpipe damage on some models
in data from NHTSA's driver survey, although
the commenter concluded that the survey was of
such limited scope as to preclude the drawing of
significant conclusions. The commenter asserted
that components of the type protected by the
Bumper Standard do affect safety in that, even if
their malfunction does not actually cause an
accident, it increases the risk to occupants once
an accident occurs, e.g., through leaking fuel from
a damaged fuel system.
Several auto industry sources commented that
current bumper requirements do not provide
significant safety benefits. One major domestic
manufacturer cited studies conducted by Westat
and Indiana University's Institute for Research
in Public Safety (Docket No. 73-19, Notice 27, No.
041) in support of its assertion that only one
percent of accidents are caused by safety
component malfunctions which could have resulted
from low-speed collision damage. This commenter
contended, moreover, that the nature of these
malfunctions (e.g., lamps not working) does not
permit the inference that even this low incidence
of contribution to accident causation is
attributable to collisions, but is instead more
commonly experienced as a result of maintenance
neglect (e.g., failure to replace burned-out bulbs).
As a result, the commenter argues that low-speed
collision damage is a minuscule factor in motor
vehicle safety. Another major manufacturer also
commented that the bumper standard's connection
to safety is tenuous, and that there is no evidence
that safety would be compromised by amendment
of the bumf ^r standard requirements. Other
automakers commented that a 2.5-mph bumper
standard would be adequate in any event to
protect vehicle safety components.
Other commenters asserted that 5.0-mph
bumper requirements may in fact have a net
adverse effect on vehicle safety. An auto industry
trade association commented that the extra
weight and rigidity of more damage resistant
bumpers could adversely affect crash deformation
characteristics and rates of crush and energy
absorption so as to reduce potential levels of
occupant protection in higher speed collisions.
Another auto industry commenter argued that
while 5.0-mph bumpers do not contribute
significantly to safety through protection of safety
components, the added weight of those bumpers
necessarily reduces accident avoidance capability
by adversely affecting braking and cornering
performance.
Finally, the agency's own developing research
into pedestrian impact protection indicates a
clear possibility of conflict between affording
enhanced safety protection in this area and
increasing or even maintaining the current
bumper standard.
PART 581; PRE 47
After consideration of the extensive discussion
of this issue in the record of this proceeding,
including the Indiana University study referenced
above, NHTSA has concluded both that no safety
based justification exists for the current 5.0-mph
bumper requirements, and that relaxation of the
impact speed requirements would not compromise
any known safety consideration. In the agency's
judgment, a safety need for 5.0-mph bumpers has
never been demonstrated, either before issuance
of the FMVSS 215 and Part 581 standards or by
subsequent experience. Moreover, the argument
that protection of safety systems in low-speed
collisions is important for purposes of vehicle
crashworthiness as well as crash avoidance is not
convincing in view of the fact that the only Part
581 criterion which contributes significantly to
crashworthiness, i.e., the criterion relating to the
fuel system, is now protected much more
effectively by FMVSS 301.
NHTSA has also considered the energy
management consequences of this action with
respect to compliance with the applicable FMVSS
requirements relating to occupant crash
protection and fuel system integrity. Insurance
industry commenters noted that the crash energy
of a 2.5-mph collision is one quarter that of a
5.0-mph collision. Thus, it was suggested that
2.5-mph bumpers would be less effective in
managing crash energy than 5.0-mph bumpers.
However, a number of motor vehicle manufacturers
commented that in the 30.0-mph barrier impact
used to determine compliance with various
crashworthiness FMVSS, the vehicle bumper
absorbs only a small percentage of the crash
energy, generally less than 5 percent. Moreover,
some manufacturers commented that reduction of
the bumper test impact speed requirements
would permit removal of space consuming and
aggressive energy absorbers and stiff frame rails
which may actually inhibit design of vehicles for
efficient high-speed energy management. Also,
reduction of bumper test impact requirements
could lead to reduced aggressivity of the
impacting vehicle in side collisions.
After review of comments received, NHTSA
has concluded that reduction of bumper test
impact requirements would not have a negative
effect on high-speed crash energy management.
The amount of energy generated in a 5.0-mph
barrier impact is less than three percent of that
generated in a 30.0-mph barrier crash. The energy
generated in a 2.5-mph barrier impact is one
percent of 30.0-mph crash energy. Thus, although
5.0-mph bumpers may absorb more energy than
2.5-mph bumpers, the difference is negligible in a
30.0-mph barrier impact. Moreover, as suggested
by commenters, the 5.0-mph bumper requirements
may inhibit efficient vehicle energy management
design. NHTSA has concluded that 5.0-mph
bumpers make no significant contribution to
occupant crash protection or to protection of fuel
system components which may be damaged in
high-speed crashes.
Thus, the agency's action does not conflict with
any existing safety standards.
Other Issues
Accounting for vehicle size in testing. NHTSA
requested that commenters consider whether the
test procedure adequately accounts for vehicle
size differences. While some commenters
suggested that car size is a factor in damage
resistance, those commenters expressing an
opinion on the issue commented that the existing
test requirements adequately account for these
effects. Those requirements adjust test pendulum
weight to the mass of the vehicle tested.
Commenters also noted that size and weight
differences among cars are decreasing as
downsizing progresses. Thus, change in the test
procedures to account for vehicle size differences
does not appear to be warranted.
Manual repositioning of bumper system
components during testing. Several commenters
suggested the desirability of allowing manual
repositioning of bumper or shielding-panel
components during testing. These commenters
suggested that such a procedure would reduce
costs, increase design flexibility, promote the use
of new technologies, and reduce the subjectivity
now inherent in the evaluation of shielding-panel
damage. However, some auto manufacturers also
stated that eliminating the Phase II damage
resistance requirements would alleviate much of
the need for manual repositioning. Since the
Phase II criteria are being replaced by Phase I
criteria, and manual repositioning might introduce
uncertainties into the test procedure, the agency
has decided not to permit manual repositioning.
Bumper height. On the issue of bumper height,
several auto manufacturers commented that the
PART 581; PRE 48
height requirements of the standard account for a
substantial portion of the benefits of the standard.
One automaker referred to matching heights as
the single most important requirement of the
standard. A major insurer, however, contended
that a matching requirement associated with an
"ineffective" impact speed of 2.5 mph would be
meaningless. This commenter also contended that
only 49 percent of reported accidents are bumper-
to-bumper accidents.
Of course, a significant proportion of reported
accidents would be side impacts, rollovers, and
single vehicle collisions rather than bumper-to-
bumper impacts. Therefore, it does not necessarily
follow that damage incurred in non-bumper-to-
bumper accidents is attributable to bumper
mismatch. Moreover, unreported accidents would
be expected to include a higher proportion of
bumper-to-bumper accidents than would reported
accidents because bumper-to-bumper contact
would prevent significant damage in a number of
cases. Thus, a number of bumper-to-bumper
accidents would not appear in the figures for
reported accidents.
Finally, the agency notes that the height of
some vehicle structural components may be
determined by the height of the bumper. To the
degree that uniform side structural members,
additional levels of protection may result in side
impact collisions from matching of bumpers and
frame rails. NHTSA concludes that the height
requirement is a useful component of the bumper
regulation. Height standardization is maintained
under the amendment announced in this notice.
One commenter advocated lowering the
prescribed bumper height to less than 16 inches,
the current low bound for pendulum testing. This
commenter contended that low bumpers would
optimize pedestrian protection characteristics,
minimize aerodynamic drag, and reduce injuries
in side impacts. NHTSA will consider the
contribution of bumper height in connection with
ongoing research in the areas of pedestrian
protection and side impacts. However, until such
time as the effects of bumper height in these
areas can be fully evaluated, the very high
transition cost of converting existing vehicle
designs and the desirability of consistency with
bumper heights of the existing vehicle fleet
makes it preferable that the present height
requirements be maintained.
Effective date. Some automobile manufacturers
commented on the need for expeditious action to
amend the standard. One manufacturer noted
that final action by March 1982 would permit
bumper system modifications to be made in time
for introduction of model year 1983 vehicles.
Another commented on the long leadtimes
necessary for introduction of product changes.
Yet another stated that an effective date for
bumper standard amendments in the near future
would permit incorporation of bumper system
changes in a new vehicle model currently in the
design stage. In view of these considerations, and
because this action relieves a restriction, NHTSA
has determined that good cause exists to make
this amendment effective 45 days from the date
of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
Requirements for Analyses
NHTSA has determined that this proceeding
involves a major rule within the meaning of
Section 1, paragraph (b)(1), of Executive Order
12291 in that it is likely to result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
The agency estimates that current bumper
requirements add between $140 to $200 to the
cost of a new car compared to the cost of a car
with unregulated bumpers. The reduction of test
impact speed requirements for each of the
roughly 11 million vehicles expected to be sold in
this country annually is likely to result in an
impact on the economy far exceeding $100 million.
For this same reason, this action is considered
significant for purposes of Department of
Transportation procedures for internal review of
regulatory actions. The agency's FRIA for this
action has been placed in the public docket.
Copies may be obtained by contacting the Docket
Section, Room 5108, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
agency has considered in its FRIA the impact of
this rulemaking action on small entities. The
agency certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required for this action.
The agency has concluded that few, if any,
manufacturers of motor vehicles and bumper
PART 581: PRE 49
components or vehicle insurers are small entities.
New car dealers will not be significantly affected
because this action is unlikely to significantly
affect new car sales levels for individual
dealerships. To the extent that such sales may be
affected, the effect would be positive. While
increased car collision damage repairs may result
from this action, the impact on individual repair
shops is not expected to be significant. Again, the
effect would be positive.
The economic effects of this action on small
organizations and governmental units will
generally be the same as those on the general
public. As purchasers of new cars, these
organizations and units will experience the same
increase in net benefits. While this action could
result in a minor increase in police time spent at
the scene of some low-speed accidents, this effect
is not expected to be significant.
In developing this final rule, NHTSA considered
the bumper standard promulgated by the
International Standards Organization and
adopted by the ECE. However, the agency found
that standard to be inappropriate for use in this
country since it does not adequately deal with
consumer cost savings considerations as required
by the Act.
NHTSA has prepared an Environmental
Assessment of the likely environmental
consequences of this proposal. This Assessment
has been placed in the public rulemaking docket
(Docket 73-19; Notice 27, No. 004). Based on this
Assessment, the agency has concluded that this
action will not have a significant effect on the
human environment and that, for this reason, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be
prepared for this action.
Issued on May 14, 1982.
Raymond A. Peck, Jr.
Administrator
47 F.R. 21820
May 20, 1982
PART 581; PRE 50
Appendix
The following is a summary of the more major
comments submitted in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking and discussed in more
general terms in the preamble of this notice. This
summary is organized in broad terms according
to the interest groups from which the comments
were received. Responses to these comments are
set forth in the preamble to the final rule and in
the FRIA.
Insurance Industry and Consumer
Representative Comments
In commenting on the issue of low-speed damage
frequency, insurance industry and consumer
representatives criticized the Westat survey on a
number of grounds. The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) and Consumers Union
contended that the survey understates damage
frequency due to memory weaknesses on the part
of survey respondents. IIHS also noted that
nonprincipal drivers were not surveyed directly
and cited discrepancies between the original
Westat survey and a follow-up survey emphasing
operators of later model vehicles. Allstate
Insurance Company contended that the Westat
survey cannot be used to make judgments about
the effects of changing the bumper standard on
the frequency of damage to safety components
because the sample size is too limited, and that
the survey is not representative because it covers
only unreported damage. Allstate advocated use
of a higher estimate, although not as high as that
suggested by the Ford survey results. IIHS also
suggested that use of the Westat survey
improperly accounts for accidents reported to
police. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company contended that the study understates
the number of low-speed impacts due to the
probable existence of impacts with parked
vehicles, and of accidents not reported to the
person interviewed.
On the issue of bumper effectiveness, IIHS and
the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) supplied
results of laboratory tests on current vehicles not
required to meet the Part 581 standard, ie.,
pickup trucks and multipurpose passenger
vehicles. These commenters reported
substantially poorer bumper performance on
these vehicles, which, according to these
commenters, would comply with a 2.5-mph
bumper requirement.
IIHS also argued that vehicle size is a major
determinant of the amount and frequency of
crash-related property damage. Thus, IIHS
contended NHTSA's assessment of bumper
effectiveness is biased in favor of older,
unregulated vehicles because the more recent
vehicle mix includes greater numbers of more
damage prone smaller vehicles. Moreover, IIHS
argued, imports are more frequently involved in
property damage accidents than are domestically
produced vehicles, further biasing the analysis
against later model years which include a larger
percentage of imported vehicles.
The American Insurance Association and State
Farm contended that the discount rate of 10
percent applied by the agency to determine the
present value of future expenditures is too high.
Since bumpers represent an investment which
displaces other consumption, these commenters
argued that a more accurate discount rate would
be 4 percent. Allstate commented that the
discounting factor should be applied to inflated
costs rather than current costs.
On the subject of delay and inconvenience, the
Center for Auto Safety (CFAS) placed the cost of
a rental vehicle, which may be required while low-
speed collision damage is repaired, at $24 to $30
per day. CFAS estimated that consumers use 1.6
gallons of gasoline in obtaining a single damage
repair estimate and that each such estimate now
costs $35 on the average. CFAS also contended
that the agency underestimated the lost lost at
the scene of an accident and in obtaining repair
estimates.
An insurance industry representative submitted
data from a public opinion poll which, according to
the commenter, demonstrates overwhelming
public support for the 5.0-mph bumper standard.
The commenter also asserted that this poll
indicates people are willing to pay for the higher
levels of protection provided by the 5.0-mph
bumper standard. CFAS also argued that the
public supports the 5.0-mph bumper requirements.
The insurance industry argued that ECE
Regulation No. 42 is irrelevant and inappropriate
to requirements of the Cost Savings Act, primarily
because it does not address the issue of
protection against economic damage. According
to the insurance industry, the ECE requirements
PART 581; PRE 51
amount to merely a weaker version of FMVSS 215.
Moreover, this source contended the ECE
standard focuses in part on design rather than
performance characteristics, and thus is not in
accordance with United States statutory
requirements for issuance of performance
standards.
Librerty Mutual Insurance Company commented
that the current Part 581 requirements do not
adequately account for vehicle dive, which can
contribute to bumper underride in accident
situations. Presumably, dive-induced mismatch
damage would be increased under ECE
requirements.
On the issue of new technologies, IIHS argued
that new materials, ie., polycarbonite plastics,
which could significantly reduce the weight of
bumpers meeting current 5.0-mph requirements
are available at this time. State Farm advocated
the possible use of sacrificial components, ie.,
components which must be adjusted or replaced
after a collision, as a means of reducing bumper
cost and weight.
Auto Industry Comments
In addressing the question on the issue of low
speed collision frequency. General Motors
Corporation and Ford Motor Company commented
that studies conducted by Ford overstate damage
frequency, principally due to their emphasis on
vehicles used in urban areas. These commenters
suggested that the Westat survey is a more
reliable source of data because it is more current
and is based on a more representative sampling
system.
Chrysler Corporation, American Motors
Corporation, and Volkswagen of America, Inc.
commented that neither the Ford nor West data
provide an adequate means of assessing low-
speed collision frequency. These commenters
suggested that use of crash recorders or other
controlled tests is necessary to generate data.
In questioning the value of MY-1973 bumpers in
assessing 2.5-mph bumper effectiveness, several
commenters pointed out that MY-1973 bumpers
were \iot subject to a pendulum impact test and
thus were not required to be of a uniform height.
Commenters noted that MY-1973 rear bumpers
were essentially the same as MY-1972 bumpers,
but with stronger mounting brackets. This
comment is consistent with State Farm's comment
that its research revealed no difference in
performance between MY-1973 and 1972 rear
bumpers. Some commenters also concluded that
new 2.5-mph bumpers would perform better in
the current vehicle mix than did MY-1973 bumpers
in previous years, due to the increased uniformity
of current bumper designs. General Motors, Ford,
and Chrysler joined in attacking the relevance of
laboratory tests as a means of assessing the
relative performance of bumpers, stating that
such tests have never been correlated to real
world conditions.
American Motors suggested that NHTSA
consider the European experience with 2.5-mph
bumpers under ECE Regulation No. 42. However,
General Motors commented that its German
subsidiary reported an absence of field data on
the effectiveness of 2.5-mph bumpers in Europe.
Moreover, General Motors contended that the
European bumper standard is purely a safety
standard and that bumpers designed to meet that
standard would not be representative of future
American 2.5-mph designs. In General Motors'
opinion, the estimates used in NHTSA's 1979
Final Assessment provide the best available
information on bumper effectiveness at
alternative design speeds.
Several auto industry sources argued that
unregulated bumpers produced in the future
would provide greater levels of damage resistance
performance than pre-standard bumpers. The
factor most commonly cited in support of this
contention was that consumer expectations
would require that bumpers provide higher levels
of performance. Insurance cost considerations,
international harmonization, and experience in
designing improved bumpers were also cited as
contributing to the prospects for improved
performance from future unregulated bumpers.
Certain auto industry sources estimated that
unregulated bumpers would exceed 1.5-mph
performance and, at least initially, provide
performance approximating that available under
a 2.5-mph Phase I standard or ECE Regulation
No. 42.
In discussions of bumper cost and weight
savings from use of 2.5-mph bumpers, estimates
of overall weight savings ranged from 8 lbs. for
Volkswagen to over 38 lbs. for Volvo of America
Corporation. Ford reported weight savings of 34
lbs. for its European Escort model compared to
PART 581; PRE 52
its American counterpart as a result of differing
bumper requirements. Associated cost savings of
roughly $35 were estimated by several
manufacturers.
On the related issue of secondary weight, a
recent General Motors analysis of seventeen late
model front-wheel drive vehicles produced a
secondary weight factor of .72. General Motors
stated that this factor was used in the design
process of its recent "X" and "J" car models.
Toyota Motor Company also estimated a secondary
weight factor of .7 for its current models. Renault
agreed that the correct secondary weight factor
is greater than .5. Comments received from Ford,
Chrysler, and American Motors all contended
that a secondary weight factor of 1.0 would be
appropriate for NHTSA's analysis.
The fuel penalty factor of 1.1 gallons of fuel
consumed for each additional pound of bumper
weight, used in NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis, was based on testimony presented
by General Motors before Congress. General
Motors, in its comments on the notice of proposed
rulemaking on bumper standard amendments,
revised its estimate downward to 1.0 gallon of
fuel per pound of vehicle weight. However,
several other motor vehicle manufacturers
commented that the 1.1 gallon figure is reasonable.
Chrysler noted that a higher figure could be used.
Chrysler estimated the increased cost to repair
5.0-mph bumpers as compared to 2.5-mph bumpers
at between $70 and $90. BMW of North America,
Inc. cited an analysis prepared by a West
German technical institute which found that at
impact speeds of 18 kph (approximately 11 mph)
and higher, repair costs for American-made
bumpers are greater than for European bumpers
due to more expensive bumper shock absorbers
and body components. BMW also noted a West
German insurance study reporting that the great
majority of all collisions occur at speeds above
11 kph.
General Motors and Ford commented that
NHTSA's figure for the hourly value of lost time
is too high. General Motors contending that the
figure should be somewhere between the average
hourly wage rate and the minimum wage. Ford
argued that a figure of $3.50, roughly half the
average hourly earnings figure, would be more
accurate. This figure is consistent with a
Consumer's Research report which concluded that
commuters are willing to pay 42 percent of an
hour's wage to save one hour of travel time.
Regarding the cost of alternate transportation
while collision damage is being repaired, Ford
concurred in the agency's estimate of $10 per
incident. Volkswagen commented that the figure
seemed too low, and General Motors suggested
that the agency consider the actual cost of rental
vehicles.
Chrysler expressed the opinion that insurance
premiums would decrease due to a reduction in
bumper repair costs if the performance
requirements of the standard were lowered. Ford
commented that insurance industry premium
discounts and surcharges based on vehicle
damage claims experience provide a significant
marketplace incentive to manufacturers to design
vehicles providing better damage resistance
performance.
Daimler-Benz AG, Renault, and Peugeot S.A.
cited cost and consistency considerations as the
basis for their positions in support of the ECE
standard. Other commenters suggested that cost
savings, e.g., savings in tooling and testing costs,
would result from harmonization. Renault
estimated weight savings of 14-15 kg. for its
vehicles equipped with bumpers designed to meet
the ECE standard.
Volkswagen and American Motors discussed at
length their position that the fixed-barrier impact
test should be dropped from the standard. ECE
Regulation No. 42 does not require a fixed-barrier
test. According to Volkswagen, elimination of the
barrier test would reduce testing costs, promote
international harmonization, and make the
standard more equitable. Volkswagen criticized
the barrier test as unreliable, unsophisticated,
and adding nothing to the standard. American
Motors contended that the pendulum test alone
would be sufficient, since it assures height
standardization and proper bumper geometry to
minimize override, and the versatile positioning
of the pendulum permits testing of the entire
bumper system. American Motors suggested that
the pendulum test could be run with the vehicle
idling to provide a test relevant to dynamic
situations. Volvo suggested the alternative of
employing the ECE test procedure with damage
criteria taken from the Part 581 standard.
Volkswagen and BL Technology Ltd. pointed
out that the ECE standard provides for pendulum
PART 581; PRE 53
impact at a single height rather than within a
height range as is the case with the Part 581
standard. BL Technology contended that the ECE
height requirement should be adopted in this
country to promote harmonization and reduce costs.
BL Technology also noted that the single height
requirement permits reduced vertical bumper
width thereby improving engine cooling. However,
Volkswagen argued there is little difference
between the Eruopean and United States' height
requirements in terms of benefits and that the
Part 581 requirement should be retained to avoid
possible mismatch with vehicles already in use.
On the subject of Phase I versus Phase II
damage criteria Ford and General Motors
questioned the cost-effectiveness of the Phase II
requirements. General Motors argued that
NHTSA's analysis overstates the benefits of the
Phase II standard because the agency
overestimates the effectiveness of Phase II
bumpers in impacts at speeds of 5.0 mph or below.
General Motors added that NHTSA must consider
the 5 lbs. of additional weight and resulting $6
additional fuel cost imposed by the Phase II
requirements. Information supplied by Volvo and
the Bureau of Labor statistics suggests that initial
consumer costs of between $10 and $15 result
from the Phase II requirements. Ford contended
that no true Phase I bumpers have ever been
produced because model year 1979 vehicles
represented a transition period between FMVSS
215 and Part 581, Phase II.
Ford contended that the pendulum test is not
appropriate for assessing damage resistance
properties of the bumper itself due to its
concentration of force in particular locations. This
test, in combination with the Phase II criteria
may, according to Ford, require use of expensive
energy absorbers even if the test impact speed
were lowered to 2.5 mph. Although Davidson
Rubber Division commented that the Phase II
criteria posed no problem for soft face systems,
that manufacturer at the same time advocated
reduction of the pendulum impact speed to 2.5 mph.
BL Technology and General Motors commented
that return to Phase I criteria would encourage
design innovation and the use of new, lighter
weight materials. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation
favored the Phase I criteria because bumper
deformation would improve the crash energy
management characteristics of the bumper system.
Ford also noted objectivity problems in
evaluating bumper damage under the Phase II
criteria. Finally, Ford argued that the increased
use of rubber and polymeric bumper materials
has changed consumer perceptions and reduced
the visibility of and concern about minor dents
and similar damage which was inherent in the use
of chrome-plated bumpers.
Two auto manufacturers advocated dropping
not only the damage criteria applicable to the
bumper system itself, but all criteria limiting
damage to the exterior surfaces of the vehicle.
Saab-Scania of America, Inc. made this suggestion
in the context of a possible decision to retain the
5.0-mph test impact speed requirement. Toyota's
comment noted vehicle cost and weight could be
reduced by eliminating the exterior surface
protection requirements.
Commenters addressing the issue differed on
the extent of manual repositioning which should
be permitted. Ford recommended permitting
manual repositioning which could be performed
without special equipment or experience.
Volkswagen favored manual repositioning
without tools, while Chrysler suggested that
manual repositioning without "special" tools be
permitted.
On the question of new technologies. Ford and
Volkswagen commented that relaxation of the
bumper standard requirements would permit use
of fiberglass bumpers, plastic face bars, rubber
mountings, and ultrahigh strength steel
components which could result in cost and weight
savings, increased styling flexibility and
improved aerodynamic characteristics. Davidson
Rubber offered compressible plastics, i.e., foam or
honeycomb materials, as examples of materials
which could be used if the standard requirements
were lowered. C&F Stamping Company, Inc. cited
plastics and single-unit bumper systems. American
Motors commented that return to Phase I would
increase usage of SMC Components. Chrysler
noted the potential for cost and weight savings
from ultrahigh strength steel if Phase II criteria
were eliminated. One component supplier, Molnar
Industries, Inc. noted the availability of fiber
reinforced plastic bumpers which it contended
may make lowering the bumper standard
requirements unnecessary.
47 F.R. 21820
May 20, 1982
PART 581: PRE 54
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 581
Bumper Standard
[Docket No. 73-19; Notice 32]
ACTION: Interpretive amendment.
SUMMARY: The Part 581 Bumper Standard
specifies that certain equipment be removed from a
vehicle before testing. This notice clarifies the wor-
ding of a May 20, 1982, amendment to make it clear
that (1) no change was intended in the requirement
as it related to trailer hitches and license plate
brackets, i.e., that all trailer hitches and license plate
brackets are removed, whether or not they are op-
tional equipment, and (2) all running lights and fog
lamps which are optional equipment should be
removed, whether or not they are mounted on the
bumper face bar.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1983.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
581.6(aX5) of the Bumper Standard specifies that cer-
tain equipment be removed from a vehicle before
testing. Prior to the most recent amendment, the sec-
tion specified that trailer hitches and license plate
brackets be removed from the vehicle. The standard
was amended in a notice published in the Federal
Register (46 FR 48262) on May 20, 1982, which,
among other things, expanded the specified equip-
ment that is removed to include headlamp washers
and certain optional equipment, i.e., running lights,
fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper
face bar. The section was revised to read:
Trailer hitches, license plate brackets, running
lights, fog lamps, other optional equipment
mounted on the bumper face bar and headlamp
washers are removed from the vehicle.
The amended section might be read to be more
restrictive than the former section as it relates to
trailer hitches and license plate brackets, i.e., that
only trailer hitches and license plate brackets which
are optional equipment must be removed. This notice
clarifies the wording of that amendment to make it
clear that no change was intended in the requirement
as to these types of equipment. Thus, this notice
makes it clear that all trailer hitches and license
brackets must be removed. The agency neither pro-
posed nor intended any change in the requirement
as it relates to those types of equipment.
Another possible question of interpretation under
the amended section is whether all running lights and
fog lamps which are optional equipment should be
removed, or only those which are mounted on the
bumper face bar. This notice clarifies the wording
of the amendment to make it clear that running lights
and fog lamps which are optional equipment should
be removed, whether or not they are mounted on the
bumper face bar.
This amendment is an interpretive amendment
which does not change the substantive requirements
of the Bumper Standard in any respect. According-
ly, it is found for good cause shown that notice and
comment are unnecessary and that an immediate ef-
fective date is in the public interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 581
is amended as follows:
§581.6 [Amended]
Section 581.6(a)(5) is revised to read:
I o \ T^ 't* *!*
(5) Trailer hitches, license plate brackets, and
headlamp washers are removed from the vehicle.
Running lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted
on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehi-
cle if they are optional equipment.
Issued on September 19, 1983.
Diane K. Steed
Deputy Administrator
48 FR 43331
September 23, 1983
PART 581-PRE 55-56
PART 581 -BUMPER STANDARD
(Docket No. 74-11; Notice 12; Docket No. 73-19; Notice 9)
§ 581.1 Scope. This standard establishes re-
quirements for the impact resistance of vehicles
in low speed front and rear collisions.
§ 581.2 Purpose. The purpose of this stand-
ard is to reduce physical damage to the front
and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from
low speed collisions.
§ 581.3 Application. This standard applies to
passenger motor vehicles other than multipur-
pose passenger vehicles.
§ 581.4 Definitions. All terms defined in the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act, P.L. 92-513, 15 U.S.C. 1901-1991, are used
as defined therein.
"Bumper face bar" means any component of
the bumper system that contacts the impact ridge
of the pendulum test device.
§ 581.5 Requlremonts.
(a) [Each vehicle shall meet the damage criteria
of §§ 581.5(c)(1) through 581.5 (c)(9) when im-
pacted by a pendulum-type test device in accord-
ance with the procedures of § 581.7(b), under the
conditions of § 581.6, at an impact speed of 1.5
m.p.h., and when impacted by a pendulum-type
test device in accordance with the procedures of
§ 581.7(a) at 2.5 m.p.h., followed by an impact into
a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to the
line of travel of the vehicle, while traveling longi-
tudinally forward, then longitudinally rearward,
under the conditions of § 581.6, at 2.5 m.p.h." (47
F.R. 2182-May 20, 1982. Effective: July 4, 1982)1
(b) [Reserved.l
(c) Protective criteria.
(1) Each lamp or reflective device except
license plate lamps shall be free of cracks and
shall comply with applicable visibUity require-
ments of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 ($ 571.108
of this part). The aim of each headlamp shall
be adjustable to within the beam aim inspection
limits specified in Table 2 of SAE Recommended
Practice J599b, July 1970, measured with a me-
chanical aimer conforming to the requirements
of SAE Standard J602a, July 1970.
(2) The vehicle's hood, trunk, and doors
shall operate in the normal manner.
(3) The vehicle's fuel and cooling systems
shall have no leaks or constricted fluid passages
and all sealing devices and caps shall operate in
the normal manner.
(4) The vehicles' exhaust system shall have
no leaks or constrictions.
(5) The vehicle's propulsion, suspension,
steering, and braking systems shall remain in
adjustment and shall operate in the normal
manner.
(6) A pressure vessel used to absorb impact
energy in an exterior protection system by the
accumulation of gas pressure or hydraulic pres-
sure shall not suffer loss of gas or fluid accom-
panied by separation of fragments from the
vessel.
(7) The vehicle shall not touch the test de-
vice, except on the impact ridge shown in Figures
1 and 2, with a force that exceeds 2000 pounds
on the combined surfaces of Planes A and B of
the test device.
(Rev. 7/4/82)
PART 581-1
V
0 IZ-R^
05'R>
^>
\.-R
T IMPACT
3" TANGENT RIOGE-
~f 1 IMPACT /
-4 5- -I- LINE— ^(-
ll
FRONT VIEW
(11) Reserved.
§ 581.6 Conditions. The vehicle shall meet
the requirements of § 581.5 under the following
conditions:
(a) General.
(1) The vehicle is at unloaded vehicle
weight.
(2) The front wheels are in the straight
ahead position.
fflONT VIEW
(8) The exterior surfaces shall have no separa-
tions of surface materials, paint, polymeric coat-
ings, or other covering materials from the surface
to which they are bonded, and no permanent devia-
tions from their original contours 30 minutes after
completion of each pendulum and barrier impact,
except where such damage occurs to the bumper
face bar and the components and associated fast-
eners that directly attach the bumper face bar to
the chassis frame.
(9) Except as provided in § 581.5(c) (8),
there shall be no breakage or release of fasteners
or joints.
(10) Reserved.
(3) Tires are inflated to the vehicle manu-
facturer's recommended pressure for the specified
loading condition.
(4) Brakes are disengaged and the trans-
mission is in neutral.
(5) ITrailer hitches, license plate brackets, and
headlamp washers are removed from the vehicle.
Running lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted
on the bumper face bar are removed from the ve-
hicle if they are optional equipment. (48 F.R.
43331-September 23, 1983. Effective: September
23, 1983)1
(b) Pendulum test conditions. The following
conditions apply to the pendulum test procedures
of S 581.7(a) and § 581.7(b):
(1) The test device consists of a block with
one side contoured as specified in Figure 1 and
Figure 2 with the impact ridge made of AlSl
4130 steel hardened to 34 Rockwell "C." The
impact ridge and the surfaces in Planes A and B
of the test device are finished with a surface
roughness of 32 as specified by SAE Recom-
mended Practice J449A, June 1963. From the
point of release of the device until the onset of
rebound, the pendulum suspension system holds
Plane A vertical, with the arc described by any
point on the impact line lying in a vertical plane
(R«v. 9/23/83)
PART 581-2
(for § 581.7(a), longitudinal; for § 581.7(b), at
an angle of 30° to a vertical longitudinal plane)
and having a constant radius of not less than
11 feet.
(2) With Plane A vertical, the impact line
shown in Figures 1 and 2 is horizontal at the
same height as the test device's center of per-
cussion.
(3) The effective impacting mass of the test
device is equal to the mass of the tested vehicle.
(4) When impacted by the test device, the
vehicle is at rest on a level rigid concrete surface.
(c) Barrier Test Condition. At the onset of a
barrier impact, the vehicle's engine is operating
at idling speed in accordance with the manufac-
turer's specification. Vehicle systems that are not
necessary to the movement of the vehicle are not
operating during impact.
§ 581.7 Test Procedures.
(a) Longitudinal Impact Test Procedures.
(1) Impact the vehicle's front surface and
its rear surface two times each with the impact
line at any height from 16 to 20 inches, inclusive,
in accordance with the following procedure.
(2) For impacts at aheight of 20 inches,
place the test device shown in Figure 1 so that
Plane A is vertical and the impact line is hori-
zontal at the specified height.
(3) For impacts at a height between 20
inches and 16 inches, place the test device shown
in Figure 2 so that Plane A is vertical and the
impact line is horizontal at a height within the
range.
(4) For each impact, position the test de-
vice so that the impact line is at least 2 inches
apart in vertical direction from its position in
any prior impact, unless the midpoint of the
impact line with respect to the vehicle is to be
more than 12 inches apart laterally from its
position in any prior impact.
(5) For each impact, align the vehicle so
that it touches, but does not move, the test de-
vice, with the vehicle's longitudinal centerline
perpendicular to the plane that includes Plane A
of the test device and with the test device in-
board of the vehicle corner test positions speci-
fied in § 581.7(b).
(6) Move the test device away from the ve-
hicle, then release it to impact the vehicle.
(7) Perform the impacts at intervals of not
less than 30 minutes.
(b) Corner impact test procedure.
(1) Impact a front corner and a rear corner
of the vehicle once each with the impact line at
a height of 20 inches and impact the other front
corner and the other rear corner once each with
the impact line at any height from 16 to 20
inches, inclusive, in accordance with the follow-
ing procedure.
(2) For an impact at a height of 20 inches,
place the test device shown in Figure 1 so that
Plane A is vertical and the impact line is hori-
zontal at the specified height.
(3) For an impact at a height between 16
inches and 20 inches, place the test device shown
in Figure 2 so that Plane A is vertical and the
impact line is horizontal at a height within the
range.
(4) Align the vehicle so that a vehicle cor-
ner touches, but does not move, the lateral center
of the test device with Plane A of the test device
forming an angle of 60 degrees with a vertical
longitudinal plane.
(5) Move the test device away from the ve-
hicle, then release it to impact the vehicle.
(6) Perform the impacts at intervals of not
less than 30 minutes.
41 F.R. 9346
March 4, 1976
PART 581-3-4
Effective: February 1, 1975
PREAMBLE TO PART 582— INSURANCE COST INFORMATION REGULATION
(Docket 74-40; Notice 2)
This notice eslablifshes an insurance cost in-
formation regulation pursuant to the Motor Ve-
liicle Information and Cost Sa\nngs Act (15
U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). The regulation is based
upon a notice of proposed rulemaking published
No\-ember 4, 1974 (39 F.R. 38912) and comments
submitted in response to the notice.
Tlie regulation will require automobile dealers
to distribute to prospective purchasers informa-
tion which compares differences in insurance costs
for different makes and models of passenger motor
vehicles based upon differences in their damage
susceptibility and crashworthiness. In the ab-
sence of insurance cost information that reflects
damageability and crashworthiness, this rule does
not. at the present time, have an effect on auto-
mobile dealers. Damage susceptibility and crash-
worthiness studies currently being conducted by
the NHTSA are e.xpected to influence the in-
surance rate structure by providing data which
will enable the insurance industry to take these
factors into account. As this occurs, the NHTSA
will prepare comparative indices for the dealers
to distribute to prospective purchasers.
Several comments on the proposed rulemaking
discussed the merits of tlie Motor Vehicle In-
formation and Cost Savings Act and are there-
fore beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Other
comments offered methods for performing the
damage susceptibility and crashworthiness stud-
ies. These comments have been forwarded to the
technical staff performing the studies. Two com-
ments suggested minor changes in the text of the
regulation for clarity and to make the proposed
regulation more consistent with the purposes of
the Act. These suggestions have been adopted
in the final regulation. Their effect is that the
insurance cost information disseminated by the
dealers would be in the form of comparative
indices, based on differences in damage suscepti-
bility and crashworthiness, rather than simply
the insurance premium rate which is determined
by many factors.
One comment expressed the view that provid-
ing this information to consumers within 30 days
after its publication in the Federal Register was
an excessive burden upon the dealere. The
XHTSA does not believe that sufficient justifica-
tion for this position has been made in light of
tiie need to provide the information to the con-
sumer in time for it to be of use to him in pur-
chasing an automobile.
Tlierefore. a new Part 582, Insurance Cost In-
formation, is added in Chapter V, Title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below.
I'Jjfectire date : Although the final rule is effec-
tive February 1, 1975, as specified in the Cost
Savings Act. the dates when automobile dealers
will be required to distribute insurance cost in-
formation are dependent upon NHTSA progress
in developing such information and will be pub-
lislied at a later date in the Federal Register.
(Sec. 201(c), P. L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 947 (15
U.S.C. 1941(e)); delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.51).
Issued on January 31, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
40 F.R. 4918
February 3, 1975
PART 582— PRE 1-2
PART 582— INSURANCE COST INFORMATION REGULATIONS
§ 582.1 Scope. This part requires automobile
dealers to make available to prospective pur-
chasers information reflecting differences in in-
surance costs for different makes and models of
passenger motor vehicles based upon differences
in damage susceptibility and crashworthiness,
pursuant to section 201(e) of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C.
1941(e)), herein "the Cost Savings Act."
§ 582.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part is
to enable prospective purchasers to compare dif-
ferences in auto insurance costs for the various
makes and models of passenger motor vehicles
based upon differences in damage susceptibility
and crashworthiness, and to realize any savings
in collision insurance resulting from differences
in damageability, and any savings in medical pay-
ment insurance resulting from differences in
crashworthiness.
§ 582.3 Definitions.
(a) Statutory definitions. All terms used in
this part which are defined in section 2 of the
Cost Savings Act are used as so defined.
(b) Definitions used in this part.
(1) "Automobile dealer" means any person
who engages in the retail sale of new or used
automobiles as a trade or business.
(2) "Collision insurance" means insurance
that reimburses the insured party for physical
damage to his property resulting from auto-
mobile accidents.
(3) "Insurance cost" means the insurance
premium rate, as expressed in appropriate in-
dices, for collision and medical payment, includ-
ing personal injury protection in no-fault states.
(4) "Medical payment insurance" means in-
surance that reimburses the insured party for
medical expenses sustained by himself, his
family, and his passengers in automobile acci-
dents.
§ 582.4 Requirements.
(a) Each automobile dealer shall provide the
insurance cost information specified in § 582.5 for
examination by prospective purchasers at each
location where he offers vehicles for sale.
(b) The information shall be provided with-
out charge and in sufficient quantity to have it
available for retention by prospective purchasers,
within 30 days after its publication in the Federal
Register.
(c) The information shall be in English and,
if a significant portion of the prospective pur-
chasers do not speak English, in the non-English
language most widely spoken by prospecive pur-
chasers.
§ 582.5 insurance cost information form.
The insurance cost information provided pur-
suant to section 582.4 shall be presented as
follows: [Form to be specified].
40 F.R. 4918
February 3, 1975
PART 582-1-2
PREAMBLE TO PART 585— AUTOMATIC RESTRAINT
PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 43)
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On April 12, 1985, NHTSA issued a
notice proposing a number of amendments to Stand-
ard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Based on its
analysis of the comments received in response to that
notice, the agency has decided to take the following
actions: retain the oblique crash test for automatic
restraint equipped cars, adopt some New Car Assess-
ment Program test procedures for use in the stand-
ard's crash tests, provide in the standard for a due
care defense with respect to the automatic restraint
requirement, and require the dynamic testing of
manual lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars. This
notice also creates a new Part 585 that sets reporting
requirements regarding compliance with the
automatic restraint phase-in requirements of the
standard.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments made by this
notice will take effect on May 5, 1986, except the re-
quirement for djTiamic testing of manual safety belts
in passenger cars will go into effect on September 1,
1989, if the automatic restraint requirement is
rescinded.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Bcxkground
On July 11, 1984 (49 FR 28962), the Secretary of
Transportation issued a final rule requiring automatic
occupant protection in all passenger cars. The rule is
based on a phased-in schedule beginning on
September 1, 1986, with full implementation being re-
quired by September 1, 1989. However, if before
April 1, 1989, two-thirds of the population of the
United States are covered by effective state man-
datory safety belt use laws (MULs) meeting specified
criteria, the automatic restraint requirement will be
rescinded.
More specifically, the rule requires:
• Front outboard seating positions in passenger
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, for
sale in the United States, will have to be equipped
with automatic restraints based on the following
schedule:
• Ten percent of all cars manufactured on or
after September 1, 1986.
• Twenty-five percent of all cars manufactured
on or after September 1, 1987.
• Forty percent of all cars manufactured on or
after September 1, 1988.
• One hundred percent of all cars manufactured
on or after September 1, 1989.
• During the phase-in period, each car that is
manufactured with a system that provides automatic
protection to the driver without the use of safety belts
and automatic protection of any sort to the passenger
will be given an extra credit equal to one-half car
toward meeting the percentage requirement. In addi-
tion, each car which provides non-belt automatic pro-
tection solely to the driver will be given a one vehicle
credit.
• The requirement for automatic restraints will be
rescinded if MULs meeting specified conditions are
passed by a sufficent number of states before April 1,
1989, to cover two-thirds of the population of the
United States. The MULs must go into effect no later
than September 1, 1989.
In the July 1984 notice, the Secretary identified
various issues requiring additional rulemaking. On
April 12, 1985, the agency issued two notices setting
PART 585-PRE 1
forth proposals on all of those issues. One notice (50
FR 14589), which is the basis for the final rule being
issued today, proposed: reporting requirements for
the phase-in, deletion of the oblique test, alternative
calculations of the head injury criterion (HIC), allow-
ing the installation of manual belts in convertibles,
use of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
test procedures, and adoption of a due care defense.
The notice also proposed the dynamic testing of
manual lap/shoulder belts for passenger cars, light
trucks and light vans. The second notice (50 FR
14602) set forth the agency's proposals on the use of
the Hybrid III test dummy and additional injury
criteria. NHTSA has not yet completed its analysis of
the comments and issues raised by the Hybrid HI pro-
posal or the proposal regarding convertibles and
dynamic testing of safety belts in light trucks and
light vans. The agency will publish a separate Federal
Register notice announcing its decision with regard to
these issues when it has completed its analysis.
Oblique Crash Tests
Standard No. 208 currently requires cars with
automatic restraints to pass the injury protection
criteria in 30 mph head-on and oblique impacts into a
barrier. The April 1985 notice contained an extensive
discussion of the value of the oblique test and re-
quested commenters to provide additional data re-
garding the safety and other effects of deleting the
requirements.
The responses to the April notice reflected the
same difference of opinion found in the prior
responses on this issue. Those favoring elimination
of the test argue that the test is unnecessary since
oblique crash tests generally show lower injury levels.
They also said the additional test adds to the cost of
complying with the standard - although manufac-
turers differed as to the extent of costs. Four manufac-
turers suggested that any cost reduction resulting
from elimination of the test would be minimal, in part
because they will continue to use the oblique tests in
their restraint system developmental programs,
regardless of what action the agency takes. Another
manufacturer, however, said that while it would con-
tinue to use oblique testing during its vehicle develop-
ment programs, the elimination of the oblique test in
Standard No. 208 would result in cost and manpower
savings. These savings would result because the parts
used in vehicles for certification testing must be more
representative of actual production parts than the
parts used in vehicles crashed during development
tests.
Those favoring retention of the test again em-
phasized that the test''is more representative of real-
world crashes. In addition, they said that occupants in
systems without upper torso belts, such as some air
bag or passive interior systems, could experience con-
tact with the A-pillar and other vehicle structures in
the oblique test that they would not experience in a
head-on test. Although, again, there were conflicting
opinions on this issue -one manufacturer said that
oblique tests would not affect air bag design, while
other manufacturers argued that the oblique test is
necessary to ensure the proper design of air bag
systems. The same manufacturer that said air bag
design would not be affected by the oblique test, em-
phasized that vehicles with 2-point automatic belts or
passive interiors, "may show performance charac-
teristics in oblique tests that do not show up on
perpendicular tests." Similarly, one manufacturer
said that oblique tests will not result in test dummy
contact with the A-pillar or front door- while another
manufacturer argued that in the oblique test contact
could occur with the A-pillar in vehicles using non-
belt technologies.
After examining the issues raised by the com-
menters, the agency has decided to retain the oblique
tests. There are a number of factors underlying the
agency's decision. First, although oblique tests
generally produce lower injury levels, they do not
consistently produce those results. For example, the
agency has conducted both oblique and frontal crash
tests on 14 different cars as part of its research ac-
tivities and NCAP testing. The driver and passenger
HIC's and chest acceleration results for those tests
show that the results in the oblique tests are lower in
31 of the 38 cases for which data were available.
However, looking at the results in terms of vehicles, 6
of the 14 cars had higher results, exclusive of femur
results, in either passenger or driver HIC's or chest
accelerations in the oblique tests. The femur results
in approximately one-third of the measurements were
also higher in the oblique tests. Accident data also in-
dicate that oblique impacts pose a problem. The 1982
FARS and NASS accident records show that 14 per-
cent of the fatalities and 22 percent of the AIS 2-5 in-
juries occur in 30 degree impacts.
The agency is also concerned that elimination of the
oblique test could lead to potential design problems in
some automatic restraint systems. For example, air
bags that meet only a perpendicular impact test could
be made much smaller. In such a case, in an oblique
car crash, the occupant would roll off the smaller bag
and strike the A-pillar or instrument panel. Similarly,
the upper torso belt of an automatic belt system
PART 585-PRE 2
could slip off an occupant's shoulder in an oblique
crash. In belt system with a tension-relieving device,
the system will be tested with the maximum amount
of slack recommended by the vehicle manufacturer,
potentially increasing the possibility of the upper
torso belt slipping off the occupant's shoulder. In the
case of passive interiors, an occupant may be able to
contact hard vehicle structures, such as the A-pillar,
in oblique crashes that would not be contacted in a
perpendicular test. If the A-pillar and other hard
structures are not designed to provide protection in
oblique crashes then there would be no assurance, as
there presently is, that occupants would be adequate-
ly protected. Thus, the oblique test is needed to pro-
tect unrestrained occupants in passive interiors, and
to ensure that air bags and automatic or manual safe-
ty belts are designed to accommodate some degree of
oblique impact.
The agency recognizes that retention of the oblique
test will result in additional testing costs for manufac-
turers. The agency believes, however, that there are a
number of factors which should minimize those costs.
First, even manufacturers opposing retention of the
oblique test indicated that they will continue to per-
form oblique crash tests to meet their own internal re-
quirements as well as to meet the oblique test re-
quirements of the Standard No. 301, Fuel System In-
tegrity. Since the oblique tests of Standard No. 208
and Standard No. 301 can be run simultaneously, the
costs resulting from retention of the oblique crash
test requirements of Standard No. 208 should not be
significant.
Dynamic Testing of Manual Belts
The April notice proposed that manual lap/shoulder
belts installed at the outboard seating positions of the
front seat of four different vehicle types comply with
the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No.
208. Those requirements provide for using test dum-
mies in vehicle crashes for measuring the level of pro-
tection offered by the restraint system. The four vehi-
cle types subject to this proposal are passenger cars,
light trucks, small van-like buses, and light multipur-
pose passenger vehicles (MPV's). (The agency con-
siders light trucks, small van-like buses, and light
MPV's to be vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. The
5,500 pound unloaded vehicle weight limit is also used
in Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, and
Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intncsion. The
limit was adopted in those standards on April 3, 1980
'(45 FR 22044) to reduce compliance problems for
final-stage manufacturers. Readers are referred to
the April 1980 notice for a complete discussion of the
5,500 pound limit.)
Currently, manual belts are not subject to dynamic
test requirements. Instead they must be tested in ac-
cordance with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt
Assemblies, for strength and other qualities in
laboratory bench tests. Once a safety belt is certified
as complying with the requirements of Standard No.
209, it currently may be installed in a vehicle without
any further testing or certification as to its perform-
ance in that vehicle. The safety belt anchorages in the
vehicle are tested for strength in accordance with
Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.
The April 1985 notice also addressed the issue of
tension-relieving devices on manual belts. Tension-
relieving devices are used to introduce slack in the
shoulder portion of a lap-shoulder belt to reduce the
pressure of the belt on an occupant or to effect a more
comfortable "fit" of the belt to an occupant. The
notice proposed that manufacturers be required to
specify in their vehicle owner's manuals the maximum
amount of slack they recommend introducing into the
belt under normal use condition. Further, the owner's
manual would be required to warn that introducing
slack beyond the maximum amount specified by the
manufacturer could significantly reduce the effec-
tiveness of the belt in a crash. During the agency's
djmamic testing of manual belts, the tension-relieving
devices would be adjusted so as to introduce the max-
imum amount of slack specified in the owner's
manual.
The agency proposed that the dynamic test require-
ment for passenger cars take effect on September 1,
1989, and only if the Secretary determines that two-
thirds of the population is covered by effective safety
belt use laws, thereby rescinding the automatic
restraint requirement. Should such a determination
be made, it is important that users of manual belts be
assured that their vehicles offer the same level of oc-
cupant protection as if automatic restraints were in
their vehicles. Absent a rescission of the automatic
restraint requirement, application of the dynamic
testing requirements to manual safety belts in
passenger cars would be unnecessary since those
belts would not be required in the outboard seating
positions of the front seat. In the case of light trucks,
light MPV's and small van-like buses, the agency pro-
posed that the djmamic test requirement take effect
on September 1, 1989. The proposed effective date
for light trucks, light MPV's and van-like buses was
PART 585-PRE 3
not conditional, because those vehicles are not
covered by the automatic restraint requirement and
will likely continue to have manual safety belts.
Adoption of the requirement
As discussed in detail below, the agency has decided
to adopt a dynamic test requirement for safety belts
used in passenger cars. The agency is still analyzing
the issues raised in the comments about dynamic
testing for safety belt systems in other vehicles and
will announce its decision about safety belt systems in
light trucks, MPV's and buses at a later date.
Most of the commenters favored adopting a
dynamic test requirement for manual belts at least
with respect to passenger cars, although many of
those commenters raised questions about the lead-
time needed to comply with the requirement. Those
opposing the requirement argued that the field ex-
perience has shown that current manual belts provide
substantial protection and thus a dynamic test re-
quirement is not necessary. In addition, they argued
that dynamic testing would substantially increase a
manufacturer's testing costs, and its testing
workload. One commenter said that because of the
unique nature of the testing, it could not necessarily
be combined with other compliance testing done by a
manufacturer. The same commenter argued that
vehicle downsizing, cited by the agency as one reason
for dynamically testing belts, does not create safety
problems since the interior space of passenger cars
has remained essentially the same as it was prior to
downsizing. The commenter also argued there is no
field evidence that the use of tension-relieving devices
in safety belts, the other reason cited by the agency in
support of the need to test dynamically manual safety
belts, is compromising the performance of safety
belts.
The agency strongly believes that current manual
belts provide very substantial protection in a crash.
The Secretary's 1984 automatic protection decision
concluded that current manual safety belts are at
least as effective, and in some cases, more effective
than current automatic belt designs. That conclusion
was based on current manual safety belts, which are
not certified to dynamic tests. However, as discussed
in the April 1985 notice, the agency is concerned that
as an increasing number of vehicles are reduced in
size for fuel economy purposes and as more tension-
relieving devices are used on manual belts, the poten-
tial for occupant injury increases. The agency agrees
that downsizing efforts by manufacturers have at-
tempted to preserve the interior space of passenger
cars, while reducing their exterior dimensions.
Preserving the interior dimensions of the passenger
compartment means that occupants will not be placed
closer to instrument panels and other vehicle struc-
tures which they could strike in a crash. However, the
reduction in exterior dimensions can result in a
lessening of the protective crush distance available in
a car. Thus the agency believes it is important to en-
sure that safety belts in downsized vehicles will per-
form adequately. In the case of tension-relieving
devices, agency tests of lap/shoulder belt restrained
test dummies have shown that as more slack is in-
troduced into a shoulder belt, the injuries measured
on the test dummies increased. Thus, as discussed in
detail later in this notice, the agency believes it is im-
portant to ensure that safety belts with tension-
relievers provide adequate protection when they are
used in the manner recommended by vehicle manu-
facturers. This is of particular concern to the agency
since the vast majority of new cars (nearly all
domestically-produced cars) now are equipped with
such devices. For those reasons, the agency is adopt-
ing the dynamic test requirement.
The adoption of this requirement will ensure that
each and every passenger car, as compared to the
vehicle population in general, offers a consistent,
minumimi level of protection to front seat occupants.
By requiring dynamic testing, the standard will
assure that the vehicle's structure, safety belts, steer-
ing column, etc., perform as a unit to protect oc-
cupants, as it is only in such a test that the sjmergistic
and combination effects of these vehicle component
can be measured. As discussed in detail in the Final
Regulatory Evaluation (FRE), vehicle safety im-
provements will result from dynamic testing; and, as
discussed later in this notice, such improvements can
often be made quickly and at low cost.
The agency recognizes that manufacturers may
have to conduct more testing than they currently do.
However, the dynamic testing of manual belts in
passenger cars, as with testing of automatic
restraints, can be combined with other compliance
tests to reduce the overall number of tests. The agen-
cy notes that in its NCAP tests, it has been able to
combine the dynamic testing of belts with measuring
the vehicle's compliance with other standards. The
agency has followed the same practice in its com-
pliance tests. For example, the agency has done com-
pliance testing for Standard Nos. 208, 212, 219, and
301 in one test. The agency would, of course,
recognize a manufacturer's use of combined tests as a
valid testing procedure to certify compliance with
these standards.
PART 585-PRE 4
Effective Date
Two commenters argued that the requirement
should become effective as soon as practical. As
discussed in the April 1985 notice, the agency pro-
posed an effective date of September 1, 1989, because
it did not want to divert industry resources away
from designing automatic restraints for passenger
cars. The agency continues to believe it would be in-
appropriate to divert those resources for the purposes
of requiring improvements on manual belt systems
that might not be permitted in passenger cars.
Other commenters asked for a delay in the effective
date -one asked for a delay until September 1, 1991,
while another asked that the effective date be set 2-3
years after the determination of whether a sufficient
number of States have passed effective mandatory
safety belt use laws. NHTSA does not agree there is a
need to delay the effective date beyond September 1,
1989 for passenger cars. Commenters argued that
the time span between any decision on rescission of
the automatic restraint requirements (as late as April
1, 1989) and the effective date of the dynamic testing
of manual belts (September 1, 1985) is too short to
certify manual belts.
The agency believes there is sufficient leadtime for
passenger cars. Most of the vehicle components in
passenger cars necessary for injury reduction
management are the same for automatic restraint
vehicles and dynamically tested manual belt vehicles.
Additionally, as indicated and discussed in the April
notice, approximately 40 percent of the passenger
cars tested in the agency's 35 mph (NCAP) program
meet the injury criteria specified in Standard No. 208,
even though a 35 mph crash involves 36 percent more
energy than the 30 mph crash test required by Stand-
ard No. 208. In addition, the FRE shows that with
relatively minor vehicle and/or restraint system
changes some safety belt systems can be dramatically
improved. This is further evidence that development
of dynamically tested manual belts for passenger cars
in 30 mph tests should not be a major engineering
program. Thus, a delay in the effective date for
passenger cars is not needed.
Webbing tension-relieving devices
With one exception, those manufacturers who com-
mented on the proposal concerning tension-relieving
devices supported testing safety belts adjusted so
that they have the amount of slack recommended by
the manufacturer in the vehicle owner's manual.
However, one manufacturer and two other com-
menters objected to the provision related to dynamic
testing with the tension-relieving device adjusted to
the manufacturer'^ maximum recommended slack
position. The manufacturer objected to a dynamic
test that would require any slack at all to be intro-
duced into the belt system, on the grounds that un-
controlled variability would be introduced into the
dynamic test procedure, which would then lack objec-
tivity. The manufacturer asserted that it might have
to eliminate all tension-relieving devices for its safety
belts.
The agency's proposed test procedure was intended
to accommodate tension-relieving devices since they
can increase the comfort of belts. At the same time,
the proposal would limit the potential reduction in ef-
fectiveness for safety belt systems with excessive
slack. The agency does not agree that this test pro-
cedure need result in the elimination of tension-
relieving devices from the marketplace. As men-
tioned earlier, other manufacturers supported the
proposal and did not indicate they would have to
remove tension-relieving devices from their belt
systems. The commenter opposing the requirement
did not show that injury levels cannot be controlled
within the specified injury criteria by testing with the
recommended amount of slack, as determined by the
manufacturer. The recommended slack could be very
small or at any level selected by the manufacturer as
appropriate to relieve belt pressure and still ensure
that the injury reduction criteria of Standard No. 208
would be met. As a practical matter, most tension-
relievers automatically introduce some slack into the
belt for all occupants. Testing without such slack
would be unrealistic.
The two other commenters objected to the proposal
that manual belt systems using tension-relieving
devices meet the injury criteria with only the
specified amount of slack recommended in the
owner's manual. They stated that most owners would
not read the instructions in the owner's manual re-
garding the proper use of the tension-relieving
device. They said an occupant could have a false sense
of adequate restraint when wearing a belt system ad-
justed beyond the recommended limit.
The agency's views on allowing the use of tension
relievers in safety belts were detailed in the April
1985 notice. The agency specifically noted the effec-
tiveness of a safety belt system could be compromised
if excessive slack were introduced into the belt.
However, the agency recognizes that a belt system
must be used to be effective at all. Allowing manufac-
turers to install tension-relieving devices makes it
possible for an occupant to introduce a small amount
of slack to relieve shoulder belt pressure or to divert
PART 585-PRE 5
the belt away from the neck. As a result, safety belt
use is promoted. This factor should outweigh any loss
in effectiveness due to the introduction of a recom-
mended amount of slack in normal use. This is par-
ticularly likely in light of the requirement that the
belt system, so adjusted, must meet the injury criteria
of Standard No. 208 under 30 mph test conditions.
Further, the inadvertent introduction of slack into a
belt system, which is beyond that for normal use, is
unlikely in most current systems. In addition, even if
too much slack is introduced, the occupant should
notice that excessive slack is present and a correction
is needed, regardless of whether he or she has read
the vehicle's owner's manual.
Exemption from Standard Nos. 203 and 204
One commenter suggested that vehicles equipped
with dynamically tested manual belts be exempt from
Standard Nos. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver
from the Steering Control Systems, and 204, Steering
Column Rearward Displacement. The agency does
not believe such an exemption would be appropriate
because both those standards have been shown to pro-
vide substantial protection to belted drivers.
Latching procedure in Standard No. 208
One commenter asked that Standard No. 208 be
modified to include a test procedure for latching and
adjusting a manual safety belt prior to the belt being
dynamically tested. NHTSA agrees that Standard
No. 208 should include such a procedure. The final
rule incorporates the instructions contained in the
NCAP test procedures for adjusting manual belts, as
modified to reflect the introduction of the amount of
slack recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.
Revisions to Standard No. 209
The notice proposed to exempt dynamically tested
belts from the static laboratory strength tests for
safety belt assemblies set forth in S4.4 of Standard
No. 209. One commenter asked that such belts be ex-
empted from the remaining requirements of Stand-
ard No. 209 as well.
NHTSA agrees that an additional exemption from
some performance requirements of Standard No. 209
is appropriate. Currently, the webbing of automatic
belts is exempt from the elongation and other belt
webbing and attachment hardware requirements of
Standard No. 209, since those belts have to meet the
injury protection criteria of Standard No. 208 during
a crash. For dynamically-tested manual belts.
NHTSA believes that an exemption from the webbing
width, strength and elongation requirements (sec-
tions 4.2(aHc)) is also appropriate, since these belts
will also have to iVieet the injury protection re-
quirements of Standard No. 208. The agency has
made the necessary changes in the rule to adopt that
exemption.
The agency does not believe that manual belts
should be exempt from the other requirements in
Standard No. 209. For example, the requirements on
buckle release force should continue to apply, since
manual safety belts, unlike automatic belts, must be
buckled every time they are used. As with retractors
in automatic belts, retractors in dynamically tested
manual belts will still have to meet Standard No.
209's performance requirements.
Revisions to Standard No. 210
The notice proposed that dynamically tested
manual belts would not have to meet the location re-
quirements set forth in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt
Assembly Anchorages. One commenter suggested
that dynamically tested belts be completely exempt
from Standard No. 210; it also recommended that
Standard No. 210 be harmonized with Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 14.
Two other commenters suggested using the "out-of-
vehicle" dynamic test procedure for manual belts con-
tained in ECE Regulation No. 16, instead of the pro-
posed barrier crash test in Standard No. 208.
The agency does not believe that the
"out-of- vehicle" laboratory bench test of ECE Regula-
tion No. 16 should be allowed as a substitute for a
dynamic vehicle crash test. The protection provided
by safety belts depends on the performance of the
safety belts themselves, in conjunction with the struc-
tural characteristics and interior design of the vehi-
cle. The best way to measure the performance of the
safety belt/vehicle combination is through a vehicle
crash test.
The agency has already announced its intention to
propose revisions to Standard No. 210 to harmonize it
with ECE Regulation No. 14; therefore the com-
menters' suggestions concerning harmonization and
exclusion of dynamically tested safety belts from the
other requirements of Standard No. 210 will be con-
sidered during that rulemaking. At the present time,
the agency is adopting only the proposed exclusion of
anchorages for dynamically tested safety belts from
the location requirements, which was not opposed by
any commenter.
PART 585-PRE 6
Selt Labelling
One commenter objected to the proposal that
dynamically tested belts have a label indicating that
they may be installed only at the front outboard
seating positions of certain vehicles. The commenter
said that it is unlikely that anyone would attempt to
install a Type 2 lap shoulder belt in any vehicle other
than the model for which it was designed. The agency
does not agree. NHTSA believes that care must be
taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems
from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a
vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically
tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a
label on the belt itself, a person making the installa-
tion will be aware that the belt should be installed
only in certain vehicles.
Use of the Head Injury Criterion
The April 1985 notice set forth two proposed alter-
native methods of using the head injury criterion
(HIC) in situations when there is no contact between
the test dummy's head and the vehicle's interior dur-
ing a crash. The first proposed alternative was to re-
tain the current HIC calculation for contact situa-
tions. However, in non-contact situations, the agency
proposed that a HIC would not be calculated, but in-
stead new neck injury criteria would be calculated.
The agency explained that a crucial element
necessary for deciding whether to use the HIC
calculation or the neck criteria was an objective
technique for determining the occurrence and dura-
tion of head contact in the crash test. As discussed in
detail in the April 1985 notice, there are several
methods available for establishing the duration of
head contact, but there are questions about their
levels of consistency and accuracy.
The second alternative proposed by the agency
would have calculated a HIC in both contact and non-
contact situations, but it would limit the calculation to
a time interval of 36 milliseconds. Along with the re-
quirement that a HIC not exceed 1000, this would
limit average head acceleration to Gog's or less.
Almost all of the commenters opposed the use of
the first proposed alternative. The commenters
uniformly noted that there is no current technique
that can accurately identify whether head contact has
or has not occurred during a crash test in all situa-
tions. However, one commenter urged the agency to
adopt the proposed neck criteria, regardless of
whether the HIC calculation is modified. There was a
sharp division among the commenters on the second
proposed alternative. Manufacturers commenting on
the issue uniformly supported the use of the second
alternative; although many manufacturers argued
that the HIC calculation should be limited to a time in-
terval of approximately 15 to 17 milliseconds (ms),
which would limit average head accelerations to 80-85
g's. Another manufacturer, who supported the sec-
ond alternative, urged the agency to measure HIC
only during the time interval that the acceleration
level in the head exceeds 60 g's. It said that this
method would more effectively differentiate results
received in contacts with hard surfaces and results
obtained from systems, such as airbags, which pro-
vide good distribution of the loads experienced during
a crash. Other commenters argued that the current
HIC calculation should be retained; they said that the
proposed alternatives would lower HIC calculations
without ensuring that motorists were still receiving
adequate head protection.
NHTSA is in the process of reexamining the poten-
tial effects of the two alternatives proposed by the
agency and of the two additional alternatives sug-
gested by the commenters. Once that review has been
completed, the agency will issue a separate notice an-
nouncing its decision.
NCAP Test Procedures
The April 1985 notice proposed adopting the test
procedures on test dummy positioning and vehicle
loading used in the agency's NCAP testing. The com-
menters generally supported the adoption of the test
procedures, although several commenters suggested
changes in some of the proposals. In addition, several
commenters argued that the new procedures may im-
prove test consistency, but the changes do not affect
what they claim is variability in crash test results. As
discussed in the April 1985 notice, the agency
believes that the test used in Standard No. 208 does
produce repeatable results. The proposed changes in
the test procedures were meant to correct isolated
problems that occurred in some NCAP tests. The
following discussion addresses the issues raised by
the commenters about the specific test procedure
changes.
Vehicle test attitude
The NPRM proposed that when a vehicle is tested,
its attitude should be between its "as delivered" condi-
tion and its "loaded" condition. (The "as delivered"
condition is based on the vehicle attitude measured
when it is received at the test site, with 100 percent of
all its fluid capacities and with all its tires inflated to
the manufacturer's specifications. For passenger
PART 585-PRE 7
cars, the "loaded" condition is based on the vehicle's
attitude with a test dummy in each front outboard
designated seating position, plus carrying the cargo
load specified by the manufacturer).
One commenter said that the weight distribution,
and therefore the attitude, of the vehicle is governed
more by the Gross Axle Weight Rating (defined in 49
CFR Part 571.3) than the loading conditions iden-
tified by the agency. The commenter recommended
that the proposal not be adopted. Another commenter
said that the agency should adopt more specific pro-
cedures for the positioning of the dummy and the
cargo weight. For example, that commenter recom-
mended that the "cargo weight shall be placed in such
manner that its center of gravity will be coincident
with the longitudinal center of the trunk, measured
on the vehicle's longitudinal centerline." The com-
menter said that unless a more specific procedure is
adopted, a vehicle's attitude in the fully loaded condi-
tion would not be constant.
The agency believes that a vehicle attitude
specification should be adopted. The purpose of the
requirement is to ensure that a vehicle's attitude dur-
ing a crash test is not significantly different than the
fully loaded attitude of the vehicle as designed by the
manufacturer. Random placement of any necessary
ballast could have an effect on the test attitude of the
vehicle. If these variables are not controlled, then the
vehicle's test attitude could be affected and potential
test variability increased.
NHTSA does not agree that the use of the Gross
Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) is sufficient to deter-
mine the attitude of a vehicle. The use of GAWR only
defines the maximum load-carrying capacity of each
axle rather' than in effect specifying a minimum and
maximum loading as proposed by the agency. In addi-
tion, use of the GAWR may, under certain conditions,
make it necessary to place additional cargo in the
passenger compartment in order to achieve the
GAWR loading. This condition is not desirable for
crash testing, since the passenger compartment
should be used for dummy placement and instrumen-
tation and not ballast cargo. Thus the commenter's
recommendation is not accepted.
The other commenter's recommendations regard-
ing more specific test dummy placement procedures
for the outboard seating positions were already ac-
commodated in the NPRM by the proposed new
SlO.1.1, Driver position placement, and SlO.1.2,
Passenger position placement. Since those proposals
adequately describe dummy placement in these posi-
tions, they are adopted.
NHTSA has evaluated the commenter's other sug-
gestion for placing cargo weight with its center of
gravity coincident), with the longitudinal center of the
trunk. The agency does not believe that it is
necessary to determine the center of gravity of the
cargo mass, which would add unnecessary complexity
to the test procedure, but does agree that the cargo
load should be placed so that it is over the longitudinal
center of the trunk. The test procedures have been
amended accordingly.
Open window
One commenter raised a question about the require-
ment in S8.1.5 of Standard No. 208 that the vehicle's
windows are to be closed during the crash test. It said
adjustment of the dummy arm and the automatic
safety belt can be performed only after an automatic
belt is fully in place, which occurs only after the door
is closed. Therefore, the window needs to be open to
allow proper arm and belt placement after the door is
closed.
NHTSA agrees that the need to adjust the slack in
automatic and dynamically-tested manual belts prior
to the crash test may require that the window remain
open. The agency has modified the test procedure to
allow manufacturers the option of having the window
open during the crash test.
Seat back position
One commenter recommended that proposed
S8.1.3, Adjustable seat back placement, be modified.
The notice proposed that adjustable seat backs should
be set in their design riding position as measured by
such things as specific latch or seat track detent posi-
tions. The commenter suggested two options. The
first option would be to allow vehicle manufacturers
to specify any means they want to determine the seat
back angle and the resulting dummy torso angle. As
its second option, the commenter recommended that
if the agency decides to adopt the proposal, it should
determine the "torso angle with a H-point machine ac-
cording to SAE J826." The commenter said that
depending on how the torso angle is established, dif-
ferent dimimy torso angles could result in substantial
adjustment deviations that can affect seat back place-
ment.
The purpose of the requirement is to position the
seat at the design riding position used by the
manufacturer. The agency agrees with the com-
menter that manufacturers should have the flexibility
to use any method they want to specify the seat back
angle. Thus, the agency has made the necessary
changes to the test procedure.
PART 585-PRE 8
Dummy placement
One commenter made several general comments
about dummy placement. It agreed that positioning is
very important and can have an influence on the out-
come of crash tests. It argued that both the old and
the proposed procedures are complicated and imprac-
tical to use. The commenter claims this sitution will
become more complicated if the Hybrid III is permit-
ted, since the positioning must be carried out wathin a
narrow temperatiire range (3°F) for the test dummy
to remain in calibration.
The commenter also believes that the positioning of
the dummy should relate to vehicle type. It said that
the posture and seating position of a vehicle occupant
will not be the same in a van as in a sports car. For ex-
ample, it said it has tried the proposed positioning
procedures and found that they can result in an "un-
natural" position for the dummy in a sports vehicle.
The commenter argued that this "unnatural" position
would then lead to a knee bolster design which would
perform well in a crash test, but would likely not pro-
vide the same protection to a real occupant because of
difference in positioning. The commenter recom-
mended that the old positioning procedure be re-
tained and the new procedure be provided as an op-
tion for those manufacturers whose vehicles cannot
be adequately tested otherwise.
Because consistency in positioning the dummy is re-
quired prior to test, NHTSA believes that a single set
of procedures should apply. As discussed in the April
1985 notice, the agency proposed the new procedures
because of positioning problems identified in the
NC AP testing. Allowing the use of the old positioning
procedures could lead to soiu-ces of variability, thus
negating a major objective of the procedures. The
commenter's suggestion is therefore not adopted.
The agency also notes that during its NCAP testing,
which has involved tests of a wide variety of cars (in-
cluding sports cars), trucks and MPV's, NHTSA has
not experienced the "unnatural" seating position
problem cited by the commenter.
Knee pivot bolt head clearance
Two commenters said that the proposal did not
specify the correct distance between the dummy's
knees, as measured by the clearance between the
knee pivot bolt heads. The commenters are correct
that the distance should be 11% inches rather than
the proposed value of 14V2 inches. The agency has
corrected the number in the final rule.
Foot rest
One commenter believes that a driver of cars
equipped with foot^rests typically will place his or her
left foot on the foot rest during most driving and
therefore this position should be used to simulate nor-
mal usage. The commenter said that using the foot
rest will minimize variations in the positioning of the
left leg, thus improving the repeatability of the test.
In a discussion with the commenter, the agency has
learned that the type of foot rest the commenter is
referring to is a pedal-like structure where the driver
can place his or her foot.
For vehicles without foot rests, the commenter
recommended the agency use the same provisions for
positioning the left leg of the driver as are used for
the right leg of the passenger. It noted that position-
ing the driver's left leg, as with the passenger's right
leg, can be hampered by wheelwell housing that pro-
jects into the passenger compartment and thus simOar
procedures for each of those legs should be used.
NHTSA agrees that in vehicles with foot rests, the
test dummy's left food should be positioned on the
foot rest as long as placing the foot there will not
elevate the test dummy's left leg. As discussed below,
the agency is concerned that foot rests, such as pads
on the wheelwell, that elevate the test dummy's leg
can contribute to test variability. The agency also
agrees that the positioning procedures for the
driver's left leg and the passenger's right leg should
be similar in situations where the wheelwell housing
projects into the passenger compartment and has
made the necessary changes to the test procedure.
Wheelwell
One commenter believes that the wheelwell should
be used to rest the dummy's foot. It said that position-
ing the test dummy's foot there is particularly ap-
propriate if the wheelwell has a design feature, such
as a rubber pad, installed by the manufacturer for this
purpose.
NHTSA disagrees that the dizmm/s foot should be
rested on the wheelwell housing. The agency is con-
cerned that elevating the test dummy's leg could lead
to test variability by, among other things, making the
test dummy unstable during a crash test. Although
the wheelwell problem is similar to the foot rest prob-
lem, placement of the test dummy's foot on a
separate, pedal-like foot rest can be accomplished
while retaining the heel of the test dummy in a stable
position on the floor. That is not the case with pads
located on the wheelwell.
PART 585-PRE 9
Another commenter also said that the proposed
procedure for positioning the test dummy's legs in
vehicles where the wheelwell projected into the
passenger compartment was unclear as to how the
centerlines of the upper and lower legs should be ad-
justed so that both remain in a vertical longitudinal
plane. In particular, it was concerned that in a vehicle
with a large wheelhousing, it may not be possible to
keep the left foot of the driver test dummy in the ver-
tical longitudinal plane after the right foot has been
positioned. It believes that the procedure should
specify which foot position should be given priority; it
recommended that the position of the right leg be re-
quired to remain in the plane, while bringing the left
leg as close to the vertical longitudinal plane as possi-
ble. The agency agrees that maintaining the inboard
leg of the test dummy in the vertical plane is more
easily accomplished since it will not be blocked by the
wheelwell. The agency has modified the test pro-
cedure to specify that when it is not possible to main-
tain both legs in the vertical longitidinal plane, that
the inboard leg must be kept as close as possible to
the vertical longitudinal plane and the outboard leg
should be placed as close as possible to the vertical
plane.
Lower leg angle
One commenter argued that proposed sections on
lower leg positioning (SlO.1.2.1 (b) and SIO.1.2.2 (b))
will not result in a constant positioning of the test
dummy's heels on the floor pan, thus causing dif-
ferences in the lower leg angles. It stated that the
lower leg angles will affect the femur load generated
at the moment the foot hits the toe board during a col-
lision. The commenter therefore proposed that the
test procedure be revised to include placing a 20
pound load on the test dummy's knee during the foot
positioning procedure. The commenter did not,
however, explain the basis for choosing a force of 20
pounds.
NHTSA believes that use of the additional weight
loading and settling procedure proposed by the com-
menter will add an unnecessary level of complexity to
the test procedure without adding any corresponding
benefit. The positioning of the test dummy's heel has
not been a problem in the agency's NCAP tests. Ac-
cordingly, the agency is not adopting the
commenter's recommendation.
Shoulder adjustment
One commenter asked the agency to specify that
the shoulders of the test dummy be placed at their
lowest adjustment pcition. While the shoulders are
slightly adjustable, ^the agency believes that specifying
an adjustment position is unnec sary. The agency's
test experitnce has shown that the up and down move-
ment of the shoulders is physically limited by the test
dummy's rubber "skin" around the openings where the
arms are connected to the test dummy's upper torso.
Dummy lifting procedure
One commenter was concerned about the dummy
lifting proposed in (Section SlO.4.1, Dummy Vertical
Upward Displacement). It said that if the dummy lift-
ing method is not standardized, test results could be
affected by allowing variability in the position of the
dummy's H point (the H point essentially represents
the hip joint) through use of different lifting methods.
It recommended use of a different chest lifting
method to avoid variability in the subsequent posi-
tioning of the test dummy H-point.
The agency is not aware of any test data indicating
that the use of different lifting methods is a signifi-
cant source of variability. As long as a manufacturer
follows the procedures set forth in SlO.4.1 in position-
ing the test dummy, it can use any lifting procedure it
wants.
Dummy settling load
One commenter was concerned about the proposed
requirements for dummy settling (SlO. 4. 2, Lower tor-
so force application, and SlO. 4.5, Upper torso force
application). The commenter believes that the pro-
posals are inadequate because they do not prescribe
the area over which to apply the load used to settle
the test dummy in the seat. The commenter said that
if the proposed 50 pound settling force is applied to an
extremely small contact area, then the dummy may
be deformed. It recommended that the load be applied
to a specified area of 9 square inches on the dummy.
In addition, it recommended that the agency specify
the duration of the 50 lb. force application during the
adjustment of the upper torso; it suggested a period
of load application ranging from 5 to 10 seconds.
NHTSA and others have successfully used the pro-
posed settling test procedures in their own tests
without having any variability problems. Unless ab-
normally small contact areas are employed, or ex-
tremely short durations are used, standard
laboratory practices should not result in any such
problems. The agency believes that further specifying
the area and timing of the force application is not
necessary.
PART 585-PRE 10
Dummy head adjustment
One commenter pointed out that it is impossible to
adjust the head according to SlO.6, Head Adjust-
ment, because the Part 572 test dummy does not have
a head adjustment mechanism. The agency agrees
and has deleted the provision.
Additional dummy settling and shoulder belt posi-
tioning procedures
One commenter suggested a substantial revised
dummy settling procedure and new procedures for
positioning of the shoulder belt. NHTSA believes that
its proposed procedures sufficiently address the set-
tling and belt position issues. In addition, the com-
menter did not provide any data to show that
variability would be further reduced by its suggested
procedures. A substantial amount of testing would be
needed to verify if the commenter's suggested test
procedures do, in fact, provide any further decrease
in variability than that obtained by the agency's test
procedures. For those reasons, the agency is not
adopting the commenter's suggestions for new pro-
cedures.
Due Care
In the April 1985 notice, the agency proposed
amending the standard to state that the due care pro-
vision of section 108(b)(2) of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) ap-
plies to compliance with the standard. Thus, a vehicle
would not be deemed in noncompliance 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 standard.
Commenters raised a number of questions about
the proposal, with some saying that the agency
needed to clarify what constitutes "due care," others
recommending that the agency reconsider the use of
"design to conform" language instead of due care and
another opposing the use of any due care provision.
A number of commenters, while supporting the use
of a due care provision, said that the proposal pro-
vides no assurance that a manufacturer's good faith
effort will be considered due care. They said that the
agency should identify the level of testing and
analysis necessary to constitute due care. Another
commenter emphasized that in defining due care, the
agency must ensure that a manufacturer uses
recognized statistical procedures in determining that
its products comply with the requirements of the
standard.
Another group of commenters requested the agen-
cy to reconsider its decision not to use "design to con-
form" language in the standard; they said that the
agency's concerns about the subjectivity of a "design
to conform" language are not greater and could well
be less than that resulting from use of due care
language.
One commenter opposed the use of any due care
language in the standard. It argued that the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires the
agency to set objective performance requirements in
its standards. When a manufacturer determines that
it has not met those performance requirements, then
the manufacturer is under an obligation to notify
owners and remedy the noncomplying vehicles. It
argued that the proposed due care provision, in ef-
fect, provides manufacturers with an exemption from
the Vehicle Safety Act recall provisions.
As discussed in the July 1984 final rule and the
April 1985 notice, the agency believes that the test
procedure of Standard No. 208 produces repeatable
results in vehicle crash tests. The agency does,
however, recognize that the Standard No. 208 test is
more complicated than NHTSA's other crash test
standards since a number of different injury
measurements must be made on the two test dum-
mies used in the testing. Because of this complexity,
the agency believes that manufacturers need
assurance from the agency that, if they have made a
good faith effort in designing their vehicles and have
instituted adequate quality control measures, they
will not face the recall of their vehicles because of an
isolated apparent failure to meet one of the injury
criteria. The adoption of a due care provision provides
that assurance. For the reasons discussed in the July
1984 final rules, the agency still believes use of a due
care provision is a better approach to this issue than
use of a design to conform provision.
As the agency has emphasized in its prior inter-
pretation letters, a determination of what constitutes
due care can only be made on a case-by-case basis.
Whether a manufacturer's action will constitute due
care will depend, in part, upon the availabilify of test
equipment, the limitations of available technology,
and above all, the diligence evidenced by the
manufacturer.
Adoption of a due care defense is in line with the
agency's long-standing and well-known enforcement
policy on test differences. Under this long standing
practice if the agency's testing shows noncompliance
and a manufacturer's tests, valid on their face, show
complying results, the agency will conduct an inquiry
into the reason for the differing results. If the agency
PART 585-PRE 11
concludes that the difference in results can be ex-
plained to the agency's satisfaction, that the agency's
results do not indicate an unreasonable risk to safety,
and that the manufacturer's tests were reasonably
conducted and were in conformity with standard,
then the agency does not use its own tests as a basis
for a finding of noncompliance. Although this inter-
pretation has long been a matter of public record,
Congress, in subsequent amendments of the Vehicle
Safety Act, has not acted to alter that interpretation.
The Supreme Court has said that under those cir-
cumstances, it can be presumed that the agency's in-
terpretation has correctly followed the intent of the
statute. (See United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S.
544, 544 n. 10 (1979))
Phase-In
Attribution rules
With respect to cars manufacturered by two or
more companies, and cars manufactured by one com-
pany and imported by another, the April 1985 notice
proposed to clarify who would be considered the
manufacturer for purposes of calculating the average
annual production of passenger cars for each
manufacturer and the amount of passenger cars
manufacturered by each manufacturer that must
comply with the automatic restraint phase-in re-
quirements. In order to provide maximum flexibility
to manufacturers, while assuring that the percentage
phase-in goals are met, the notice proposed to permit
manufacturers to determine, by contract, which of
them will count, as its own, passenger cars manufac-
tured by two or more companies or cars manufac-
tured by one company and imported by another.
The notice also proposed two rules of attribution in
the absence of such a contract. First, a passenger car
which is imported for purposes of resale would be at-
tributed to the importer. The agency intended that
this proposed attribution rule would apply 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 authorization into the U.S. by an im-
porter for purposes of resale. The Vehicle Safety Act
requires that such vehicles be brought into conformi-
ty with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.)
Under the second proposed attribution rule, a
passenger car manufactured in the United States by
more than one manufacturer, one of which also
markets the vehicle, would be attributed to the
manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
jThese two proposed^rules would 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
venture, and marketing the vehicle. (Importers
generally market the vehicles they import.) All com-
menters on these proposals supported giving
manufacturers the flexibility to determine contrac-
tually which manufacturer would count the passenger
car as its own. The commenters also supported the
proposed attribution rules. Therefore, the agency is
adopting the provisions as proposed.
Credit for early phase-In
The April 1985 notice proposed that manufacturers
that exceeded the minimum percentage phase-in re-
quirements in the first or second years could count
those extra vehicles toward meeting the re-
quirements in the second or third years. In addition,
manufacturers could also count any automatic
restraint vehicles produced during the one year
preceding the first year of the phase-in. Since all the
commenters addressing these proposals supported
them, the agency is adopting them as proposed. The
agency believes that providing credit for early in-
troduction will encourage introduction of larger
numbers of automatic restraints and provide in-
creased flexibility for manufacturers. In addition, it
will assure an orderly build-up of production capabili-
ty for automatic restraint equipped cars as con-
templated by the July 1984 final rule.
One commenter asked the agency to establish a
new credit for vehicles equipped with non-belt
automatic restraints at the driver's position and a
dynamically-tested manual belt at the passenger posi-
tion. The commenter requested that such a vehicle
receive a 1.0 credit. The commenter also asked the
agency to allow vehicles equipped with driver-only
automatic restraint systems to be manufactured after
September 1, 1989, the effective date for automatic
restraints for the driver and front right passenger
seating positions in all passenger cars. In its August
30, 1985 notice (50 FR 35233) responding to petitions
for reconsideration of the July 1984 final rule on
Standard No. 208, the agency has already adopted a
part of the commenter's suggestion by establishing a
1.0 vehicle credit for vehicles equipped with a non-
belt automatic restraint at the driver's position and a
manual lap/shoulder belt at the passenger's position.
For reasons detailed in the July 1984 final rule, the
PART 585-PRE 12
agency believes that the automatic restraint require-
ment should apply to both front outboard seating
positions beginning on September 1, 1989, and is
therefore not adopting the commenter's second sug-
gestion.
Phase-In Reporting Requirements
The April 1985 notice proposed to establish a new
Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-in Reporting
Requirements. The agency proposed requiring
manufacturers to submit three reports to NHTSA,
one for each of the three automatic restraint phase-in
periods. Each report, covering production during a
12-month period beginning September 1 and ending
August 31, would be required to be submitted within
60 days after the end of such period. Information re-
quired by each report would include a statement
regarding the extent to which the manufacturer had
complied with the applicable percentage phase-in re-
quirement of Standard No. 208 for the period covered
by the report; the number of passenger cars manufac-
tured for sale in the United States for each of the
three previous 12-month production periods; the ac-
tual number of passenger cars manufactured during
the reporting production (or during a previous pro-
duction period and counted toward compliance in the
reporting production period) period with automatic
safety belts, air bags and other specified forms of
automatic restraint technology, respectively; and
brief information about any express written contracts
which concern passenger cars produced by more than
one manufacturer and affect the report.
One commenter questioned the need for a reporting
requirement, saying that the requirement was un-
necessary since manufacturers must self-certify that
their vehicles meet Standard No. 208. The agency
believes that a reporting requirement is needed for
the limited period of the phase-in of automatic
restraints so that the agency can carry out its
statutory duty to monitor compliance with the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. During the
phase-in, only a certain percentage of vehicles are re-
quired to have automatic restraints. It would be vir-
tually impossible for the agency to determine if the
applicable percentage of passenger cars has been
equipped with automatic restraints unless manufac-
turers provide certain production information to the
agency. NHTSA is therefore adopting the reporting
requirement.
The same commenter said that requiring the report
to be due 60 days after the end of the production year
can be a problem for importers. The commenter said
that production records may accompany the vehicle,
which may not actually reach the United States until
i30 or 45 days after the production year ends. The
commenter asked the agency to provide an appeal
process to seek an extension of the period to file the
report. The agency believes that the example
presented by the commenter represents a worst case
situation and complying with the 60 day requirement
should not be a problem for manufacturers, including
importers. However, to eliminate any problems in
worst case situations, the agency is amending the
regulation to provide that manufacturers seeking an
extension of the deadline to file a report must file a
request for an extension at least 15 days before the
report is due.
Calculation of average annual production
The agency also proposed an alternative to the re-
quirement that the number of cars that must be
equipped with automatic restraints must be based on
a percentage of each manufacturer's average annual
production for the past three model years. The pro-
posed alternative would permit manufacturers to
equip the required percentage of its actual production
of passenger cars with automatic restraints during
each affected year. Since all commenters addressing
this proposal supported it, the agency is adopting it as
an alternative means of compliance, at the manufac-
tiirer's option. In the case of a new manufacturer, the
manufacturer would have to calculate the amount of
passenger cars required to have automatic restraints
based on its production of passenger cars during each
of the affected years. Since the agency has decided to
adopt the alternative basis for determining the pro-
duction quota, it has made the necessary conforming
changes in the reporting requirements adopted in this
notice.
One commenter also requested the agency to clarify
whether a manufacturer does have to include its pro-
duction volume of convertibles when it is calculating
the percentage of vehicles that must meet the phase-
in requirement. The automatic restraint requirement
applies to all passenger cars. Thus, a manufacturer's
production figures for passenger car convertibles
must be counted when the manufacturer is
calculating its phase-in requirements.
Retention of VINs
In order to keep administrative burdens to a
minimum, the agency proposed that the required
report need not use the VIN to identify the particular
type of automatic restraint installed in each
PART 585-PRE 13
passenger car produced during the phase-in period.
Since that information could be necessary for pur-
poses of enforcement, however, the agency proposed
to require that manufacturers maintain records until
December 31, 1991, of the VIN and type of automatic
restraint for each passenger car which is produced
during the phase-in period and is reported as having
automatic restraints. Although direct import cars are
not required to have a US-format VIN number, those
cars would still have a European-format VIN number
and thus direct importers would be required to retain
that VIN information. (The agency is considering a
petition from Volkswagen requesting that direct im-
port cars be required to have US-format VINs.)
The reason for retaining the information until 1991
is to ensure that such information would then be
available until the completion of any agency enforce-
ment action begun after the final phase-in report is
filed in 1990. The agency believes this requirement
meets the needs of the agency, with minimal impacts
on manufacturers, and therefore is adopting it as pro-
posed. One commenter asked whether a manufac-
turer is required to keep the VIN information as a
separate file or whether keeping the information as a
part of its general business records is sufficient. As
long as the VIN information is retrievable, it may be
stored in any manner that is convenient for a
manufacturer.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part
571.208 is amended as follows:
The authority citation for Part 571 would continue
to read as follows:
Authonty: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
1. Section 84.1.3.1.2 is revised to read as follows:
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 84. 1.2.1 shall be
not 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 manufacturer,
or
(b) the manufacturer's annual production of pas-
senger cars during the period specified in 84. 1.3. 1.1.
2. Section 4.1.3.2.2 is revised to read as follows:
84.1.3.2.2 Subject to 84.1.3.4 and 84.1.5, the
amount of passenger cars specified in 84.1.3.2.1 com-
plying with the requirements of 84.1.2.1 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 manufacturer,
br
(b) the manufacturer's annual production of pas-
senger cars during the period specified in 84.1.3.2.1.
3. Section 4.1.3.3.2 is revised to read as follows:
84.1.3.3.2 Subject to 84.1.3.4 and S4.1.5, the
amount of passenger cars specified in 84.1.3.3.1 com-
plying with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1 shall not be
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 manufacturer
or
(b) the manufacturer's annual production of pas-
senger cars during the period specified in 84.1.3.3.1.
4. Section 84.1.3.4 is revised to read as follows:
84.1.3.4 Calculation of complying passenger cars.
(a) For the purposes of calculating the numbers of
cars manufactured under 84.1.3.1.2, 84.1.3.2.2, or
84.1.3.3.2 to comply with 84.1.2.1:
(1) each car whose driver's seating position com-
plies with the requirements of 84. 1.2. 1(a) by means
not including any type of seat belt and whose front
right seating position will comply with the re-
quirements of 84.1.2.1(a) by any means is counted as
1.5 vehicles, and
(2) each car whose driver's seating position com-
plies vidth the requirements of 84. 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 84.1.3.1.2,
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 84.1.2.1.
(c) For the purposes of complying with 84.1.3.2.2,
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 84.1.2.1, and
(3) is not counted toward compliance with
84.1.3.1.2
(d) For the purposes of complying with 84.1.3.3.2,
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 84.1.2.1, and
(3) is not counted toward compliance with
84.1.3.1.2 or 84.1.3.2.2.
PART 585-PRE 14
5. A new section S4. 1.3.5 is added to read as follows:
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 at-
tributed to a single manufacturer as follows, subject
to S4. 1.3.5.2:
(a) A passenger car which is imported shall be at-
tributed 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 writ-
ten contract, reported to the National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 585,
between the manufacturer so specified and the
manufacturer to which the vehicle would othenvise be
attributed under S4. 1.3. 5.1.
6. A new section S4.6 is added to read as follows:
S4.6 Dynamic testing of manual belt systems.
54.6.1 If the automatic restraint requirement of
S4.1.4 is rescinded pursuant to S4.1.5, then each
passenger car that is manufactured after September
1, 1989, and is equipped with a Type 2 manual seat
belt assembly at each front outboard designated
seating position pursuant to S4. 1.2.3 shall meet the
frontal crash protection 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.
84. 6. 2 A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the re-
quirements of S4.6.1 of this standard does not have to
meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of
Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) of this Part.
7. S7.4.2 is revised to read as follows:
87. 4. 2 Webbing tension relieving device. Each vehi-
cle with an automatic seat belt assembly or with a
Type 2 manual seat belt assembly that must meet
S4.6 installed in a front outboard designated seating
position that has either manual or automatic devices
permitting the introduction of slack in the webbing of
the shoulder belt (e.g., "comfort clips" or "window-
shade" devices) shall:
(a) comply with the requirements of 85.1 vnth the
shoulder belt webbing adjusted to introduce the max-
imum amount of slack recommended by the manufac-
turer 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 maxin\um amount of slack (in inches)
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer to be in-
troduced into the shoulder belt under normal use con-
ditions. The explanation shall also warn that in-
troducing slack beyond the amount specified by the
manufacturer can significantly reduce the effec-
tiveness of the shoulder belt in a crash; and
(c) have an automatic means to cancel any shoulder
belt slack introduced into the belt system by a
tension-relieving device each time the safety belt is
unbuckled or the adjacent vehicle door is opened, ex-
cept that open-body vehicles with no doors can have a
manual means to cancel any shoulder belt slack in-
troduced into the belt system by a tension-relieving
device.
8. Section 8.1.1(c) is revised to read as follows:
S8. 1.1(c) Fu£l 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 ad-
dition, &(' \ the amount of Stoddard solvent needed to
fill the entire fuel system from the fuel tank through
the engine's induction system.
9. A new section 8. 1. 1(d) is added to read as follows:
88. 1.1(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 per-
cent 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 ac-
cordance with 88.1.1(a) or (b), as applicable. The load
placed in the cargo area shall be centered over the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The pretest
vehicle attitude shall be equal to either the as
delivered or fully loaded attitude or between the as
delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude.
10. 87.4.3 is revised by removing the reference to
"S10.6" and replacing it with a reference to "810.7."
11. 87.4.4 is revised by removing the reference to
"810.5" and replacing it with a reference to "810.6."
12. 87.4.5 is revised by removing the reference to
"88.1.11" and replacing it with a reference to "810."
PART 585-PRE 15
13. Section 8.1.3 is revised to read as follows:
S8.1.3 Adjustable seat back placement. Place ad-
justable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal
design riding position in the manner specified by the
manufacturer. Place each adjustable head restraint in
its highest adjustment position.
14. Sections 8.1.11 through 8.1.11.2.3 are removed.
15. Sections 8.1.12 and 8.1.13 are redesignated
8.1.11 and 8.1.12, respectively.
16. Section 10 is revised to read as follows:
SlO Test dummy positioning procedures. Position a
test dummy, conforming to Subpart B of Part 572 (49
CFR Part 572), in each front outboard seating posi-
tion of a vehicle as specified in SlO.l through SlO. 9.
Each test dummy is:
(a) not restrained during an impact by any means
that require occupant action if the vehicle is equipped
with automatic restraints.
(b) restrained by manual Type 2 safety belts, ad-
justed in accordance with SlO.9, if the vehicle is
equipped with manual safety belts in the front out-
board seating positions.
SlO.l 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 diunmy's feet
in accordance with the appropriate paragraph of SlO.
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 vehicle.
SlO. 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 dum-
my.
(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 perpendicular to the lower leg and place
it as far forward as possible in the direction of the
geometric center of the pedal with the rearmost point
of the heel resting on the floor pan. Except as
prevented by contact with a vehicle surface, place the
right leg so that the upper and lower leg centerlines
fall, as close as possible, in a vertical longitudinal
plane without inducing torso movement.
(c) Place the left foot on the toeboard with the rear-
most point of the heel resting on the floor pan as close
as possible to the point of intersection of the planes
described by the toeboard and the floor pan. If the
foot cannot be positioned on the toeboard, set it
perpendicular to the lower leg and place it as far for-
ward as possible with the heel resting on the floor
pan. Except as prevented by contact with a vehicle
surface, place the teft 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.
Si 0.1. 2 Passenger position placement.
Si 0.1. 2.1 Vehicles 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 possible
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.
SlO. 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 projec-
tion. If the feet cannot be placed flat on the toeboard,
set them perpendicular to the lower leg centerlines
and 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 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.
SlO.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 dummy's feet in
accordance with the appropriate paragraph of SlO.l.
S 10.2.1 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.
PART 585-PRE 16
knees, and feet of the test dummy as specified in
SIO.1.1.
SlO.2.2 PassengeY position placement. Place the
test dummy at the right front outboard designated
seating position as specified in SIO.1.2, except that
the midsagittal plane of the test dummy shall be ver-
tical and longitudinal, and the same distance from the
vehicle's longitudinal centerline as the midsagittal
plane of the test dummy at the driver's position.
510.3 Initial test dummy placement. With the test
dummy at its designated seating position as specified
by the appropriate requirements of SlO.l or SlO.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.
S 10.4.1 Test dummy vertical upward displacement.
Slowly lift the test dummy parallel to the seat back
plane until the test dummy's buttocks no longer con-
tact the seat cushion or until there is test dummy
head contact with the vehicle's headlining.
510.4.2 Lower torso force application. Using a test
dummy positioning fixture, apply a rearward force of
50 pounds through the center of the rigid surface
against the test dummy's lower torso in a horizontal
direction. The line of force application shall be 6V2 in-
ches above the bottom surface of the test dummy's but-
tocks. The 50 pound force shall be maintained with the
rigid fixture applying reaction forces to either the floor
pan/toeboard, the 'A' post, or the vehicle's seat frame.
510.4.3 Test dummy vertical downward displace-
ment. While maintaining the contact of the horizontal
rearward force positioning fixture wath the test dum-
my's lower torso, 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.
510.4.4 Test dummy upper torso rocking. Without
totally removing the horizontal rearward force being
applied to the test dummy's lower torso, apply a
horizontal forward 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 ver-
tical in the 14 to 16 degree range at the extremes of
each rocking movement.
510.4.5 Upper torso force application. With the test
dummy's midsagittal plane vertical, push the upper
torso 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 Placement of test dummy arms and hands.
With the test dummy positioned as specified by S10.3
and without indtteing torso movement, place the
arms, elbows, and hands of the test dummy, as ap-
propriate for each designated seating position in ac-
cordance with SIO.3.1 or SlO.3.2. Following place-
ment of the arms, elbows and hands, remove the force
applied against the lower half of the torso.
S 10.5.1 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 possi-
ble orientation. Push each arm rearward, permitting
bending at the elbow, until the palm of each hand con-
tacts the outer part of the rim of the steering wheel at
its horizontal centerline. 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 vertical plane without inducing torso movement.
SlO.5.2 Passenger position. Move the upper and the
lower arms of the test dummy at the passenger posi-
tion to fully outstretched position in the lowest possi-
ble orientation. Push each arm rearward, 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 with the
seat cushion.
510.6 Test dummy positioning for latchplate 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 forwardmost adjustment posi-
tion. 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 out-
board to generate the compliance arcs of the outboard
reach envelope of the test dummy's arms.
510.7 Test dummy positioning for belt contact force.
To determine compliance with S7.4.3 of this stand-
ard, position the test dummy in the vehicle in accord-
ance wdth the appropriate requirements specified in
SlO.l or SlO.2 and under the conditions of S3.1.2 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.
SlO.9 Manual belt adjustment for dynamic testing.
With the test dummy at its designated seating posi-
tion as specified by the appropriate requirements of
S8.1.2, S8.1.3 and SlO.l through SlO.5, 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 operation four times. Apply a 2
PART 585-PRE 17
to 4 pound tension load to the lap belt. If the belt
system is equipped with a tension-relieving device in-
troduce 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.
17. Sll is removed.
18. S4.1.3.1.1, S4.1. 3.2.1, S4. 1.3.3.1, S4.1.4 and
S4.6.1 are revised by adding a new second sentence to
S4.1.3.1.1, S4. 1.3.2.1, S4. 1.3.3.1 and S4.1.4 and a
new second sentence to S4.6.1 to read as follows:
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.
19. S8.1.5 is amended to read as follows:
Movable vehicle windows and vents are, at the
manufacturer's option, placed in the fully closed posi-
tion.
20. S7.4 is amended to read as follows:
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 re-
quirements 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, then manual seat
belts installed in a passenger car shall meet the re-
quirements 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, multipur-
pose 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 re-
quirements of S7.4.3, S7.4.4, S7.4.5, and S7.4.6.
571.209 Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies.
1. A new S4.6 is added, to read as follows:
S4.6 Manual belts subject to crash protection re-
quireTnents of Standard No. 208.
(a) A seat belt assembly subject to the requirements
of S4.6.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208)
does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2 (a)-(c)
and S4.4 of this standard.
(b) A seat belt assembly that does not comply with
the requirements of S4.4 of this standard shall be per-
manently and legibly marked or labeled with the
following language:
This seat belt assembly may only be installed at a
front outboard designated seating position of a vehi-
cle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000
pounds or less.
571.210 Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly An-
chorages.
1. The second sentence of S4.3 is revised to read as
follows:
Anchorages for automatic and for* dynamically
tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash
protection requirement of S5.1 of Standard No. 208
(49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location
requirements of this section.
PART 585 -AUTOMATIC RESTRAINT PHASE-
IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Chapter V, Title 49, Transportation, the Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended to add the following
new Part:
PART 585 -AUTOMATIC RESTRAINT PHASE-
IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Sees.
585.1 Scope.
585.2 Purpose.
585.3 Applicability.
585.4 Definitions.
585.5 Reporting requirements.
585.6 Records.
585.7 Petition to extend period to file report.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
585.1 Scope.
This section establishes requirements for passenger
car manufacturers to submit a report, and maintain
records related to the report, concerning the number
of passenger cars equipped with automatic restraints
in compliance with the requirements of S4.1.3 of
Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49
CFR Part 571.208).
585.2 Purpose.
The purpose of the reporting requirements is to aid
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
in determining whether a passenger car manufac-
PART 585-PRE 18
turer has complied with the requirements of Standard
No. 208 of this Chapter (49 CFR 571.208) for the in-
stallation of automatic restraints in a percentage of
each manufacturer's annual passenger car produc-
tion.
585.3 Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers of passenger
cars.
585.4 Definitions.
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.
"Passenger car" is used as defined in 49 CFR Part
571.3.
"Production year" means the 12-month period be-
tween September 1 of one year and August 31 of the
following year, inclusive.
585.5 Reporting requirements.
(a) General reporting requirements.
Within 60 days after the end of each of the produc-
tion years ending August 31, 1987, August 31, 1988,
and August 31, 1989, each manufacturer shall submit
a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration concerning its compliance with the re-
quirements of Standard No. 208 for installation of
automatic restraints in its passenger cars produced in
that year. Each report shall -
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title and address of the of-
ficial responsible for preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being reported on;
(4) Contain a statement regarding the extent to
which the manufacturer has complied with the re-
quirements of S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208;
(5) Provide the information specified in 585.5(b);
(6) Be written in the English language; and
(7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National High-
way 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 production
years, or, at the manufacturer's option, for the cur-
rent production year. A new manufacturer that is, for
the first time, manufacturing passenger cars for sale
in the United States must report the number of
passenger cars manufactured during the current pro-
duction year.
(2) Production.
Each manufacturer «hall report for the production
year being reported on, and each preceding produc-
tion year, to the extent that cars produced during the
preceding years are treated under Standard No. 208
as having been produced during the production year
being reported on, the following information:
(i) the number of passenger cars equipped with
automatic seat belts and the seating positions at
which they are installed,
(ii) the number of passenger cars equipped with air
bags and the seating positions at which they are in-
stalled, and
(iii) the number of passenger cars equipped with
other forms of automatic restraint technology, which
shall be described, and the seating positions at which
they are installed.
(3) Passenger cars produced by more than one
manufacturer.
Each manufacturer whose reporting of information
is affected by one or more of the express written con-
tracts permitted by section S4. 1.3.5.2 of Standard
No. 208 shall:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including
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.
585.6 Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the
Vehicle Identification Number and type of automatic
restraint for each passenger car for which informa-
tion is reported under 585.5(b)(2), until December 31,
1991.
585.7 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 585.5(a). The petition
must be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. The filing of a
petition does not automatically extend the time for fil-
ing 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.
Issued on March 18, 1986
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
51 F.R. 9801
March 21, 1986
PART 585-PRE 19-20
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 585
Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting Requirement
(Docket No. 17-14; Notice 59)
ACTION: Technical amendment.
SUMMARY: NHTSA inadvertently omitted a relevant
statutory section from the authority citation for the
automatic restraint phase-in reporting regulation.
This notice corrects that error.
DATE: The amendment made by this notice takes ef-
fect September 11, 1988.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 21,
1986, NHTSA published a final rule establishing a
new 49 CFR Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In
Reporting Requirements (51 FR 9800). In that rule,
the agency listed the authority for Part 585 as 15
U.S.C. 1392 and 1407, with the delegation of author-
ity at 49 CFR 1.50.
This authority citation inadvertently omitted the
principal statutory source of NHTSA's authority to
impose recordkeeping requirements on manufac-
turers and other persons subject to the National Traf-
fic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act).
That statutory section is 15 U.S.C. 1401, subsection
(b) of which specifies that:
Every manufacturer of motor vehicles . . . shall
establish and maintain such records and every
manufacturer . . . shall make such reports, as
the Secretary may reasonably require to enable
him to determine whether such manufacturer
. . . has acted or is acting in compliance with
this title or any rules, regulations, or orders
issued thereunder . . .
This notice amends the authority citation for Part
585 by adding 15 U.S.C. 1401 to the statutory sections
listed in the authority citation. This amendment
merely clarifies the source of NHTSA's authority to
establish the reporting and recordkeeping require-
ments in Part 585. This amendment does not alter
any manufacturer's existing responsibilities under
Part 585, nor does it impose reporting and record-
keeping requirements on manufacturers not cur-
rently subject to Part 585. Accordingly, NHTSA finds
for good cause that notice and opportunity for com-
ment on this amendment are unnecessary.
In consideration of the foregoing the authority cita-
tion for 49 CFR Part 585 is revised as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on August 9, 1988.
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
53 F.R. 30.434
August 12, 1988
PART 585-PRE 21-22
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 585
Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting Requirements
(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 43)
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 11401] 1407; delega-
tion of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
51. Scope.
This section estabHshes requirements for
passenger car manufacturers to submit a report,
and maintain records related to the report, concer-
ning the number of passenger cars equipped with
automatic restraints in compliance with the re-
quirements of S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208, Occu-
pant Crash Protection (49 CFR Part 571.208).
52. Purpose.
The purpose of the reporting requirements is to
aid the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration in determining whether a passenger
car manufacturer has complied with the re-
quirements of Standard No. 208 of this Chapter (49
CFR 571.208) for the installation of automatic
restraints in a percentage of each manufacturer's
annual passenger car production.
53. Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers of passenger
cars.
54. Definitions.
(a) All terms defined in section 102 of the Na-
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15
U.S.C. 1391) are used in their statutory meaning.
(b) "Passenger car" means a motor vehicle with
motive power, except a multipurpose passenger
vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carry-
ing 10 persons or less.
(c) "Production year" means the 12-month
period between September 1 of one year and
August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
S5. Reporting requirements.
(a) General reporting requirements.
Within 60 days after the end of each of the pro-
duction years ending August 31, 1987, August 31,
1988, and August 31, 1989, each manufacturer
shall submit a report to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration concerning its com-
pliance with the requirements of Standard No. 208
for installation of automatic restraints in 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;
(3) Identify the production year being
reported on;
(4) Contain a statement regarding the extent
to which the manufacturer has complied with the
requirements of S4.1.3. of Standard No. 208;
(5) Provide the information specified in
585.5(b);
(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 production
years, or, at the manufacturer's option, for the cur-
rent production year. A new manufacturer that is,
for the first time, manufacturing passenger cars
for sale in the United States must report the
number of passenger cars manufactured during
(Rev. 8/12/88)
PART 585-1
the current production year. [For the purpose of
the reporting requirements of this Part, a
manufacturer may exclude its production of con-
vertibles, which do not comply with requirements
of S4.1.2.1 of Part 571.208 of this Chapter, from
the report of its production volume of passenger
cars manufactured for sale in the United States.
(51 F.R. 37028— October 17, 1986. Effective:
November 17, 1986)]
(2) Production. Each manufacturer shall
report for the production year being reported on,
and each preceding production year, to the extent
that cars produced during the preceding years are
treated under Standard No. 208 as having been
produced during the production year being
reported on, the following information:
(i) the number of passenger cars equipped
with automatic seat belts and the seating posi-
tions which they are installed,
(ii) the number of passenger cars equipped
with air bags and the seating positions at which
they are installed, and
(iii) the number of passenger cars equipped
with other forms of automatic restraint tech-
nology, which shall be described, and the seating
positions at which they are installed.
(3) Passenger cars produced by more than one
manufacturer. Each manufacturer whose report-
ing of information is affected by one or more of the
express written contracts permitted by section
84.1.3.5.2 or Standard No. 208 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.
56. Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the
Vehicle Identification Number and type of
automatic restraint for each passenger car for
which information is reported under 585.5(b)(2),
until December 31, 1991.
57. 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 585.5(a).
The petition must be submitted to Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.
The filing of a petition does not automatically ex-
tend 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.
Issued on March 18, 1986.
Diane K. Steed
Administrator
F.R. 51 9801
March 21, 1986
(Rev. 10/17/86)
PART 585-2
EfFective: July 5, 1975
PREAMBLE TO PART 590— MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION CRITERIA
(Docket No. 72-24; Notice 2)
This notice issues a regulation to establish
emissions inspection criteria for a diagnostic in-
spection demonstration projects funded pursuant
to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.). The
regulation is based upon a notice of proposed
rulemaking published June 11, 1974 (39 F.R.
20501) and upon comments submitted in response
to the notice, and is issued in consultation with
the Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
Under Title 15 U.S.C, Section 1962(a), a
State may obtain a grant from the Federal gov-
ernment for the purpose of establishing and
operating a diagnostic inspection demonstration
project. The purpose of the grant program is
to explore the feasibility of using diagnostic test
devices to conduct diagnostic safety and emission
inspection of motor vehicles. The demonstration
projects are also designed to help the Federal
and State governments determine the best means
of structuring safety and emissions inspection
programs. Pursuant to the requirements of
section 1962(b), this rule establishes emissions
inspection criteria to be met by projects funded
under this program. The criteria established
govern the manner of operation of five Feder-
ally-funded State diagnostic inspection demon-
stration projects to be conducted in Alabama,
Arizona, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and Tennessee, and do not, in themselves, impose
requirements on any other State or upon any
individual.
The subject most commonly discussed in the
comments was whether a loaded test mode or a
high speed no load test mode would be more
effective than the basic idle-only mode inspection
procedure in detecting vehicles with very high
emission levels and in diagnosing problems.
Because this program calls for demonstration
projects and is in the nature of a feasibility
study, the NHTSA considers that the most ap-
propriate course is to compare the alternative
procedures and, in this way, generate data which
may ultimately resolve the question. Accord-
ingly, the States will be allowed to choose be-
tween loaded-mode and no-load inspection pro-
cedures. For similar reasons no-load inspection
procedures will include both low and high speed
measurements until such time as the data col-
lected indicates that unloaded high-speed meas-
urements are unwarranted.
Since one of the major purposes of the pro-
gram is to determine whether this type of in-
spection is both feasible and cost beneficial, the
criteria do not specify that the emission levels
be the lowest attainable, but represent a fair bal-
ance between low rejection rates which would
result in limited program effectiveness and high
rejection rates which would result in adverse
public reaction. In the event that the actual
rejection rate varies significantly from our esti-
mate of approximately 30 percent, the emissions
criteria will be modified to bring the rate to the
desired level. Because the emission criteria are
less stringent than those permitted under the
Federal Emission Certification Test criteria, it
is not anticipated that conflicting requirements
on engine design will result from their applica-
tion in this program.
Two comments were addressed to the point
that the mechanical dynamometer suggested for
use in the loaded mode inspection may not simu-
late normal road loading as well as an electric
dynamometer. The purpose of the dynamometer
is to provide an adequate load to the engine to
allow detection of carburetor main and power
circuit malfunctions and ignition misfiring un-
der load. Because this function does not require
trae road load duplication NHTSA does not
consider that the more expensive electric dyna-
mometer should be required.
PART 590— PRE 1
Effective: July 5, 1975
General Motors Corporation suggested that
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) measurement be in-
cluded in the emission inspection criteria. The
Environmental Protection Agency recommended
waiting until such time as NOx controlled ve-
hicles account for a more significant part of the
vehicle population in order to make such a pro-
gram meaningful. NOx measuring instruments
suitable for this type of inspection have not
been developed to a point where low cost, re-
liable instruments are readily available. Fur-
thermore, tuning a cai' without NOx controls
tends to increase the NOx emissions slightly
while reducing the hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide emissions. Therefore, NHTSA agrees
with the EPA that until newer vehicles with
NOx control devices begin to account for a more
substantial part of the overall vehicle popula-
tion, the level of reduction of emissions of oxides
of nitrogen that might be obtained is not large
enough to warrant the inclusion of NOx inspec-
tion at this time.
While the criteria developed in this rulemak-
ing would be appropriate for emissions inspec-
tion of light duty trucks and other light duty
vehicles, NHTSA has decided not to include
these vehicles in the data pool for the demon-
stration projects. The rule requires that the
idle speed of the vehicle at the time of inspection
must not be more than 100 rpm greater than
that recommended by the manufacturer. The
purpose of this requirement is to ensure that
high idle speeds are not masking excessive idle
carbon monoxide levels. At the suggestion of
the American Motors Corporation the units of
measure for proposed emission levels are more
specifically identified than in the notice of pro-
posed rulemaking. The unit of measurement of
carbon monoxide concentration is Mole percent,
while that for hydrocarbon concentration is ppm
as hexane.
Therefore, a new Part 590, Motor Vehicle
Emission Inspections, is added in Chapter V,
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. . . .
Effective date: This part becomes effective
July 5, 1975. The notice of proposed rulemak-
ing had proposed an effective date 30 days after
issuance of the final rule. Because the five States
that have received grants have all developed
their emission inspection in accordance with the
proposed criteria, they will not be adversely af-
fected by an immediate effective date. Good
cause is accordingly found for an immediate
effective date.
(Section 302(b)(1), Pub. L. 92-513, 86 Stat
947, 15 U.S.C. 1901; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.51.)
Issued on June 5, 1975.
James B. Gregory
Administrator
40 F.R. 24904
June 11, 1975
PART 590— PRE 2
PART 590— EMISSION INSPECTIONS
§ 590.1 Scope.
This part specifies standards and procedures
for motor vehicle emission inspections by State
or State-supervised diagnostic inspection demon-
stration projects funded under Title III of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act (15 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.).
§ 590. Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to support the
development of effective regulation of automo-
bile exhaust emissions and thereby improve air
quality, by establishing appropriate uniform
procedures for diagnostic emission inspection
demonstration projects.
§ 590.3 Applicability.
This part does not impose requirements on
any person. It is intended to be utilized by
State diagnostic inspection demonstration pro-
jects operating under Title III of the Cost Sav-
ings Act for diagnostic emission inspections of
passenger cars powered by spark-ignition engines.
§ 590.4 Definitions.
All terms used in this part that are defined in
49 CFR Part 571, Motor Vehicle Safety Stand-
ards, are used as defined in that Part.
§ 590.5 Requirements.
A diagnostic inspection demonstration project
shall test vehicles in accordance with either the
no-load inspection criteria specified in section
590.6, or the loaded-mode inspection criteria
specified in section 590.7.
§ 590.6 No-load inspection.
(a) Criteria. The vehicle must meet the fol-
lowing criteria when tested by the no-load in-
spection method.
(1) The vehicle's idle speed, measured with
the transmission in the position recommended
by the manufacturer for adjusting the idle
speed, shall not be more than 100 rpm higher
than the idle speed recommended by the manu-
facturer.
(2) Concentrations of emission samples
taken from each exhaust outlet shall not ex-
ceed the following levels:
(i) For model years 1967 and earlier:
hydrocarbons (HC) 1200 ppm as hexane,
and carbon monoxide (CO) 9.0 mole per-
cent.
(ii) For model years 1968 through 1973:
HC 600 ppm as hexans, and CO 7.0 mole
percent.
(b) Method. No-load inspection is conducted
by measuring two emission samples from each
exhaust outlet. The first emission sample is col-
lected with the vehicle's transmission in neutral
and the engine operating at 2250 rpm. The
second sample is collected with the vehicle's
transmission in the position recommended by
the manufacturer for adjusting the idle speed,
and the engine idling.
§ 590.7 Loaded-mode inspection.
(a) Criteria. When the loaded-mode inspec-
tion is conducted, concentrations of the emission
samples taken from each exhaust outlet for each
of the three phases of the driving cycle in Table
I, conducted in the sequence indicated, shall not
exceed the levels given in Table II. For the
purpose of determining the weight classification
of a motor vehicle for the loaded-mode inspection,
300 pounds are added to the vehicle's unladen curb
weight.
(b) Methed. Loaded-mode inspection for the
first two phases of the driving cycle described in
Table I is conducted by measuring the levels of
emission concentrations from each exhaust outlet
PART 590-1
Table I
Curb weight plus 300
lbs
Driving cycle (speed-load combination)
1st phase high cruise 2d phase low cruiser 3d phase idle
3,801 lbs and up 48 to 50 mi/h at 27 to 30 hp_ 32 to 35 mi/h at 10 to 12 hp. At idle.
2,801 to 3,800 lbs 44 to 46 mi/h at 21 to 24 hp_ 29 to 32 mi/h at 8 to 10 hp Do.
2,000 to 2,800 lbs 36 to 38 mi/h at 13 to 15 hp_ 22 to 25 mi/h at 4 to 6 hp Do.
High cruise
Table II
Low cruise
Idle
1967 and earlier model years
HC 900 ppm
as hexane
CO 4.5 mole
percent
1968 through 1973
HC 450 ppm
as hexane
CO 3.75 mole
percent
HC 900 ppm
as hexane
CO 5.5 mole
percent
HC 450 ppm
as hexane
CO 4.25 mole
percent
HC 1,200 ppm
as hexane
CO 9.0 mole
percent
HC 600 ppm
as hexane
CO 7.0 mole
percent
of a motor vehicle operated on a chassis
dynamometer, with the vehicle's transmission in
the setting recommended by the vehicle manufac-
turer for the speed-load combination being
tested. For the idle phase, vehicles with
automatic transmissions are tested in drive, and
vehicles with standard transmissions are tested in
neutral.
§ 590.8 Inspection conditions.
(a) The vehicle engine is at its normal oper-
ating temperature, as specified by the vehicle
manufacturer.
(b) An engine speed indicator with a grad-
uated scale from zero to at least 2500 rpm is
used for the unloaded inspection procedure.
(c) The equipment used for analyzing the
emission concentration levels—
(1) Has a warm-up period not to exceed 30
minutes;
(2) Is able to withstand sustained periods of
continuous use;
(3) Has a direct and continuous meter
readout that allows readings for concentration
levels of carbon monoxide (CO) from 0-10
mole percent, and of hydrocarbon (HC from
0-2000 ppm as hexane; and if used for the
loaded-mode inspection, has at least one addi-
tional expanded direct and continuous readout
for concentration levels of carbon monoxide
and of hydrocarbon, such as from 0-5 mole
percent and from 0-1000 ppm as hexane re-
spectively;
(4) Has an accuracy of better than ±5%
of the full scale reading for each concentration
range;
(5) Permits a reading for each emission
concentration level, within 10 seconds after
the emission sample has been taken, that is not
less than 90% of the final reading; and
(6) Has a calibration system using a standard
gas, or an equivalent mechanical or electrical
calibration system itself is based on a standard
gas.
40 F.R. 24904
June 11, 1975
PART 590-2
PREAMBLE TO PART 591
Importation of Vehicles and Equipment
Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(Docket No. 89-5; Notice 2)
RIN: 2127-ADOO
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this rule is to adopt
procedures that will govern the importation of motor
vehicles and equipment subject to Federal safety
standards on and after January 31, 1990. This rule
supersedes the existing joint regulation of the Depart-
ments of Treasury and Transportation on this subject,
19 CFR 12.80, which has been in effect since 1968. In
most instances, the new rules are mandated by the
Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, and
primarily affect importation of motor vehicles not
manufactured to comply with the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. Requirements concerning vehicles
and equipment that conform to the Federal safety
standards, and nonconforming equipment, remain
unchanged.
The Supplementary Information of this notice
contains a full discussion of the present regulation, the
proposal, and the changes made in response to that
proposal.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 1990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although
NHTSA provided a full discussion of the proposed
amendments in its prior proposal, it is repeating much
of that discussion in this notice because of the major
changes that the rule occasions, and the need that
interested persons be fully informed as to the changes
and their effect upon importation procedures that have
been in effect for over 20 years.
On October 31, 1988, the President signed P.L. 100-
562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of
1988 ("the 1988 Act"). Notice of its enactment was
published by the agency in the Federal Register on
December 5, 1988 (53 FR 49003), and a notice of
proposed rulemaking to establish Part 591 was pub-
lished on April 25, 1989 (54 FR 17772). As the notice
stated, the 1988 Act amends those provisions of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
("the Vehicle Safety Act") that relate to the importation
of motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards (section 108(b), 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)).
Specifically, the 1988 Act revokes sections 108(b)(3),
and (b)(4) of the Vehicle Safety Act, effective January
31, 1990. These sections authorized the issuance of
regulations jointly by the Secretaries of Transportation
and Treasury to prohibit the importation of motor
vehicles and equipment not complying with the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, except under such
terms and conditions as may appear to them appropriate
to ensure that a noncomplying vehicle or equipment
item will be brought into conformance or will be
exported or abandoned to the United States. The
temporary admission of nonconforming used vehicles
and equipment items by exempted persons was also
permitted. Pursuant to this authority, the two Sec-
retaries issued an implementing regulation, 19 CFR
12.80, which has governed the importation of merch-
andise subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards
since 1968, and will continue to do so through January
31, 1990.
Under the 1988 Act, new sections (c) through G) are
added to section 108 to replace revoked sections (b)(3)
and (b)(4). The authority to issue joint regulations is
replaced by a rulemaking authority vested alone in the
Secretary of Transportation (and delegated to NHTSA
through existing delegation of authority).
The purpose of this notice is to promulgate a final
rule to implement the 1988 Act, and to explain how
importation of motor vehicles and equipment will be
affected by this new authority. First, the existing
regulation, 19 CFR 12.80, will continue to be a regula-
tion under the joint authority of the two Departments
with respect to the importation provisions of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act under
which the Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581) and the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) were
issued. With respect to the Vehicle Safety Act, however,
the new NHTSA regulation, 49 CFR Part 591, will
become the primary importation regulation, and 19
CFR 12.80 will become the conforming regulation of
the U.S. Customs Service. In the future, substantive
changes to importation procedures will be effected by
NHTSA alone, through amendments to Part 591, and
Customs will make conforming amendments to 19
CFR 12.80, as required.
PART 591-PRE 1
A similar relationship presently exists between
regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") and Customs {see, respectively, 40 CFR 85.1501
et seq. and 19 CFR 12.73). This relationship has
established a precedent for Customs to amend its
regulations without notice and opportunity for com-
ment on the basis that full notice and opportunity had
been offered by EPA in promulgating its regulations,
and that the amendments by Customs were merely
conforming in nature {See 53 PR 26240).
In establishing Part 591, NHTSA has attempted to
formulate a program that will ensure that all imported
motor vehicles conform to the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards without imposing unnecessary bur-
dens on importers. Therefore, NHTSA has tried in this
rule to impose only those requirements that are
mandated by the 1988 Act, with amplifications only
where it appeared necessary to implement the safety
intent of the statute.
In response to the proposal published on April 25,
1989, NHTSA received 19 written comments, and, as
well, several inquiries by telephone. Seven comments
were received from the following motor vehicle man-
ufacturers: BMW of North America, Freightliner Corp.,
Austin Rover Cars of North America, General Motors
Corp., Volkswagen of America, Ford Motor Co., and
Chrysler Corp. Five comments were received from the
following manufacturing firms in Canada: Intercon-
tinental Truck Body Ltd., Barber Industries Ltd.,
Cancade Co., Western-Hydro Air Drilling Ltd., and
Canterra Equipment Inc. Also commenting from
Canada was an import/export consulting firm. All
Alta. Agencies Ltd. Two comments were received from
importers of vehicles not originally manufactured to
conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards:
U.S. Trade Corp. and Auburn Motors/Superior Auto
Sales (whose submission was supported by the National
Federation of Independent Businesses). Two comments
were received from trade organizations: National
Automobile Dealers Association and The Dealer Action
Association. Written comments were submitted by the
State of Texas, and a private citizen, George Ziolo.
During the pendency of the rulemaking action, ques-
tions were raised in telephone conversations, reported
to the Docket, and these will be addressed in this notice
where appropriate.
The principal paragraphs of Part 591 are those
dealing with the importer's declarations (591.5), doc-
uments accompanying declarations (591.6), and restric-
tions upon importation and bond requirements (591.7).
As paragraphs 591.6 and 591.7 relate directly to
paragraph 591.5, issues that were raised in connection
with them will be discussed in the appropriate portions
of paragraph 591.5.
IMPORT A TION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Under existing 12.80, a motor vehicle offered for
importation into the United States is admitted pursuant
to one of nine declarations regarding the status of the
vehicle in relation to the motor vehicle safety and
bumper standards (12.80 is in the process of being
amended to incorporate reference to the theft preven-
tion standard). The requirements of the 1988 Act affect
some of these declarations, and establish new excep-
tions. A discussion of these changes follows.
1. The vehicle is not a "motor vehicle".
Under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(viii), a vehicle is not
required to be brought into compliance if it is not a
motor vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Safety Act, i.e. ,
if it is not "designed primarily for use on the public
streets, roads, and highways" (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)).
Because of the uncertainty regarding certain types of
vehicles {e.g., golf carts, construction equipment)
NHTSA has required that all importers of self-propelled
wheeled vehicles execute a declaration, which has
allowed the agency to review the status of vehicles for
which an exemption is claimed, and to require re-entry
as a nonconforming vehicle when it disagrees with the
importer's assessment that the vehicle is not subject to
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This
exemption remains (paragraph 591.5(a)(i)) because
this agency has no jurisdiction regarding non-motor
vehicles under the Vehicle Safety Act and the 1988 Act
makes no jurisdictional change. There were no com-
ments on this issue.
2. The vehicle conforms and is so certified.
Under the existing regulation, a motor vehicle is
, allowed immediate entry without the posting of bond
upon a declaration that it conforms to all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bears a
certification label to that effect permanently affixed by
the original manufacturer (12.80(b)(l)(ii)). This same
paragraph also allows immediate entry if a vehicle is
only technically noncompliant, i.e., because readily
attachable equipment items are not attached, but will
be installed before the vehicle is offered for sale.
The 1988 Act makes no change affecting this category
of importation. The agency interprets the new amend-
ments, however, as imposing new restrictions upon
the importation of vehicles that may have been con-
formed prior to entry but bear a certification by a
person other than the original manufacturer. The 1988
Act amends 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) to add the words
"and is covered by a certification issued under section
1 14" as an addition to the existing requirement that a
vehicle may not be imported "unless it is in con-
formity." A certification issued under section 114 is
that of the "manufacturer", the entity which is
responsible for the original assembly of the vehicle,
and not that of a converter, whose operation consist of
alterations to a previously assembled vehicle. To
reflect this amendment, the agency proposed, and is
now adopting, a definition of the term "original man-
ufacturer" (paragraph 591.4) which excludes con-
verters outside the United States who certify and
PART 591-PRE 2
conform vehicles to the standards after the vehicles
have been manufactured in fully assembled form by a
person other than the converter. The agency believes
that the 1988 Act justifies this interpretation. The
definition was specifically supported by The Dealer
Action Association. An interpretation that would allow
entry of a vehicle pursuant to a declaration of con-
formity and a certification by a person other than its
original manufacturer could well result in the importa-
tion of vehicles for which the Administrator had made
no determination of capability of modification to meet
Federal standards, and defeat the purpose of the 1988
Act. However, even if the converted vehicle is one that
the Administrator has deemed eligible for entry and is
certified as conforming by its converter, under Part
591 it must enter the country only through a registered
importer (or through one who has a contract with a
registered importer), under bond, and its compliance
must be established after entry in accordance with the
new procedures.
One commenter, U.S. Trade Corp., though head-
quartered in the U.S., apparently owns a conversion
facility in Germany. Assuming that it will become a
registered importer, it commented that it ought to be
able to import its converted vehicles without bond,
provided that it submitted documentation to NHTSA
30 days in advance of the arrival of its vehicles.
NHTSA notes, however, that these are vehicles im-
ported pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3), and paragraph
(c)(2) specifically requires a bond to be furnished "in
the case of any motor vehicle imported under paragraph
(3). . ." Though sympathetic to U.S. Trade Corp.'s
desire for expedited treatment, NHTSA believes that it
is contrary to the 1988 Act for it to receive certification
from an importer in advance of the arrival of a vehicle.
Section 1397(c)(3)(E)(i) allows a registered importer to
release custody of a vehicle 30 days after certification
to the Secretary (if the Secretary has not in the interim
demanded an inspection of the vehicle). Acceding to
U.S. Trade Corp.'s request for early submission of
certification could result in the 30-day period expiring
before arrival of the vehicle in the U.S., and its
immediate release from custody upon entry. NHTSA
does not deem it desirable to demand pro forma an
inspection of each such vehicle to delay its release from
custody. Accordingly, it is informing U.S. Trade Corp.
and others who are contemplating becoming registered
importers that it will not accept certification data in
advance of the arrival of a vehicle in the United States,
and that the earliest date on which certification
documentation may be submitted is the date of the
importation declaration. Consequently, a motor vehicle
that has been modified by a registered importer after
its manufacture and before entry, will be treated as a
nonconforming motor vehicle, and subject to the same
entry requirements as a nonconforming vehicle.
Although the exclusory language in the definition of
"Original manufacturer" remains as proposed, a mod-
ification has been made in the preliminary portion
which defined the term as "the entity responsible for
the original design, engineering, and manufacturer of
a motor vehicle. . . ."Volkswagen commented that the
definition was overly restrictive by its inclusion of
design and engineering, and recommended a definition
that would be consistent with the definition of "man-
ufacturer" in the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)).
NHTSA concurs with this analysis and recommenda-
tion. The agency is aware that on occasion a vehicle
manufacturer in one country may contract with a firm
in another for design and engineering studies for
future production vehicles. Accordingly, the pre-
liminary portion of the final definition reads "the
entity responsible for the original manufacture or
assembly of a motor vehicle. . . ." VW also recom-
mended that the definition include motor vehicle
equipment. The agency has not adopted this recom-
mendation, as the amendments of the 1988 Act do not
affect motor vehicle equipment.
Other issues regarding interpretations of conformity
were raised by commenters. Canadian companies who
appeared to be final stage manufacturers, and who
were concerned that their vehicles would be treated as
"nonconforming" under the amendments, asked for a
clarification. The agency wishes to reassure these
commenters that the new requirements do not affect
final stage manufacturers outside the United States
who complete chassis-cabs manufactured and certified
in the United States, and certify compliance of the
finished vehicle with those U.S. Federal motor vehicle
safety standards for which the manufacturer of the
chassis-cab has not previously furnished certification.
The final stage manufacturer is and remains the
"original manufacturer" for purposes of the certi-
fication that it furnishes, and vehicles certified by
Canadian final stage manufacturers will be admissible
as conforming vehicles under new paragraph 591.5(b).
With respect to vehicles certified as conforming to
the Canadian motor vehicle safety standards. Auburn
Motor/Superior Auto Sales, importers of such vehicles,
commented that NHTSA had not addressed the issue
of vehicles manufactured to meet the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, but which may not be so
certified. In their view, Canadian vehicles do meet the
U.S. standards, and special accommodation should be
provided for them. Auburn/Superior cited .The Free
Trade Act between Canada and the United States in
support, as well as a settlement with EPA which was
published in the Federal Register on]\i\y 8, 1988 (53 FR
25331), which, according to Auburn/Superior re-
cognized the identicality of standards. After reviewing
Auburn/Superior's comments, NHTSA cannot concur
with the conclusion that a special accommodation
PART 591-PRE 3
ought to be made. In many respects, the Canadian
standards may be identical, but they also differ in
certain other significant respects. For example, the
Canadian vehicle lighting standard allows the use of
headlamps meeting ECE standards. Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not allow the use
of European light sources, or of replaceable bulb
headlamps that do not meet stringent environmental
standards which are not specified in European reg-
ulations. Another example: the Canadian standard on
controls and displays requires the use of metric
speedometers and odometers; the primary U.S. require-
ment is that they be in miles per hour, though metric
markings are permissible. The fact that similarity
exists between the standards of the two nations today
does not preclude either the U.S. or Canada from
adopting significantly different ones in the future, as
allowed by Article 603 of The Free Trade Act, if the
demonstrable purpose is to achieve a legitimate do-
mestic objective, such as enhancement of the public
safety. The EPA "settlement" cited by Auburn/
Superior was, in fact, simply a 3-month conditional
stay of the applicability of that agency's new importa-
tion regulation, to expire October 1 , 1988, based upon a
petition for reconsideration of the rule. NHTSA notes
that only one Federal standard was involved, engine
emission, and that the Federal safety standards are far
greater in number. Even if vehicles certified to the
Canadian safety standards do meet U.S. emission
requirements, that fact is of no relevance to the
quantum of compliance with the U.S. safety standards.
A manufacturer's certification attached to a vehicle
remains the statutorily approved method of estab-
lishing a presumption of compliance with the U.S.
safety standards.
A telephone call was received from Barry Wood, a
customs broker, about the treatment of reentry into
the United States of a used certified vehicle that was
driven to Canada for modifications involving the
installation of a different load-carrying structure. An
associated issue is the treatment of new certified
vehicles sent to Canada for modification requiring the
affixation of an alterer's certificate as required by 49
CFR 567.7. NHTSA replies that the thrust of the 1988
Act is to regulate vehicles that were not originally
manufactured to comply with Federal safety standards,
and not to ensure continuing compliance of those that
were. Assuming that the original manufacturer's
certification remains affixed to an altered vehicle,
whether that vehicle is new or used, the vehicle should
be readmitted to the United States under paragraph
591.5(b) as a conforming vehicle. Of course, the U.S.
owner/importer should ensure with the Canadian
alterer that its modifications do not result in changes
(such as installation of tinted glass that may not
conform with Standard No. 205, or an increase in
G VWR) that would raise a question of conformity with
the U.S. Customs Service, so as to delay reentry, or
require its readmission as a nonconforming vehicle in
spite of the presence of its certification label.
Ford Motor Company raised the issue of discovery in
transit of a noncompliance in vehicles it imports from
abroad for sale under its nameplate, but which are
manufactured and certified by a second party. Ford
stated that Part 591 ought to permit importation for
modification by Ford as the agent of the foreign
manufacturer, and asked that the final rule allow such
modifications to be made in the U.S., or confirmation
that the rule already allows it. The agency's analysis
differs from Ford's although its conclusion should
meet Ford's concern. Where a noncompliance is dis-
covered in transit, NHTSA believes that only a
technical violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would
occur with the importation of a motor vehicle certified
as conforming to the safety standards, but in fact
known to the importer to be noncompliant with at least
one of them. As an importer for resale. Ford becomes
the "manufacturer" under the Vehicle Safety Act and
responsible for all notification and remedial respons-
ibilities imposed by that Act. Thus, it will be required
to file a Part 573 Noncompliance Report with NHTSA
not later than 5 days after its determination of the
existence of the noncompliance. As the Act forbids sale
of a nonconforming vehicle, Ford will be under a legal
obligation to remedy the noncompliance before it is
sold. Provided that the noncompliance is corrected
before the vehicles are offered for sale, there would
appear to be no harm to the public safety by allowing
the importation.
The agency responds similarly to a comment by
General Motors. Under the proposal, a technically
noncompliant vehicle could be admitted pursuant to
the declaration that "the vehicle will conform when
readily attachable equipment items carried within it
are attached." This represents a slight departure from
the current declaration which does not require the
equipment items to be carried within the vehicle. GM
points out that it may well be that components will be
added from domestic sources prior to sale, or arrive
from abroad by separate shipments. Because of the
importer's legal obligation not to offer a vehicle for sale
in a noncompliant condition, it is irrelevant whether or
not the equipment items are carried within the vehicle,
and NHTSA has eliminated the proposed restriction
from the final rule, adopting language virtually
identical to that presently existing in 12.80(b)(l)(ii).
GM also suggested that a manufacturer's "agents" be
permitted to attached the detached equipment items.
Given the fact that the vehicle must fully comply when
offered for sale, NHTSA believes that the answer must
be a practical one, and that the items may be attached
by the manufacturer or the dealer, as appears best.
One further comment regarding paragraph 591.5(b)
resulted in minor modifications in the final rule. Under
PART 591-PRE 4
the proposal, the vehicle or equipment item to be
imported must bear a certification label or tag affixed
by the original manufacturer "to the vehicle or to the
equipment item or its container." NADA commented
that the language could be construed as allowing
certification of vehicles on vehicle containers rather
than on the vehicle itself. To meet this concern,
NHTSA has placed a comma between the word
"vehicle" and the disjunctive "or." In agreement with
NADA's suggestion that the paragraph contain an
appropriate citation to labeling regulations as is cur-
rently done in 12.80, NHTSA has added the statutory
references. This should help clarify that the labeling
requirement remains the same in spite of the advent of
a new importation regulation.
3. The vehicle is intended solely for export.
A nonconforming vehicle is allowed immediate entry
without bond upon the declaration that the importation
is solely for purposes of export, and bears a label to that
effect (12.80(b)(l)(iv)). This declaration is allowed
pursuant to a specific statutory exclusion in the
Vehicle Safety Act, section 108(b)(5). Under the 1988
Act, the section becomes 108(b)(3), but is otherwise
unchanged, and the exclusion remains (Paragraph
591.5(c)). There were no comments on this issue.
4, Nonresident temporary importations.
If the importer is a nonresident of the United States
and is importing the nonconforming vehicle primarily
for personal use for a period of 1 year or less, the
current regulations allow entry without bond and
conformance, but the declaration must also state that
the importer will not sell the nonconforming vehicle in
the United States during that period (12.80(b)(l)(v)).
There is no similar provision in the 1988 Act.
This provision was intended to benefit two classes of
importers. The first class is comprised of U.S. citizens
who are between foreign work assignments, and need
to use their noncomplying cars while in transit, on
home leave, or on temporary assignment in the U.S.
The second class of importer is comprised of non-U.S.
citizens. They may be Mexican or Canadian residents
who use the American roads on an infrequent basis, or
citizens of other countries who bring their campers or
cars with them to facilitate their vacations in the U.S.
One authority for the previously existing allowance
was section 1397(b)(4) which authorized the adoption
of regulations allowing the "temporary importation"
of noncomplying vehicles or equipment items. This
authority has been deleted by the 1988 Act. However, a
further authority for the nonresident exemption was
the existence of two international treaties to which the
United States is a signatory that address the movement
of vehicles among various countries (I. Customs
Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private
Road Vehicles opened for signature June 4, 1954, 8
U.S.T. 2097, T.I.A.S. No. 3943, entered into force
December 15, 1957. II. Convention on the Regulation of
Inter-American Automotive Traffic, opened for sig-
nature December 15, 1943, 61 Stat. 1129, T.I.A.S. No.
1567, entered into force October 29, 1946). NHTSA
believes that elimination of the present allowance may
be inconsistent with the intent of the treaties, and
proposed that it be retained in clarified form, allowing
the temporary importation of any vehicle by a non-
resident that is registered in a country other than the
United States, provided it is for personal use, imported
for a period not to exceed one year, will not be resold in
the U.S. during that time, and will be exported at the
end of that time (Paragraph 591.5(d)).
No commenter disagreed with the concept of tem-
porary importation, though concern was expressed as
to the effect of the requirement. Texas commented
that the proposal was unclear whether nonconforming
vehicles of Mexican or Canadian registry will continue
to be treated as before. This was also the concern of
Western Hydro-Air Drilling of Canada, a mineral
drilling specialist operating in both the U.S. and
Canada using the same units in both countries from
time to time. The Dealer Action Association was
concerned with the possible sale of nonconforming
vehicles by nonresidents, as well as NHTSA's lack of
substantive proposals to guard against abuse. It sought
to encourage NHTSA to work with Customs to ensure
that neither Canada nor Mexico become a "grey
market export platform." George Ziolo commented
that the phrase "for personal use" should not be
adopted as "this includes commercial carriers and may
confuse Customs".
The agency believes it must interpret Congressional
intent in light of the realities of cross-border traffic,
and the existence of treaties and agreements to which
the U.S. is a party. Under long-standing NHTSA
interpretations, cross-border traffic involved in daily
operation in the United States over an extended period
of time (as opposed to the casual tourist) is deemed
subject to the Vehicle Safety Act and to the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards. However, it must defer
to the U.S. Customs Service to identify such vehicles,
to refuse entry as a nonresident, and then to require
entry as a nonconforming vehicle which must be
conformed or exported. Because of the substantial
nature of cross-border traffic, it is obvious that Customs
cannot require a written declaration of every vehicle of
Mexican or Candian registry, and NHTSA's legal
interpretation has not been capable of rigorous en-
forcement. These practical considerations are not
changed by the 1988 Act, nor does NHTSA read the
1988 Act as a mandate from Congress to enhance
motor vehicle safety by increasing restrictions on the
use of Canadian or Mexican vehicles operated in the
U.S. To respond to the comment of The Dealer Action
Association, the modus vivendi with respect to these
vehicles has not, as of the present time, resulted in the
border countries becoming a grey market export plat-
PART 591 -PRE 5
form to any discernible extent. Given the present low
volume of grey market cars expected, less than 3000
per year, it does not appear likely that this is a realistic
concern for the near future. As for Mr. Ziolo's comment,
NHTSA seeks to retain as much of the presently
existing regulatory language as is consistent with the
1988 Act, and thus has not stricken "for personal use"
from the final rule. The agency is not aware of any
confusion that use of this term has caused in the
existing regulation.
5. The vehicle does not conform to Federal safety
standards.
This is the category of motor vehicle whose im-
portation is most affected by the 1988 amendments.
Under 19 CFR 12.80, a nonconforming vehicle is
imported pursuant to a declaration that it will be
brought into conformance within 120 days of entry.
The importer gives a bond for the production of a
statement, after conformance, certifying that the con-
formance work has been accomplished. The statement
describes the conformance work, identifies the con-
former, and certifies that the vehicle will not be sold
until NHTSA has issued an approval letter to the
district director of Customs that the bond may be
released. The bond is for the dutiable value of the
vehicle (12.80(b)(l)(iii) and (e)).
The 1988 amendments impose criteria which motor
vehicles must meet in order to be imported. Under new
section 108(c)(3)(A), a vehicle cannot be imported at all
(with certain exceptions set out below) unless NHTSA
determines that it is capable of modification to meet
the Federal safety standards. Determinations may be
made on NHTSA's own initiative, or upon petition of
any registered importer (see discussion below) or any
motor vehicle manufacturer, and will be subject to
public comment.
A nonconforming vehicle that is not offered for
importation under one of the exceptions discussed
herein may be imported under either of the following
two scenarios. The first scenario, specified by section
108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I), will involve the making of two de-
terminations: (1) that the nonconforming vehicle is
substantially similar to a motor vehicle of the same
model year originally manufactured for importation
into and sold in the U.S., (and thus in compliance with
the safety standards) and (2) that the vehicle is capable
of being readily modified to conform.
The second scenario, specified by section 108(c)(3)
(A)(i)(II), will arise if the agency does not make a
determination of substantial similarity regarding a
vehicle. In that case, it will still be permissible to
import the vehicle if the agency determines that the
vehicle's safety features comply with the U.S.
standards, or are capable of being modified to comply
with those standards, "based on destructive crash
data or such other evidence" as NHTSA determines is
adequate.
Under either scenario, a positive determination
regarding a vehicle will permit any registered importer
to modify vehicles of the same model covered by the
determination.
If the agency makes a negative determination re-
garding a model's ability to be modified, the agency
will be temporarily prohibited from taking up the issue
of that model's importability again. If the negative
determination was made in response to a petition,
section 108(c)(3)(C)(ii) of the Act prohibits the agency
from considering a petition regarding the same model
of vehicle until at least 3 months after that decision. If
the negative determination was made in a proceeding
begun at the agency's own initiative, the agency will
not be able to make another determination regarding
the same model of motor vehicle until at least 3 months
after the negative one (section 108(cX3)(C)(iii)). The
agency addresses these matters in companion final
rules published simultaneously with this one. Part
592, Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally
Manufactured to Conform to Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards, and Part 593, Determinations That a
Vehicle Not Originally Manufactured to Conform to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is Eligible for
Importation.
Once a vehicle has been determined eligible for
importation, it may then be imported by a registered
importer who will undertake to conform it with the
safety standards (Paragraph 591.5(f)(i)). The importer
is required by section 108(c)(2) to give a bond to ensure
conformance or alternatively to ensure that the vehicle
will be exported or abandoned to the United States.
The bond is to be not less than the "dutiable value" of
the vehicle as determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, and not more than 150 per cent of the
"dutiable value." The U.S. Customs Service has
recommended that the term "entered value" be used,
as under recent changes to its regulations vehicles
imported from certain areas may not have duties
imposed. It views "entered value" as the equivalent of
the statutory term "dutiable value" for purposes of
importations of vehicles under Part 591. Both NHTSA
and Customs view this bond as one that is separate
from the general importation bond, which will continue
to be required. Further, the statute is interpreted as
requiring a separate bond for each vehicle imported.
This means that the 1988 Act requires an individual
bond to be given for each vehicle imported. A bond is
not blanket in nature, covering any vehicle that may be
imported by a registered importer. In other words, the
required bond will be of a single entry nature, and not
of a continuous nature. The bond is acquired by the
vehicle owner. Thus, a Registered Importer may not
import a vehicle in which it has no ownership interest.
The new requirements were set forth in proposed
591.5(f). NADA expressed its general support. General
Motors commented that Part 591 as proposed did not
PART 591-PRE 6
state the conditions of the bond, nor that the vehicle
was being imported under bond for conformance
purposes. It recommended eHminating the ambiguity
by including a statement of purpose in the declaration
required in paragraph 591.5(f), specifically that "the
vehicle is being imported under bond to ensure
conformance, delivery to the Secretary of the Treasury
for export at no cost to the United States, or abandon-
ment to the United States." NHTSA agrees with this
comment, and an appropriate addition has been made
to the declaration required by paragraph 591.5(f).
Because the bond is given to secure performance to
the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, rather
than to fulfill obligations under Customs' regulations,
it will be a bond of the Department of Transportation.
No mitigation of the bond is contemplated for vehicles
that appear to conform only partially, unlike the
practice today. If full conformance is not achieved, the
vehicle must be exported, or abandoned to the U.S. If
none of these occur, the bond is forfeited. NHTSA has
decided that the bond shall be 150 percent of the
entered value of the vehicle, as determined by Customs.
The bond must have been obtained prior to, or at the
time of, entry of the vehicle, and attached to the
declaration form. If the bond is not attached, or in an
improper amount, the vehicle will be refused entry.
6. The vehicle requires further manufacturing
operations.
Under new section 108(e), the prohibitions in subsec-
tions (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(C) shall not apply to any motor
vehicle if it requires further manufacturing operations
to perform its intended function (as determined under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary), and is ac-
companied at the time of entry by its manufacturer's
written statement which indicates the applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standard with which the
vehicle does not comply. The corresponding current
provision is 12.80(b)(l)(ix): a vehicle may be imported if
it is an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49CFR Part
568 Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages. Under Part
568, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer must provide
with an incomplete vehicle a document that contains
the information specified in paragraph 568.4. With
respect to the safety standards, the document must Hst
the specific vehicle types into which the incomplete
vehicle may be appropriately manufactured, and, with
respect to each standard that applies to each such type,
make one of three statements. These statements are
(1) that the vehicle when completed will conform to the
standard if no alterations are made to the specified
components of the vehicle (2) the specific conditions of
final manufacture under which the manufacturer
specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the
standard, or (3) that conformity with the standard is
not substantially affected by the design of the in-
complete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer makes no representation of conformity
with the standard. The justification for this exception
in 12.80 has been that the vehicle must conform, and be
certified as conforming, upon completion by its final
stage manufacturer, and that this is an obligation that
exists independent of the importation process which
serves to ensure that safety needs are met.
As NHTSA noted in its proposal, the question of the
type and extent of manufacturing required for per-
formance of intended function, will, of course, vary.
However, the existing requirements for alterers of
certified vehicles (paragraph 568.8) afforded a basis for
proposing criteria that distinguish between completed
vehicles and those that require further manufacturing.
Accordingly, NHTSA proposed paragraph 591.5(e), the
declaration that "The vehicle or equipment item
requires further manufacturing operations to perform
its intended function, other than the addition of readily
attachable equipment items, or minor finishing opera-
tions." By so doing, NHTSA also intended to establish
a clear dividing line between entry under the technical
nonconformance conditions of paragraph 591.5(b), ap-
plicable to completed vehicles, and the greater man-
ufacturing operations required for entry under para-
graph 591.5(e).
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles asked what
are vehicles requiring further manufacturing opera-
tions. In commenting on the proposal. The Dealer
Action Association found the declaration insufficiently
comprehensive to limit its apphcation, and recom-
mended that NHTSA limit this exception to original
equipment manufacturers, to enable them to man-
ufacture vehicles in stages, initially outside the United
States, and completion within. NADA commented that
the further manufacturing specification should be
clearly stated as applying to Part 568-type vehicles
which must ultimately comply with Federal safety
standards. Freightliner stated that it imports "kits"
that are "incomplete vehicles" as defined under Part
568, and asked whether it would have to be registered
as an importer.
NHTSA has carefully considered these comments.
The question raised by Virginia is, of course, funda-
mental to this provision. The proposal indicated that
at a minimum the term included vehicles fitting the
definition of "incomplete vehicle" in Part 568. This
conclusion is reinforced by reading in pari passu the
definitions of both "completed vehicle" and "incomplete
vehicle" established by Part 568, definitions that are
mutually exclusive. If a vehicle is not incomplete, it is
complete. Therefore a vehicle requiring further man-
ufacturing operations to perform its intended function
is an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by Part 568.
The issue raised by The Dealer Action Association is
whether importation under this provision can be
limited to original equipment manufacturers. No such
limitation appears upon the face of the statute. The
thrust of the requirement is towards the vehicle itself:
PART 591-PRE 7
it is one requiring further manufacturing, and it is
accompanied by an appropriate document. While the
vehicle must ultimately conform, the statute does not
impose the obligation of conformance upon the im-
porter. NHTSA is loath to read a restriction of this
nature into the 1988 Act that does not appear on its
face. Even were it sympathetic to the comment, it
believes that such a restriction would have to be
formally proposed for comment. However, NHTSA
will monitor importations under this section and if
remedial action appears required for motor vehicle
safety, will propose an appropriate restrictive amend-
ment.
With respect to NADA's comment, NHTSA has
decided to clarify that the document accompanying the
declaration be a statement in the form specified in Part
568. This document in its essential respects complies
with the language of section 108(e). If the vehicle is not
in compliance with an applicable standard, that fact
will be reflected in the statement made with respect to
such standard pursuant to paragraph 568.4. As for a
description of the further manufacturing operations
required for the vehicle to perform its intended function,
NHTSA believes that this must be read within the
safety context of the 1988 Act. An incomplete vehicle
manufacturer will not in many instances know the
manner in which a specific vehicle will be completed,
as for example, whether a chassis-cab will be finished
with a school bus body, or with a dumping apparatus.
But he must make statements relevant to the further
manufacturing operations connected with completion
of the vehicle in accordance with the Federal safety
standards. NHTSA therefore has decided that this
document will satisfy the intent of section 108(e). The
only new requirement imposed is that the document
must accompany the declaration.
Finally, with respect to Freightliner's question
whether an importer of a vehicle requiring further
manufacturing operations must be registered, the
answer is no. There are no safety standards that apply
to an incomplete vehicle, and the obligation of con-
formance arises after importation, upon completion of
manufacture. However, if the incomplete vehicle is a
chassis-cab and is not certified as required, its importer
must be a registered importer who undertakes to bring
it into conformance with applicable standards. Where
manufacture has been completed before importation
and the vehicle was not originally manufactured to
conform to the standards, the importer of that type of
vehicle is required to be registered.
Finally, NHTSA wants to make plain that it will
countenance no importations under paragraph 591.5(e)
that appear to be subterfuges to avoid compliance
responsibility. Instances have arisen in the past in
which an importer offered for importation a motor
vehicle without its engine, or other running gear parts,
claiming that the merchandise was, in fact, equipment
to which no standard applied, and the importer
separately imported the engine or parts. The agency
has treated these cases as de facto importations of
noncomplying motor vehicles, and required them to be
entered as nonconforming motor vehicles and evidence
of conformity to be subsequently submitted. The
agency intends to follow this policy, and will not
consider such an assemblage to be a vehicle requiring
further manufacturing operations.
7. The importer has a contract with a registered
importer.
The primary eligibility requirements placed by the
1988 Act on persons importing nonconforming vehicles
are that they will have to be, subject to certain
exceptions, registered as importers, or they will have
to have contracts with registered importers to conform
the vehicles. A person importing under contract with a
registered importer will have to furnish, at the time of
entry, an appropriate bond (which, under the 1988
amendments, is not less than 100 percent of the
dutiable value of the vehicle and not more than 150
percent), a copy of the contract or other agreement
with a registered importer, and certification that an
affirmative decision has been made regarding the
eligibility of the vehicle for importation. These matters,
specified in section 108(f), are covered in paragraph
591.5(f)(ii). Under paragraph 591.6(d), the declaration
must be accompanied by a copy of the contract or
agreement. The purpose of the new requirements is to
increase the likelihood that nonconforming vehicles
will be properly modified and actually brought into
compliance with the safety standards.
8. The importer is eligible to import under present
requirements.
Nonresidents are affected in another way by the
1988 Act. Under certain circumstances, and for a
limited time, section 108(g) of the Vehicle Safety Act
permits a nonresident (including any member of the
Armed Forces) to continue to import a vehicle under
the present regulation, that is, to have it conformed by
a person other than a registered importer. This
exception applies to a single vehicle imported, for
personal use and not for resale, between January 31,
1990, and October 31, 1992, by an individual whose
assigned place of employment was outside the United
States for the total period between October 31, 1988,
and the date of importation, provided that the vehicle
was acquired (or was subject to a binding contract to
acquire) before October 31 , 1988, and that the individual
has not previously imported a nonconforming motor
vehicle. This amendment is reflected in paragraph
591.5(g). There were no comments on this subject.
However, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
asked what standard a vehicle purchased or ordered
before October 31, 1988, would have to meet when it is
imported. The answer is, those standards that applied
to such a vehicle on the day of its manufacture, i.e.,
PART591-PRE8
assembly. This requirement of the Vehicle Safety Act
is unchanged by the 1988 Act.
9. Importation by diplomats and foreign military
personnel.
Any person who is a member of the armed forces of a
foreign country on assignment in the U.S., or any
person who is a member of the Secretariat of a public
international organization so designated under the
International Organization Immunities Act and who is
within the class of persons for whom free entry of
motor vehicles has been authorized by the Secretary of
State may currently import a nonconforming vehicle
for the duration of their stay pursuant to the declaration
that the vehicle is for personal use only (12.80(b)(l)(vi)).
Section 108(h) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifically
retains this exclusion, but in addition requires NHTSA
to ensure that any such vehicle will be exported or
abandoned when the importer ceases to reside in the
U.S. It also forbids the sale while within the United
States of any motor vehicle imported under this
provision.
The enforcement of this provision would appear to
rest with the Office of Foreign Missions of the Depart-
ment of State. NHTSA understands that foreign
personnel in the exempted categories who import
nonconforming vehicles into the United States, are
required to register their vehicles with this Office.
Under the registration process, the Office takes pos-
session of the foreign title of the vehicle, and issues
registration plates to the importer after verifying that
the vehicle is insured. The importer does not take
repossession of the title until the registration plates
are returned to the Office. At that time, the Office asks
for an explanation. The usual reason is that the
importer's assignment in the United States has ended,
and that the importer is leaving the country. Doc-
umentary proof is required, such as a copy of the
importer's orders. Heretofore, however, no documen-
tary proof has been required that the vehicle is being,
or has been, exported. Thus, it is possible that a
nonconforming vehicle could be sold between the time
the importer repossesses the title and actually leaves
the country, but the Office believes that this is only an
infrequent occurence. NHTSA has informally ap-
proached the Office as to the possibility that it could
require proof of exportation of diplomatic vehicles, and
has found the Office amenable to that suggestion. This
approach appears less cumbersome than requiring a
bond for the exportation of diplomatic vehicles. Ac-
cordingly, NHTSA is adopting as one of the declarations
a diplomatic importer must make under paragraph
595.5(h) that (s)he will provide the Office of Foreign
Missions, at the conclusion of a tour of duty and before
departure from the United States, with documentary
proof that the vehicle is being, or has been, exported.
Under the existing law and regulations, it has been
the practice to allow an exempted diplomatic importer
to sell his or her nonconforming vehicle to another
person in one of the exempted categories. The just-
ification for this practice is that the exempted buyer is
himself eligible to import a nonconforming vehicle.
The agency does not construe the 1988 Act as forbidding
this type of sale between exempted importers.
However, the 1988 Act has another effect. Heretofore,
the agency had no objection if sale of a nonconforming
diplomatic vehicle to a nonexempted party occured
after the vehicle had been brought into conformance
with applicable Federal safety standards. NHTSA
commented in the preamble to the April proposal that
if this practice is to continue, it would have to be
greatly modified. If an exempted importer wishes to
sell a nonconforming vehicle in the United States,
NHTSA indicated that the importer be prohibited from
doing so unless (1) the vehicle is one which the
Administrator has determined is modifiable to conform
to the safety standards, and (2) the vehicle will be
conformed through a registered importer. In so sug-
gesting, NHTSA believed that this type of transaction
was also within the intent of the 1988 Act, and that
otherwise, a nonconforming vehicle may not be sold if
imported pursuant to the diplomatic exemption. The
sole commenter on this declaration , The Dealer Action
Association, recommended forbiding this type of trans-
action, and restricting sales to those between diplomatic
personnel. As an alternative, it suggested establishing
procedures analogous to those under paragraph
591 .5(f)(2) by which an individual would contract with
a registered importer.
The agency has reviewed this comment, and has
concluded that sales should be restricted to those
between diplomatic personnel. After reviewing the
1988 amendments, NHTSA believes that vehicles
imported pursuant to the diplomatic exemption should
be exported at the end of the diplomatic-importer's
tour of duty, unless the vehicle is sold to a person who
would have been eligible to have imported it under
such exemption. If a diplomat wishes to enter a
nonconforming vehicle with the intent of selling it in
the United States, he must do so outside the diplomatic
exception and through either a registered importer, or
pursuant to a contract with one. As both a practical
and legal matter, NHTSA would find it difficult to
enforce a no sale provision against diplomatic per-
sonnel, and the regulation has not been adopted so as to
allow this type of sale.
10. The vehicle is 25 or more years old.
A motor vehicle is allowed immediate entry under
12.80(b)(l)(i) if it was manufactured before any ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards were
in effect. All motor vehicles, other than motorcycles,
PART 591-PRE 9
manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, have been
covered by safety standards. Accordingly, this declara-
tion has been used only for the entry of vehicles
manufactured before January 1, 1968. Under section
108(i), added by the 1988 Act, a motor vehicle may be
allowed entry without the necessity of conformance if
it is 25 years old or older. Thus, after January 1, 1993,
vehicles that were manufactured on or after January 1 ,
1968, will be relieved of the necessity to conform as
they reach 25 years of age. The existing declaration
will be retained until January 1 , 1993, although clarified
by specifying the January 1, 1968 date (paragraph
591. 5(i)). This is necessary to prevent the importers of
vehicles which are less than 25 years old but man-
ufactured before January 1, 1968, from being inad-
vertently required to enter their vehicles pursuant to
the 1988 amendments. During 1992, the agency will
amend paragraph 591 .5(i) to implement the 25-year old
exclusion effective January 1, 1993. There were no
comments on this aspect of the regulation.
11. Importation for research, investigations,
studies, etc.
Importation of nonconforming vehicles without bond
is presently allowed if the importation is solely for the
purpose of show, test, experiment, competition, repair,
or alteration ( 12.80(b)(l)(vii)). If the vehicle is imported
for test or experiment, it may be licensed for use on the
public roads for a period not to exceed one year,
extendable for two successive year periods, or a period
of three years in all . Importation for this class of
noncomplying motor vehicles has been permitted
pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety
would not be affected by the temporary importation of
noncomplying motor vehicles not generally used on the
public roads, and whose appearance on them would be
limited.
Section 108(j) of the Vehicle Safety Act modifies
these categories. It provides NHTSA with authority to
exempt a vehicle from importation and certification
violations upon such terms and conditions as may be
necessary solely for the purpose of research, investiga-
tions, studies, demonstrations or training, or competi-
tive racing events. It does not include the terms
"show" and "repair" currently in use. In the notice of
proposed rulemaking, NHTSA observed that prospec-
tive importers ought not to be unduly concerned at
this. In NHTSA's experience, importation for repair
has averaged, perhaps, one vehicle every two years.
Manufacturers who have imported nonconforming
products for display at auto shows to gauge public
reaction to new styling or engineering features will not
be precluded from declaring that such importation is
for "research" or "demonstrations". And museums
will be able to bring in nonconforming vehicles under
the 25-year exception. NHTSA proposed to allow
importation for the statutory purposes specified, pro-
vided that the declaration is accompanied by certain
information and statements. If this information in-
dicates that on-road use for a period that is greater
than 1 year is required for these purposes, the importer
will not be required to petition NHTSA for yearly
extensions, as is presently the case. At the end of 3
years, the importer is subject to termination of the
Customs Temporary Importation Bond under which
the vehicle entered. At that point, the vehicle must be
destroyed, exported, or abandoned to the United States.
Alternatively, if duty is paid at the time of importation
of the nonconforming vehicle, the vehicle must not
remain in the United States for a period longer than 5
years after entry. The proposal also prohibited an
importer of a vehicle imported for competitive racing
events from licensing it for use on the public roads.
NHTSA also stated in the proposal that it envisioned
that a registered importer who intends to file a petition
under Part 593 for a determination that a vehicle is
eligible for importation because it is capable of mod-
ification could avail itself of the demonstration excep-
tion to import such vehicles as may be necessary in
order to develop the documentation needed to demon-
strate the vehicle's capability for modification.
Comments to this proposal varied in nature and
content. A number of commenters pointed out a
contradiction between the blanket prohibition against
licensing for on-road use contained in proposed para-
graph 591.5(j), and the associated provision in para-
graph 591.6(f) requiring submission of certain informa-
tion if the vehicle is to be licensed for on-road use
during its stay in the United States. BMW suggested
that NHTSA conform its provisions to accord with
similar ones of EPA contained in 19 CFR 12.73(h) and
40 CFR 85.1511(b)(2). General Motors, Volkswagen,
and Ford recommended specifying the exceptions,
such as allowing on-road use when such use is an
integral part of the purpose for which it was imported.
Austin Rover asked NHTSA to clarify that the licensing
for use prohibition applies only to vehicles imported for
competitive racing events, and Volkswagen wanted
the prohibition struck for this type of vehicle. Barry
Wood noted in a phone call that the proposal did not
cover vehicles imported from Canada for repair and
returned to that country. He observed that this was a
not infrequent practice in his part of the United States.
Finally, General Motors asked that this exception not
terminate after 5 years, but be available for an unlimited
period of time, citing the allowance by EPA of unlimited
use of vehicles not conforming to Federal emission
requirements.
The agency agrees that the proposal appears to
present a conflict between paragraphs 591.5(j) and
591.6(f). The comments have caused NHTSA to review
closely the new statutory language, and the agency has
concluded that it provides sufficient flexibility to
respond favorably to many of the comments. The
specific language of new section 108(j) is "The Secretary
PART 591-PRE 10
may exempt any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment from subsections (a)(1) and (c)(1) upon such
terms and conditions as the Secretary may find
necessary solely for the purpose of research, investiga-
tions, studies, demonstrations or training, or competi-
tive racing events". Subsection (a)(1) contains the
statutory prohibition against importation of non-
complying vehicles, and their introduction into inter-
state commerce. Subsection (c)(1) contains the require-
ment of vehicle certification. In other of the 1988 Act
amendments. Congress has flatly stated that subsec-
tions (a)(1) and (c)(1) shall not apply provided specified
steps are taken. Subsection (j), on the other hand,
implies that subsections (a)(1) and (c)(1) do apply, but
that NHTSA has the flexibility to determine when
they do not. For example, if NHTSA has allowed
importation and on-road use for a period of 4 years, and
the vehicle is not exported at the end of that time,
NHTSA may impose a civil penalty. As a further
example, if NHTSA has determined that indefinite
on-road use is required to achieve the importer's stated
purpose, NHTSA could inform the importer that it
would not find that the Vehicle Safety Act had been
violated. If licensing for on-road use is an absolute
requirement of a competitive event, NHTSA could
allow it for a limited period of time, and under
circumstances prescribed in its letter of permission.
Thus, the final rule has been modified to reflect the
agency's conclusions. Under 591.6(f), any person
seeking to import a motor vehicle under 591.50) must
write NHTSA in advance of such importation with a
full and complete statement of the purposes of the
importation, and whether on-road use is contemplated.
NHTSA's reply, if affirmative, will impose such terms
and conditions as may seem required for motor vehicle
safety. Violations of any of these terms and conditions
will be considered a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of
the Vehicle Safety Act , for which a civil penalty may be
imposed. A copy of NHTSA's letter of permission must
be provided Customs upon entry of the vehicle, attached
to the declaration form. Under 591 .7(f) in its final form,
vehicles imported pursuant to paragraph 591. 5(j) for
which duties have been paid, must be exported not
later than 5 years after entry, unless permission has
been obtained from NHTSA.
There remains the question raised by Barry Wood,
whether a nonconforming vehicle may be imported for
"repair" in the absence of any express statutory
authority allowing it, or any discussion of it in the
legislative history of the 1988 Act. Although the joint
regulations have permitted this practice for over 20
years, it was omitted from the categories of vehicles
importable pursuant to paragraph 591.50). There are
really two issues here, rather than one. The situation
mentioned by Mr. Wood involves vehicles that are
returned to Canada after repair. That is to say, they do
not appear to be vehicles temporarily imported by U.S.
residents, but vehicles that are temporarily exported
by their Canadian owners. As such, they appear to be
vehicles involved in international traffic, imported for
a limited period of time by nonresidents of the United
States. In NHTSA's view, Canadian-owned vehicles
that are repaired in the United States and returned to
Canada at the completion of repairs are properly
entered pursuant to paragraph 591.5(d). The other
issue is importation by U.S. residents of nonconforming
vehicles for repair. The agency has no knowledge of
any importation by U.S. residents of nonconforming
vehicles for repair, followed by their subsequent ex-
portation. At most, it appears highly infrequent, so
that the failure of Congress to include it in the 1988 Act
ought not to work a hardship.
Importance of Motor Vehicle Equipment
Under 19 CFR 12.80, the first seven of the nine
declarations applicable to motor vehicles also apply to
motor vehicle equipment. The primary focus of the
1988 Act is upon motor vehicles, however, and some of
the new exceptions do not apply to motor vehicle
equipment. An analysis of the equipment provision
and final rules follows.
First, the agency has no jurisdiction over an item
that does not fit the definition of motor vehicle
equipment, as contained in 15 U.S.C. 1391(4). Thus,
such an item may be entered pursuant to the declaration
that it is not a system, part, or component of a motor
vehicle (paragraph 591.5(a)(2)).
The 25-year old exception for motor vehicles does
not extend to motor vehicle equipment. This means
that equipment covered by an equipment standard
continues to be importable without the necessity for
conformance (absent other exceptions) only if manu-
factured on a date before a standard applied to it
(paragraph 591.5(i)(2)).
An equipment item that is certified as conforming to
applicable equipment standards continues to be admis-
sible upon a simple declaration that it conforms
(paragraph 591.5(b)).
Because the importation for export exception is
provided for by the Vehicle Safety Act, and not affected
substantively by the 1988 Act, nonconforming equip-
ment may continue to be imported for export , provided
that it or its container bears a label or tag to fhat effect
at the time of importation. (See section 108(b)(5) of the
Vehicle Safety Act, redesignated as 108 (b)(3) by the
1988 Act and paragraph 591.5(c)).
Under new section 108(e), an equipment need not
comply upon importation if it requires further manu-
facturing operations to perform its intended function.
In the final rule, the agency has decided to adopt
terminology from Part 568 to implement this require-
ment for motor vehicles. Manifestly, Part 568 does not
apply to "incomplete" equipment, and the agency is
adopting the exact language of the 1988 Act as the
PART 591-PRE 11
requirement for entry of motor vehicle equipment
subject to section 108(e).
The new provisions regarding importation for pur-
poses of research, investigation, studies, demonstra-
tions or training, or competitive racing events (section
108(j)) expressly include motor vehicle equipment as
well as vehicles, and thus supersede existing require-
ments which make no provision for them. This change
is reflected in paragraph 591. 5(j).
Because the 1988 Act is specific about the conditions
under which nonconforming equipment items may be
admissible, there appear to be certain areas in which a
right to import a nonconforming equipment item no
longer exists. Although 12.80(b)(l)(iii) allows importa-
tion of a nonconforming equipment item under bond
for conformance within 120 days of entry, no similar
provisions appear in the 1988 Act; the bond, registered
importer, and eligibility determination provisions apply
only to importation of motor vehicles. Therefore, as of
January 31, 1990, nonconforming equipment may no
longer be imported pursuant to a declaration that it
will be brought into conformance. Although NHTSA
has incorporated nonresident importation procedures
for motor vehicles without specific authority in the
1988 Act, it does not believe that is required to extend
those procedures to cover nonconforming equipment
items (other than those attached and in use on a
vehicle), as is presently provided for under 12.80
(b)(l)(v). Similarly, the diplomatic/foreign military
exception will no longer cover nonconforming equip-
ment items, as it presently does in 12.80(b)(vi). Although
the agency did not call specific attention to these
omissions in the preamble to the proposal, the omissions
are readily apparent in the text of the proposed
regulation.
Provision of New Declaration forms
N ADA asked that the agency either revise or publish
a new HS-7 importation form as part of the final rule,
or indicate how that form will be revised as part of a
new Customs Service regulation.
Development of a new form in its definitive state
must await receipt and action upon petitions for
reconsideration, if any, regarding this final rule. How-
ever, NHTSA believes that it would be in the public
interest to publish the new form in the Federal Register
at the earliest practicable time, and will endeavor to do
so in a further notice under Docket 89-5.
Impacts
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rule-
making action and has determined that it is not major
withinthemeaningof Executive Order 12291 "Federal
Regulation." It implements P.L. 100-562 under which
primary authority to establish regulations governing
the importation of motor vehicles and equipment into
the United States is shifted to NHTSA, rather than
being jointly shared with the U.S. Customs Service. As
such, it establishes the rights and duties of those who
may import nonconforming motor vehicles, and the
types of nonconforming motor vehicles that may be
imported. It is not significant under Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures.
Less than 3000 motor vehicles a year are currently
imported, and it is anticipated that this number will
not increase. There is no substantial impact upon a
major transportation safety program, and the action
does not involve any substantial public interest or
controversy. There is no substantial effect on state
and local governments. The impact upon the Federal
government is that certain present obligations of the
U.S. Customs Service are transferred to the Depart-
ment of Transportation. As discussed previously,
many of the new requirements are specified by the
1988 Act, and thus do not reflect any exercise of agency
discretion. These include not only importation through
or by contract with a registered importer, but also
importation of vehicles and equipment requiring
further manufacturing to perform their intended
function, importation of vehicles by specified foreign
diplomatic and military personnel, importation of
vehicles more than 25 years old, and importation of
vehicles for the purpose of research, investigations,
studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive
racing events, and importation under a separate per-
formance bond. Nevertheless, a regulatory evaluation
analyzing the economic impacts of this and the related
final rules required by P.L. 100-562 has been prepared,
and is available for review in the docket, as part of the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new Part 591,
Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, is added to Title 49,
Chapter V, to read as follows:
PART 591, Importation of Vehicles and Equipment
Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Sec.
591.1 Scope.
591.2 Purpose.
591.3 Applicability.
591.4 Definitions.
591.5 Declarations required for importation.
59 1 .6 Documents accompanying declarations.
591.7 Restrictions on importations.
Authority: P.L. 100-562, 15 U.S.C. 1401, 1407; dele-
gations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
591.1 Scope.
This part establishes procedures governing the
importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equip-
ment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
PART 591-PRE 12
591.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to ensure that motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment permanently
imported into the United States conform with, or are
brought into conformity with, all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards issued under Part 571
of this chapter, and to ensure that vehicles and
equipment items imported on a temporary basis are
ultimately either exported or abandoned to the United
States.
591.3 Applicability
This part applies to any person offering a motor
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for im-
portation into the United States. Regulations pre-
scribing further procedures for importation of motor
vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment into the
Customs territory of the United States, as defined in 19
U.S.C. 1202, are set forth in 19 CFR 12.80.
591.4 Definitions.
All terms used in this part that are defined in section
102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used as defined in the
Act.
"Administrator" means the Administrator of
NHTSA.
"NHTSA" means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration of the Department of Transpor-
tation.
"Original manufacturer" means the entity re-
sponsible for the original manufacture or assembly of a
motor vehicle, and does not include any person (other
than such entity) who converts the motor vehicle after
its manufacture to conformance with the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards.
591.5 Declarations required for importation.
No person shall import a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment into the United States unless,
at the time it is offered for importation, its importer
files a declaration, in duplicate, which declares one of
the following:
(a)(1) The vehicle was not manufactured primarily
for use on the public roads and thus is not a motor
vehicle subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards; or
(2) The equipment item is not a system, part, or
component of a motor vehicle and thus is not an item of
motor vehicle equipment subject to the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards.
(b) The vehicle or equipment item conforms with all
applicable safety standards (or the vehicles does not
conform solely because readily attachable equipment
items which will be attached to it before it is offered for
sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than
resale are not attached), and bears a certification label
or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original
manufacturer to the vehicle, or to the equipment item
or its delivery container, in accordance with, as
applicable, 49 CFR Parts 555, 567, 568, or 571 (for
certain equipment items).
(c) The vehicle or equipment item does not comply
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety stan-
dards, but is intended solely for export, and the vehicle
or equipment item, and the outside of the container of
the equipment items, if any, bears a label or tag to that
effect.
(d) The vehicle does not conform with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but the im-
porter is eligible to import it because:
(1) (S)he is a nonresident of the United States and
the vehicle is registered in a country other than the
United States,
(2) (S)he is temporarily importing the vehicle for
personal use for a period not to exceed one year, and
will not sell it during that time,
(3) (S)he will export it not later than the end of one
year after entry, and
(4) The declaration contains the importer's passport
number and country of issue.
(e) The vehicle or equipment item requires further
manufacturing operations to perform its intended
function, other than the addition of readily attachable
equipment items such as mirrors, wipers, or tire and
rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as
painting, and upon completion of such further manu-
facturing operations will comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
(f) The vehicle does not conform with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but the im-
porter is eligible to import it because:
(1) The importer has furnished a bond, which is
attached to the declaration, in amount equal to 150 per
cent of the entered value of the vehicle as determined
by the Secretary of the Treasury, to ensure that the
vehicle will be brought into compliance with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or,
in the absence of such compliance, that it will be
delivered to the Secretary of the Treasury for export,
or abandoned to the United States, and that if the
Administrator determines that the vehicle has not
been brought into compliance with all such standards,
the importer states that (s)he will deliver to the
Secretary of the Treasury for export, or abandon to the
United States, such vehicle within the time limit
imposed by the Administrator; and
(2)(A) The importer has registered with NHTSA
pursuant to Part 592 of this chapter, and such registra-
tion has not been revoked or suspended, and the
Administrator has determined pursuant to Part 593 of
this chapter that the model and model year of the
vehicle to be imported is eligible for importation into
the United States; or
(B) The importer has executed a contract or other
agreement with an importer who has registered with
NHTSA pursuant to Part 592 of this chapter and
PART 591-PRE 13
whose registration has not been suspended or revoked;
and the Administrator has determined pursuant to
Part 593 of this chapter that the model and model year
of the vehicle to be imported is eligible for importation
into the United States;
(g) The vehicle does not conform with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but the im-
porter is eligible to import it because:
(1) The importer's assigned place of employment
has been outside the United States at all times between
October 31, 1988, and the date the vehicle is entered
into the United States;
(2) The importer has not previously imported a
motor vehicle into the United States that was subject
to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards;
(3) The importer has acquired (or entered into a
binding contract to acquire) the vehicle before October
31, 1988; and
(4) The vehicle will be entered into the United States
not later than October 31, 1992.
(h) The vehicle does not conform with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but the im-
porter is eligible to import it because:
(1) (S)he is a member of:
(A) The armed forces of a foreign country on assign-
ment in the United States; or
(B) The Secretariat of a public international organi-
zation so designated under the International Organiza-
tions Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), as listed in 19
CFR 148.47, on assignment in the United States; or
(C) The personnel of a foreign government for whom
free entry of vehicles has been authorized by the
Department of State; and
(D) The motor vehicle is being imported on a tempor-
ary basis, and for the personal use of the importer.
(2) (S)he will not sell the vehicle to any person in the
United States, other than a person eligible to import a
vehicle under this subsection; and
(3) (S)he will provide the Office of Foreign Missions
of the State Department, before departing the United
States at the conclusion of a tour of duty, with
documentary proof that the vehicle is being, or has
been, exported.
(i)(l) The vehicle was manfactured 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 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 the importer has received written permission from
NHTSA.
591.6. Documents accompanying declarations.
Declarations of eligibility for importation made
pursuant to paragraph 591.5 must be accompanied by
the following certification and documents, where ap-
plicable.
(a) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph
591.5(a) shall be accompanied by a statement sub-
stantiating that the vehicle was not manufactured for
use of 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 Paragraph 568.4 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) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph 591 .5(f)
shall be accompanied by a bond in an amount equal to
150 per cent of the entered value of the vehicle as
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury for the
conformance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, or, if conformance is to
achieved, for the delivery of such vehicle to the
Secretary of the Treasury for export at no cost to the
United States, or for its abandonment.
(d) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph 59 1 .5(f)
by an importer who is not a Registered Importer shall
be accompanied by a copy of the contract or other
agreement 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 paragraph
591 .5(g) shall be accompanied by certification, including
appropriate 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 acquired,
by a copy of a contract to acquire the vehicle, dated
before October 31, 1988, which was binding upon the
importer.
(f) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph 591 .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. A declaration made pursuant
to paragraph 591.5(j) shall be accompanied by a letter
from the Administrator authorizing importation pur-
suant to that paragraph. Any person seeking to import
a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment
pursuant to paragraph 591. 5(j) shall submit in advance
of such importation, a written request to the Admin-
PART 591-PRE 14
istrator containing a full and complete statement
identifying the specific purpose(s) of importation,
which describes the use to be made of the vehicle or
equipment item. If use on the public roads is an
integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle or
equipment item is imported, the statement shall request
permission to license the vehicle for use (or use the
equipment item) on the public roads, describing the
purpose for which such use is necessary, and stating
the estimated period of time necessary to use the
vehicle or equipment item on the public roads. The
statement shall also state the intended disposition to
be made of the vehicle or equipment item after comple-
tion of the purpose for which it is imported. Any
violation of a term or condition imposed by the
Administrator shall be considered a violation of 15
U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) for which a civil penalty may be
imposed.
591.7 Restrictions on importations.
(a) A vehicle or equipment item which has entered
the United States under a declaration made pursuant
to paragraph 591. 5(j), and for which a temporary
Importation Bond has been provided to the Secretary
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 pursuant
to paragraph 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, unless
written permission has been obtained from the Admin-
istrator, NHTSA.
(c) An importer of a vehicle which has entered the
United States under a declaration made pursuant to
paragraph 591. 5G) may license it for use on the public
road only if written permission has been granted by
the Administrator, NHTSA, pursuant to paragraph
591.5(f).
Issued on: September 26, 1989
Jeffrey R. Miller
Acting Administrator
54 F.R. 40069
September 29, 1989
PART 591-PRE 15-16
PART 591— IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
591.1 Scope.
This part establishes procedures governing the im-
portation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equip-
ment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
591.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to ensure that motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment permanently
imported into the United States conform with, or
are brought into conformity with, all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under
Part 571 of this chapter, and to ensure that vehicles
and equipment items imported on a temporary basis
are ultimately either exported or abandoned to the
United States.
591.3 Applicability.
This part applies to any person offering a motor
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for im-
portation into the United States. Regulations
prescribing further procedures for importation of
motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment
into the Customs territory of the United States, as
defined in 19 U.S.C. 1202, are set forth in 19 CFR
12.80.
591.4 Definitions.
All terms used in this part that are defined in sec-
tion 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966 (15 U S C 1391) are used as
defined in the Act
"Administrator" means the Administrator of
NHTSA.
"NHTSA" means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration of the Department of
Transportation.
"Original manufacturer" means the entity respon-
sible for the original manufacture or assembly of a
motor vehicle, and does not include any person
(other than such entity) who converts the motor vehi-
cle after its manufacture to conformance with the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
591.5 Declarations required for Importation.
No person shall import a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment into the United States
unless, at the time it is offered for importation, its
importer files a declaration, in duplicate, which
declares one of the following:
(aXl) The vehicle was not manufactured primar-
ily for use on the public roads and thus is not a
motor vehicle subject to the Federal motor vehi-
cle safety standards; or
(2) The equipment item is not a system, part,
or component of a motor vehicle and thus is not
an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
(b) The vehicle or equipment item conforms with
all applicable safety standards (or the vehicle does
not conform solely because readily attachable equip-
ment items which will be attached to it before it is
offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes
other than resale are not attached), and bears a cer-
tification label or tag to that effect permanently af-
fixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle or
to the equipment item or its delivery container, in
accordance with, as applicable 49 CFR Parts 555
567, 568, or 571 (for certain equipment items).
(c) The vehicle or equipment item does not comply
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, but is intended solely for export and the
vehicle or equipment item, and the outside of the
container of the equipment item, if any, bears a label
or tag to that effect.
(d) The vehicle does not conform with all ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but
the importer is eligible to import it because:
(1) (S)he is a nonresident of the United States
and the vehicle is registered in a country other
than the United States,
PART 591-1
(2) (S)he is temporarily importing the vehicle for
personal use for a period not to exceed one year,
and will not sell it during that time,
(3) (S)he will export it not later than the end of
one year after entry, and
(4) The declaration contains the importer's
passport number and country of issue.
(e) The vehicle or equipment item requires further
manufacturing operations to perform its intended
function, other than the addition of readily at-
tachable equipment items such as mirrors, wipers,
or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing opera-
tions such as painting, and upon completion of such
further manufacturing operations will comply with
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
(f) The vehicle does not conform with all ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but
the importer is eligible to import it because:
(1) The importer has furnished a bond, which
is attached to the declaration, in amount equal to
150% of the entered value of the vehicle as deter-
mined by the Secretary of the Treasury, to ensure
that the vehicle will be brought into compliance
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, or, in the absence of such compliance,
that it will be delivered to the Secretary of the
Treasury for export, or abandoned to the United
States, and that if the Administrator determines
that the vehicle has not been brought into com-
pliance with all such standards, the importer states
that (s)he will deliver to the Secretary of the
Treasury for export or abandon to the United
States, such vehicle within the time limit imposed
by the Administrator, and
(2)(A) The importer has registered with
NHTSA pursuant to Part 592 of this chapter and
such registration has not been revoked or sus-
pended, and the Administrator has determined
pursuant to Part 593 of this chapter that the model
and model year of the vehicle to be imported is
eligible for importation into the United States, or
(B) The importer has executed a contract or
other agreement with an importer who has
registered with NHTSA pursuant to Part 592 of
this chapter and whose registration has not been
suspended or revoked, and the Administrator has
determined pursuant to Part 593 of this chapter
that the model and model year of the vehicle to
be imported is eligible for importation into the
United States;
(g) The vehicle does not conform with all ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but
the importer is eligible to import it because:
(1) The importer's assigned place of employ-
ment has been outside the United States at all
times between October 31, 1988, and the date the
vehicle is entered into the United States;
(2) The importer has not previously imported a
motor vehicle into the United States that was
subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards;
(3) The importer had acquired (or entered into
a binding contract to acquire) the vehicle before
October 31, 1988, and
(4) The vehicle will be entered into the United
States not later than October 31, 1992.
(h) The vehicle does not conform with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards,
but the importer is eligible to import it because:
(1) (S)he is a member of:
(A) The armed forces of a foreign country on
assignment in the United States; or
(B) The Secretariat of a public international
organization so designated under the International
Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), as
listed in 19 CFR 148.47, on assignment in the
United States; or
(C) The personnel of a foreign government for
whom free entry of vehicles has been authorized
by the Department of State; and
(D) The motor vehicle is being imported on a
temporary basis, and for the personal use of the
importer.
(2) (S)he will not sell the vehicle to any person
in the United States, other than a person eligible
to import a vehicle under this subsection; and
(3) (S)he will provide the Office of Foreign Mis-
sions of the State Department, before departing
the United States at the conclusion of a tour of
duty, with documentary proof that the vehicle is
being, or has been, exported.
(i)(l) 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 standards were in
effect.
(j) The vehicle or equipment item does not con-
form with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
PART 591-2
standards, but is being imported solely for the pur-
pose of:
(1) research;
(2) investigations;
(3) studies;
(4) demonstrations or training; or (5) com-
petitive racing events; and the importer has
received written permission from NHTSA.
591.6 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
substantiating that the vehicle was not manufac-
tured for use on the public roads, or that the equip-
ment 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 Paragraph 568.4 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 re-
quired for the equipment item to perform its in-
tended function.
(c) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph
591.5(f) shall be accompanied by a bond in an amoimt
equal to 150% of the entered value of the vehicle
as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury for
the conformance of the vehicle with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or, if con-
formance is not achieved, for the delivery of such
vehicle to the Secretary of the Treasury for export
at no cost to the tJnited States, or for its
abandonment.
(d) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph
591.5(f) by an importer who is not a Registered
Importer shall be accompanied by a copy of the con-
tract or other agreement that the importer has with
a Registered Importer to bring the vehicle into con-
formance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards.
(e) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph
591.5(g) shall be accompanied by certification, in-
cluding appropriate documentary proof that the
vehicle for which declaration is made had been ac-
quired by the importer as of October 31, 1988, or,
if not so acquired, by a copy of a contract to acquire
the vehicle dated before October 31, 1988, which was
binding upon the importer.
(f) A declaration made pursuant to paragraph 591
5(h) shall be accompanied by a copy of the importer's
official orders or, if a qualifying member of the per-
sonnel of a foreign government on assignment in the
United States, the name of the embassy to which
the importer is accredited. A declaration made pur-
suant to paragraph 591. 5(j) shall be accompanied by
a letter from the Administrator authorizing impor-
tation pursuant to that paragraph. Any person seek-
ing to import a motor vehicle or item of motor vehi-
cle equipment pursuant to paragraph 591. 5(j) shall
submit in advance of such importation, a written re-
quest to the Administrator containing a full and com-
plete statement identifying the specific purpose(s)
of importation which describes the use to be made
of the vehicle or equipment item. If use on the public
roads is an integral part of the purpose for which
the vehicle or equipment item is imported the state-
ment shall request permission to license the vehicle
for use (or i e the equipment item) on the public
roads, describing the purpose for which such use is
necessary, and stating the estimated period of time
necessary to use the vehicle or equipment item on
the public roads. The statement shall also state the
intended disposition to be made of the vehicle or
equipment item after completion of the purpose for
which it is imported. Any violation of a term or con-
dition imposed by the Administrator shall be con-
sidered a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(aXl)(A) for
which a civil penalty may be imposed.
591.7 Restrictions on importations.
(a) A vehicle or equipment item which has entered
the United States under a declaration made pur-
suant to paragraph 591. 5(J), and for which a Tem-
porary Importation Bond has been provided to the
Secretary 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 paragraph 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
unless written permission has been obtained from
the Administrator, NHTSA.
PART 591-3
(c) An importer of a vehicle which has entered the
United States under a declaration made pursuant
to paragraph 591. 5(j) may license it for use on the
public roads only if written permission has been
granted by the Administrator, NHTSA, pursuant to
paragraph 591.6(f).
Issued on Sept. 20, 1989.
54 F.R. 40069
September 29, 1989
PART 591-4
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 592
Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally
Manufactured to Conform to Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards
(Docket No. 89-6; Notice 2)
RIN: 21 27-AC97 Safety
ACTION: Final Rule
SUMMARY: With certain exceptions, the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended by
the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988,
will permit a motor vehicle not originally manufactured
to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards
to be imported only by a person who has registered
with this agency, or by an individual who has a
contract with a registered importer for making "he
modifications necessary for bringing the vehicle into
conformance with applicable safety standards.
In partial implementation of the 1988 amendments,
this rule adopts procedures and requirements regard-
ing the registration of importers and the duties and
obligations of registered importers. In most instances,
the particular provisions of these procedures and
requirements are mandated by the 1988 amendments.
Part 592 establishes eligibility requirements for
persons wishing to acquire and maintain registration.
Among the requirements are ones regarding record-
keeping, allowance of inspection of records and facili-
ties relating to the motor vehicles which the importer
has imported and/or modified, certification to the
Administrator that the vehicles have been brought
into compliance,and insurance to ensure that the
importer will be able technically and financially to
carry out noncompliance and defect notification and
remedy responsibilities should they arise. Part 592
also adopts procedures for revocation or suspension of
importer registration (and reinstatement) for failures
to pay required fees or comply with regulations, or for
filing a misleading or false certification. The rule also
adopts post-modification vehicle inspection and bond
release procedures.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 1989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 31,
1988, the President signed P.L. 100-562, the Imported
Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 ("the 1988
Act"). Notice of its enactment was published in the
Federal Register on December 5, 1988 (53 FR 49003),
and a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to
Part 592 was published on April 25, 1989 (54 FR 17780).
As the notice stated, the 1988 Act amends those
provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966 ("the Vehicle Safety Act") (15U.S.C.
1381, at 1397) that relate to the importation of motor
vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. Specifically, the amendments strike para-
graphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of 15 U.S.C. 1397, (Section 1397
may also be cited as Section 108 of the Vehicle Safety
Act), redesignates paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (b)(3),
redesignated paragraph (c) of 15 U.S.C. 1397 as para-
graph (k), and adds new paragraphs (c) through (j).
As the agency explained in its proposal, and now
repeats so that readers will have an overview of Part
592, the category of importer primarily affected by the
1988 Act is the importer of a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards that applied to vehicles
of its type at the time of its original manufacture.
Under the current regulation, 19C.F.R. 12.80(b)(l)(iii),
a nonconforming vehicle may be imported by any
person. Under the 1988 Act, an importer will have to
be, subject to certain exceptions, a "registered im-
porter" (one who meets the statutory criteria and has
registered with the agency pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the regulation that this notice adopts), or
an individual who has contracted with a registered
importer. The principal obligations of the Registered
Importer with respect to the vehicles it imports are (1)
to bring those vehicles into compliance, or to demon-
strate that they have been brought into compliance
before importation, (2) to provide the Administrator
with certification that the vehicles conform, and (3) in
the event that noncompliances of safety related defects
occur in vehicles it certifies, to notify owners, and
provide a remedy. With respect to those vehicles it
imports for resale, a Registered Importer falls within
the long-standing definition of "manufacturer" under
the Vehicle Safety Act and is responsible for notification
of purchasers and remedy of noncompliances and
safety related defects determined to exist in those
vehicles. The 1988 Act adds a further responsibility; it
PART 592-PRE 1
makes the Registered Importer responsible for notifi-
cation and remedy covering any vehicle covered by its
certificate of conformity to the standards, including
vehicles imported by individuals who have contracted
with the Register Importer, if a noncompliance or
defect is determined to exist in substantially similar
vehicles originally manufactured and certified for sale
in the United States. However, the manufacturer or
Registered Importer would be afforded an opportunity
to demonstrate to NHTSA that the vehicles covered by
the certification do not contain the noncompliance or
defect.
NHTSA is attempting in this rulemaking action to
formulate a program that will ensure that all imported
motor vehicles conform to the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards without imposing unnecessary
burdens on importers. Therefore, NHTSA has tried in
Part 592 to impose only those requirements that are
mandated by the 1988 Act, with amplifications only
where it appeared necessary to implement the safety
intent of the statute.
There were 10 substantive comments on the proposed
rule, including questions raised by telephone or letter.
Four were received from manufacturers or authorized
importers (General Motors Corporation, Volkswagen
of America, Mercedes-Benz of North America, and
IVECO), and on each from a foreign converter (Gerhard
Feldevert), authorized import dealer association (The
Dealer Action Association), an importer of Canadian
vehicles (Auburn Motors, Inc.), a dealer association
(National Automotive Dealer Association), a truck
importer (LaPine Truck Sales and Equipment Co.),
and a member of the public (George Ziolo). General
comments and questions to other dockets by the States
of Texas and Virginia, and U.S. Trade Corp. appeared
relevant, and will be discussed.
Requirements for Registration as Importer
The requirements for registration as an importer
and maintenance of registration are established by
paragraph 592.5. Under the regulation adopted by this
notice, any person who wishes to become a Registered
Importer, and who has not previously has a registration
revoked, may file an application with the Administrator
(new section 108(c)(3)(D)(i)). Comments to the docket
raised basic questions as to who is permitted to
register, and under what circumstances registration is
required. IVECO, a manufacturer, asked whether it is
required to register when its activities include import-
ing nonconforming vehicles for test purposes, or ve-
hicles requiring further manufacturing operations.
Volkswagen raised the possibility that it might import
nonconforming cars, and conform then before sale in
the United States. While seemingly recognizing that it
would have to acquire registered status, it nevertheless
argues that insurance and recordkeeping requirements
that NHTSA proposed for Registered Importers would
be unnecessary, and it recommended that the final rule
exempt original manufacturers from insurance and
recordkeeping requirements. A letter froml a foreign
national, Gerhard Felevert, expressing a wish to
become a Registered Importer, raises the question
whether the 1988Act permits a Registered Importer to
be located outside the United States.
The principal obligation of a Registered Importer is
to certify that a vehicle not originally manufactured in
conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards has been brought into conformity with them
before it is licensed for use on the public roads. Since a
vehicle requiring further manufacturing operations is
a vehicle whose original manufacture is incomplete, its
importer need not be a Registered Importer. This type
of importation is governed exclusively by the special
provision for it in section 108(e), thus excluding it from
vehicles subject to Registered importer provisions of
section 108(f). Similarly, vehicles imported for test
purposes are governed by section 108(j), at secticn
108(f), and IVECO need not be a Registered Importer
for these types of importations. On the other hand,
Volkswagen correctly surmises that its hypothetical
importation of nonconforming vehicles which it intends
to conform before sale subjects it to the Registered
Importer requirements. The 1988 Act does not dis-
tinguish between U.S. subsidiaries of major foreign
automotive corporations and corner garages; any
person wishing to import a nonconforming motor
vehicle for sale in the United States must be a
Registered Importer, or have a contract with a Register-
ed Importer. Furthermore, the vehicle itself is subject
to a determination by NHTSA of its eligibility for
importation, and Volkswagen is required to petition
for an agency decision under Part 593. To be sure, the
sheer size of a company such as Volkswagen may
justify a different treatment of the issue of financial
capability, although NHTSA cannot adopt a different
requirement in this final rule, it will study the matter
with a view towards proposing, at an early date, an
alternative method for factory-authorized importers,
or corporations of a certain size, to demonstrate their
financial capability to fulfill notification and remedy
responsibilities.
Finally, it seems clear from the obligations imposed
by statute upon Registered Importers that they must
be a resident in the United States. The ability of
NHTSA to inspect vehicles, records,, and facilities to
verify conformance and the capabilities of Registered
Importers would be severely hampered if those entitles
were located beyond the direct jurisdiction of the
Department of Transportation and subject to the laws
of another country. Accordingly, NHTSA will consider
and grant applications only from Registered Importers
who are residents of, and whose facilities are located in
PART 592-PRE 2
a^"State" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(8): the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Marianas.
Because section 108(c)(3)(D)(i) also provides that
registration may be denied "to any person who is or
was, directly or indirectly, owned or controlled by, or
under common ownership or control with, a person
who has had a registration revoked. . . . ", as part of
its application, an applicant will be required to disclose
the names of its owners, shareholders, or partners
(paragraph 592.5(a)(4)). In the opinion of Mercedes-
Benz, the agency should define "common ownership"
to include any ownership interest, no matter how
small, in order to identify an importer whose registra-
tion has been revoked and who may hold a minority
interest. The agency believes that its requirements
will accomplish this, and that a definition is not
required. If any of the owners are corporations, a
requirement to provide the names of all shareholders
might be unduly burdensome, and the regulation
requires only that the names of shareholders whose
ownership interest is 10 percent or more be supplied
(paragraph 592.5(a)(5)). If the agency discovers that a
revoked registrant has an ownership position in a
Registered Importer or applicant, and may profit by
the actions of the Importer (such as providing the
facilities where the conversion work will occur), the
agency will take this fact into consideration when it is
reviewing applications or their renewals.
Chief among the registration requirements stated in
section 108(c)(3)(D)(ii) is proof of financial ability to
carry out notification and remedy responsibilities
should a noncompliance or safety related defect be
found in any vehicle the Registered Importer has
imported and/or for whom it has furnished a certificate
of conformity. In developing a provision addressing the
financial ability of a Registered Importer to carry out
its notification and remedial obligation, the agency
was guided by the experience of the Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") in developing and promul-
gating regulatory provisions addressing the financial
ability of Independent Commercial Importers ("ICIs")
to honor emissions warranties. (40 CFR 85. 1510(b)(2)(i),
52 FR 36136). ICIs are importers of motor vehicles and
engines, and have registered with the EPA. Some of
them may register with NHTSA. Thus, a NHTSA
requirement that parallels the EPA one is not likely to
add significantly to the regulatory burden of those who
import nonconforming vehicles subject to Federal
regulations.
Commenters on EPA's regulations at the proposal
stage, principally original equipment vehicle and engine
manufacturers, and the State of California, suggested
that ICIs acquire prepaid insurance and/or bonds to
cover ICI warranty and recall liability for the useful
life of each vehicle. There was no opposition form ICIs
regarding this concept. Based on its experiences under
the California emissions standards for motor vehicles,
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) noted that
the modification industry is composed of small busi-
nesses, and argued that it is likely that a number of
firms will fail over time. Without a requirement for an
insurance policy or bond to cover warranty and recall
repairs, owners of vehicles obtained from firms that
are no longer in business would have to bear the
warranty costs. CARB offers modifiers a choice be-
tween obtaining insurance or a bond.
EPA decided to require a prepaid mandatory service
insurance policy that, in effect, assures effective
warranty coverage. That agency reasoned that it was
necessary to require a bond to assure an effective recall
and warranty program. Because the prepaid mandatory
service insurance policy seemed acceptable to modifiers
as a means of assuring their performance regarding
recalls and warranties, NHTSA proposed in paragraph
592.5(a)(8) that the application contain "a copy of a
contract to acquire, effective upon its registration as
an importer, a prepaid mandatory insurance policy
underwritten by an independent insurance company,
in an amount sufficient to ensure that the applicant
will be able financially to remedy any noncompliance
or safety related defect determined to exist in any
vehicle for which it has furnished a certificate of
conformity to the Administrator. ..." However,
NHTSA has no knowledge of the burden the insurance
requirement might impose upon an applicant, and
requested comments on this point. NHTSA also re-
quested comments upon alternate appropriate means
of assuring financial ability to carry out notification
and remedial activities. Finally, NHTSA requested
comments on the amount of insurance that would be
necessary to demonstrate "sufficient financial re-
sponsibility," (section 108(d)(2)). The premium paid
for such a policy would appear to encompass the
relatively low costs of notification (i.e., discerning,
through records or R.L. Polk, the names and addresses
of vehicle owners), and the somewhat higher costs of
remedy (through repair, repurchase, or replacement),
as affected by the yearly number of vehicles for which
the registered importer estimates it will submit certi-
fication. NHTSA understands that one company is
currently insuring Id's under EPA's program, but
given the difference between Federal safety and emis-
sion standards the cost experience is not directly
comparable.
Substantive comments were received on this issue
from Mercedes-Benz, the Dealer Action Association,
National Automotive Dealers Association, and U.S.
Trade Corp. Mercedes stated that its remedial ex-
perience indicated that a prepaid insurance policy in
an amount equal to $2,000 per vehicle should be
sufficient (adjusted annually for inflation), or 5% of the
dutiable value of the vehicle), whichever is the lessor.
PART 592-PRE 3
A similar comment was forthcoming from the Dealer
Action Association, which suggested a surety bond as
an alternative to the prepaid insurance policy, but for
5% of the dutiable value of the vehicle. It also com-
mented that $2,000, self-adjusting for inflation, seemed
a fair estimate of remedial costs. U.S. Trade Corp., a
potential applicant to become a Registered Importer,
commented that a financial ability requirement parallel
to that of EPA would probably not add much to the
Registered Importer's burden, but would add to the
costs to the consumer. It argued that possession of
standard liability insurance that covers the work of
each Registered Importer should be sufficient to cover
the vehicle owner.
The agency has reviewed these comments. Given
the historical fact that a large portion of nonconforming
vehicles have been originally manufactured by Mer-
cedes-Benz, NHTSA has carefully considered the
comments of Mercedes-Benz of North America. The
figure of $2,000 per vehicle was supported by the
Dealer Action Association, and, to NHTSA, appears a
reasonable estimate of the costs to repair or replace a
major component of a motor vehicle. The agency will
review campaigns involving Registered Importers to
determine whether this figure requires adjustment for
inflation or other factors, but is not requiring a self-
adjusting feature. Although a Registered Importer
would be required, when repair is impossible, to
replace the vehicle with an equivalent one, or repur-
chase the vehicle, at a cost that might well exceed
$2,000, such a contingency has occured so infrequently
in NHTSA's history that, for the present, the agency
has concluded that it need not be a part of a Registered
Importer's showing of financial capability. With respect
to the alternative suggestion that the policy amount be
5% of the entered value of the vehicle, the agency
observes that repair costs for older vehicles of low
value could be as expensive as for newer models.
Further, percentage calculations would appear to add
variables into the process whereas a flat figure of
$2,000 per vehicle treats all vehicles on an equal basis.
Additional comments were offered. The Dealer Action
Association recommended that the policy be sufficient
to compensate authorized dealers when Registered
Importers are unable to perform recall work. NADA
suggested that NHTSA consider EPA's approach
toward vehicle repair in the final rule, to ensure that
repairs are adequately performed and paid for, if not
performed by, the Registered Importer. It recommended
that the vehicle owner be provided with a transferable
copy of the service insurance contract to facilitate
repairs at facilities other than those of the Registered
Importer. Although oriented towards compensation of
authorized dealers, these comments are directed
towards situations where it may not be practicable for
the owner of a vehicle to return the vehicle to the
facilities of the Registered Importer, such as when the
Registered Importer is located at a great distance from
the vehicle owner.
This possibility is a likely one, and of concern to
NHTSA. In the agency's opinion, the Registered Im-
porter's obligation to remedy without charge is an
absolute one, and cannot be contingent upon the
Importer itself performing the repairs, even for defects
or noncompliances it has introduced in the conversion
process. Thus the questions is, how may NHTSA best
ensure that repairs without charge be furnished a
vehicle owner when repairs are performed by persons
other than the Registered Importer. It was suggested
that NHTSA consider EPA's approach, but the agency
does not find this exactly on point. Under the provisions
of the Clean Air Act, converters are required to supply
owners with engine performance warranties. The
warranties are required to be insured, transferable,
and provide that warranty work may be performed
anywhere if the converter's facility is not reasonably
available (i.e., within 50 miles) 40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2).
The regulation thus does not touch upon the mechanics
of compensation for warranty work performed else-
where. In the absence of regulatory guidance, NHTSA
assumes that an owner pays for the repairs at the
non-converter service facility, and presents the bill to
the converter for reimbursement. If such a course were
followed by owners of vehicles converted to meet the
safety standards, it would meet the statutory re-
quirement of remedy without charge, although the
owner would be temporarily out of pocket for the repair
expenses. However, a Registered Importer should have
the right to impose reasonable restrictions upon the
type of facility to which a vehicle for which it has
remedial responsibility may be taken. A reasonable
restriction would be that the vehicle must be repaired
at a factory-authorized dealership for its make (e.g., a
gray market Jaguar must be repaired by the service
facilities of a Jaguar new-car dealership). Because the
remedial obligation exists with respect to the vehicle
and not the owner, no specific requirement for transfer-
ability of insurance is required. Some of the comments
indicate that a form of insurance may be available
under which a claim for compensation may be made by
a non-converter repair facility directly to an insurance
company. Remedy without charge through this
mechanism would also fulfill the statutory require-
ment. The agency believes that the method of ensuring
remedy without charge should be the choice of the
person who is required to provide it. The requirement
it is adopting in response to these comments is one that
follows the EPA specification for allowance of repairs
at alternate locations when the Registered Importer's
facility is not reasonably available, and one which
requires an explanation of how remedy without charge
will be ensured. The agency notes that the Registered
Importer must provide NHTSA with copies of its
communications to vehicle owners, and must supply
PART 592-PRE 4
the owner with NHTSA's address for complaints in
the event remedy without charge is not provided.
NHTSA therefore anticipates that no serious problems
will arise. Further, it expects that authorized dealers,
or others performing campaign repairs, will be ade-
quately compensated.
In developing Part 592, the agency proposed that the
application contain a statement whether the Registered
Importer would modify the vehicles for which it will
furnish certificates of conformity, and if not , to provide
the names and address of all agents who would be the
actual modifiers.
The concept that a Registered Importer could delegate
actual conformance work was opposed by Mercedes-
Benz and The Dealer Action Association. Both com-
menters argued that this did not fulfill the statutory
purpose of increased accountability for conversions,
and cited statements from the Congressional Record in
support. In Mercedes' opinion, NHTSA would open an
area of potential dispute when the object of the 1988
Act was to clarify NHTSA's jurisdiction. Conformance
operations must be carried out by Registered Importers,
their employees, or subsidiaries. The legal line between
and "agent" and an "independent contractor" is not
always clear, raising the possibility that a Registered
Importer might structure a relationship to avoid acts
of a modifier, including fraud.
NHTSA has carefully considered these comments. It
believes that the provisions of the 1988 Act are
complex enough that regulations should not be adopted
that open additional avenues of potential dispute or
complications with Registered Importers that might
dilute the responsibility imposed by the 1988 Act, and
which might result in less than full achievement of the
intent of Congress when these approaches have not
been specifically directed by Congress. Therefore, it
agrees with the comments of Mercedes and The Dealer
Action Association, and has not adopted those aspects
of the proposal that countenanced delegation of con-
formance responsibilities to an agent.
The 1988 Act also requires that the regulation
contain "provision for ensuring that the importer (or
any successor in interest) will be able ... to carry out
the importer's responsibilities. . . relating to discovery,
notification, and remedy of defects." Paragraph
592.5(a)(9) requires that the applicant show that it will
maintain a system of VINs, and names and addresses
of owners of vehicles for which it provides certifica-
tions. Although the 1988 Act contemplates that a
Registered Importer could have a "successor in in-
terest", NHTSA proposed that registrations not be
transferable. Such a prohibition appears the most
feasible way to ensure that notification responsibilities
are met, as well as ensuring that transfers do not occur
to Importers whose registration may have been revoked
or suspended. There was no comment on this point,
and, accordingly, the agency has adopted paragraph
592.5(g) which states that registrations are not trans-
ferable. If there is a change in ownership interest, such
as a transfer resulting in a new person acquiring more
than 10% of ownership, a Registered Importer must
notify NHTSA (paragraph 592.5(f)). This paragraph
requires notification of changes in any of the informa-
tion supplied with the application. A registration will
continue indefinitely until revoked or suspended.
However, a Registered Importer, in order to maintain
its registration, will be required to affirm annually
that there has been no change in previously provided
information (paragraph 592..5(e)). This should ensure
that the financial ability of a Registered Importer can
be monitored, and that fees are received in a timely
manner.
Duties of a Registered Importer
Paragraph 592.6 sets forth the duties of a Registered
Importer. The first duty specified is to provide a bond
for each vehicle that it imports to ensure that it will
bring the vehicle into conformance, or that it will be
exported or abandoned to the United States (paragraph
592.6(a)).
The second duty required for a Registered Importer
is that it establish, maintain, and retain for 8 years
from the date of entry of a vehicle for which it
furnishes a certificate of conformity the records speci-
fied in paragraph 592.6(b)(1) through (5), generally
relating to substantiation of conformance work and
vehicle ownership. Eight years was proposed because
it is the period specified in the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act for which a manufacturer is
obligated to remedy a noncompliance or safety related
defect at no cost to the vehicle owner (15 U.S.C.
1414(a)(l)(4)). For a fuller interpretation as to how the
8-year limit affects the obligations of a Registered
Importer, the reader should consult the section of this
notice discussing paragraph 592.6(f).
Comments on record-keeping were submitted by
NADA and Mercedes-Benz. NADA commented that
the final rule should emphasize the continuing duty of
Registered Importers towards the vehicle, by requiring
that they continually update their owner lists since
notification obligations extend beyond first purchasers.
It is true that there is a continuing obligation towards
the vehicle, but NHTSA believes that existing notifi-
cation procedures, which will be applicable to Register-
ed Importers, sufficiently meet the need for safety. To
require an updated list of owners would create an
obligation that does not exist with respect to original
manufacturers, and would be of questionable success
should an owner fail to respond to a Registered
Importer's query. Such a requirement would impose
an unnecessary burden upon a Registered Importer.
The vehicle is identifiable through its VIN and in the
event of notification, the Registered Importer is re-
quired by 15 U.S.C. 1413(c)(1) to notify owners "whose
PART 592-PRE 5
name and address is reasonably ascertainable by the
manufacturer through State records or other sources
available to him." Mercedes-Benz commented that
based upon past experience it is not likely that many
gray market importers will remain in business for the
normal useful life of the vehicles they certify. It
recommended that the final rule address the issue of
retention of records on dissolution of a business, and
that Registered Importers be required to deliver all
vehicle conformance records to NHTSA in this event
in order to assure the ability to reach gray market
owners. NHTSA believes that one effect of the 1988
Act will be that the number of gray market importers
will be substantially reduced, and that those which
remain will be relatively stable financially. Mercedes'
comment appears based upon the assumption that, in
the absence of a Registered Importer qua manufacturer,
NHTSA must make its own determination or non-
compliance or safety related defect, and that its ability
to notify owners in the aftermath of such determina-
tions will be impaired without such records. This
assumption is based upon an erroneous understanding
of NHTSA's procedures. The statutory purpose of
NHTSA's determinations is to order the manufacturer
to notify and remedy when the manufacturer fails to
make its own determination. If there is no viable
manufacturer (or Registered Importer), NHTSA will
not proceed to such a determination. Should safety
considerations warrant, NHTSA may issue a press
release advising owners of the conditions giving rise to
concern and advise precautions to be taken. Thus,
NHTSA has not adopted this suggestion.
The third major responsibility of a Registered Im-
porter is to affix a certification label to each vehicle it
conforms in the manner required of original vehicle
manufacturers, which identifies the Registered Im-
porter (paragraph 592.6(c)). NADA recommended that
the certification label specifically designate the vehicle
as "Nonconforming Import", consistent with labels
required for incomplete or intermediate vehicle manu-
facturers, that it include specific reference to con-
formance with Theft Prevention Act requirements, as
well as language consistent with certification by
alterers pursuant to 49 CFR 567.7(a). The agency
declines to adopt the suggestions. The imported vehicle
will presumably no longer be "Nonconforming" after
its modification. Under existing regulations, certifica-
tion to Theft Prevention requirements must be provided
separately from certification to other standards (para-
graph 567. 4(k)), and no good reason has been advanced
to require otherwise. Unlike the alterer, who supple-
ments an existing certification, a Registered Importer
certifies de novo, and thus must certify according to 49
CFR 567.4. As the person affixing the label to the
vehicle under that regulation, the Registered Importer
will be clearly identified, as will the original manu-
facturer or assembler of the vehicle.
The fourth duty of a Registered Importer is to
provide NHTSA with certification upon completion of
modifications that the vehicle conforms and that it is
the party responsible for conformity (paragraph
592.6(d)). NHTSA proposed that substantiation of
certification through photographic and documentary
evidence be submitted for the initial certification
provided for a specific model and model year only, and
with subsequent certifications of that model and
model year only if requested by NHTSA. The proposal
has been adopted as written (paragraph 592.6(e)),
although the Dealer Action Association argued that
NHTSA should require full documentary evidence for
each vehicle. In essence, NHTSA does: paragraph
592.6(b)(4) requires the Registered Importer to keep
records both photographic and documentary reflecting
the modifications made and submitted to NHTSA
pursuant to paragraph 592.6(e), which must be made
available to NHTSA to inspect (paragraph 592.6(g)).
NHTSA does not wish to create unnecessary burdens
upon either a Registered Importer or itself by requiring
excessive documentation. If a Registered Importer
fails in its obligations to conform the vehicle (not
always apparent through photographic evidence), its
registration may be suspended or revoked, and civil
penalties imposed.
A Registered Importer also has notification and
remedial obligations imposed by the 1988 Act. These
obligations have been incumbent upon manufacturers
of motor vehicles since enactment of the Vehicle Safety
Act. Although a "manufacturer" includes any person
importing motor vehicles for resale, these obligations
have not always been understood or followed by
importers for resale of nonconforming vehicles, nor
have they always been enforced by NHTSA. However,
Congress has specifically indicated its intent that
these importers fulfill this sometimes dormant re-
sponsibility (section 103(d)), and broadened its applic-
ability. For purposes of notification and remedy, the
Registered Importer shall be treated as the manu-
facturer with respect to any motor vehicle that it
imports (regardless of whether or not it imports the
vehicle for resale), or brings into conformity on behalf
of an individual importer who has a contract with it.
Furthermore, if the vehicle is one that is substantially
similar (as determined under Part 593) to one certified
for sale in the United States by its original manu-
facturer, and a noncompliance or safety related defect
is determined to exist in the substantially similar
vehicle, the 1988 Act deems it to exist in the conformed
vehicle as well, unless the manufacturer or Registered
Importer can show otherwise. These obligations are
reflected in paragraphs 592.6(f). NADA commented
that the final rule should emphasize that this respons-
ibility encompasses conditions created by the modifica-
tion process, as well as incorporated into the vehicle by
its original manufacturer. NHTSA regards this sug-
PART 592-PRE 6
gestion as well made, and paragraph 592.6(f)(2) in-
corporates it.
In reviewing the relationship of the notification/
remedial requirements of the 1988 Act to those already
existing in the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA has identi-
fied an ambiguity as to the length of time for which
remedy without cost must be provided. According to 15
U.S.C. 1414(a)(4), the requirement shall not apply "if
the motor vehicle. . . was purchased by its first pur-
chaser more than 8 years. . . before. . . notification is
furnished. ..." The general intent of Congress ap-
pears to be that manufacturers should not be required
to provide free remedy for vehicles whose age exceeds 8
years, even if no corresponding limitation is imposed
upon notification. If the date of first purchase is known
for used imported nonconforming vehicles (such as
through title documents accompanying it), there will
be no difficulty determining when the 8-year period
begins. However, if the date of first purchase is not
known, NHTSA believes that any vehicle manufactur-
ed within 8 years of the date of notification should be
eligible for remedy without charge. However, non-
compliances or safety related defects could be created
by a Registered Importer in the conformance process,
and they may be introduced in an imported vehicle
approaching or beyond an age of 8 model years. It
seems fairest in this instance to regard conformance
operations as a "manufacturing" process, and to
commence the 8-year with the sale of the vehicle to its
first purchaser, regardless of its age. Disagreements
may arise as to whether a safety related defect is
attributable to the manufacturer or the Registered
Importer, but these will simply have to be handled on a
ad hoc basis.
The agency also notes that one duty of a Registered
Importer arises under the bond given upon importation
of each vehicle: the fulfillment of the condition that if
vehicle conformance is not achieved, the vehicle will be
exported at no cost to the United States by the
Secretary of the Treasury, or abandoned to the United
States (section 108(c)(2)(B)). If this duty, set forth in
paragraph 592.6(f), is not fulfilled, and the vehicle is
sold without full conformance, not only will the bond
be forfeit but grounds will then exist to suspend or
revoke the Importer's registration.
A final question relating to the duties of a Registered
Importer was asked by LaPine: who establishes the
amount of charges to be made by the Registered
Importer for conformance work? These charges are a
matter of contract between the Registered Importer
and the person for whom the work is done, and are not
established by Federal regulations.
Revocation, suspension, and reinstatement of registration.
Paragraph 592.7 establishes the requirements for
revocation, suspension, and reinstatement of the regi-
stration of Registered Importers.
Section 108(c)(3)(D)(iii) requires the Secretary to
establish procedures for revoking or suspending the
registration of any Registered Importer for failure to
comply with any requirement of section 108 of the
Vehicle Safety Act or of any regulation issued under
that section. Those procedures are also required to
provide for automatically suspending the registration
of a Registered Importer which knowingly files a false
or misleading certification, or fails to pay a required fee
in a timely manner. To cover the expenses of the
registration program and certain other activities, the
statute provides that each Registered Importer will
have to pay an annual fee; this fee will be established
on a fiscal year basis. A Registered Importer under
suspension may be reinstated when the cause giving
rise to the suspension ceases to exist. In determining
revocation or suspension, other than automatic sus-
pension as provided by section 108(c)(3)(D)(iii) for non
payment of fees or for knowingly filing a false or
misleading certification, the Administrator will provide
notice in writing to the Registered Importer, affording
it an opportunity to present data, views, and argue-
ments as to why its registration should not be sus-
pended or revoked. Other than its provision for auto-
matic suspension, the 1988 Act does not distinguish
suspension for revocation; either may be invoked for
failure to comply with any requirement of section 108
or the regulations issued under section 108. The
agency interprets the 1988 Act as leaving the decision
whether to suspend or to revoke to the discretion of the
Administrator, with the exception of the automatic
suspension provisions discussed above.
No comments were received on this aspect of the
rulemaking, and it is adopted as proposed.
Inspection; release of vehicles and bond.
Paragraph 592.8 establishes the requirements for
inspection of modified vehicles, and their release for
registration, as well as release of the performance bond
under which they entered. As is currently required, an
importer of record, whether a Registered Importer or
one who has a conformance contract with a Registered
Importer, will have to furnish the Secretary of the
Treasury (the U.S. Customs Service, acting for
NHTSA), a bond for each vehicle it imports to ensure
that the vehicle is brought into compliance with the
safety standards, or that it is exported at no cost to the
United States, or abandoned to the United States.
When the modifications of an imported vehicle are
completed, the Registered Importer will have to attach
its label to the vehicle stating that it complies with the
safety standards, and to certify that conformance to
NHTSA. If the vehicle is one that the Administrator
has determined to be substantially similar to one
certified by its original manufacturer for sale in the
U.S., the Registered Importer may rely in making its
certification on the original manufacturer's certifi-
cation with respect to identical safety features if it
PART 592-PRE 7
certifies to the Administrator that its modifications
did not affect compHance of the vehicle's safety features.
Under the 1988 Act, the Registered Importer will be
able to license the vehicle, or release the vehicle from
its custody for licensing, 30 days after its submission
of the certification to NHTSA. NHTSA, however, can
demand an inspection of the vehicle within the 30-days
period, or ask for certification verification. In that
event, the vehicle can be released only upon the
agency's written notice of its acceptance of the certifi-
cation or written notice of its completion of an inspec-
tion that does not show any failure to comply. The
vehicle and the performance bond can be released
immediately upon issuance of either notification. Sec-
tion 108(c)(3)(E)(v), added by the 1988 Act, provides
that any release of bond, however, does not constitute
a determination under section 152 of the Vehicle
Safety Act that the vehicle conforms with all applicable
standards.
Section 108(c)(3)(E)(i) requires NHTSA and the
Secretary of the Treasury to establish procedures to
ensure the release of a motor vehicle and bond at the
expiration of the 30-day period, and this was proposed
as paragraph 592.8(f). At the time of the proposal, it
had not been determined whether the bond would be
one of the U.S. Customs Service, or of NHTSA. The
determination has been made that the bond will be
NHTSA's, and therefore no such provision is required
in the final rule. NHTSA will continue to inform
Customs when requirements subject to the general
importation bond (bumper and theft prevention
standards) have been met, and will make these deter-
minations contemporaneously with those regarding
compliance with the safety standards.
These requirements were the subject of little com-
ment. In paragraph 592.8(b), NHTSA had proposed
that each submission shall be provided either by
certified mail (return receipt requested), or electron-
ically in a manner specified by NHTSA. George Ziolo
found this too restrictive, and recommended allowing
submission through private concerns and in person as
well. This comment is well taken. It is important that a
Registered Importer know when its submission has
been received, and, hence, when the 30-day period has
begun. Given the agency's own experience with failure
to receive certified mail return receipts, it believes that
a Registered Importer must be able to submit its
certification in the manner it believes will best inform
it of the date of receipt. The final rule is adopted as
suggested. Further, NHTSA has specified in the final
rule the electronic means it prefers, and has provided
the FAX number of the agency.
Auburn Motors, an importer of cars from Canada,
thought that Registered Importers of such cars should
not have to wait 30 calendar days after submission of
certification to be informed by NHTSA of their release.
It should be noted that 30 days is the maximum period,
and it may well be that in practice bonds may be
released more expeditiously.
The State of Texas asked for clarification of the
events that would transpire in the event the bond was
forfeited. In the event that NHTSA determines that
the primary condition of the performance bond, the
conformance of the vehicle, has not been met, the
agency will demand fulfillment of one of the remaining
two alternative conditions: the export of the vehicle at
no cost to the United States, or its abandonment to the
United States. NHTSA shall specify a time in which
this is to be accomplished. Because the 1988 Act
requires strict adherence to these provisions, it does
not appear to allow the agency to consider petitions for
mitigaton on such grounds as hardship, or the achieve-
ment of partial compliance. If the bond is forfeited
through failure to fulfill any of the three conditions of
performance, NHTSA will review the circumstances
of the case and, when appropriate, inform Customs
that the importer appears to have made a false
declaration under the conforming regulation, 19 CFR
12.80. Customs has appropriate sanctions, including
the seizure of the vehicle, when violations of its
regulations occur. Civil penalty sanctions may be also
imposed by NHTSA. As discussed previously, if a
Registered Importer forfeits a performance bond, its
registration will be subject to suspension or revocation.
Commenting that in some jurisdictions a DOT bond
release letter is required before registration of vehicles
is allowed, Texas also asked what would occur if a
vehicle is automatically released at the end of 30 days
without a bond release letter having been issued. If a
vehicle is automatically released from custody of the
Registered Importer at the end of 30 days without a
bond release letter having been issued, there are two
possible scenarios. The first is that such a letter will be
forthcoming if the certification is found acceptable. If
the certification is unacceptable, no such letter will be
forthcoming, and conformance problems will have to
be resolved between NHTSA, the Registered Importer,
and the owner of the car who presumably will have
taken possession of it, but may have found himself
unable to license it.
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles wondered if
NHTSA and EPA could issue a single release notice.
NHTSA has previously considered the feasibility of
parallel action with EPA such as a common declaration
form. This does not appear practicable. Two different
Federal agencies are involved, proceeding under two
different legislative authorities, with their own distinc-
tive requirements. Although the regulated persons are
of the same class (importers of motor vehicles) there is
not a sufficient identity of regulatory action to allow
common forms or time frames. In fact, the motor
vehicle standards administered by NHTSA itself that
must be met by imported vehicles originate in three
distinctly different regulatory authorities: Title I of
PART 592-PRE 8
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(safety standards), and Titles I (bumper standard) and
VI (theft prevention) of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new Part 592,
Registered Importers of Vehicles not Originally Manu-
factured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, is added to Title 49, Chapter V, to read as
follows:
Part 592 Registered Importers of Vehicles not Origi-
nally Manufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards
Sec.
592.1 Scope.
592.2 Purpose.
592.3 Applicability.
592.4 Definitions.
592.5 Requirements for registration and its
maintenance.
592.6 Duties of a Registered Importer.
592.7 Revocation, suspension and reinstate-
ment of registration.
592.7 Inspection; release of vehicle and bond.
Authority: Pub. L. 100-562, 15 U.S.C. 1401, 1407;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
592.1 Scope. This part establishes procedures
under section 108(c)(3)(D) of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C.
1397(c)(3)(D)), for the registration of importers of
motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured
to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. This part also establishes the duties
of Registered Importers.
592.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to
provide content and format requirements for person
who wish to register with the Administrator as im-
porters of motor vehicles not originally manufactured
to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards, to provide procedures for the regis-
tration of importers and for the suspension, revocation
and reinstatement of registration, and to set forth the
duties required of Registered Importers.
592.3 Applicability. This part applies to any
person who wishes to register with the Administrator
as an importer of nonconforming vehicles, and to any
person who is registered as an importer.
592.4 Definitions. All terms in this part that are
defined in section 102 of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used as
defined therein.
"Administrator " means the Administrator , National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
"NHTSA" means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
"Registered Importer" means any person that the
Administrator has registered as an importer pursuant
to paragraph 592.5(b).
592.5 Requirements for registration and its
maintenance.
(a) Any person wishing to register as an importer of
motor vehicles not originally manufactured to conform
to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards
must file an application which:
(1) Is headed with the words "Application for Regis-
tration as Importer", and submitted in three copies to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, Attn: Im-
porter Registration.
(2) Is written in the English language.
(3) Sets forth the full name, address, and title of the
person preparing the application, and the name, ad-
dress, and telephone number of the person for whom
application is made.
(4) Sets forth, as applicable, the names of all owners,
including shareholders, partners, or sole proprietors,
of the person for whom application is made.
(5) If any of the owners listed in (4) above are
corporations, sets forth the names of all shareholders
of such corporation whose ownership interest is 10 per
cent or greater.
(6) Contains a statement that the applicant has
never had a registration revoked pursuant to paragraph
592.7, nor is it or was it, directly or indirectly, owned or
controlled by, or under common ownership or control
with, a person who has had a registration revoked
pursuant to paragraph 592.7.
(7) Contains a certified check payable to the Trea-
surer of the United States, for the amount of the initial
annual fee established pursuant to Part 594 of this
chapter.
(8) Contains a copy of a contract to acquire, effective
upon its registration as an importer, a prepaid man-
datory service insurance policy underwritten by an
independent insurance company, or a copy of such
policy, in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor
vehicle for which the applicant will furnish a certificate
of conformity to the Administrator, for the purpose of
ensuring that the applicant will be able financially to
remedy any noncompliance or safety related defect
determined to exist in any such motor vehicle in
accordance with Part 573 and Part 577 of this chapter.
If the application is accompanied by a copy of a
contract to acquire such a policy, the applicant shall
provide NHTSA with a copy of the poHcy within 10
days after it has been issued to the applicant.
' (9) Sets forth in full data, views, and arguements of
the applicant sufficient to establish that the applicant
will be able, through a records system of acquiring and
maintaining names and addresses of owners of vehicles
for which it furnishes a certificate of conformity, and
PART 592-PRE 9
Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) of such vehicles,
to notify such owners that a noncompliance or safety
related defect exists in such vehicles, and that it will be
financially able to remedy a noncompliance or safety
related defect through repurchase or replacement of
such vehicles, or technically able through repair of
such vehicles, in accordance with Part 573 and Part
577 of this chapter.
(10) Segregates and specifies any part of the infor-
mation and data submitted under this part that the
applicant wishes to have withheld from public dis-
closure in accordance with Part 512 of this chapter.
(11) Contains a statement that the applicant will
fully comply with all duties of a registered importer as
set forth in paragraph 592.6.
(12) Has the applicant's signature acknowledged by
a notary public.
(b) If the information submitted is incomplete, the
Administrator notifies the applicant of the areas of
insufficiency, and that the application is in abeyance.
(c) If the Administrator deems it necessary for a
determination upon the application, NHTSA conducts
an inspection of the applicant and/or its agents.
Subsequent to the inspection, NHTSA calculates the
costs attributable to such inspection, and notifies the
applicant in writing that such costs comprise a com-
ponent of the initial annual fee and must be paid before
a determination is made upon its application.
(d) When the application is complete (and, if applic-
able, when a sum representing the inspection com-
ponent of the initial annual fee is paid), it is reviewed
and a determination made whether the applicant
should be granted the status of Registered Importer.
Such determination may be based, in part, upon an
inspection by NHTSA of the conformance, storage,
and recordkeeping facilities of the applicant and agents,
if any. If the Administrator determines that the
application is acceptable, (s)he informs the applicant in
writing that its application is approved, and issues it a
Registered Importer Number. If the information is not
acceptable, the Administrator informs the applicant in
writing that its application is not approved. No refund
is made of those components of the initial annual fee
representing the remaining costs of administration of
the registration program.
(e) In order to maintain its registration, a Registered
Importer shall provide an annual statement that
affirms that all information provided under paragraph
(a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(9), and (a)(ll) remains correct,
and that includes a current copy of its insurance policy
procured pursuant to paragraph (a)(8). Such statement
shall be titled "Yearly Statement of Registered Im-
porter", and shall be filed not later than October 31 of
each year. A Registered Importer shall also pay such
annual fee or fees as the Administrator may from time
to time establish under Part 594 of this chapter. An
annual fee shall be paid not later than October 31 of
any calendar year, and shall be the annual fee for the
fiscal year than began on October 1 of that calendar
year. Any other fee shall be payable not later than 30
calendar days after the date that the Administrator
has notified the Registered Importer of it in writing.
(f) A Registered Importer shall notify the Admini-
strator in writing of any change that occurs in the
information which it submitted in its application, not
later than the end of the 30th calendar day after such
change.
(g) A registration granted under this part is not
transferable.
592.6 Duties of a Registered Importer. Each
Registered Importer shall:
(a) With respect to each motor vehicle that it imports
into the United States, furnish to the Secretary of the
Treasury (acting on behalf of the Administrator) a
bond in an amount not less than the entered value of
the vehicle, as determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, nor more than 150 per cent of such value, to
ensure that such vehicle either will be brought into
conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards prescribed under Part 571 of this
chapter within 120 calendar days after such importa-
tion, or will be exported (at no cost to the United States)
by the importer or the Secretary of the Treasury, or
abandoned to the United States.
(b) Establish, maintain, and retain for 8 years from
the date of entry of any nonconforming vehicle for
which it furnishes a certificate of conformity pursuant
to paragraph (e), organized records, correspondence
and other documents relating to the importation,
modification, and substantiation of certification of
conformity to the Administrator, including but not
limited to:
(1) The declaration required by paragraph 591.5 of
this chapter, and 19 CFR 12.80.
(2) All vehicle or equipment purchase or sales orders
or agreements, conformance agreements with im-
porters other than Registered Importers, and cor-
respondence between the Registered Importer and the
owner or purchaser of each vehicle for which it has
furnished a certificate of conformity.
(3) The last known name and address of the owner
or purchaser of each motor vehicle for which it has
furnished a certificate of conformity, and the VIN
number of such vehicle.
(4) Records, both photographic and documentary,
reflecting the modifications made and submitted to the
Administrator pursuant to paragraph (e).
(5) Records, both photographic and documentary,
sufficient to substantiate each subsequent certificate
furnished to the Administrator for a vehicle of the
same model and model year for which documentation
PART 592-PRE 10
has been furnished NHTSA in support of the initial
certificate.
(c) Permanently affix to each motor vehicle, upon
completion of modifications, a label that meets the
requirements of paragraph 567.4 of this chapter,
which identifies the Registered Importer, and provide
to the Administrator a photocopy of the label attesting
that such vehicle has been brought into conformity
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and
bumper standards.
(d) Certify to the Administrator, upon completion of
modifications, that the vehicle has been brought into
conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety and bumper standards, and that it is the person
legally responsible for bringing the vehicle into con-
formity.
(e) In substantiation of the initial certification pro-
vided for a specific model and model year, submit to the
Administrator photographic and documentary evidence
of conformance with each applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety and bumper standard, and with respect
to subsequent certifications of such model and model
year, such information, if any, as the Administrator
may request.
(f ) With respect to any motor vehicle for which it has
furnished a certificate of conformity to the Admini-
strator, provide notification and remedy according to
Part 573 and Part 577 of this chapter, upon any
determination:
(1) that a vehicle to which it is substantially similar,
as determined under Part 593 of this chapter, in-
corporates a safety related defect or fails to conform
with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety stan-
dard. However, this obligation does not exist if the
manufacturer of the vehicle or Registered Importer
demonstrates to the Administrator that the defect or
noncompliance is not present in such vehicle.
(2) that the vehicle incorporates a safety related
defect or fails to conform with an applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standard, without reference to
whether such may exist in a vehicle to which it is
substantially similar, or whether such exists because
it was created by the original manufacturer or by the
Registered Importer.
The requirement of 15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B) that
remedy shall be provided without charge shall not
apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect
exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importa-
tion occurred more than 8 calendar years before
notification respecting the failure to comply is fur-
nished pursuant to Part 577 of this chapter, except
that if a safety related defect exists and is attributable
to the original manufacturer and not the Registered
Importer, the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)
shall not apply to a motor vehicle whose date of
manufacture, as determined by the Administrator, is
more than 8 years from the date on which notification
is furnished pursuant to Part 577 of this chapter.
Notification furnished pursuant to this paragraph
and Part 577 of this chapter shall include the statement
that in the absence of the Registered Importer's facility
being within 50 miles of the owner's mailing address
for performance of repairs, such repairs may be
performed at a specific facility designated by the
Registered Importer within 50 miles, or, if no such
facility is designated, anywhere, and shall also include
an explanation of how repairTs to be accomplished
without charge to the vehicle owner.
(g) In order to allow the Administrator to determine
whether a Registered Importer is meeting its statutory
responsibilities, admit representatives of NHTSA
during operating hours, upon demand, and upon
presentation of credentials, to copy documents, or to
inspect, monitor, or photograph any of the following:
(1) Any facility where any vehicle, for which a
Registered Importer has the responsibility of providing
a certificate of conformity to applicable safety stan-
dards, is being modified, tested, or stored;
(2) Any facility where any record or other document
relating to modification, testing, or storage of vehicles
being conformed, is filed;
(3) Any part or aspect of activities relating to the
modification, testing, and/or storage of vehicles by the
Registered Importer.
(4) Any motor vehicle for which it has provided a
certification of conformity to the Administrator, and
which remains in its custody or under its control.
(h) Maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service
insurance policy underwritten by an independent
insurance company as a guarantor of its performance
under paragraph (f).
(i) With respect to any motor vehicle it has imported
and for which it has furnished a performance bond, to
deliver such vehicle to the Secretary of the Treasury
for export, or to abandon it to the United States, upon
demand by the Administrator if such vehicle has not
been brought into conformity with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
592.7 Revocation, suspension and rein-
statement of registration.
(a) If the Administrator has not received any fee
assessed and owing by the end of the 30th calendar day
after such fee is due and payable, a registration is
automatically suspended at the beginning of the 31st
calendar day, and the Registered Importer is immedi-
ately notified in writing of the suspension at the
address contained in its most recent annual statement
or amendment thereof.
(b) If the Administrator has reason to believe that a
Registered Importer has knowingly filed a false or
misleading certification, and that its registration should
be automatically suspended or revoked, (s)he notifies
PART592-PRE11
the Registered Importer in writing of the facts giving
rise to such reason to believe, affording an opportunity
to present data, views, and arguments, either in
writing or in person, within 30 calendar days after
receipt of the Administrator's letter, as to whether it
has submitted false or misleading certification, and as
to why the registration ought not to be revoked or
suspended. The Administrator then makes a decision
after the 30-day period on the basis of all information
then available. If, after consideration of all the data
available, the Administrator determines that the Regis-
tered Importer has knowingly filed a false of misleading
certification, the registration is automatically sus-
pended or revoked, and the Registered Importer notified
in writing. Any suspension or revocation is effective as
of the date of the Administrator's determination. The
Administrator shall state the period of any suspension
in the notice to the Registered Importer.
(c) The Administrator may suspend a registration if
a Registered Importer fails to comply with any require-
ment set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3)(D), paragraph
592.5(c), or paragraph 592.6, or if (s)he denies an
application filed under paragraph 592.5(d). The Ad-
ministrator may revoke a registration after any failure
to comply with any such requirement, or if (s)he denies
an application filed under paragraph 592.5(d). If the
Administrator has reason to believe that there has
been such a failure to comply and that the Registered
Importer's registration should be revoked or suspended,
(s)he notifies the Registered Importer in writing,
affording an opportunity to present data, views, and
arguments, either in writing or in person, within 30
calendar days after receipt of the Administrator's
letter, as to whether there has been a failure to comply
and as to why the registration ought not to be revoked
or suspended. The Administrator then makes a decision
after the 30-day period on the basis of all information
then available. If the Administrator determines that a
registration should be revoked or suspended, (s)he
notifies the Registered Importer in writing. A revoca-
tion is effective immediately. A suspension is effective
beginning with a date specified in the written notifica-
tion.
(d) A Registered Importer whose registration has
been revoked or suspended may request reconsideration
of the revocation or suspension if the request is
supported by factual matter which was not available
to the Administrator at the time the registration was
suspended or revoked.
(e) If its registration has been revoked, a Registered
Importer is ineligible to apply for reregistration under
this part. No refund is provided of any annual or other
fees the Registered Importer has paid for the fiscal year
in which its registration is revoked. If its registration
has been suspended it may file an application for
reinstatement of its registration.
(f) The Administrator shall reinstate a suspended
registration if the cause that led to the suspension no
longer exists, as determined by the Administrator,
either upon the Administrator's motion, or upon the
submission of further information or fees by the
Registered Importer.
592.8 Inspection; release of vehicle and bond.
(a) With respect to any motor vehicle for which it is
obligated to provide a certificate of conformity to the
Administrator as required by paragraph 592.6(d), a
Registered Importer shall not obtain licensing or
registration of the motor vehicle for use on the public
roads, or release custody of it for such licensing and
registration, except in accordance with the provisions
of this section.
(b) When conformance modifications to a motor
vehicle have been completed, a Registered Importer
shall submit the certification required by paragraph
592.6(d) to the Administrator. In certifying a vehicle
that the Administrator has determined to be substan-
tially similar to one that has been certified by its
original manufacturer for sale in the United States,
the Registered Importer may rely on any certification
by the original manufacturer with respect to identical
safety features if it also certifies that any modification
that it undertook did not affect the compliance of such
safety features. Each submission shall be mailed by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or by private
carriers such as Federal Express, to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington D.C. 20590 ATTN: NEF-32, or be sub-
mitted electronically by FAX (202-366-2536), or in
person. Each submission shall identify the location
where the vehicle will be stored and is available for
inspection, pending NHTSA action upon the submis-
sion.
(c) Before the end of the 30th calendar day after
receipt of certification of a motor vehicle pursuant to
paragraph 592.6(d), the Administrator may inform the
Registered Importer in writing that an inspection of
the vehicle is required to ascertain the veracity of the
certification. Written notice includes a proposed in-
spection date, which is as soon as practicable. If
inspection of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle has
been properly certified, at the conclusion of the in-
spection the Registered Importer is provided an instru-
ment of release. If inspection of the vehicle shows that
the vehicle has not been properly certified , the Register-
ed Importer shall either make the modifications neces-
sary to substantiate its certification, and provide a
new certification for the standard(s) in the manner
provided for in paragraph (b), or deliver the vehicle to
the Secretary of the Treasury for export, or abandon it
to the United States. Before the end of the 30th
calendar day after receipt of new certification, the
Administrator may require a further inspection in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
(d) The Administrator may by written notice request
certification verification by the Registered Importer
before the end of the 30th calendar day after the date
PART 592— PRE 12
the certification was received by the Administrator. If
the basis for such request is that the certification is
false or contains a misrepresentation, the Registered
Importer shall be afforded an opportunity to present
written data, views, and arguments as to why the
certification is not false or misleading or does not
contain a misrepresentation. The Administrator may
require an inspection pursuant to paragraph (c). The
motor vehicle and performance bond involved shall not
be released unless the Administrator is satisfied with
the certification.
(e) If a Registered Importer has received no written
notice from the Administrator by the end of the 30th
calendar day after it has furnished a certification to
the Administrator, the Registered Importer may release
from custody the vehicle that is covered by the
certification, or have it licensed or registered for use on
the public roads.
(f) If the Administrator accepts a certification with-
out requiring an inspection, (s)he notifies the Registered
Importer in writing, and provides a copy to the
importer of record. Such notification shall be provided
not later than the 25th calendar day after the Admini-
strator has received such certification.
(g) Release of the performance bond shall constitute
acceptance of certification or completion of inspection
of the vehicle concerned, but shall not preclude a
subsequent determination by the Administrator pur-
suant to section 152 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1451) that the
vehicle fails to conform to any applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standard.
Issued on: September 26, 1989
Jeffrey R. Miller
Acting Administrator
54 F.R. 40083
September 29, 1989
PAKT5flZ-PKE 13-14
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 592
Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally
Manufactured to Conform to Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards
(Docket No. 86-6; Notice 3)
RIN: 2127-AC97
ACTION: Technical amendments; final rule
SUMMARY: This notice contains technical amend-
ments of the final rule published on September 29,
1989, which established requirements for the registra-
tion of importers of motor vehicles not originally
manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. References to agents of the registered
importer in section 592.5(c) and (d) are deleted. The
amount of the bond referred to in section 592.6(a) is
corrected to accord with that prescribed in Part 591. A
redundancy in paragraphing in that section is corrected
by redesignating certain paragraphs. A word inadver-
tently omitted in section 592.8(g) is inserted.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September
29, 1989, the agency established 49 CFR Part 592
Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manu-
factured to Conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (54 FR 40083). This action was in partial
implementation of P.L. 100-562 The Imported Vehicle
Safety Compliance Act of 1988. Under section 592.8(a),
one of the duties of a registered importer is to furnish a
bond "in an amount not less than the entered value of
the vehicle, as determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, nor more than 150% of such value", to
ensure that the vehicle is brought into compliance
with the Federal safety standards. This was the bond
amount specified by the 1988 Act, and proposed by
NHTSA. However, in developing the final rules
implementing the 1988 Act, NHTSA decided to require
that the performance bond be the higher value, 150% of
the entered value of the vehicle. This decision was
reflected in the final rule on importation of motor
vehicles, 49 CFR Part 591 Importation of Vehicles and
Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (54 FR 40069). In this rule, an importer of a
nonconforming vehicle declares, in pertinent part that
he has furnished a bond equal to 150% of the entered
value of the vehicle (section 591.5(f)(1)), and the
importer's declaration must be accompanied by a bond
in an amount equal to 150% of the entered value of the
vehicle (section 591.6(c)). Accordingly, NHTSA is
amending section 592.8(a) to specify the amount of the
bond required by Part 591.
When Part 592 was proposed, it was contemplated
that a registered importer could have agents to perform
the actual compliance modifications on vehicles for
which it was obliged to provide a certification of
conformity to the Administrator. Because of comments
to the docket, the agency decided that the purpose of
the legislation would be better accomplished if register-
ed importers had direct responsibility for conformance
work, and the final rule sought to delete all references
to agents. However, the agency overlooked two refer-
ences to agents, and sections 592.5(b) and (c) are
amended to remove these references.
As published, section 592.6(b) is followed by another
paragraph, also designated (b). This error is corrected
by redesignating the second paragraph (b) as paragraph
(c), and redesignating succeeding paragraphs as ap-
propriate. There do not appear to be any cross-
references in part 592 or any other regulation requiring
correction.
Finally, in section 592.8(g), the word "bond" was
inadvertently omitted after the word "performance",
and has been reinstated.
In consideration of the foregoing Part 592 of 49 CFR
is amended as follows:
The first sentence of section 592.5(c) is amended by
deleting the phrase "and/or its agents" so that the
sentence ends with the word "applicant."
The second sentence of section 592.5(d) is amended
by deleting the phrase "and agents, if any" so that the
sentence ends with the word "applicant."
Section 592.6(a) is amended by deleting the phrase
"a bond in an amount not less than the entered value of
the vehicle, as determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, nor more than 150 per cent of such value,"
and replacing it with the phrase "a bond in an amount
equal to 150 per cent of the entered value of the vehicle,
as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,".
In section 592.6, the second paragraph (b) is redesig-
nated paragraph (c). Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h).
PART 592-PRE 15
and (i) of that section are redesignated respectively
paragraphs (d), (e). (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j).
Section 592.8(g) is amended by adding the word
"bond" between the words "performance" and "shall."
Issued on: November 3, 1989
George L. Parker
Associate Administrator
for Enforcement
54 F.R. 47087
Novembers, 1989
PART 592-PRE 16
PART 592-REGISTERED IMPORTERS OF VEHICLES NOT ORIGINALLY
MANUFACTURED TO CONFORM TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARDS
592.1 Scope.
This part establishes procedures under section
108(c)(3XD) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehi-
cle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(cX3XD)),
for the registration of importers of motor vehicles
that were not originally manufactured to comply
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety stan-
dards. This part also establishes the duties of
Registered Importers.
592.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to provide content and
format requirements for persons who wish to
register with the Administrator as importers of
motor vehicles not originally manufactured to con-
form to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, to provide procedures for the registra-
tion of importers and for the suspension, revocation
and reinstatement of registration, and to set forth
the duties required of Registered Importers.
592.3 Applicability.
This part applies to any person who wishes to
register with the Administrator as an importer of
nonconforming vehicles, and to any person who is
registered as an importer.
592.4 Definitions.
All terms in this part that are defined in section
102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe-
ty Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used as defined therein.
"Administrator" means the Administrator
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
"NHTSA" means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
"Registered Importer" means any person that the
Administrator has registered as an importer pur-
suant to paragraph 592.5(b).
592.5 Requirements for reqistration and its
maintenance.
(a) Any person wishing to register as an importer
of motor vehicles not originally manufactured to con-
form to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards must file an application which:
(1) Is headed with the words "Application for
Registration as Importer", and submitted in three
copies to: Administrator, National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.
20590, Attn: Importer Registration.
(2) Is written in the English language.
(3) Sets forth the full name, address, and title
of the person preparing the application, and the
name, address, and telephone number of the per-
son for whom application is made.
(4) Sets forth, as applicable, the names of all
owners, including shareholders, partners, or sole
proprietors, of the person for whom application
is made.
(5) If any of the owners listed in (4) above are
corporations, sets forth the names of all
shareholders of such corporation whose ownership
interest is 10 per cent or greater.
(6) Contains a statement that the applicant has
never had a registration revoked pursuant to
paragraph 592.7, nor is it or was it, directly or in-
directly, owned or controlled by, or under common
ownership or control with, a person who has had
a registration revoked puisuant to paragraph
592.7.
(7) Contains a certified check payable to the
Treasurer of the United States, for the amount of
the initial annual fee established pursuant to Part
594 of this chapter.
(8) Contains a copy of a contract to acquire, ef-
fective upon its registration as an importer, a
prepaid mandatory service insurance policy under-
written by an independent insurance company, or
a copy of such pohcy, in an amount that equals
PART 592-1
$2,000 for each motor vehicle for which the appH-
cant will furnish a certificate of conformity to the
Administrator, for the purpose of ensuring that the
applicant will be able financially to remedy any non-
compliance or safety related defect determined to
exist in any such motor vehicle in accordance with
Part 573 and Part 577 of this chapter. If the applica-
tion is accompanied by a copy of a contract to ac-
quire such a policy, the applicant shall provide
NHTSA with a copy of the policy within 10 days
after it has been issued to the applicant.
(9) Sets forth in full data, views, and arguments
of the applicant sufficient to establish that the ap-
plicant will be able, through a records system of ac-
quiring and maintaining names and addresses of
owners of vehicles for which it furnishes a certificate
of conformity, and Vehicle Identification Numbers
(VINs) of such vehicles, to notify such owners that
a noncompliance or safety related defect exists in
such vehicles, and that it will be financially able to
remedy a noncompliance or safety related defect
through repurchase or replacement of such vehicles,
or technically able through repair of such vehicles
in accordance with Part 573 and Part 577 of this
chapter.
(10) Segregates and specifies any part of the in-
formation and data submitted under this part that
the applicant wishes to have withheld from public
disclosure in accordance with Part 512 of this
chapter.
(11) Contains a statement that the applicant will
fully comply with all duties of a registered importer
as set forth in paragraph 592.6.
(12) Has the applicant's signature acknowledged
by a notary public.
(b) If the information submitted is incomplete, the
Administrator notifies the applicant of the areas of
insufficiency, and that the application is in abeyance.
(c) If the Administrator deems it necessary for a
determination upon the application. NHTSA con-
ducts an inspection of the applicant. Subsequent to
the inspection, NHTSA calculates the costs at-
tributable to such inspection, and notifies the appli-
cant in writing that such costs comprise a compo-
nent of the initial annual fee and must be paid before
a determination is made upon its application.
(d) When the application is complete (and, if ap-
plicable, when a sum representing the inspection
component of the initial annual fee is paid), it is
reviewed and a determination made whether the ap-
plicant should be granted the status of Registered
Importer. Such determination may be based, in part,
upon an inspection by NHTSA of the conformance,
storage, and recordkeeping facilities of the
applicant. If the Administrator determines that the
application is acceptable, (s)he informs the applicant
in writing that its application is approved and issues
it a Registered Importer Number. If the informa-
tion is not acceptable, the Administrator informs the
applicant in writing that its application is not
approved. No refund is made of those components
of the initial annual fee representing the costs of
processing the application, and conducting an inspec-
tion. Refund is made of that component of the initial
annual fee representing the remaining costs of
administration of the registration program.
(e) In order to maintain its registration, a Registered
Importer shall provide an annual statement that
affirms that all information provided under
paragraphs (aX4), (aX5), (aX6), (aX9), and (aXll)
remains correct, and that includes a current copy
of its insurance policy procured pursuant to
paragraph (aX8). Such statement shall be titled
"Yearly Statement of Registered Importer", and
shall be filed not later than October 31 of each year.
A Registered Importer shall also pay such annual
fee or fees as the Administrator may from time to
time establish under Part 594 of this chapter. An
annual fee shall be paid not later than October 31
of any calendar year, and shall be the annual fee for
the fiscal year that began on October 1 of that
calendar year. Any other fee shall be payable not
later than 30 calendar days after the date that the
Administrator has notified the Registered Importer
of it in writing.
(f) A Registered Importer shall notify the Admin-
istrator in writing of any change that occurs in the
information which it submitted in its application, not
later than the end of the 30th calendar day after such
change.
(g) A registration granted under this part is not
transferable.
592.6 Duties of a Registered Importer.
Each Registered Importer shall:
(a) With respect to each motor vehicle that it im-
ports into the United States, furnish to the
Secretary of the Treasury (acting on behalf of the
Administrator) [a bond in an amount equal to 150
percent of the entered value of the vehicle, as deter-
mined by the Secretary of the Treasury, ] to ensure
that such vehicle either will be brought into confor-
mity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safe-
ty standards prescribed under Part 571 of this
chapter within 120 calendar days after such impor-
tation, or will be exported (at no cost to the United
States) by the importer or the Secretary of the
Treasury, or abandoned to the United States.
(Rev. 11/9/89)
PART 592-2
I(c)l Establish, maintain, and retain for 8 years
from the date of entry of any nonconforming vehi-
cle for which it furnishes a certificate of conformity
pursuant to paragraph (e), organized records, cor-
respondence and other documents relating to the
importation, modification, and substantiation of cer-
tification of conformity to the Administrator,
including but not limited to:
(1) The declaration required by paragraph 591.5
of this chapter, and 19 CFR 12.80.
(2) All vehicle or equipment purchase or sales
orders or agreements, conformance agreements
with importers other than Registered Importers,
and correspondence between the Registered Im-
porter and the owner or purchaser of each vehi-
cle for which it has furnished a certificate of
conformity.
(3) The last known name and address of the
owner or purchaser of each motor vehicle for
which it has furnished a certificate of conformity,
and the VIN number of such vehicle.
(4) Records, both photographic and documen-
tary, reflecting the modifications made and sub-
mitted to the Administrator pursuant to
paragraph (e).
(5) Records, both photographic and documen-
tary, sufficient to substantiate each subsequent
certificate furnished to the Administrator for a
vehicle of the same model and model year for
which documentation has been furnished NHTSA
in support of the initial certificate.
[(d)l Permanently affix to each motor vehicle,
upon completion of modifications, a label that meets
the requirements of paragraph 567.4 of this chapter,
which identifies the Registered Importer, and pro-
vide to the Administrator a photocopy of the label
attesting that such vehicle has been brought into
conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehi-
cle safety and bumper standards.
I(e)l Certify to the Administrator, upon comple-
tion of modifications that the vehicle has been
brought into conformity with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, and that
it is the person legally responsible for bringing the
vehicle into conformity.
[(f)l In substantiation of the initial certification
provided for a specific model and model year, sub-
mit to the Administrator photographic and
documentary evidence of conformance with each ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper
standard, and with respect to subsequent
certifications of such model and model year, such
information, if any, as the Administrator may
request.
[(g)J With respect to any motor vehicle for which
it has furnished a certificate of conformity to the
Administrator, provide notification and remedy ac-
cording to Part 573 and Part 577 of this chapter
upon any determination:
(1) that a vehicle to which it is substantially
similar, as determined under Part 593 of this
chapter, incorporates a safety related defect or
fails to conform with an applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standard. However, this obligation
does not exist if the manufacturer of the vehicle
or Registered Importer demonstrates to the Ad-
ministrator that the defect or noncompliance is not
present in such vehicle.
(2) that the vehicle incorporates a safety related
defect or fails to conform with an applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standard, without
reference to whether such may exist in a vehicle
to which it is substantially similar, or whether such
exists because it was created by the original
manufacturer or by the Registered Importer.
The requirement of 15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B) that
remedy shall be provided without charge shall not
apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect
exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after im-
portation occurred more than 3 calendar years
before notification respecting the failure to comply
is furnished pursuant to Part 577 of this chapter,
except that if a safety related defect exists and is
attributable to the original manufacturer and not the
Registered Importer, the requirements of 15 U.S.C.
1414(aX2)(B) shall not apply to a motor vehicle whose
date of first purchase, if known, or, if not known,
whose date of manufacture as determined by the Ad-
ministrator, is more than 8 years from the date on
which notification is furnished pursuant to Part 577
of this chapter.
Notification furnished pursuant to this paragraph
and Part 577 of this chapter shall include the state-
ment that in the absence of the Registered Im-
porter's facility being within 50 miles of the owner's
mailing address for performance of repairs, such
repairs may be performed at a specific facility
designated by the Registered Importer within 50
miles, or, if no such facility is designated, anywhere,
and shall also include an explanation how repair is
to be accomplished without charge to the vehicle
owner.
(Rev. 11/9/89)
PART 592-3
[(h)l In order to allow the Administrator to deter-
mine whether a Registered Importer is meeting its
statutory responsibilities, admit representatives of
NHTSA during operating hours, upon demand, and
upon presentation of credentials, to copy docimients,
or to inspect, monitor, or photograph any of the
following:
(1) Any facility where any vehicle, for which a
Registered Importer has the responsibility of pro-
viding a certificate of conformity to applicable
safety standards, is being modified, tested, or
stored;
(2) Any facility where any record or other docu-
ment relating to modification, testing, or storage
of vehicles being conformed, is filed;
(3) Any part or aspect of activities relating to
the modification, testing, and/or storage of
vehicles by the Registered Importer.
(4) Any motor vehicle for which it has provided
a certification of conformity to the Administrator,
and which remains in its custody or under its control.
[(i)l Maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory serv-
ice insurance policy underwritten by an independent
insurance company as a guarantor of its perfor-
mance under paragraph (f).
I(j)l With respect to any motor vehicle it has im-
ported and for which it has furnished a performance
bond, to deliver such vehicle to the Secretary of the
Treasury for export, or to abandon it to the United
States, upon demand by the Administrator if such
vehicle has not been brought into conformity with
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety stan-
dards. (54 F.R. 40083— November 9, 1989. Effective:
November 9, 1989)
592.7 Revocation, suspension and reinstatement of
registration.
(a) If the Administrator has not received any fee
assessed and owing by the end of the 30th calendar
day after such fee is due and payable, a registration
is automatically suspended at the beginning of the
31st calendar day, and the Registered Importer is
immediately notified in writing of the suspension at
the address contained in its most recent annual
statement or amendment thereof.
(b) If the Administrator has reason to beHeve that
a Registered Importer has knowingly filed a false
or misleading certification and that its registration
should be automatically suspended or revoked, (s)he
notifies the Registered Importer in writing of the
facts giving rise to such reason to believe, affording
an opportunity to present data, views, and
arguments, either in writing or in person, within 30
calendar days after receipt of the Administrator's
letter, as to whether it has submitted false or
misleading certification, and as to why the registra-
tion ought not to be revoked or suspended. The Ad-
ministrator then makes a decision after the 30-day
period on the basis of all information then available.
If, after consideration of all the data available, the
Administrator determines that the Registered Im-
porter has knowingly filed a false of misleading cer-
tification, the registration is automatically sus-
pended or revoked, and the Registered Importer
notified in writing. Any suspension or revocation is
effective as of the date of the Administrator's deter-
mination. The Administrator shall state the period
of any suspension in the notice to the Registered
Importer.
(c) The Administrator may suspend a registration
if a Registered Importer fails to comply with any re-
quirement set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(cX3XD),
paragraph 592.5(c), or paragraph 592.6, or if s(he)
denies an application filed under paragraph 592.5(d).
The Administrator may revoke a registration after
any failure to comply with any such requirement, or
if (s)he denies an application filed under paragraph
592.5(d). If the Administrator has reason to believe
that there has been such a failure to comply and that
the Registered Importer's registration should be
revoked or suspended, (s)he notifies the Registered
Importer in writing, affording an opportunity to pre-
sent data, views, and arguments, either in writing
or in person, within 30 calendar days after receipt
of the Administrator s letter, as to whether there
has been a failure to comply and as to why the
registration ought not to be revoked or suspended.
The Administrator then makes a decision after the
30-day period on the basis of all information then
available. If the Administrator determines that a
registration should be revoked or suspended, (s)he
notifies the Registered Importer in writing. A
revocation is effective immediately. A suspension is
effective beginning with a date specified in the writ-
ten notification.
(d) A Registered Importer whose registration has
been revoked or suspended may request reconsidera-
tion of the revocation or suspension if the request
is supported by factual matter which was not
available to the Administrator at the time the
registration was suspended or revoked.
(e) If its registration has been revoked, a
Registered Importer is ineligible to apply for
(Rev. 11/9/89)
PART 592-4
reregistration under this part. No refund is provid-
ed of any annual or other fees the Registered Im-
porter has paid for the fiscal year in which its
registration is revoked. If its registration has been
suspended it may file an application for reinstate-
ment of its registration.
(f) The Administrator shall reinstate a suspended
registration if the cause that led to the suspension
no longer exists, as determined by the Ad-
ministrator, either upon the Administrator's motion,
or upon the submission of further information or fees
by the Registered Importer.
592.8 Inspection; release of vehicle and bond.
(a) With respect to any motor vehicle for which
it is obligated to provide a certificate of conformity
to the Administrator as required by paragraph 592
6(d), a Registered Importer shall not obtain licens-
ing or registration of the motor vehicle for use on
the public roads, or release custody of it for such
Ucensing and registration, except in accordance with
the provisions of this section.
(b) When conformance modifications to a motor
vehicle have been completed, a Registered Importer
shall submit the certification required by paragraph
592.6(d) to the Administrator. In certifying a vehi-
cle that the Administrator has determined to be
substantially similar to one that has been certified
by its original manufacturer for sale in the United
States, the Registered Importer may rely on any cer-
tification by the original manufacturer with respect
to identical safety features if it also certifies that any
modification that it undertook did not affect the com-
pliance of such safety features. Each submission
shall be mailed by certified mail, return receipt re-
quested, or by private carriers such as Federal
Express, to: Administrator, National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 20590
ATTN: NEF-32, or be submitted electronically by
FAX (202-366-2536), or in person. Each submission
shall identify the location where the vehicle will be
stored and is available for inspection, pending
NHTSA action upon the submission.
(c) Before the end of the 30th calendar day after
receipt of certification of a motor vehicle pursuant
to paragraph 592.6(d), the Administrator may in-
form the Registered Importer in writing that an in-
spection of the vehicle is required to ascertain the
veracity of the certification. Written notice includes
a proposed inspection date, which is as soon as prac-
ticable. If inspection of the vehicle indicates that the
vehicle has been properly certified, at the conclusion
of the inspection the Registered Importer is
provided an instrument of release. If inspection of
the vehicle shows that the vehicle has not been pro-
perly certified, the Registered Importer shall either
make the modifications necessary to substantiate its
certification, and provide a new certification for the
standard(s) in the manner provided for in paragraph
(b), or deliver the vehicle to the Secretary of the
Treasury for export, or abandon it to the United
States. Before the end of the 30th calendar day after
receipt of new certification, the Administrator may
require a further inspection in accordance with the
provisions of this subsection.
(d) The Administrator may by written notice re-
quest certification verification by the Registered
Importer before the end of the 30th calendar day
after the date the certification was received by the
Administrator. If the basis for such request is that
the certification is false or contains a misrepresen-
tation, the Registered Importer shall be afforded an
opportunity to present written data, views, and
arguments as to why the certification is not false or
misleading or does not contain a misrepresentation.
The Administrator may require an inspection piu--
suant to paragraph (c). The motor vehicle and per-
formance bond involved shall not be released unless
the Administrator is satisfied with the certification.
(e) If a Registered Importer has received no
written notice from the Adnunistrator by the end
of the 30th calendar day after it has furnished a cer-
tification to the Administrator, the Registered
Importer may release from custody the vehicle that
is covered by the certification, or have it hcensed
or registered for use on the public roads.
(f) If the Administrator accepts a certification
without requiring an inspection, (s)he notifies the
Registered Importer in writing, and provides a copy
to the importer of record. Such notification shall be
provided not later than the 25th calendar day after
the Administrator has received such certification.
(g) Release of the performance bond shall con-
stitute acceptance of certification or completion of
inspection of the vehicle concerned, but shall not
preclude a subsequent determination by the Admin-
istrator pursuant to .section 152 of the Act (15 U.S.C.
1451) that the vehicle fails to conform to any ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
Issued on September 26, 1989.
54 F.R. 40083
September 29, 1989
PART 592-5
PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 593
Determinations That a Vehicle Not Originally
Manufactured to Conform to Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards is Eligible for Importation)
(Docket No. 89-7; Notice 2)
RIN:2127-AC99
ACTION: Final rule
SUMMARY: Effective January 31, 1990, the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended by
the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988,
will place new limits on the importation of foreign
motor vehicles not originally manufactured to meet
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The 1988
amendments prohibit, with certain exceptions, the
importation of such a vehicle unless it is a model that
meets specified eligibility criteria. The criteria are that
the model is determined by this agency to be sub-
stantially similar to one that was originally man-
ufactured for importation and sale into the United
States, and that it is capable of being readily modified
to conform to the Federal safety standards. Alterna-
tively, for a model for which there is not a substantially
similar vehicle, the agency must determine that the
safety features of the model comply or are capable of
being modified to comply with the safety standards.
This rule adopts procedural regulations for petitions
and for determinations regarding the meeting of these
criteria. Most details of the rule are dictated by the
1988 amendments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 1989
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October
31, 1988, the President signed into law the Imported
Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, P.L. 100-562
("the 1988 Act"). The Act amends those provisions of
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 ("the Vehicle Safety Act") that relate to the
importation of motor vehicles subject to the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards (Section 108(b), 15
U.S.C. 1397(b)). The 1988 Act imposes restrictions
upon the eligibility of motor vehicles for importation.
The principal restriction upon a motor vehicle is that it
cannot be imported at all unless NHTSA determines
that the motor vehicle model is capable of modification
to meet the Federal safety standards. Determinations
will be made on NHTSA's own initiative, or upon
petition of any registered importer (see discussion
below) or any motor vehicle manufacturer, and will be
subject to public comment. A notice of proposed
rulemaking on this subject was published on April 25,
1989 (54 FR 17786).
As the agency explained in the notice, and repeats
here so that readers may have an overview of the
determination process, a nonconforming vehicle may
be imported under either of the following two scenarios.
The first scenario will involve the making of two
determinations by the agency: that the nonconforming
model is substantially similar to a model of the same
"model year" which was originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the U.S. and was certified
as conforming to the Federal safety standards, and
that a vehicle belonging to the model is capable of being
readily modified to conform fully with the applicable
standards.
The second scenario will arise if the agency has not
made a substantial similarity determination regarding
a model. In that case, it will still be permissible to
import a vehicle of that model if the agency determines
that its safety features comply with the U.S. standards,
or are capable of being modified to comply with those
standards, "based on destructive crash data or such
other evidence" as NHTSA determines is adequate.
Under either scenario, a positive determination
regarding a model will permit any registered importer
to import vehicles of the same model that are covered
by that determination.
If the agency makes a negative determination
regarding a model's ability to be modified, the agency
will be temporarily prohibited from taking up the issue
again. If the decision was made in response to a
petition, the 1988 Act prohibits the agency from
considering a petition regarding the same model of
vehicle until at least 3 months after that decision. If
the negative determination was made in a proceeding
begun at the agency's own initiative, the agency will
not be able to make another determination regarding
the same model of motor vehicle until at least 3 months
after the negative one.
PART 593-PRE 1
NHTSA is attempting in this rulemaking action to
formulate a program that will ensure that all imported
motor vehicles conform to the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards without imposing unnecessary bur-
dens on importers. Therefore, NHTSA has tried in this
rule to impose only those requirements that are
mandated by the 1988 Act, with amplifications only
where it appeared necessary to implement the safety
intent of the statute.
There were four substantive comments submitted
on the proposal, by Mercedes-Benz of North America,
Auburn Motors, Europa International, Inc., and George
Ziolo.
593.5 Petitions for eligibility determinations.
Paragraph 593.5 establishes the requirements for
submissions of petitions for determinations that a
motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform
with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is
eligible for importation into the United State. New
section 108(c)(3)(C)(iXI) of the Vehicle Safety Act
requires the Administrator to make eligibility deter-
minations "on the petition of any registered importer
or any manufacturer". Under this Act, a "man-
ufacturer" is defined to include any person who
imports vehicles for resale. Thus, "manufacturer"
excludes the individual who imports a vehicle, through
a registered importer, for his or her own use. It also
excludes the general public and trade associations.
The basic procedural requirements for a petition are
similar to those the agency specifies for other petitions:
that they be in the English language, state the full
name and address of the petitioner, be submitted in 3
copies to the Administrator, state the basis upon
which petition is made, and specify any part of the
submission for which confidential treatment is re-
quested. The petition must be accompanied by a
certified check for the amount of the vehicle eligibility
petition fee established in accordance with Part 594.
Europa International asked that documentation sub-
stantiating vehicle alterations be withheld from public
dockets for proprietary reasons, as its release would
enable others to modify without compensation to the
original registered importer. This is a request that
must be made by a petitioner when petitioning. In the
absence of such a request, confidential treatment will
not be afforded by NHTSA. When a request for
confidentiality is made, the request is referred to the
Office of Chief Counsel for a determination, and the
petitioner informed of such a determination. The
agency proposed (and is adopting) paragraph 593.10(b)
under which information made available for public
inspection does not include information for which
confidentiality has been requested and granted. With
specific reference to Europa's comment, NHTSA notes
that paragraph (b) provides that "to the extent that a
petition contains material relating to the methodology
by which the petitioner intends to achieve conformance
with a specific standard, the petitioner may request
confidential treatment of such material on the grounds
that it contains a trade secret or confidential infor-
mation".
Those who wish to request confidential treatment
should be advised that consideration of the merits of
the petition will be in abeyance until resolution of
confidentiality requests, and that this delay should be
taken into consideration in the petitioner's plans.
Therefore, petitioners are encouraged to make argu-
ments relating to a vehicle's capability of conformance
that minimize discussion of specific design solutions of
a possibly proprietary nature (which are entirely
appropriate as support for certificates of conformity).
593.6 Basis for petition.
Paragraph 593.6 details the information to be pro-
vided in support of the petition. In accordance with the
proposal, the agency has not specified the number and
types of components that must be identified as capable
of modification in order to demonstrate compliance
with each applicable standard (the petitioner must, of
course, show that a vehicle is readily modifiable, or
capable of modification, as the case may be, so that it
will comply with all applicable safety standards).
Since the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are
performance standards, NHTSA believes that reg-
istered importers, like original manufacturers, should
be free to reach individual design solutions. Whether a
petitioner's arguments are persuasive will be reflected
in the agency's eventual determination. NHTSA's
conclusions will be explained in a notice of determina-
tion published in the Federal Register
593.6(a) petitions on the basis of substantial similarity.
If the basis of the petition is that the model for which
a determination is sought is substantially similar to
one that was originally manufactured for importation
into and sale in the United States, and which bore a
certification of compliance affixed by its original
manufacturer, the petitioner must identify the original
manufacturer of the certified vehicle, and the model
and model year of the vehicle to be compared (paragraph
593.6(a)(1) and (2)), and substantiate that the certified
vehicle was in fact certified (paragraph 593.6(a)(3)). It
must also submit data, views, and arguments, with
respect to each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standard, that the vehicle is capable of being readily
modified to meet that standard (paragraph 593.6(a)(4)
and (5)).
The phrases "substantially similar" and "capable of
being readily modified" are not defined by the 1988
Act. However, NHTSA begins with the assumption
that a vehicle that is "substantially similar" to one
that was originally manufactured for importation and
sale in the United States which bore its original
manufacturer's certification is one whose visual ap-
pearance and structural details are "substantially
similar" to the certified model. For example, a Renault
PART 593— PRE 2
21 manufactured in France could be viewed as "sub-
stantially similar" to the Renault/Eagle Medallion,
manufactured in France and certified by Renault for
sale in the United States because its exterior sheet-
metal appears virtually identical. On the other hand, a
Renault 25 manufactured in France would not be
viewed as substantially similar to the Eagle Premier
manufactured in Canada and certified by Chrysler for
sale in the United States, even though Chrysler
purchases the platform and drive train of the Premier
from Renault. Both its exterior and interior appearance
and components differ from that of the Premier. There
is no common exterior sheetmetal, different dash
panels and seats are provided, and there is no inter-
changeability between doors and glazing. Comments
were requested on the degree of interior and exterior
similarity of appearance and structural details, and on
the extent of parts interchangeability necessary to
support a determination of substantial similarity.
Comments were also requested as to what parts are
most critically related to compliance with the stand-
ards, particularly those standards which specify
dynamic vehicle crash testing or other types of
destructive testing.
Obviously, if a vehicle already conforms to a safety
standard, the question of modification capability is not
reached. To substantiate that no modifications are
required with respect to that standard, a petition may
be supported by a letter from the vehicle's original
manufacturer confirming that the vehicle model under
consideration was manufactured to comply with the
standard. This method of substantiation would be
appropriate for petitions based on substantial similarity
as well as for petitions which are not so based.
Auburn Motors commented that recognition should
be given that vehicles certified as meeting Canadian
standards are virtually identical to U.S. ones, and that
they should be exempted from the final rule. It
submitted a letter from American Honda stating that
in model years 1988 and 1989, cars manufactured for
both markets were identical. The agency notes that, at
the present time, there is a notable similarity between
the U.S. and Canadian motor vehicle safety standards.
However, since they are not in all respects similar, it
cannot grant Auburn's request. NHTSA does believe
that there is a strong basis on which a petitioner could
argue that there is a "substantial similarity" of
Canadian vehicles compared with U.S. ones. Further,
if the Canadian-manufactured Hondas are not certified
as meeting U.S. standards, the manufacturer's letter
attesting to identicality could serve as the basis for the
certificate of conformity that the Registered Importer
of such vehicle must provide the Administrator. In
summary, the agency recognizes that importers of
vehicles certified as meeting the Canadian Standards
but not the U.S. ones will have a less difficult time of
meeting the criteria of the 1988 Act than importers of
vehicles manufactured to conform to European or
Asian standards.
As for whether a vehicle is "capable of being readily
modified", NHTSA's proposal suggested, as the first
level of decision, that many components that are
visible when the vehicle is fully assembled may be
considered capable of being readily modified when they
may be easily replaced with parts intended as re-
placement for conforming parts on substantially similar
certified vehicles. For passenger cars, these components
would include, but are not limited to, tires (Standard
No. 109), rims (Standard No. 110), and wheel cover
(Standard No. 211), glazing marking (Standard No.
205), reflecting surfaces (Standard No. 107), controls
and displays (Standard No. 101), and lighting devices
(Standard No. 108). Other components, not readily
visible, are also easily replaced with conforming parts.
These include brake hoses (Standard No. 106), and
brake fluid (Standard No. 116). In this event, the
petitioner could provide in its petition the part numbers
of the components that would be substituted to achieve
conformance. In its comment, Mercedes-Benz observed
that these components could be those with the same
part numbers utilized by the original manufacturer
during the same model year and on the same model.
However, this first level of decision, based upon
replacement of parts, could not determine conformance
with vehicle rather than equipment standards. Visual
inspection would not indicate whether the steering
column would need to be replaced so that the vehicle
would comply with Standard No. 204, or whether the
interior fabrics (other than leather) would meet the
flammability resistance required by Standard No. 302,
because these tests incorporate destructive demon-
stration procedures.
The second level of decision then rests upon the
question of whether the modifications necessary for
conformance are "readily" achievable. In this instance,
a petitioner would be expected to submit data showing
that conformance can be achieved without extensive
modifications, i.e., information demonstrating that
compliance can be achieved without major structural
modifications or destructive component testing. A
major structural modification could mean, for example,
strengthening of the rear frame bars in order to
achieve conformance with Standard No. 301. An
example of a non-major structural modification could
be installation of windshield retaining clips for con-
formance with Standard No. 212. On the assumption
that a "substantially similar" vehicle may be more
likely to incorporate structural features of vehicles
certified by their original manufacturer for sale in the
U.S., than vehicles for which there is no U.S. certified
model, the Administrator may be more willing to
accept data other than crash data to indicate that a
vehicle is readily modifiable to achieve conformance.
On the other hand, a vehicle would not appear to be
PART 593-PRE 3
capable of being readily modified of major structural
modifications are required for compliance. Although
each petition for substantial similarity determinations
will be decided on the merits of the arguments pre-
sented, it does not appear that a vehicle without the
following conforming components can be readily
modified to achieve conformance with the applicable
standards: automatic restraints (Standard No. 208),
seat belt anchorages (Standard No. 210), roof structure
(Standard No. 216), windshield intrusion (Standard
No. 219), and fuel system components (Standard No.
301).
NHTSA requested comments on its assumptions
and tentative interpretations of "substantially similar"
and "capable of being readily modified". In addition,
NHTSA was concerned about the possibility that
vehicles which appear "substantially similar" to the
eye are much less so under the exterior sheetmetal.
Therefore, NHTSA also requested comments on the
similarity of structural components in such vehicles,
such as similarity of dimensions behind the dashboard,
roof rails, engine compartment, trunk space, and other
structural areas for vehicles that are visually similar.
Further, it requested comments on the degree of
similarity in the dynamic crush and crush pulse
signature of the imported vehicles in front and rear end
impacts. At the present time, the agency is not fully
sure about the degree of the under-skin similarity of
vehicles, and these factors may have to be taken into
account in petitions and determinations. The agency is
particularly concerned with these issues as they relate
to passenger cars manufactured by Mercedes-Benz,
BMW, and Jaguar during the past 10 years. On the
basis of past experience, NHTSA anticipates that well
over 90 percent of vehicles to be imported under the
new requirements will be products of these manu-
facturers.
There was little response to this request. The sole
substantive commenter on these points was Mercedes-
Benz of North America. Mercedes concurred that
NHTSA had correctly identified the standards for
which a substantial similarity/readily modifiable test
cannot be met. It cautioned against making a deter-
mination on arguments alone, citing the fact that a
Mercedes with a European airbag does not meet the
requirements of Standard No. 208. Further, it viewed
as totally inappropriate NHTSA's request for an
analysis of parts by an original equipment manu-
facturer. It commented that this would amount to a
checklist for modification, and an admission that all
other factors comply. The agency does not agree with
the conclusion reached by Mercedes. In the present
absence of any experience with making any deter-
minations under the 1988 Act, it does not intend to be
restricted as to the sources it may consult in making
these determinations. Resort to OEM data in this
instance assists only in a determination that a vehicle
is readily capable of being modified to conform, and not
an admission by the manufacturer that the vehicle
does in fact conform.
593.6(b) Petitions on basis of modification capability.
Similar considerations apply if a vehicle is not
substantially similar to any vehicles that have been or
are being certified as complying with the U.S. Stand-
ards and imported into the United States. For such a
vehicle, the basis of a petition would be that its safety
features comply with, or are capable of being modified
to comply with the safety standards to which it would
have been subject at the time of its manufacture had it
been originally intended for importation into the
United States (paragraph 593.6(b)). Because there is no
substantially similar model certified for sale in the
United States, the statute does not specify that de-
terminations be made with reference to model years.
Cognizant of the fact that foreign vehicles may be
produced for a number of years without major changes,
the Administrator could make a determination ap-
plicable to vehicles produced within a model year, or
manufactured during a stated inclusive period. Tenta-
tively choosing a conservative approach, the agency
proposed that "capability of modification" determina-
tions also be petitioned for on a model year basis
(paragraph 593.6(b)(1)). With vehicles whose features
relevant to conformance capability have not changed
with a model year, the agency wishes to state that a
petition may request a determination for more than
one model year if it is accompanied by substantiation.
With respect to the alternative basis of petitions, as
with "substantially similar" vehicles, a determination
"that the vehicle's safety features comply" could be
made on the basis of a letter of confirmation from the
vehicle's original manufacturer, or through visual
inspection where appropriate. However, the 1988 Act
assumes that full conformance with the safety stand-
ards may be more difficult to achieve for a non-similar
vehicle than for a vehicle that is "substantially similar"
to a certified one, as it states that NHTSA's determina-
tion shall be "based on destructive test data or such
other evidence as the [Administrator] determines to be
adequate". In this instance, it would appear that far
more detailed information might be required to demon-
strate capability of modification with those standards
listed at the end of the prior discussion on sub-
stantially similar vehicles. Crash test data may be
preferable to demonstrate that vehicles are capable of
being modified to conform with those standards that
incorporate barrier impact demonstration procedures
(Standards Nos. 201, 204, 208, 212, 219 and 301).
NHTSA contemplates that a registered importer, or a
group of registered importers, planning to import a
large number of a particular model might crash test
one or more such vehicles in order to generate data to
file with a petition. If a petitioner did not wish to
conduct a crash test, then the question would arise as
PART 593-PRE 4
to the "adequacy" of alternate means of demonstration
that the vehicle is capable of being modified to achieve
conformance. NHTSA therefore requested specific
comments as to the adequacy of computer simulations,
engineering analyses, and mathematical calculations
as alternative bases of demonstrating compliance with
the six safety standards listed above, as well as others,
such as Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems. It
called attention to the fact that, in the final rule, with
respect to these standards, it may be satisfied with
nothing less than crash data, or a letter from the
vehicle's original manufacturer confirming compliance.
The agency also requested comments with respect
to alternate types of evidence of compliance, and their
suitability with respect to each of the other standards
with complex laboratory demonstration procedures.
For example, it asked whether computer simulations
or mathematical calculations are acceptable indicators
of the performance of components such as door latches
and hinges (Standard No. 206) or seat anchorages
(Standard No. 207) to withstand certain specified
minimum forces. Neither method would appear to be
acceptable as a demonstration of the lack of flam-
mability of interior materials (Standard No. 302). For
demonstrations of compliance with Standard No. 302,
it might be necessary to submit an analysis or the
fabric, or to test fabric actually from the vehicle, for
example. The Administrator would determine the
adequacy of the alternative types of evidence.
Mercedes-Benz concurred with NHTSA's statements
on decisions based on destructive test data. It advised
that computer simulations should be used only in
infrequent circumstances, and recommended that a
showing be made by the petitioner that the intended
simulation is considered reliable by the vehicle testing
industry, such as recognition through a standard of
the SAE or ASTM. Once that test has been met,
Mercedes further recommended that the petitioner
should show that the variables it intends to use in the
simulation are derived from actual data on the specific
vehicle that is the subject of the petition. Otherwise, a
petitioner should not be allowed to make assumptions
about data in the absence of backup documentation. If
there is no such data, NHTSA should require full scale
dynamic crash testing. As the submission by each
petitioner will differ, NHTSA does not deem it advisable
to adopt Mercedes' comments as a regulation, but it
will consider them in evaluations of relevant petitions.
The reasons for NHTSA's decisions, of course, will be
published in the Federal Register.
George Ziolo commented that NHTSA should allow
submission of evidence of compliance with foreign
standards such as those of the ECE and ISO, many of
which may use U.S. -based standards for their rules. In
his view, "the effect" may be the same, even if the
wording differs. Submission of foreign standards, he
argues, is especially relevant if NHTSA intends to
allow "engineering calculations" in lieu of crash tests.
In response, NHTSA wishes to make it clear that there
are no restrictions on the type of data that a petitioner
may submit. A petitioner may support its arguments
by showing similarities between foreign and U.S.
standards.
NHTSA noted in the proposal that the proposed
petition requirements were drafted in somewhat gen-
eral terms, so as to afford petitioners flexibility in
presenting arguments and solutions of a performance,
rather than of a design nature. This was in keeping
with the performance orientation of the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. It further noted the possibility
that, on the basis of comments, the final rule might be
more detailed as to the types of data required to
substantiate compliance with each of the safety
standards. After considering these comments, NHTSA
has adopted a non-detailed requirement in paragraph
593.6(b), which is virtually identical to the one proposed.
As a general comment, Mercedes-Benz objected to
the use of the term "views and arguments" as a
throwback to the old gray market program, and viewed
it as an invitation for disputes. This term appears as
"data, views and arguments" in paragraphs 593.6(a)(4)
and (b)(2). "Views and arguments" is a necessary
complement to "data", which invariably will need
interpretation and explanation. Because the agency is
not requiring a demonstration of actual conformance,
it has concluded that a petitioner's "views and argu-
ments" are necessary to support its petition for a
determination of conformance capability.
The procedural requirements for both types of
petitions require identification of "models" and "model
years ' ' . The agency did not find it necessary to propose
a definition of "model". It believes that a petitioner will
identify with sufficient clarity the vehicles that it
wishes to import, and that comparable U.S. models
will have comparable designations. For example,
Mercedes and BMW use the same series designations
for both U.S. and European models, though secondary
nomenclature may differ in minor respects, reflecting
variations in the type of engines. No comments were
received on this point.
Section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) allows NHTSA to define
"model year" by regulation. NHTSA has not heretofore
done so with respect to compliance with the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, because the standards
have never applied by model year, but are effective on a
date certain. In recent years, NHTSA has, with respect
to major standards, designated September 1 as the
effective date of new requirements, although in earlier
years, the effective date was frequently January 1. As
an example, the center high-mounted stop lamp pro-
visions of Standard No. 108 were effective for passenger
cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.
While this substantially correlates to the 1986-model
year, there was no legal requirement that a 1986 model
PART 593-PRE 5
manufactured before September 1, 1985, be equipped
with this feature. Thus, with respect to certain "model
years", different standards may be in effect. NHTSA
does not view this as an especially complicating factor.
However, from time to time, it may have to make
determinations with respect to different periods within
a model year.
NHTSA proposed that "model year" be defined as
either the model year designated by the manufacturer
irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle
was actually produced, or, in the absence of the
manufacturer's designation, the calendar year that
begins on September 1 and ends on August 31 of the
next calendar year. Mercedes-Benz commented that
the model year should be that of the original man-
ufacturer which in Europe is often determined by
regulations of individual countries. It suggested that
the definition state that the designation by the country
of origin should control. Otherwise, it said, the agency
should use the definition of the California Air Resources
Board. After reviewing these comments, the agency
has adopted its proposed definition, but added a
designation by country of origin as an alternative to
the manufacturer's designation to be considered before
consideration of the final alternative of designation by
the September 1-August 31 calendar year.
593. 7 Processing of petitions.
If a petition is filed on the basis that the vehicle is
"substantially similar" to a certified one, and the
Administrator cannot make such a determination,
that does not mean that the petition is automatically
denied. In that event, the Agency will inform the
petitioner that it cannot make a determination on the
basis petitioned for, but is willing to proceed to a
consideration on the alternative basis, and make a
determination on conformance, or capability of confor-
mance, of the vehicle's safety features, on the basis of
such further supporting information as the petitioner
may care to submit (paragraph 593.7(d)).
The procedural aspects of eligibility determinations
are similar to other agency regulations regarding
petitions and their dispositions {see, e.g., 4^ CFR 555.7
on temporary exemptions from safety standards).
Notice of a petition (or agency initiative) will be
published in the Federal Register and an opportunity
afforded for comment (paragraph 593.7(b)). No public
hearing, argument, or other formal proceeding will be
held directly on the matter before a determination is
made (paragraph 593.7(c)). After a decision, the agency
will publish a second notice in the Federal Register
constituting the determination whether the vehicle is
eligible or ineligible for importation. If the vehicle is
ineligible for importation, the notice wil contain the
earliest data on which the Administrator is statutorily
able to consider the matter anew (paragraph 593.7(e)).
If the vehicle is eligible for importation, the notice
contains the reasons for the grant (paragraph 593.7(f)).
Mercedes-Benz recommended that the burden on the
petitioner should be to "clearly establish" conformance
capability under either basis. That company said that
this approach would increase the accuracy of NHTSA's
determinations, and reduce the potential for disagree-
ment over the quality of data needed to establish com-
pliance. This recommendation appears to be based
upon the requirement of Section 108(c)(3)(C)(ii) which
says that "The Secretary shall establish by regulation
(I) the information required to be provided by the
petitioner to clearly show that the vehicle is capable of
being brought into compliance. . . ." NHTSA agrees
with Mercedes that this is a burden to be met by the
petitioner. In the final rule, the agency is adding the
word "clearly" as a modifier of the word "demonstrate"
relevant to the finding that the Administrator must
make (paragraphs 596.7(e) and (f)).
Finally, in order to demonstrate that a vehicle is
capable of conformance, the agency is willing to permit
a registered importer to import a nonconforming
vehicle for modification and demonstration purposes
under the appropriate provision of Part 591, paragraph
591.5(i).
593.8 Determinations on the agency's initiative.
Section 108(c)(3)(C)(i)(D of the Vehicle Safety Act
also provides that the agency may make determinations
on its own initiative. NHTSA will proceed with such
determinations in a manner similar to those made by
petition. A notice requesting public comment will
appear in the Federal Register, specifying the basis
upon which the Administrator is considering a determina-
tion (paragraph 593.8(a)). No formal proceeding will be
held (paragraph 593.8(b)). A second notice containing
the decision will be published in the Federal Register.
There is no administrative reconsideration available
for a decision of ineligibility (paragraph 593.8(c)).
Europa International commented that NHTSA should
not make determinations on its own initiative, as it
would discourage Registered Importers from develop-
ing their own compliance method. This comment
assumes that NHTSA will prescribe how each safety
standard will be met if it makes determinations of
eligibility on its own initiative. NHTSA has no inten-
tion of dictating conformance methodology. Its de-
terminations, if any , are likely to be general conclusions
based upon information available to it (which may
include confidential information from the originial
manufacturer), or technical comments regarding in-
dividual components.
593.9 Effect of affirmative determinations; lists.
A notice of grant is sufficient authority for the
PART 593-PRE 6
importation by persons other than the petitioner of any
vehicle of the same model specified in the grant
(paragraph 563.9(a)). The reason NHTSA proposed
and has adopted this requirement is that its de-
terminations cover "models" and "model years". If a
vehicle of a certain model and model year is "capable"
of conformance, the determination will cover all ve-
hicles of that model and model year, and not just a
single specific motor vehicle. Europa International
commented that this would eliminate the incentive a
petitioner has to spend money developing conformance
information. This argument confuses a petitioner's
demonstration of conformance capability with a
Registered Importer's demonstration of conformance
achieved. There is no requirement that a petitioner
submit its conformance methodology in support of a
petition for a "capability" determination on either of
the two bases. To the extent that a petitioner does, it
may request confidentiality, and to the extent that it
may be granted, the conformance information is
protected.
The agency will publish annually in the Federal
Register a list of vehicles for which determinations
have been made (paragraph 593.9(b)). This will appear
as an Appendix to Part 593, so that it may also appear
in the Code of Federal Regulations. The agency intends
to publish the first list before September 30, 1990,
because the CFR publishes NHTSA regulations in
revised form as of October 1 of each year.
593.10 Availability for public inspection.
The agency will make available for public inspection
in the agency docket room all publicly available
information relevant to a determination, regardless of
whether that determination is made pursuant to a
petition or on the Administrator's initiative (paragraph
593.10(a)). However, as discussed previously, the
agency realizes that a petition by a registered importer
may contain arguments as to capability of modification
that reflect the methodology by which that petitioner
intends to achieve conformance, and which may qualify
as a trade secret or confidential information for which
confidential treatment may be requested (paragraph
593.10(b)). In that instance, the agency may conclude
that considerations of confidentiality outweigh the
interests of full disclosure.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new Part 593,
Determinations That a Vehicle not Originally Man-
ufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards is Eligible for Importation, is added to Title
49, Chapter V, to read as follows:
PART 593 Determinations That a Vehicle not Orig-
inally Manufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards is Eligible for Importation
Sec.
593.1 Scope.
593.2 Purpose.
593.3 Applicability.
593.4 Definitions.
593.5 Petitions for eligibility determinations.
593.6 Basis for petition.
593.7 Processing of petitions.
593.8 Determinations on the agency's initia-
tive.
593.9 Effect of affirmative determinations;
lists.
593.10 Availability for public inspection.
Authority: P.L. 100-562, 15 U.S.C. 1401, 1407;
delegation of authority at CFR 1.50.
593.1 Scope. This part establishes procedures
under section 108(c) of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)), for
making determinations whether a vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and is not
otherwise eligible for importation under Part 591 of
this chapter, may be imported into the United States
because it can be modified to meet the Federal stand-
ards.
593.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to
provide content and format requirements for any
Registered Importer and manufacturer who wishes to
petition the Administrator for a determination that a
vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is
eligible to be imported into the United States because it
can be modified to meet the standards.
The purpose of this part is also to specify procedures
under which the Administrator makes eligibility de-
terminations pursuant to those petitions as well as
eligibility determinations on the agency's initiative.
593.3 Applicability. This part applies to a motor
vehicle that was not originally manufactured and
certified by its original manufacturer to conform with
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards
and that is offered for importation into the United
States.
593.4 Definitions All terms in this part that are
defined in section 102 of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used as
defined therein.
"Administrator" means the Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
"Model year" means the year used by a manufacturer
to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the
calendar year in which the vehicle was actually
produced, or the model year as designated by the
vehicle's country of origin, or, if neither the man-
ufacturer not the country of origin has made such a
PART 593-PRE 7
designation, the calendar year that begins on September
1 and ends on August 31 of the next calendar year.
"NHTSA" means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
"Registered Importer" means any person who has
been granted registered importer status by the Ad-
ministrator pursuant to paragraph 592.5(b) of this
chapter, and whose registration has not been revoked.
593.5 Petitions for eligibility determinations
(a) A manufacturer or Registered Importer may
petition the Administrator for a determination that a
vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards is eligible for importa-
tion, either
(1) On the basis that the vehicle
(A) is substantially similar to a vehicle which was
originally manufactured for importation into and sale
in the United States and which bore a certification
affixed by its manufacturer pursuant to Part 567 of
this chapter, and
(B) is capable of being readily modified to conform to
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards;
or
(2) On the basis that the vehicle has safety features
that comply with or are capable of being modified to
comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
(b) Each petition filed under this part must-
(1) Be written in the English language;
(2) Be headed with the words "Petition for Import
Eligibility Determination" and submitted in three
copies to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, Attn:
Import Eligibility Determinations;
(3) State the full name and address of the petitioner.
(4) If the petitioner is a Registered Importer, include
the Registered Importer Number assigned by NHTSA
pursuant to Part 592 of this chapter.
(5) Set forth the basis for the petition and the
information required by paragraph 593.6(a) or (b), as
appropriate;
(6) Specify any part of the information and data
submitted which petitioner requests be withheld from
public disclosure in accordance with Part 512 of this
chapter; and
(7) Submit a certified check payable to the Treasurer
of the United States, for the amount of the vehicle
eligibility petition fee established pursuant to Part 594
of this chapter.
(c) The knowing and willful submission of false,
fictitious or fraudulent information may subject the
petitioner to the criminal penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
593.6 Basis for petition.
(a) If the basis for the petition is that the vehicle is
substantially similar to a vehicle which was originally
manufactured for importation into and sale in the
United States, and which was certified by its man-
PART 593-
ufacturer pursuant to Part 567 of this chapter, and
that it is capable of being readily modified to conform
to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards,
the petitioner shall provide the following information:
(1) Identification of the original manufacturer, model,
and model year of the vehicle for which a determination
is sought.
(2) Identification of the original manufacturer, model,
and model year of the vehicle which the petitioner
believes to be substantially similar to that for which a
determination is sought.
(3) Substantiation that the manufacturer of the
vehicle identified by the petitioner under paragraph
(a)(2) above originally manufactured it for importation
into and sale in the United States, and affixed a label to
it certifying that it complied with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards.
(4) Data, views and arguments demonstrating that
the vehicle identified by the petitioner under paragraph
(a)(1) above is substantially similar to the vehicle
identified by the petitioner under paragraph (a)(2)
above.
(5) With respect to each Federal motor vehicle safety
standard that applied to the vehicle identified by the
petitioner under paragraph (a)(2) above, data, views,
and arguments demonstrating that the vehicle iden-
tified by the petitioner under paragraph (a)(1) above
either was originally manufactured to conform to such
standard, or is capable of being readily modified to
conform to such standard.
(b) If the basis of the petition is that the vehicle's
safety features comply with or are capable of being
modified to comply with all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, the petitioner shall provide
the following information:
(1) Identification of the model and model year of the
vehicle for which a determination is sought.
(2) With respect to each Federal motor vehicle safety
standard that would have applied to such vehicle had it
been originally manufactured for importation into and
sale in the United States, data, views, and arguments
demonstrating that the vehicle has safety features
that comply with or are capable of being modified to
conform with such standard. The latter demonstration
shall include a showing that after such modifications,
the features will conform with such standard.
593.7 Processing of petitions.
(a) NHTSA will review each petition for sufficiency
under paragraphs 593.5 and 593.6. If the petition does
not contain all the information required by this part,
NHTSA notifies the petitioner, pointing out the areas
of insufficiency, and stating that the petition will not
receive further consideration until the required in-
formation is provided. If the additional information is
not provided within the time specified by NHTSA in its
notification, NHTSA may dismiss the petition as
incomplete, and so notify the petitioner. When the
petition is complete, its processing continues.
-PRE 8
(b) NHTSA publishes in the Federal Register, af-
fording opportunity for comment, a notice of each
petition containing the information required by this
part.
(c) No pubhc hearing, argument, or other formal
proceeding is held on a petition filed under this part.
(d) If the Administrator is unable to determine that
the vehicle in a petition submitted under paragraph
593.6(a) is one that is substantially similar, or (if it is
substantially similar) is capable of being readily
modified to meet the standards, (s)he notifies the
petitioner, and offers the petitioner the opportunity to
supplement the petition by providing the information
required for a petition submitted under paragraph
593.6(b).
(e) If the Administrator determines that the petition
does not clearly demonstrate that the vehicle model is
eligible for importation, (s)he denies it and notifies the
petitioner in writing. (S)he also publishes in the
Federal Register a notice of denial and the reasons for it.
A notice of denial also states that the Administrator
will not consider a new petition covering the model
that is the subject of the denial until at least 3 months
from the date of the notice of denial. There is no
administrative reconsideration available for petition
denials.
(g) If the Administrator determines that the petition
clearly demonstrates that the vehicle model is eligible
for importation, (s)he grants it and notifies the
petitioner. (S)he also publishes in the Federal Register &
notice of grant and the reasons for it.
593.8 Determinations on the agency's initiative,
(a) The Administrator may make a determination of
eligibility on his or her own initiative. The agency
publishes in the Federal Register ziiordango^^oTinmiy
for comment, a notice containing the information
available to the agency (other than confidential in-
formation) relevant to the basis upon which eligibility
may be determined.
(b) No public hearing, argument, or other formal
proceeding is held upon a notice published under this
section.
(c) The Administrator publishes a second notice in
the Federal Register in which (s)he announces his or
her determination whether the vehicle is eligible or
ineligible for importation, and states the reasons for
the determination. A notice of ineligibihty also an-
nounces that no further determination for the same
model of motor vehicle will be made for at least 3
months following the date of publication of the notice.
There is no administrative reconsideration available
for a decision of ineligibility.
593.9 Effect of affirmative determinations;
lists.
(a) A notice of grant is sufficient authority for the
importation by persons other than the petitioner of any
vehicle of the same model specified in the grant.
(b) The Administrator publishes annually in the
Federal Register a list of determinations made under
Sec. 593.7, and Sec. 593.8.
593.10 Availability for public inspection.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, information relevant to a determination under
this part, including a petition and supporting data, and
the grant or denial of the petition or the making of a
determination on the Administrator's initiative, is
available for public inspection in the Docket Section,
Room 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration, 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C.
20590. Copies of available information may be obtained,
as provide ' in Part 7 of this chapter.
(b) Except for release of confidential information
authorized under Pan 512 of this chapter, information
made available for inspection under paragraph (a) does
not include information for which confidentiality has
been requested and granted in accordance with Part
512, and 5 U.S.C. 552(b). To the extent that a petition
contains material relating to the methodology by
which the petitioner intends to achieve conformance
with a specific standard, the petitioner may request
confidential treatment of such material on the grounds
that it contains a trade secret or confidential infor-
mation in accordance with Part 512 of this chapter.
Issued on:September 26, 1989.
Jeffrey R. Miller
Acting Administrator
54 F.R. 40093
September 29, 1989
PART 593-PRE 9-10
PART 593— DETERMINIATIONS THAT A VEHICLE NOT ORIGINALLY
MANUFACTURED TO CONFORM TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARDS IS ELIGIBLE FOR IMPORTATION
593.1 Scope.
This part establishes procedures under section
108(c) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)), for mak-
ing determinations whether a vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform with all ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and
is not otherwise eligible for importation under Part
591 of this chapter, may be imported into the United
States because it can be modified to meet the
Federal standards.
593.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to provide content and
format requirements for any Registered Importer
and manufactiu*er who wishes to petition the Ad-
ministrator for a determination that a vehicle not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards is eligible to
be imported into the United States because it can
be modified to meet the standards.
The purpose of this part is also to specify pro-
cedures under which the Administrator makes
eligibility determinations pursuant to those petitions
as well as eligibility determinations on the agency's
initiative.
593.3 Applicability.
This part applies to a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured and certified by its original
manufacturer to conform with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards and that is offered
for importation into the United States.
593.4 Definitions.
All terms in this part that are defined in section
102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used as defined therein.
"Administrator" means the Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
"Model year" means the year used by a manufac-
turer to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespec-
tive of the calendar year in which the vehicle was
actually produced, or the model year as designated
by the vehicle's country of origin, or, if neither the
manufacturer nor the country of origin has made
such a designation, the calendar year that begins on
September 1 and ends on August 31 of the next
calendar year.
"'NHTSA" means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
"Registered Importer" means any person who has
been granted registered importer status by the Ad-
ministrator pursuant to paragraph 592.5(b) of this
chapter, and whose registration has not been
revoked.
593.5 Petitions for eligibility determinations
(a) A manufacturer or Registered Importer may
petition the Administrator for a determination that
a vehicle that does not comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards is eligible for
importation, either
(1) On the basis that the vehicle
(A) is substantially similar to a vehicle which
was originally manufactiu*ed for importation into
and sale in the United States and which bore a cer-
tification affixed by its manufacturer pursuant to
Part 567 of this chapter, and
(B) is capable of being readily modified to con-
form to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards; or
(2) On the basis that the vehicle has safety
features that comply with or are capable of being
modified to comply with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards.
(b) Each petition filed under this part must—
(1) Be written in the English language;
PART 593-1
(2) Be headed with the words "Petition for Im-
port Eligibility Determination" and submitted in
three copies to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.
20590, Attn: Import Eligibility Determinations;
(3) State the full name and address of the
petitioner.
(4) If the petitioner is a Registered Importer,
include the Registered Importer Number assigned
by NHTSA pursuant to Part 592 of this chapter.
(5) Set forth the basis for the petition and the
information required by paragraph 593.6(a) or (b),
as appropriate;
(6) Specify any part of the information and data
submitted which petitioner requests be withheld
from public disclosure in accordance with Part 512
of this chapter; and
(7) Submit a certified check payable to the
Treasurer of the United States, for the amount of
the vehicle eligibility petition fee established pur-
suant to Part 594 of this chapter.
(c) The knowing and willful submission of false,
fictitious or fraudulent information may subject the
petitioner to the crimina; penalties of 18 U.S.C.
1001.
593.6 Basis for petition.
(a) If the basis for the petition is that the vehicle
is substantially similar to a vehicle which was
originally manufactured for importation into and
sale in the United States, and which was certified
by its manufacturer pursuant to Part 567 of this
chapter, and that it is capable of being readily
modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, the petitioner shall provide
the following information:
(1) Identification of the original manufacturer,
model, and model year of the vehicle for which a
determination is sought.
(2) Identification of the original manufacturer,
model, and model year of the vehicle which the
petitioner believes to be substantially similar to
that for which a determination is sought.
(3) Substantiation that the manufacturer of the
vehicle identified by the petitioner under
paragraph (a)(2) above originally manufactured it
for importation into and sale in the United States,
and affixed a label to it certifying that it complied
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
(4) Data, views and arguments demonstrating
that the vehicle identified by the petitioner under
paragraph (a)(1) above is substantially similar to
the vehicle identified by the petitioner under
paragraph (a)(2) above.
(5) With respect to each Federal motor vehicle
safety standard that applied to the vehicle iden-
tified by the petitioner under paragraph (aX2)
above, data, views, and arguments demonstrating
that the vehicle identified by the petitioner under
paragraph (a)(1) above either was originally
manufactured to conform to such standard, or is
capable of being readily modified to conform to
such standard.
(b) If the basis of the petition is that the vehicle
a safety features comply with or are capable of being
modified to comply with all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, the petitioner shall provide
the following information:
(1) Identification of the model and model year
of the vehicle for which a determination is sought.
(2) With respect to each Federal motor vehicle
safety standard that would have applied to such
vehicle had it been originally manufactured for im-
portation into and sale in the United States, data,
views, and arguments demonstrating that the
vehicle has safety features that comply with or are
capable of being modified to conform with such
standard. The latter demonstration shall include
a showing that after such modifications, the
features will conform with such standard.
593.7 Processing of petitions.
(a) NHTSA will review each petition for suffi-
ciency under paragraphs 593.5 and 593.6. If the peti-
tion does not contain all the information required
by this part, NHTSA notifies the petitioner, poin-
ting out the areas of insufficiency, and stating that
the petition will not receive furthar consideration
until the required information is provided. If the ad-
ditional information is not provided within the time
specified by NHTSA in its notification. NHTSA may
dismiss the petition as incomplete, and so notify the
petitioner. When the petition is complete, its pro-
cessing continues.
(b) NHTSA publishes in the Federal Register, af-
fording opportunity for comment, a notice of each
petition containing the information required by this
part.
(c) No public hearing argument, or other formal
proceeding is held on a petition filed imder this part.
PART 593-2
(d) If the Administrator is unable to determine
that the vehicle in a petition submitted under
paragraph 593.6(a) is one that is substantially
similar, or (if it is substantially similar) is capable
of being readily modified to meet the standards, (s)he
notifies the petitioner, and offers the petitioner the
opportunity to supplement the petition by providing
the information required for a petition submitted
under paragraph 593.6(b).
(e) If the Administrator determines that the peti-
tion does not clearly demonstrate that the vehicle
model is eligible for importation, (s)he denies it and
notifies the petitioner in writing, (S)he also publishes
in the Federal Register a notice of denial and the
reasons for it. A notice of denial also states that the
Administrator will not consider a new petition cover-
ing the model that is the subject of the denial until
at least 3 months from the date of the notice of
denial. There is no administrative reconsideration
available for petition denials.
(g) If the Administrator determines that the peti-
tion clearly demonstrates that the vehicle model is
eligible for importation, (s)he grants it and notifies
the petitioner. (S)he also publishes in the Federal
Register a notice of grant and the reasons for it.
593.8 Determinations on the agency's initiative.
(a) The Administrator may make a determination
of eligibility on his or her own initiative. The agency
publishes in the Federal Register, affording oppor-
tunity for comment, a notice containing the informa-
tion available to the agency (other than confidential
informiation) relevant to the basis upon which
eligibility may be determined.
(b) No public hearing, argument, or other formal
proceeding is held upon a notice published under this
section.
(c) The Administrator publishes a second notice
in the Federal Register in which (s)he announces his
or her determination whether the vehicle is eligible
or ineligible for importation, and states the reasons
for the determination. A notice of ineligibility also
announces that no further determination for the
same model of motor vehicle will be made for at least
8 months following the date of publication of the
notice. There is no administrative reconsideration
available for a decision of ineligibility.
593.9 Effect of affirmative determinations; lists.
(a) A notice of grant is sufficient authority for the
importation by persons other than the petitioner of
any vehicle of the same model specifie-d in the grant.
(b) The Administrator publishes annually in the
Federal Register a list of determinations made
under Sec. 593.7, and Sec. 593.8.
593.10 Availability for public inspection.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion, information relevant to a determination under
this part, including a petition and supporting data,
and the grant or denial of the petition or the mak-
ing of a determination on the Administrator's in-
itiative, is available for public inspection in the
Docket Section, Room 5109, National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W.
Washington, D C 20590. Copies of available infor-
mation may be obtained, as provided in Part 7 of this
chapter.
(b) Except for release of confidential information
authorized under Part 512 of this chapter, informa-
tion made available for inspection under paragraph
(a) does not include information for which confiden-
tiality has been requested and granted in accordance
with Part 512, and 5 U.S.C. 552(b). To the extent
that a petition contains material relating to the
methodology by which the petitioner intends to
achieve conformance with a specific standard, the
petitioner may request confidential treatment of
such material on the grounds that it contains a trade
secret or confidential information in accordance with
Part-512 of this chapter.
Issued on Sept. 26, 1989.
54 F.R. 40093
September 29, 1989
PART 593-3-4
PREAMBLE TO PART 594
Schedule of Fees Authorized by the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Docket No. 89-8; Notice 2)
RIN: 2127-AC98
ACTION: Final Rule
SUMMARY: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, as revised by the Imported Vehicle Safety
Compliance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-562), provides that
motor vehicles not originally manufactured to conform
to Federal motor vehicle safety standards may never-
theless be imported into the United States under
certain circumstances. In general, such a vehicle may
be imported under bond for certification of its con-
formance, or exportation in the event it is not con-
formed, by those who have registered with NHTSA as
importers, provided that NHTSA has determined that
the nonconforming vehicle is capable of being con-
formed to meet the safety standards.
The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to establish fees
to cover its cost of administering the registration
program, and of making conformance capability de-
terminations, and to reimburse the U.S. Customs
Service its costs in processing the importation bond.
The purpose of this rule is to adopt the fee schedules
that will implement the statutory authorization. The
agency has concluded that the initial annual fee for the
registration program is $255. The fee to accompany a
petition for a determination that a vehicle is eligible for
importation is either $1560 or $2150, depending upon
the basis of the petition. These fees are identical to
those proposed. The fee required to reimburse the U.S.
Customs Service for bond processing costs is $4.35 per
bond. This is less than the proposed fee of $125.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 1989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December
5, 1988, the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration published a notice of the amendment of
section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle
Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (53 FR 49003). The
effective date of the amendments is January 31, 1990.
On and after that date, with the exceptions specified in
the notice, motor vehicles that have not been originally
manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards may be imported only by persons who
have registered with NHTSA as undertaking to bring
the vehicle into conformance, or by persons who have
contracts with registered importers to perform con-
formance work. In addition, such a vehicle may not be
imported unless NHTSA has determined that it is
capable of being conformed to the standards. The
agency may make such a determination in a response
to a petition by a registered importer, or on its own
initiative. Each vehicle permitted entry must be ac-
companied by a bond given to secure performance of
the conformance work, or, to ensure its exportation or
abandonment to the United States in the event that the
vehicle is not brought into full conformance.
Rules have been issued to implement the other
provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act described above,
and are being published simultaneously with this
notice. They are 49 CFR Part 591, Importation of
Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards; Part 592, Registered Importers of
Vehicles not Originally Manufactured to Conform to the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; and Part 593,
Determinations That a Vehicle not Originally Man-
ufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards is Eligible for Importation. A proposed
schedule of fees (Part 594) was published on April 25,
1989J54 FR 17792X^
The new provisions also specifically authorize
NHTSA to impose fees to cover certain administrative
costs incurred in implementation of the new importa-
tion procedures. There are two or more types of fees to
cover three types of costs for which fees may be
charged: an annual fee to cover the costs of admini-
stration of the importer registration program, an
annual fee or fees to cover the costs of processing the
bond furnished to the Customs Service, and an annual
fee or fees to cover the costs of making import
eligibility determinations.
The purpose of this rule is to adopt a fee schedule
that appears appropriate for recovery of each cost , and
to explain the rationale behind each of these fees. In
identifying those agency activities that may form the
cost basis of a fee authorized by the new import
provisions, the agency has considered the experience
of other agencies in establishing users fees under the
Independent Offices Authorization Act (31 U.S.C.
9701), and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Recon-
ciliation Act (P.L. 99-272). Thus, as proposed, and as
repeated in this notice, the agency will: identify each
service it provides, explain why it is entitled to recover
the cost of providing that service, identify each type of
PART 594-PRE 1
expenditure incurred in providing that service, explain
the criteria used to include or exclude a particular
expenditure, and calculate the amount of each such
expenditure.
There were three substantive responses to the
proposal, submitted by Auburn Motors, Inc., The
Dealer Action Association, and Mercedes-Benz of North
America.
1. Requirements of the Fee Regulation.
594.6 Annual fee for administration of the importer
registration program. Section 108(c)(3)(A)(iii) of the
Vehicle Safety Act provides that registered importers
must pay "such annual fee as the Secretary establishes
to cover the cost of administering the registration
program. . . ."
The first issue addressed by the agency in its
proposal was whether the term "registration program"
is inclusive of all activities under section 108(c) (except
for the other activities for which a fee may be imposed),
or whether it is restricted to activities relating directly
to the registration process, such as reviewing registra-
tion applications and acting upon them. The agency
interpreted "registration program" conservatively, and
concluded that it refers only to activities connected
with the development and maintenance of the reg-
istration process, including monitoring, and enforce-
ment activities resulting in suspension or revocation
of a registration. Although it could be argued that
NHTSA's verification of the certification submitted by
a registered importer is relevant to the maintenance by
that registered importer of its status, this agency
believes that Congress did not intend to include such
an activity in the registration program. Specifically,
section 109(c)(3)(B)(i) prohibits the application of fees
collected under the Vehicle Safety Act to NHTSA's
inspection of vehicles for which certifications have
been filed. Thus, NHTSA proposed to exclude, from
the fee structure of the registration program, activities
connected with processing of certificates and com-
pliance documentation of motor vehicles.
Mercedes-Benz and The Dealer Action Association
disagreed with NHTSA's conclusions and argued that
all costs except those specifically exempted in the
statue ought to be included. Each believes that the
costs associated with processing certificates of con-
formity and monitoring compliance should also be
included. They argued that Congress intended that the
costs be borne in full by those who would benefit from
the new legislation, and that the presence of specific
exclusions in the legislation argues for an inclusive
approach. Specifically, the commenters believe that
two separate provisions must be read together to
understand the scope of the fee structure Congress
meant to establish. Section 108(c)(3)(A)(iii) requires
collection from each Registered Importer of its pro rata
share of administering the registration program.
Section 108(c)(3)(B) then defines the scope of agency
activities covered. It states in relevant part "All fees
collected shall be available until expended. . . solely
for use. . . in the administration of all of the require-
ments of this subsection. . . ", other than NHTSA's
periodic inspection of motor vehicles for which certif-
icates have been furnished, and regulations governing
the Registered Importer's financial ability to notify
and remedy.
The commenters further argue that the legislative
history also evidences Congressional intent to establish
comprehensive fees. Remarks by Senator Inouye are
cited in support:
"This new program will be financed through fees
paid by registered importers upon registration,
and annually thereafter, as calculated by the
Secretary to cover the additional costs of ad-
ministering the program. We felt it was ap-
propriate in this limited instance to require the
payment of such fees because this new program
is being established solely for the benefit of
registered importers and will continue to permit
them to stay in business".
Cong. Rec. S14734, daily ed. October 5, 1988.
The commenters believe that NHTSA should re-
calculate the costs it will incur and make appropriate
adjustments in the fees it will require Registered
Importers to pay annually.
The agency has carefully considered these comments.
NHTSA notes the comment by Senator Rudman
(S14375) that the fees cover the costs of administering
only "certain provisions", and that "the user fees
would not apply to the testing of these vehicles. . . .
This is a responsibility normally assumed by the
Department." NHTSA believes that it was not the
intent of Congress to assess fees for activities that
represent "a responsibility normally assumed by the
Department", i.e. , a responsibility that was part of the
agency's enforcement program before enactment of
the 1988 Act. The registration requirements (section
108(c)(3)(D)) constitute an entirely new program, but
the requirements for submission and evaluation of
certification and documentation (section 108(c)(3)(E))
have a direct counterpart in the agency's present
enforcement program under which a statement of
conformance supplemented by documentary evidence
must be provided before action is taken upon the bond.
Therefore the agency has not broadened its inter-
pretation of the elements of the registration program
in section 108(c)(3)(D) to cover activities in section
108(c)(3)(E).
The second issue addressed by NHTSA, and relevant
to the other authorized fees as well, was whether the
agency can recover both direct and indirect costs
associated with its activities. It noted that there is no
modifier of the word "costs", and concluded that both
direct and indirect costs may be recovered. Such costs
include all costs of administering the program, in-
PART 594-PRE 2
eluding salaries and other personnel costs (retirement,
insurance and leave), travel, postage, maintenance and
depreciation of equipment, supplies, and a propor-
tionate share of agency management and supervisory
costs as well as accrued liabilities, which include
severance pay, unemployment compensation, workers
compensation, and unused leave costs. The commenters
did not address this issue.
The initial annual fee attributable to the registration
program contains three components. The first com-
ponent is one that would cover the cost of processing
an application by a person seeking to become a
registered importer. It would not be refundable in the
event of a denial. The second component represents
the costs attributable to such inspection of an ap-
plicant's facilities as the agency may deem necessary
to conduct prior to a decision on an application. The
third component is intended to cover the remaining
costs. The first and third component of the initial
annual fee will be paid at the time that an applicant
seeks to become a registered importer. The second
component will be paid only if an inspection is actually
conducted, and would be payable by the end of the
tenth calendar day after notification by the agency. If
the application is denied, the amount of the fee
representing the third component will be refunded to
the applicant.
Annual fees after the initial annual fee will also have
three components. Instead of a component attributable
to processing an application, the first component of a
regular annual fee will cover the costs of processing
the registered importer's annual statement (or mid-
year changes) attesting that there is no material
change in its condition and that it is maintaining its
financial and technical ability to meet its statutory
obligations. The second component will cover the cost,
if any, of such inspections the agency might have
conducted with respect to the registered importer
during the year. The third component is again intended
to cover remaining costs.
With respect to the first component of the initial
annual fee, the relatively simple, discrete activities
involved in processing and acting upon registration
applications permit a uniform first component sum to
be developed, payable by all who seek to become
registered importers. Similarly, the agency tasks in-
volved in processing and reviewing annual statements
appear to permit a uniform first component sum to be
developed. The direct costs that the agency will
consider in this regard are the amount of time spent in
reviewing applications or annual statements for form
and content, analysis, and drafting of documents
relating to the analysis and disposition of the ap-
plication or annual statement, including direct super-
visory time. Other direct costs associated, such as
postage, computer time, and meetings to discuss the
merits of an application or annual statement, will be
included in the fee structure. However, while the
application is pending, NHTSA may wish to inspect
the premises of the applicant. The costs of this
inspection would form the basis of the second com-
ponent of the fee that must be paid before a deter-
mination is made on the merits of the application.
Inspections conducted after registration (the second
component of the regular annual fee) would be reflected
in the next annual fee payable by the registered
importer concerned.
The agency will include indirect costs as well. For
example, if one-third of a staffer's time at a word
processing terminal is spent in drafting documents
relative to an application determination, then a third of
the cost of maintaining the space and the terminal will
be factored into a registration fee. Indirect general and
administrative costs can be included in the fee structure
as a pro rata share of the costs attributable to running
the program.
Once a registration has been granted, section
108(d)(2) imposes an obligation on a registered importer
to maintain evidence satisfactory to NHTSA that it
continues to be financially able to meet its statutory
responsibilities "relating to discovery, notification,
and remedy of motor vehicle defects." Further, section
108(c)(3)(D)(ii) directs the agency to set requirements
for registered importers, including at a minimum (1)
requirements for record-keeping; and (2) requirements
for records and facilities inspection for registered
importers. Activities of the agency associated with
satisfying it of financial ability and meeting other
specified responsibilities may be included in the cost
basis of the registration program annual fee. The
initial annual fee adopted by this notice is based upon
NHTSA's estimates of costs for the first fiscal year
that the registration program is in effect. If the amount
of the annual fee for a succeeding year is adjusted, the
adjustment will take into account NHTSA's actual
experience in the year preceding.
Under paragraph 592.6(a)(7) of the regulation on
Registered Importers, the agency may inspect a facility
or the records which the Registered Importer must
keep to fulfill its program responsibilities. There are
two purposes for which such inspections may be
conducted. The first is to verify that the regulatory
criteria for obtaining or maintaining the status of
registered importer are met. These inspections are
directly related to administration of the registration
program. The agency will include direct and indirect
costs associated with these inspection activities in the
fee structure for the program . The agency will include
direct and indirect costs associated with these in-
spection activities in the fee structure for the program.
The second purpose for which an inspection may be
conducted is to verify that a certification filed by a
registered importer is supported by the conformance
work performed. This activity is specifically excluded
PART 594-PRE 3
as a cost towards which fees may not be applied.
Consequently, if inspecting a facility for compliance
with registration requirements also involves vehicle
inspection, agency staff will segregate costs to exclude
those attributable to the inspection of vehicles. Only
those costs directly attributable to the registration
program will be included in the second component of
the next regular annual fee.
As with the costs of processing an initial application
or annual statement, all direct and indirect costs
associated with the suspension and reinstatement of
Registered Importer status are recoverable by the
agency. These include costs associated with notifying
a registrant that the agency is considering suspension,
plus the costs of allowing it to present its opposition to
suspension under paragraph 592.7(b) of the Registered
Importer regulation, and costs associated with pro-
cessing a registrant's request that NHTSA reconsider
a suspension under paragraph 592.7(e). The final
associated cost is that of notifying the registrant of the
determination regarding its suspension.
Similarly, the costs associated with revoking a
registration are recoverable. These include notifying a
Registered Importer in writing that NHTSA intends to
revoke registration under paragraph 592.7(b), or that
the agency has revoked a registration under paragraph
592,7(c) because the registrant knowingly filed a false
or misleading certification. Further recoverable costs
are those associated with reviewing, analyzing and
responding to the registrant's written opposition to a
preliminary decision to revoke its registration.
The agency will include whatever activities are
associated with making a determination under para-
graph 592.7(d) that the basis for a suspension no longer
exists. The nature of the reinstatement process will
vary depending on the reason for the suspension. For
example, the process will be comparatively simple if
the suspension was for failure to pay a fee.
594. 7 Fee for vehicle importation eligibility petitions.
Section 108(c)(3)(A)(iii)(II) also requires Registered
Importers to pay "such other annual fee or fees as the
Secretary reasonably establishes to cover the cost
of. . . making the determinations under this section."
Pursuant to Part 593, these determinations are whether
the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially
similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States, and
certified as meeting the Federal standards, and whether
it is capable of being readily modified to meet those
standards, or, alternatively, where there is no sub-
stantially similar U.S. motor vehicle, whether the
safety features of the vehicles comply with or are
capable of being modified to comply with the U.S.
standards. These determinations are made pursuant
to petitions submitted by Registered Importers or
manufacturers, or pursuant to determinations made
upon the Administrator's initiative.
In developing this regulation, the agency considered
the type and frequency of fees that would best imple-
ment the purpose of the 1988 Act. With respect to
making eligibility determinations, it considered an
"annual fee", in which total costs attributable to
eligibility determinations would be divided equally
among all Registered Importers. Such a fee would be
payable at the time of the next regular annual fee for
administration of the registration program. This type
of fee appeared equitable in the sense that more than
one Registered Importer may benefit from an eligibility
determination, and that the costs would not be borne
by the petitioner alone. However, NHTSA proposed
and adopted a requirement that a fee be charged for
individual petitions for determinations of eligibility.
The benefit of this approach is that it permits "pay-as-
you-go", under which costs are more quickly recovered.
This fee would be payable by a petitioner for a
determination, or by the importer who first benefits
from a determination made on the agency's initiative
(see further discussion below).
The agency requested comments on each approach,
but it proposed the second approach. Under this, a
petition by a manufacturer or Registered Importer for
a determination would be accompanied by the fee
specified in paragraph 594.7. The payment of this fee
by the petitioner is premised upon the likelihood that
the petitioner would be the immediate beneficiary of
any favorable determination, and therefore ought to
pay the costs authorized by statute for consideration of
its petition. The immediate beneficiary of a favorable
determination made upon the Administrator's initiative
would be the first Registered importer, or other person,
who imports a vehicle that is covered by the deter-
mination. Therefore, NHTSA proposed to establish a
fee that would be payable by the Registered Importer
who furnishes a certificate of conformity covering the
first vehicle imported under a declaration filed after
notice of the Administrator's initiative determination
has appeared in the Federal Register. The notice would
include a discussion of the fee to be paid and the basis
for it. Subsequently, upon receipt of the first declaration
covering the vehicle, NHTSA would notify the Reg-
istered Importer concerned that the stated fee is due at
the time the certification of conformity covering the
vehicle is received. However, NHTSA is aware that
such costs would remain unrecoverable until such
time as (and unless) a declaration is filed on such a
vehicle.
The three commenters on the proposal recommended
that it would be more equitable to divide the petition
fee among all Registered Importers. NHTSA gave close
attention to these comments and examined various
ways that this could be accomplished. Because of the
requirement of section 108(c)(3)(B) that the fee ap-
plicable in any fiscal year be established before the
beginning of such year, NHTSA concluded that it
could not implement the suggestion it had discussed in
PART 594-PRE 4
the proposal , to establish a pro rata fee applicable to all
Registered Importers at the end of a fiscal year to cover
all petition determinations of that year. Collection of
such a sum appeared difficult also; the agency did not
appear to have leverage over manufacturers who had
filed petitions without a fee, and as for Registered
Importers, to defer renewal of registration until the
annual petition fee was paid seemed irrelevant to
maintenance of the qualifications of Registered Im-
porters.
The agency concluded that payment by the petitioner
at the time of the petition represented the most
effective way to recover the costs of eligibility deter-
minations, but within that framework it explored
ways of equalizing the burden by an allocation at the
end of the fiscal year. As an alternative to dividing total
petition fees by the number of Registered Importers,
the fee for a petition for a specific make/model could be
divided by the number of only those Registered
Importers who had furnished certificates of conformity
for that make/model during the year. A variation of
this alternative would be a formula with weights given
Registered Importers according to the specific number
of that specific make/model each had imported. At the
end of the fiscal year, there would be a reconciliation of
sums, under which certain Registered Importers could
be given cash refunds or credits toward future peti-
tions, or, if the reconciliation showed otherwise, an
assessment imposed on a Registered Importer. No
approach appeared to be without problems, and each,
other than payment at the time of the petition, would
add costs to the general fee structure. Nevertheless,
NHTSA remains interested in the concept of equalizing
the burden, and on the basis of its experience in the
first year of the petition program, will consider ad-
ditional ways that this might be accomplished. It
would be interested in having constructive comments
during this period.
As NHTSA observed in the notice, the activities that
may form the cost basis for petitions appear to include
logging-in, notifying the petitioner of receipt, and
evaluating the petition. If the agency grants a written
request by the petitioner to appear to discuss a petition
under paragraph 593.7(c), it will recover the cost of
processing the written request and discussing the
petition. Although the 1988 Act does not require an
actual demonstration of conformance, only that a
vehicle is capable of conformance, a petitioner may
wish to substantiate its arguments with presentation
of a modified vehicle. In that event, it may be necessary
for NHTSA to inspect the modified vehicle as part of its
role in determining whether the vehicle is eligible for
importation. The cost of that inspection would be
properly recoverable. The new import provisions re-
quire publication of a notice in the Federal Register,
thus the agency will also recover costs associated with
preparing and processing Federal Register documents
generated in connection with the petition, processing
and analyzing comments submitted in connection
with a Federal Register document; and notifying a
petitioner of the agency's decision.
When NHTSA makes a determination on its own
initiative, it will also publish a notice in the Federal
Register and receive and evaluate comments on it.
The new import provisions do not require the agency
to publish a second Federal Register notict immediately
after a decision is made. Section 108(c)(3)(C)(iv),
however, does require NHTSA to publish annually in
the Federal Register a list of all vehicles determined to
be eligible for import under the Act. Compiling and
publishing this list is connected with making and
announcing eligibility determinations, and the costs
will be included in the fee structure.
594.8 Fee payable for Administrator's determination.
Costs to be recovered through payment of a fee also
cover those attributable to determinations of import
eligibility made on NHTSA's initiative. The principal
issue here is how such costs are to be recovered in the
absence of a petitioner. The method proposed was that
it be paid by the first Registered Importer who furnishes
a certificate of conformity covering such vehicle after
NHTSA's determination on its own initiative. There
were no specific comments on this method, though it
was clearly implied by the three commenters that such
costs should be shared equally by all Registered
Importers. For the reasons set forth above in the
discussion on allocation of fees among Registered
Importers, it is impracticable to do so, and NHTSA has
adopted the method proposed.
594.9 Fee to recover the costs of processing the bond.
Section 108 (c)(3)(A)(iii)(II) also requires a registered
importer to pay "such annual fee or fees as the
Secretary reasonably establishes to cover the cost of
processing the bond furnished to the Secretary of the
Treasury" upon the importation of a nonconforming
vehicle to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into
compliance within a reasonable time, or if the vehicle
is not brought into compliance within such time, that
it is exported without cost to the United States, or
abandoned to the United States.
The statute contemplates that NHTSA make a
reasonable determination of the cost to the United
States Custom Service of processing the bond. The
agency has met representatives of the Customs Service
to obtain such information as would allow it to include
the cost basis of processing the bond in the fee
structure. The analysis that Customs has provided
NHTSA indicates that it has followed the same guide-
lines as the agency does to determine whether each
activity associated with processing the bond gives rise
to a recoverable cost. The 1988 Act requires the bond to
be furnished the Secretary of the Treasury acting on
behalf of NHTSA. However, NHTSA has decided, and
Customs concurs, that the bond in question is not the
PART 594-PRE 5
general importation bond which covers duties and
other obligations relevant to merchandise. It is a bond
given to secure performance of obligations under the
Vehicle Safety Act, and will therefore be a bond of the
Department of Transportation and not of the Treasury.
The two Federal agencies have determined that this
bond will accompany the declaration at the time of
entry, and be submitted with it to NHTSA. Thus the
role of Customs in "processing" the bond will be
limited to two activities. At the time of importation, it
will ensure that the bond is attached to the entry form
(or reject the entry for lack of the bond). After bond
verification, it will forward the bond and entry form to
NHTSA. A third activity will be required in the event
that a vehicle must be exported for failing to meet
NHTSA's requirements: the supervision of export.
The first two activities will form the basis for the
processing cost payable by the registered importer.
The cost of the third activity will be part of the bond, so
that if the vehicle must be redelivered for export, a sum
covering the third activity would be payable to NHTSA
on behalf of Customs. Although NHTSA will advance
Customs its costs in accordance with statutory re-
quirements, it will recover these costs on an ad hoc
basis, requiring a registered importer to submit a bond
processing fee at the time it submits conformance
verification on each vehicle.
2. Calculations of the Agency's Costs in Setting
Fees
To the extent possible, the agency's costs in setting
fees are based upon an accounting of each discrete
activity involved in the process. Thus, the fees imposed
by Part 594 include the agency's best direct and
indirect cost estimates of the man-hours involved in
each activity, on both the staff and supervisory levels,
the costs of computer and word processor usage,
postage costs, costs attributable to travel, salary and
benefits, and maintenance of work space, to name the
ones set forth in the proposed regulation.
Specifically, each fee is calculated on the basis of the
direct and indirect costs associated with the activity
for which the fee is paid. The direct costs include the
average cost per professional staff-hour, computer and
word processor time, stationery and postage, and
transportation.
The average cost per professional staff-hour is
calculated based upon the full costs for time spent (to
the nearest quarter-hour) using the following applicable
professional staff rates:
(A) Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance —
Clerical Staff — $13 per hour
Computer contract staff — $25 per hour.
Review staff — $26 per hour.
Supervisors — $41 per hour.
(B) Office of Chief Counsel — $41 per hour.
The average cost per computer-hour is calculated at
the rate of $100 per hour.
The average cost for postage is calculated to be
$3.00.
The indirect costs include a pro rata allocation of the
average salary and benefits of persons employed in
processing the applications and recommending deci-
sions on them, and a pro rata allocation of the costs
attributable to maintaining the office space, and the
computer or word processor. The staff rates above
include benefits; the costs associated with office space,
equipment maintenance, communications and other
overhead amount to an additional $6.71 per hour.
The cost for determining the salary and benefits of
persons employed is calculated based upon the time
spent multiplied by the employee's hourly wage.
The cost of maintaining the computer or word
processor is calculated based upon maintenance, time
sharing, and staff operations.
The cost of maintaining the office space is calculated
based upon standard government regulations based
upon grade levels.
The cost of travel is based upon an estimated round
trip air fare of $250, and a 3-day per diem of $100 a day,
for a total trip cost of $550.
A. Registration Program Fee
The Registration Program Annual Fee has two and
in some instances three components: a portion at-
tributable to the registration process, a portion
attributable to any inspection of an applicant that the
agency deems needed to verify information submitted
in an application for registration, and a portion
attributable to other activities occurring in the reg-
istration program. Exclusive of the inspection portion,
the agency has decided that the initial Annual
Registration Program fee shall be $255.
The initial component of the Registration Program
Fee is the portion of the fee attributable to processing
and acting upon registration applications. The agency
estimates this portion of the fee as $85,99.
In calculating the direct costs of processing registra-
tion applications, NHTSA estimates that one staff
member and one supervisor will spend a total of one
man-hour in processing, reviewing, and acting upon
applications, that a quarter hour of computer, and
computer-operator time will be required to verify that
the applicant has not had a registration revoked, that a
half hour of clerical time will be required, and that a
postal charge will be incurred. These costs are
estimated at $74.25.
In calculating the indirect costs of processing reg-
istration applications, NHTSA has estimated that
these will average $6.71 per hour spent. Processing
will require a total of 1.75 hours per application, thus
NHTSA estimates that indirect costs will total $1 1.74.
Thus the total direct and indirect costs of this com-
ponent are $85.99.
With respect to other costs attributable to main-
tenance of the registration program, these consist
PART 594-PRE 6
principally of reviewing a registrant's annual state-
ment verifying the continuing validity of information
already submitted, and processing annual fees. These
costs also include costs attributable to revocation or
suspension of a registration.
In calculating the direct costs of administering the
registration program other than costs connected with
the initial application, NHTSA estimates that one staff
member and one supervisor will spend a total of 1.5
man-hours in administration activities, that one half-
hour of computer time, and computer operator time
will be required, that 1.5 hours of clerical and record-
keeping time will be needed, and a postal charge will be
incurred. The total direct charges for administering
the registration program are estimated at $131.o0. The
total overhead costs of the 3.5 hours involved are
$23.49, or a total of $154.99. These costs, of course, are
exclusive of costs associated with revocation or sus-
pension.
At this point, it appears fairest that a suspended
registrant bear the costs associated with suspension
and reinstatement, to be included in its next annual
fee. However, it will not be feasible to recover costs
from an importer whose registration has been revoked.
Those costs appear best borne by each registered
importer paying a pro rata share in its annual fee.
Obviously, before the effective date of the 1988 Act,
NHTSA has no knowledge of how many registered
importers there will be or how many suspensions or
revocations may occur in the first year of the program.
However, for purposes of determining this portion of
the registration fee, NHTSA estimates that there will
be 20 registered importers during the fiscal year
beginning October 1, 1989, and ending September 30,
1990, and that there will be one revocation. Under Part
592, the procedures that the agency will follow in
determining whether a registration should be revoked
or suspended are identical. This means that the direct
and indirect costs should also be identical, up to the
point of an agency determination. Because a suspended
registration may be reinstated, either upon expiration
of the term stated in the agency's letter of suspension,
or upon cure of the cause giving rise to the suspension,
there will be a slight additional cost commensurate
with the clerical aspects of ending the suspension.
NHTSA contemplates that its Enforcement Office
will recommend suspensions or revocations to the
Office of Chief Counsel, and that 1 hour of staff time,
and .25 hour computer operator time will be involved
in recommendations. In addition, .25 hour of computer
time will be used. The Office of Chief Counsel will
require 1.75 hours to review the recommendation and
draft a letter to the registrant, and an additional 1.75
hours to review the registrant's reply and to draft a
letter of suspension, or revocation, or declining to take
further action. Postal charges will total $6.00. The
total direct costs associated with this procedure are
$206.75, and the overhead costs for 4.75 hours of
agency time, $34.87. The sum of $238.62 divided by the
20 estimated Registered Importers gives a figure of
$11.93 to be added to the portion of the annual fee
representing maintenance of the registration program
(For reinstatement, to be borne by the registrant,
NHTSA estimates that the total direct and indirect
costs will be $40.36, representing .25 hour of clerical
time, .25 hour of computer time, and .25 hour of
computer operator time).
Thus, the total portion attributable to maintenance
of the registration program, as estimated by NHTSA,
is approximately $166.92. When added to the $85.99
representing the registration application component,
the cost per applicant equals $252.91. Therefore,
NHTSA has determined that the initial annual reg-
istration fee, for the period October 1, 1989 through
September 30, 1990, is $255. In the event that an
application is denied or withdrawn, NHTSA will
refund all but $86 of this amount, or $169.
B. Fee for Vehicle Eligibility Petitions.
In calculating the direct costs of processing and
acting upon a petition for a determination of eligibility,
NHTSA estimates that the costs involved for deter-
minations involving substantially similar vehicles will
require substantially less agency time than those for
non-similar vehicles. For purposes of this determina-
tion, NHTSA has chosen passenger cars and multi-
purpose passenger vehicles, the most frequently im-
ported types of motor vehicles. The agency estimates
the total direct and indirect costs for a determination
involving a substantially similar vehicle at $1558.68
and for a non-similar vehicle at $2151.61. In this light,
a fee of $1560 for substantially similar vehicle deter-
minations, and one of $2150 for those that are not
substantially similar, appear to fulfill the statutory
directive.
More specifically, the following cost breakdown has
been estimated for substantially similar (and non-
similar) vehicles. The process will result in personnel
costs related to 2 (5) supervisory hours, 24 (35) staff
hours, .25 (.25) hour computer time, .25 (2) hour(s) data
entry time, .50 (2) hour(s) clerical time, and .25 (.50)
hour recordkeeping time. In addition, .25 hour of
computer time would be used for each. However, costs
associated with preparing and publishing the two
Federal Register notices, and evaluating comments to
the first notice, should be identical. Each notice may
require two columns of space ($125 per column), for a
cost of $250 per notice, and total publication costs of
$500. Following agency practice with other petitions,
the notices will be prepared by the Office of Chief
Counsel. It is estimated that each notice will require 1
hour of preparation time, and .50 hour of clerical time,
or a total of 3 hours for both notices. The estimated
total direct charges for determinations of eligibility
will be $1342 ($1817.50). In calculating the indirect
PART 594-PRE 7
costs of processing and acting upon eligibility petitions,
NHTSA estimates that the process, including the
Federal Register preparation time, will take 30 (47.50)
man hours, for a cost of $201.30 ($318.73), or a total
cost of $1543.30 ($2136.23). These totals include .25
hour of computer time. To this must be added the pro
rata cost of the yearly Federal Register notice. It is
estimated that this will require 1 hour of Office of
Chief Counsel time, .50 hour clerical time, and two
columns in the Federal Register. The total direct costs
to fulfill this statutory requirement would be $297.50.
The overhead costs, $10.07. The total of $307.57
divided among the estimated 20 registered importers
adds $15.38 to each petition cost, or a total of $1558.68
($2151.61). Therefore, a petition fee of $1560 ($2150) is
being adopted. At this point, costs appear similar for
those determinations made upon the agency's own
initiative, and the same fee will be used in recovery of
costs.
C. Bond Processing Costs.
With respect to the costs attributable to processing
the bond furnished the Secretary of the Treasury, the
agency estimated and proposed $125 per bond. However,
after the proposal, NHTSA determined that the role of
Customs in "processing" the bond under the 1988 Act
would be limited to ensuring that the bond was
completed and attached to the entry form, and that
both would be forwarded to NHTSA. Customs then
provided NHTSA with a detailed estimate of the costs
involved in its processing of the bond. These tasks
would be performed by a GS 9 Step 5 employee (hourly
rate $12.94). Eighteen minutes would be required to
verify the content of the bond information, amount,
and completeness, and to enter the information into
Customs' data processing system. These tasks would
cover all nonconforming vehicles imported. It is
Customs practice to conduct verification inspections
on approximately 15% of vehicles, verifying VINs to
bonds, and this inspection would occupy 13 minutes.
Finally, Customs estimates that 1% of the vehicles
entered would not be brought into satisfactory con-
formity, requiring fulfillment of the bond condition of
export. The associated tasks of supervising lading,
reviewing documents, and verifying vehicle identifica-
tion would require 20 minutes. Using the estimate of
2 100 vehicles entered per year (the importation rate for
1989 to date). Customs' total bond processing costs are
$9,140.04, or $4,352 per vehicle. NHTSA has adopted
$4.35 as the bond processing fee per vehicle.
Effective Date
Section 108(c)(3)(B) requires that the fee applicable
in any fiscal year shall be established by NHTSA
before the beginning of each such year. Therefore,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), it is found that good
cause is shown for an effective date that is earlier than
30 days after publication of the final rule. Therefore,
this final rule is effective September 30, 1989, so that
the fees it establishes will be applicable in Fiscal Year
1990, which begins October 1, 1989.
In consideration of the foregoing, a new Part 594,
Schedule of Fees Authorized by the Imported Vehicle
Safety Compliance Act, is added to Title 49, Chapter V,
to read as follows:
Part 594 Schedule of Fees Authorized by the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Sec.
594.1 Scope.
594.2 Purpose.
594.3 Applicability.
594.4 Definitions.
594.5 Establishment and payment of fees.
594.6 Annual fee for administration of reg-
istration program.
594.7 Fee for filing petition for a determina-
tion whether a vehicle is eligible for importation.
594.8 Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant to
a determination made on the Administrator's
initiative.
594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond pro-
cessing costs.
Authority: Pub. L. 100-562, 15 U.S.C. 1401, 1407;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
594.1 Scope.
This part establishes the fees authorized by the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
594.2 Purpose.
The purposes of this part is to ensure that NHTSA is
reimbursed for costs incurred in administering the
importer registration program, in making determina-
tions whether a nonconforming vehicle is eligible for
importation into the United States, and in processing
the bond furnished to the Secretary of the Treasury
given to ensure that an imported vehicle not originally
manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards is brought into com-
pliance with the safety standards, or will be exported,
or abandoned to the United States.
594.3 Applicability.
This part applies to any person who applies to
NHTSA to be granted the status of a Registered
Importer, to any person who has been granted such
status, and to manufacturers who are not Registered
Importers who petition the Administrator for a de-
termination pursuant to Part 593 of this chapter.
594.4 Definitions
All terms used in this part that are defined in section
102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used as defined in the
Act.
"Administrator" means the Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
"NHTSA" means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
PART 594— PRE 8
"Registered Importer" means any person who has
been granted the status of registered importer under
Part 592 of this Chapter, and whose registration has
not been revoked.
594.5 Establishment and payment of fees
(a) The fees estabhshed by this part continue in
effect until adjusted by the Administrator. The Ad-
ministrator reviews the amount or rate of fees
established under this part and, if appropriate, adjusts
them by rule at least every 2 years.
(b) The fees applicable in any fiscal year are
established before the beginning of such year. Each fee
is calculated in accordance with this part, and is
published in the Federal Register not later than
September 30 of each year.
(c) An applicant for status as Registered Importer
shall submit an initial annual fee with the application.
A fee for a determination that a vehicle is eligible for
importation shall be submitted with the petition for a
determination. No application or petition will be
accepted for filing or processed before payment of the
full amount specified. Except as provided in paragraph
594.6(d), a fee shall be paid irrespective of NHTSA's
disposition of the application or petition, or of a
withdrawal of an application or petition.
(d) A Registered Importer annual fee, other than the
initial annual fee, is payable not later than October 31
of each year.
(e) A fee attributable to a determination of eligibility
made on the Administrator's initiative shall be paid by
a Registered Importer in accordance with paragraph
594.8(b).
(f) A fee for reimbursement for bond processing
costs shall be filed with each certificate of conformity
furnished the Administrator.
(g) Any other annual fee is payable not later than
October 31 of each year. Any other fee is payable not
later than 30 calendar days after the date of written
notification by the Administrator.
(h) Fee payments shall be by check, draft, money
order, or Electronic Funds Transfer System made
payable to the Treasurer of the United States.
594.6 Annual fee for administration of the
registration program.
(a) Each person filing an application to be
granted the status of a Registered Importer pursuant
to part 592 of this chapter during the period October 1,
1989 through September 30, 1990, shall pay an initial
annual fee of $255, as calculated below, based upon the
direct and indirect costs attributable to:
(1) processing and acting upon such application;
(2) any inspection deemed required for a determina-
tion upon such application;
(3) the estimated remaining activities of admin-
istering the registration program in the fiscal year in
which such application is intended to become effective.
(b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable
to the processing of the application for applications
PART 594-
filed from October 1, 1989, through September 30,
1990, is $86. The sum of $86, representing this portion,
shall not be refundable if the application is denied or
withdrawn.
(c) If, in order to make a determination upon an
application, NHTSA must make an inspection of the
applicant's faciHties, NHTSA notifies the applicant in
writing after the conclusion of any such inspection,
that a supplement to the initial annual fee in a stated
amount is due upon receipt of such notice to recover
the direct and indirect costs associated with such
inspection and notification, and that no determination
will be made upon the application until such sum is
received. Such sum is not refundable if the application
is denied or withdrawn.
(d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable
to the remaining activities of administering the reg-
istration program from October 1, 1989, through
September 30, 1990, is set forth in subsection (i) of this
section. This portion shall be refundable if the ap-
plication is denied, or withdrawn before final action
upon it.
(e) Each Registered Importer who wishes to maintain
the status of Registered Importer shall pay a regular
annual fee based upon the direct and indirect costs of
administering the registration program, including the
suspension and reinstatement, and revocation of such
registration.
(f) The elements of administering the registration
program that are included in the regular annual fee
are:
(1) Calculating, revising, and publishing the fees to
apply in the next fiscal year, including such co-
ordination as may be required with the U.S. Customs
Service.
(2) Processing and reviewing the annual statement
attesting to the fact that no material change has
occured in the Registered Importer's status since filing
its original application.
(3) Processing the annual fee.
(4) Processing and reviewing any amendments to an
annual statement received in the course of a fiscal
year.
(5) Verifying through inspection or otherwise that a
Registered Importer is complying with the require-
ments of Sec. 592.6(b)(3) of this chapter for record-
keeping.
(6) Verifying through inspection or otherwise that a
Registered Importer is able technically and financially
to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1411 etseq.
(7) Invoking procedures for suspension of registration
and its reinstatement, and for revocation of registration
pursuant to Sec. 592.7 of this chapter.
(g) The direct costs included in establishing the
annual fee for maintaining registered importer status
are the estimated costs of professional and clerical
staff time, computer and computer operator time, and
PRE 9
postage, per Registered Importer. The direct costs
included in establishing the annual fee for a specific
Registered Importer are costs of transportation and per
diem attributable to inspections conducted with respect
to that Registered Importer in administering the
registration program, which have not been included in
a previous annual fee.
(h) The indirect costs included in establishing the
annual fee for maintaining Registered Importer status
are a pro rata allocation of the average salary and
benefits of persons employed in processing annual
statements, or changes thereto, in recommending
continuation of Registered Importer status, and a pro
rata allocation of the costs attributable to maintaining
the office space, and the computer or word processor.
This cost is $6.71 per man-hour for the period October
1, 1989, through September 30, 1990.
(i) Based upon the elements, and indirect costs of
paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section, the com-
ponents of the initial annual fee attributable to ad-
ministration of the registration program covering the
period from October 1, 1989, through September 30,
1990, is $166.92. When added to the component repre-
senting the costs of registration of $85.99, as set forth
in paragraph (b) of this section, the costs per applicant
to be recovered through the annual fee is $252.91. The
annual registration fee for the period October 1, 1989,
through September 30, 1990, is $255.
Sec. 594.7 Fee for filing petition for a deter-
mination whether a vehicle is eligible for im-
portation.
(a) Each manufacturer or registered importer who
petitions NHTSA for a determination that—
(1) a nonconforming vehicle is substantially similar
to a vehicle originally manufactured for importation
into and sale in the United States and of the same
model year as the model for which petition is made,
and is capable of being readily modified to conform to
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards,
or
(2) a nonconforming vehicle has safety features that
comply with or are capable of being modified to comply
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, shall pay a fee based upon the direct and
indirect costs of processing and acting upon such
petition.
(b) The direct costs attributable to processing a
petition filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section
include the average cost per professional staff-hour,
computer and computer operator time, and postage.
The direct costs also include those attributable to any
inspection of a vehicle requested by a petitioner in
substantiation of its petition.
(c) The indirect costs attributable to processing and
acting upon a petition filed pursuant to paragraph (a)
of this section include a pro rata allocation of the
average salary and benefits of persons employed in
processing the petitions and recommending decisions
on them, and a pro rata allocation of the costs
attributable to maintaining the office space, and the
computer or word processor.
(d) The direct costs attributable to acting upon a
petition filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section,
also include the cost of publishing a notice in the
Federal Register seeking public comment, the cost of
publishing a second notice with the agency's deter-
mination, and a pro rata share of the cost of publishing
an annual list of nonconforming vehicles determined
to be eligible for importation.
(e) The fee payable for a petition for a determination
that a nonconforming vehicle is eligible for importation
into the United States for petitions filed from October
1, 1989, through September 30, 1990, is $1560 if a
petition is filed under paragraph (a)(1) above, and
$2150 if filed under paragraph (a)(2) above, when the
petitioner does not request inspection of a vehicle.
When the petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle,
the sum of $550 shall be added to such fee. No portion of
this fee is refundable if the petition is withdrawn or
denied.
Sec. 594.8 Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant
to a determination made on the Administrator's
initiative.
(a) A fee shall be paid to cover the direct and indirect
costs incurred by NHTSA in determinations made
under paragraph 593.8(a) of this chapter, pursuant to
its own initiative, that a vehicle is eligible for importa-
tion into the United States. The basis of such fee is that
set forth in paragraphs 594.7(b), (c), and (d). If this
basis of the determination is that a vehicle meets the
criteria of paragraph 594.7(a)(1), the fee is $1560. If the
basis of the determination is that a vehicle meets the
criteria of paragraph 594.7(a)(2), the fee is $2150.
These fees are applicable to each determination made
from October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1990.
(b) After NHTSA has made a determination on its
own initiative, the notice published in the Federal
Register announcing the determination includes a fee
attributable to NHTSA's direct and indirect costs
incurred pursuant to such determination, and an
advisory that such fee shall be payable by the Registered
Importer who furnishes a certificate of conformity
pursuant to paragraph 592.6(a)(3)(vi) of this chapter,
on behalf of the first person who files a declaration
pursuant to paragraph 591.5(f) of this chapter that the
vehicle is eligible for importation.
(c) After receipt of the first declaration covering a
vehicle eligible for importation because of a deter-
mination made pursuant to the Administrator's in-
itiative, NHTSA informs the appropriate Registered
Importer that a fee in the stated amount shall ac-
company the certificate of conformity that the reg-
istered importer must furnish for the vehicle. No
certificate shall be accepted for filing or processing
PART 594-PRE 10
unless and until such fee has been paid. A certificate
for which no remittance is received may be returned to
the registered importer.
Sec. 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond pro-
cessing costs.
(a) Each registered importer shall pay a fee based
upon the direct and indirect costs of processing each
bond furnished to the Secretary of the Treasury with
respect to each vehicle for which it furnishes a
certificate of conformity to the Administrator pursuant
to paragraph 591.7(e) of this chapter.
(b) The direct and indirect costs attributable to
processing a bond are provided to NHTSA by the U.S.
Customs Service.
(c) Based upon information from the U.S. Customs
Service, the bond processing fee for each vehicle for
which a certificate of conformity is furnished from
October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1990, is $4.35.
Issued on September 26, 1989.
Jeffrey R. Miller
Acting Administrator
54F.R. 40100
September 29, 1989
PART594-PRE 11-12
PART 594— SCHEDULE OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC
AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
594.1 Scope.
This part establishes the fees authorized by the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
594.2 Purpose.
The purposes of this part is to ensure that NHTSA
is reimbursed for costs incurred in administering the
importer registration program, in making deter-
minations whether a nonconforming vehicle is eligi-
ble for importation into the United States, and in
processing the bond furnished to the Secretary of
the Treasury given to ensure that an imported vehi-
cle not originally manufactured to conform to all ap-
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is
brought into compliance with the safety standards,
or will be exported, or abandoned to the United
States.
594.3 Applicability.
This part applies to any person who applies to
NHTSA to be granted the status of a Registered Im-
porter, to any person who has been granted such
status, and to manufacturers who are not Registered
Importers who petition the Administrator for a
determination pursuant to Part 593 of this chapter.
594. Definitions.
All terms used in this part that are defined in sec-
tion 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391) are used as
defined in the Act.
"Administrator" means the Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
"NHTSA" means the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
"Registered Importer" means any person who has
been granted the status of registered importer under
Part 592 of this Chapter, and whose registration has
not been revoked.
594.5 Establishment and pavment of fees.
(a) The fees established by this part continue in
effect until adjusted by the Administrator. The Ad-
ministrator reviews the amount or rate of fees
established under this part and, if appropriate,
adjusts them by rule at least every 2 years.
(b) The fees applicable in any fiscal year are
established before the beginning of such year. Each
fee is calculated in accordance with this part, and
is published in the Federal Register not later than
September 30 of each year.
(c) An applicant for status as Registered Importer
shall submit an initial annual fee with the applica-
tion. A fee for a determination that a vehicle is
eligible for importation shall be submitted with the
petition for a determination. No application or peti-
tion will be accepted for filing or processed before
payment of the full amount specified. Except as pro-
vided in paragraph 594.6(d), a fee shall be paid
irrespective of NHTSA's disposition of the applica-
tion or petition, or of a withdrawal of an application
or petition.
(d) A Registered Importer annual fee, other than
the initial annual fee, is payable not later than
October 31 of each year.
(e) A fee attributable to a determination of
eligibility made on the Administrator's initiative
shall be paid by a Registered Importer in accordance
with paragraph 594.8(b).
(f) A fee for reimbursement for bond processing
costs shall be filed with each certificate of confor-
mity furnished the Administrator.
(g) Any other annual fee is payable not later than
October 31 of each year. Any other fee is payable
not later than 30 calendar days after the date of
written notification by the Administrator.
(h) Fee payments shall be by check, draft, money
order, or Electronic Funds Transfer System made
payable to the Treasurer of the United States.
PART 594-1
594.6 Annual fee for administration of the registration
program.
(a) Each person filing an application to be granted
the status of a Registered Importer pursuant to part
592 of this chapter during the period October 1, 1989
through September 30, 1990, shall pay an initial an-
nual fee of $255, as calculated below, based upon the
direct and indirect costs attributable to:
(1) processing and acting upon such application.
(2) any inspection deemed required for a deter-
mination upon such application;
(3) the estimated remaining activities of ad-
ministering the registration program in the fiscal
year in which such application is intended to
become effective.
(b) That portion of the initial annual fee at-
tributable to the processing of the application for ap-
plications filed from October 1, 1989, through
September 30, 1990, is $86. The sum of $86,
representing this portion, shall not be refundable if
the application is denied or withdrawn.
(c) If, in order to make a determination upon an
application, NHTSA must make an inspection of the
applicant's facilities, NHTSA notifies the applicant
in writing after the conclusion of any such inspec-
tion, that a supplement to the initial annual fee in
a stated amount is due upon receipt of such notice
to recover the direct and indirect costs associated
with such inspection and notification, and that no
determination will be made upon the application un-
til such sum is received. Such sum is not refundable
if the application is denied or withdrawn.
(d) That portion of the initial annual fee at-
tributable to the remaining activities of administer-
ing the registration program from October 1, 1989,
through September 30, 1990, is set forth in subsec-
tion (i) of this section. This portion shall be refun-
dable if the application is denied, or withdrawn
before final action upon it.
(e) Each Registered Importer who wishes to main-
tain the status of Registered Importer shall pay a
regular annual fee based upon the direct and indirect
costs of administering the registration program, in-
cluding the suspension and reinstatement, and
revocation of such registration.
(f) The elements of administering the i>egistration
program that are included in the regular annual fee
are:
(1) Calculating, revising, and publishing the fees
to apply in the next fiscal year, including such
coordination as may be required with the U.S.
Customs Service.
(2) Processing and reviewing the annual state-
ment attesting to the fact that no material change
has occurred in the Registered Importer's status
since filing its original application.
(3) Processing the annual fee.
(4) Processing and reviewing any amendments
to an annual statement received in the course of
a fiscal year.
(5) Verifying through inspection or otherwise
that a Registered Importer is complying with the
requirements of Sec. 592.6(bX3) of this chapter for
recordkeeping.
(6) Verifying through inspection or otherwise
that a Registered Importer is able technically and
financially to carry out its responsibilities pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.
(7) Invoking procedures for suspension of
registration and its reinstatement, and for revoca-
tion of registration pursuant to Sec. 592.7 of this
chapter.
(g) The direct costs included in establishing the an-
nual fee for maintaining registered importer status
are the estimated costs of professional and clerical
staff time, computer and computer operator time,
and postage, per Registered Importer. The direct
costs included in establishing the annual fee for a
specific Registered Importer are costs of transpor-
tation and per diem attributable to inspections con-
ducted with respect to that Registered Importer in
administering the registration program, which have
not been included in a previous annual fee.
(h) The indirect costs included in establishing the
annual fee for maintaining Registered Importer
status are a pro rata allocation of the average salary
and benefits of persons employed in processing an-
nual statements, or changes thereto, in recommen-
ding continuation of Registered Importer status, and
a pro rata allocation of the costs attributable to main-
taining the office space, and the computer or word
processor. This cost is $6.71 per man-hour for the
period October 1, 1989, through September 30,
1990.
(i) Based upon the elements, and indirect costs of
paragraphs (f), (9), and (h) of this section, the com-
ponent of the initial annual fee attributable to ad-
ministration of the registration program, covering
the period from October 1, 1989, through September
30, 1990, is $166.92. When added to the component
representing the costs of registration of $85.99, as
set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the costs
per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee
PART 594-2
is $252 91. The annual registration fee for the period
October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1990, is
$255.
Sec. 594.7 Fee for filing petition for a determination
whether a vehicle is eligible for importation.
(a) Each manufacturer or registered importer
who petitions NHTSA for a determination that—
(1) a nonconforming vehicle is substantially
similar to a vehicle originally manufactured for im-
portation into and sale in the United States and
of the same model year as the model for which
petition is made and is capable of being readily
modified to conform to all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, or
(2) a nonconforming vehicle which has safety
features that comply with or are capable of being
modified to comply with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, shall pay a fee bas-
ed upon the direct and indirect costs of process-
ing and acting upon such petition.
(b) The direct costs attributable to processing a
petition filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion include the average cost per professional staff-
hour, computer and computer operator time, and
postage. The direct costs also include those at-
tributable to any inspection of a vehicle requested
by a petitioner in substantiation of its petition.
(c) The indirect costs attributable to processing
and acting upon a petition filed pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section include a pro rata alloca-
tion of the average salary and benefits of persons
employed in processing the petitions and recommen-
ding decisions on them, and a pro rata allocation of
the costs attributable to maintaining the office
space, and the computer or word processor.
(d) The direct costs attributable to acting upon a
petition filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, also include the cost of publishing a notice in
the Federal Register seeking public comment, the
cost of publishing a second notice with the agency's
determination, and a pro rata share of the cost of
publishing an annual list of nonconforming vehicles
determined to be eligible for importation.
(e) The fee payable for a petition for a determina-
tion that a nonconforming vehicle is eligible for im-
portation into the United States for petitions filed
from October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1990,
is $1560 if a petition is filed under paragraph (a)(1)
above, and $2150 if filed under paragraph (aX2)
PART
above, when the petitioner does not request inspec-
tion of a vehicle. When the petitioner requests an
inspection of a vehicle, the sum of $550 shall be
added to such fee. No portion of this fee is refun-
dable if the petition is withdrawn or denied.
Sec. 594.8 Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant to
a determination made on the Administrator's initiative.
(a) A fee shall be paid to cover the direct and in-
direct costs incurred by NHTSA in determinations
made under paragraph 593.8(a) of this chapter, pur-
suant to its own initiative, that a vehicle is eligible
for importation into the United States. The basis of
such fee is that set forth in paragraphs 594.7(b), (c),
and (d). If the basis of the determination is that a
vehicle meets the criteria of paragraph 594.7(aXl),
the fee is $1560. If the basis of the determination
is that a vehicle meets the criteria of paragraph
594.7(aX2), the fee is $2150. These fees are ap-
plicable to each determination made from October
1, 1989, through September 30, 1990.
(b) After NHTSA has made a determination on
its own initiative, the notice published in the Federal
Register announcing the determination includes a
fee attributable to NHTSA's direct and indirect
costs incurred pursuant to such determination, and
an advisory that such fee shall be payable by the
Registered Importer who furnishes a certificate of
conformity pursuant to paragraph 592.6(aX3Xvi) of
this chapter, on behalf of the first person who files
a declaration pursuant to paragraph 591.5(f) of this
chapter that the vehicle is eligible for importation.
(c) After receipt of the first declaration covering
a vehicle eligible for importation because of a deter-
mination made pursuant to the Administrator's in-
itiative, NHTSA informs the appropriate Registered
Importer that a fee in the stated amoimt shall ac-
company the certificate of conformity that the
registered importer must furnish for the vehicle. No
certificate shall be accepted for filing or processing
imless and until such fee has been paid. A certificate
for which no remittance is received may be returned
to the registered importer.
Sec. 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond process-
ing costs.
(a) Each registered importer shall pay a fee based
upon the direct and indirect costs of processing each
bond furnished to the Secretary of the Treasury with
respect to each vehicle for which it furnishes a
594-3
certificate of conformity to the Administrator pur- nished from October 1, 1989, through September 30,
suant to paragraph 591.7(e) of this chapter. 1990, is $4.35.
(b) The direct and indirect costs attributable to
processing a bond are provided to NHTSA by the Issued on Sept. 26, 1989.
U.S. Customs Service.
(c) Based upon information from the U.S.
Customs Service, the bond processing fee for each 54 F.R. 40100
vehicle for which a certificate of conformity is fur- September 29, 1989
PART 594-4
tffadiva: Dacimbtr 14, 1968
PREAMBLE TO DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY REGULATION RELATING TO IMPOR-
TATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND ITEMS OF MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT
On April 10, 1968, Public Law 90-283 was
enacted to amend the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391-
1409) by adding a new section 123. This section
provides a procedure whereby the Secretary of
Transportation is authorized, upon petition by a
manufacturer of 500 or less vehicles annually, to
temporarily exempt such vehicles from certain
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The
procedures for temporary exemption of such ve-
hicles adopted by the Department, <as published
in the Federal Register on September 26, 1968
(33 F.R. 14457), require each exempted vehicle
to bear a label or tag permanently affixed con-
taining certain informativjn including a statement
listing the safety standards for which an exemp-
tion has been obtained. Since vehicles so
exempted will no longer bear the "valid certifi-
cation as required by section 114 of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
(15 U.S.C. 1403)" which is required by 19 CFR
12.80(b)(1) if a motor vehicle oiTered for im-
portation is not to be refused entry, it is deemed
desirable to amend 19 CFR 12.80(b) to allow
entry of exempted vehicles bearing the exemp-
tion labels or tags required under the regulations
of the Department of Transportation (23 CFR
217.13).
In addition, the Automobile Manufacturer's
Association, Inc., on behalf of itself and its
member companies, has made a showing of the
necessity of importing and using for purposes of
test or experiment for a limited time on the
public roads, of a limited number of nonconform-
ing motor vehicles manufactured outside the
United States. The Association has requested
an amendment of 19 CFR 12.80(b) (2) (vii)
which currently, among other things, allows the
importation of such vehicles for such purposes
only upon a declaration by . the importer that
these vehicles will not be licensed for use on the
public roads.
In consideration of the foregoing, § 12.80(b)
is amended as follows:
Subparagraph (b)(1) is amended by changing
the period following the words "so labelled or
tagged", to a comma and (b) (2) (vii) is amended
to read as follows :
§ 12.80 Federal Motor vehicle safety standards.
(b) * * ♦
(1) * * * or (iii) (for vehicles only which
have been exempted by the Secretary of Trans-
portation from meeting certain safety stand-
ards) it bears a label or tag permanently
affixed to such vehicle which meets the require-
ments set forth in the regulations of the De-
partment of Transportation, 23 CFR 217.13.
(2) * * *
(vii) The importer or consignee is im-
porting such vehicle or equipment item
solely for the purposes of show, test, experi-
jnent, competition, repairs or alterations and
that such vehicle or equipment item will not
be sold or licensed for use on the public
roads: Provided, That vehicles imported
solely for purposes of test or experiment
may be licensed for use on the public roads
for a period not to exceed one year, where
such use is an integral part of tests or ex-
periments for which such vehicle is being
imported, upon condition that the importer
attach to the declaration description of the
tests or experiments for which the vehicle
is being imported, the period of time during
which it is estimated that it will be necessary
to test the vehicle on the public roads, and
the disposition to be made of the vehicle
after completion of the tests or experiments.
*****
(Sec. 108, 80 Stat. 722, 15 U.S.C. 1397)
Since the first amendment is necessitated to
conform to regulations of the Department of
M.V. IMPORT— PRE 1
Eff«ctiv«: Dt»mb«r 14, 1968
Transportation presently in efiFect and the second Approved : November 29, 1968.
will alTect a very limited number of persons Joseph M. Bowman,
with a legitimate interest in road testing non- Assistant Secretary
conforming vehicles, notice and public procedure of the Treasury.
thereon is not considered necessary and good Approved: December 9, 19C8.
cause is found for dispensing with the delayed Lowell K. Bridwell,
effective date provision of 5 U.S.C . 553(d). Federal Highway Administrator.
Therefore, the amendments shall be eflFective 33 F R 1 8577
upon publication in the F.ederal Register. December 14 1968
[SEAL]
Lester D. Johnson
Commissioner of Customs
M.V. IMPORT— PRE 2
Effective: June 10, 1971
PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY REGULATION RELAT5NG
TO IMPORTATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND ITEMS OF MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT
(T.D. 71-122)
A notice was published in the Federal Register
on February 18, 1971 (36 F.R. 3121), that it
was proposed to amend § 12.80 of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 12.80) to make the follow-
ing substantive changes:
1. To provide that motor ^/ehicles and motor
vehicle equipment brought into conformity un-
der bond, shall not be sold or oflfered for sale
until the bond is released ;
2. To make clear that the term motor vehicle
as used in § 12.80 refers to a motor vehicle as
defined in the National Traffic and Motor Ve-
hicle Safety Act of 1966 ;
3. To require a declaration of conformance
accompanied by a statement of the vehicle's
original manufacturer as evidence of original
compliance;
4. To require that declarations filed under
paragraph (c) of § 12.80 be signed by the im-
porter or consignee ; and
5. To add a bond requirement for the produc-
tion of a declaration of original compliance and
a declaration of conformity after manufacture.
Interested persons were given an opportunity
to submit relevant data, views, or arguments.
No comments were received. The amendments
as proposed, with minor editorial changes, are
hereby adopted as set forth below to become
effective 30 days after the date of publication in
the Federal Register.
Robert V. Mclntyre,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
APPROVED: April 22, 1971.
Eugene T. Rossides,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
APPROVED: May 3, 1971.
Douglas W. Toms,
Acting Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion.
36 F.R. 8667
May n, 1977
M.V. IMPORT— PRE 3-4
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY REGULATION RELATING TO IMPORTATION OF MO-
TOR VEHICLES AND ITEMS OF MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT
Notice of a proposal to add § 12.80 to Part 12 of
the Customs Regulations to prescribe regulations
providing for the admission or refusal of motor
vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment which
are offered for importation into the United States
and which are subject to Federal motor vehicle
safety standards promulgated by the Department
of Transportation in 49 CFR Part 571, pursuant to
the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, was published in the
Federal Register for November 30, 1967 (32 F.R.
16432). Interested persons were given an oppor-
tunity to submit relevant data, views, or
arguments in writing regarding the proposed
regulations. All comments received have been
carefully considered.
In response to those comments, in addition to
several minor changes, the first paragraph of
§ 12.80(b) has been amended to provide for the en-
try, without written declaration, of motor vehicles
and items of motor vehicle equipment intended for
export and so labeled. A new provision is also add-
ed (§ 12.80(b) (2) (iv)) to provide for the entry, upon
written declaration, of new vehicles intended for
resale which do not fully conform to the safety
standards because of the absence of readily at-
tachable equipment items:
Provided, That the importer or consignee under-
takes to attach the missing items before such
vehicles are offered to the general public for sale.
Finally, the importation of nonconforming vehicles
for competition purposes will be permitted under
§ 12.80(b) (2) (vii) if the vehicle will not be licensed
for use on the public roads.
Part 12 is accordingly amended to add a new
centerhead and section as follows:
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment
Manufactured on or after January 1, 1968
§ 12.80 Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
(1) Standards prescribed by the Department
of Transportation. Motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment manufactured on or after
January 1, 1968, offered for sale, or introduction
or delivery for introduction in interstate com-
merce, or importation into the United States
are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (hereafter referred to in this section
as "safety standards") prescribed by the Secre-
tary of Transportation under sections 103 and
119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966. (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) as
set forth in regulations in 49 CFR Part 571.
A motor vehicle hereafter referred to in this
section as "vehicle" or item of motor vehicle
equipment (hereafter referred to in this section
as "equipment item"), manufactured on or after
January 1, 1968, is not permitted entry into the
United States unless (with certain exceptions
set forth in paragraph (b) of this section) it is
in conformity with applicable safety standards
in effect at the time the vehicle or equipment item
was manufactured,
(b) Requirements for entry and release.
(1) Any vehicle or equipment item offered
for importation into the customs territory of
the United States shall not be refused entry
under this seciton if (i) it bears a certification
label affixed by its original manufacturer in
accordance with section 114 of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
(15 U.S.C. 1403) and regulations issued there-
under by the Secretary of Transportation (49
CFR Part 567) (in the case of a vehicle, in the
form of a label or tag permanently affixed to
such vehicle or in the case of an equipment
item, in the form of a label or tag on such
item or on the outside of a container in which
such item is delivered), or (ii) it is intended
solely for export, such vehicle or equipment
M.V. IMPORT-1
item and the outside of its container, Lf any,
to be so labeled and tagged, or (iii) (for ve-
hicles only which have been exempted by the
Secretary of Transportation from meeting cer-
tain safety standards) it bears a label or tag
permanently affixed to such vehicle which
meets the requirements set forth in the regu-
lations of the Department of Transportation,
49 CFR 555.13.
(2) Any such vehicle or equipment item
not bearing such certification or export label
shall be refused entry unless there is filed with
the entry, in duplicate, a declaration signed
by the importer or consignee which states
that:
(i) Such vehicle or equipment item was
manufactured on a date when there were no
applicable safety standards in force, a verbal
declaration being acceptable at the option of
the district director of customs for vehicles
entering at the Canadian and Mexican bor-
ders; or
(ii) Such vehicle or equipment item was
not manufactured in conformity with ap-
plicable safety standards but has since been
brought into conformity, such declaration to
be accompanied by the statement of the
manufacturer, contractor, or other person
who has brought such vehicle or equipment
item into conformity which describes the
nature and extent of the work performed; or
(iii) Such vehicle or equipment item does
not conform with applicable safety stand-
ards, but that the importer or consignee will
bring such vehicle or equipment item into
conformity with such safety standards, and
that such vehicle or equipment item will not
be sold or offered for sale until the bond (re-
quired by paragraph (c) of this section)
shall have been released; or
(iv) Such vehicle is a new vehicle being
imported for purposes of resale which does
not presently conform to all applicable safety
standards because readily attachable equip-
ment items are not attached, but that there
is affixed to its windshield a label stating the
safety standard with which and the manner
in which such vehicle does not conform and
that the vehicle will be brought into con-
formity by attachment of such equipment
items before it will be offered for sale to the
first purchaser for purposes other than re-
sale; or
(v) The importer or consignee is a non-
resident of the United States, importing
such vehicle or equipment item primarily
for personal use or for the purpose of making
repairs or alterations to the vehicle or equip-
ment item, for a period not exceeding 1 year
from the date of entry, and that he will not
resell it in the United States during that
time: PROVIDED, That persons regularly
entering the United States by a motor vehicle
at the Canadian and Mexican borders may
apply to the district director of customs for
an appropriate means of identification to be
affixed to such vehicle which will serve in
place of the declaration required by this
paragraph; or
(vi) The importer or consignee is a mem-
ber of the armed forces of a foreign country
on assignment in the United States, or is a
member of the Secretariat of a public inter-
national organization so designated pursuant
to 59 Stat. 669 on assignment in the United
States, or is a member of the personnel of a
foreign government on assignment in the
United States who comes within the class of
persons for whom free entry of motor ve-
hicles has been authorized by the Department
of State and that he is importing such ve-
hicle or equipment item for purposes other
than resale; or
(vii) The importer or consignee is im-
porting such vehicle or equipment item
solely for the purpose of show, test, experi-
ment, competition, repairs or alterations and
that such vehicle or equipment item will not
be sold or licensed for use on the public
roads: PROVIDED: That vehicles imported
solely for purposes of test or experiment
may be licensed for use on the public roads
for a period not to exceed one year, where
such use is an integral part of tests or ex-
periments for which such vehicle is being
imported, upon condition that the importer
attach to the declaration a description of
the tests or experiments for which the ve-
M.V. IMPORT-2
hide is being imported, the period of time
during which it is estimated that it will be
necessary to test the vehicle on the public
roads, and the disposition to be made of the
vehicle after completion of the tests or ex-
periments.
(viii) Such vehicle which is not manufac-
tured primarily for use on the public roads
is not a "motor vehicle" as defined in section
102 of the National Traffic and Motor Ve-
hicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391);
or
(ix) Such vehicle was manufactured in
conformity with applicable safety stand-
ards, such declaration to be accompanied by
a statement of the vehicle's original manu-
facturer as evidence of original compliance.
(3) Any declaration given under this sec-
tion (except an oral declaration accepted at the
option of the district director of customs un-
der subparagraph (2) (i) of this paragraph)
shall state the name and United States address
of the importer or consignee, the date and
the entry number, a description of any equip-
ment item, the make and model, engine serial,
and body serial numbers of any vehicle or
other identification numbers, and the city and
State in which it is to be registered and prin-
cipally located if known, and shall be signed
by the importer or consignee. The district
director of customs shall immediately forward
the original of such declaration to the Na-
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration
of the Department of Transportation.
(c) Release under bond. If a declaration
filed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section states that the entry is being made under
circumstances described in paragraph (b) (2)
(iii), or under circumstances described in para-
graph (b) (2) (ii) or (ix) of this section where
the importer at time of entry does not submit a
statement in support of his declaration of con-
formity the entry shall be accepted only if the
importer gives a bond on Customs Forms 7551,
7553, or 7595 for the production of either a
statement by the importer or consignee that the
vehicle or equipment item described in the dec-
laration filed by the importer has been brought
into conformity with applicable safety stand-
ards and identifying the manufacturer, contrac-
tor, or other person who has brought such ve-
hicle or equipment item into conformity with
such standards and describing the nature and
extent of the work performed or a statement of
the vehicle manufacturer certifying original con-
formity. The bond shall be in the amount re-
quired under § 25.4(a) of this chapter. Within
90 days after such entry, or such additional
period as the district director of customs may
allow for good cause shown, the importer or con-
signee shall deliver to both the district director
of customs, and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration a copy of the statement
described in this paragraph. If such statement
is not delivered to the district director of cus-
toms for the port of entry of such vehicle or
equipment item within 90 days of the date of
entry or such additional period as may have
been allowed by the district director of customs
for good cause shown, the importer or consignee
shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the dis-
trict director of customs those vehicles or equip-
ment items, which were released in accordance
with this paragraph. In the event that any such
vehicle or equipment item is not redelivered
within 5 days following the date specified in the
preceding sentence, liquidated damages shall be
assessed in the full amount of a bond given on
Form 7551. When the transaction has been
charged against a bond given on Form 7553, or
7595, liquidated damages shall be assessed in the
amount that would have been demanded under
the preceding sentence if the merchandise had
been released under a bond given on Form 7551.
(d) Merchandise refused entry. If a vehicle
or equipment item is denied entry under the pro-
visions of paragraph (b) of this section, the
district director of customs shall refuse to release
the merchandise for entry into the United States
and shall issue a notice of such refusal to the
importer or consignee.
(e) Disposition of merchandise refused entry
into the United States; redelivered merchandise.
Vehicles or equipment items which are denied
entry under paragraph (b) of this section or
which are redelivered in accordance with para-
graph (c) of this section and which are not ex-
M.V. IMPORT-3
ported under customs supervision within 90 days
from the date of notice of refusal of admission
or date of redelivery shall be disposed of under
customs laws and regulations; Provided, however,
' That any such disposition shall not result in an
introduction into the United States of a vehicle
or equipment item in violation of. the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.
(Sec. 623, 46 Stat. 759, as amended, sec. 108,
80 Stat. 722; 19 U.S.C. 1623; 15 U.S.C. 1397)
Since motqr vehicles and items of motor vehicle
equipment subject to the standards prescribed in
49 CFR Part 571, may shortly be in transit to
United States ports of entry, it is important that
these regulations be put into effect at the earliest
possible date. It is therefore found that the ad-
vance publication requirement under 5 U.S.C.
553 is impracticable and good cause is found for
adopting these regulations effective upon publi-
cation in the Federal Register.
(SEAL)
Lester D. Johnson
Commissioner of Customs
APPROVED:January 2, 1968.
Matthew J. Marks,
Acting Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury
APPROVED:January 5, 1968.
Alan S. Boyd
Secretary of Transportation
33 F.R. 360
January 10, 1968
M.V. IMPORT-4
•& U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 — 2 8 7-632/21361
Jiiiiia
3 9999 06313 ^^^
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