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

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

Effattiv*: January 1, 1968 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 18) 



A proposal to amend §371.21 of Part 371, 
Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 
by adding Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger Cars; and Standard No. 110, 
Tire Selection and Rims — Passenger Cars; was 
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 
1967 (32 F.R. 10812). 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment. 

Compliance with the labeling requirements of 
Standard No. 109, established in accordance with 
section 201 of the National TraflSc and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1421), and 
the tread wear indicator requirements found in 
the standard may necessitate the modification of 
tire molds. Several tire manufacturers requested 
that additional time be allowed to modify these 
tire molds. After evaluation of all data received, 
it was determined that an effective date of 
August 1, 1968, for paragraphs S4.2.1 and S4.3 
would provide a reasonable amount of time to 
accomplish the necessary mold modifications. 

Many comments stated that no practical way 
is known to permanently affix a label onto the 
tire sidewall, as would have been required by 
proposed paragraph S4.3.1 until such time as a 
label is molded into or onto the tire. Accord- 
ingly, S4.3.1 of Standard No. 109 has been modi- 
fied to permit, until August 1, 1968, the use of a 
label or tag containing the required labeling in- 
formation not permanently molded into or onto 
the tire. 

Many comments objected to the limitations 
imposed by the maximum tire section width di- 
mensions specified in the tables of the notice. 
The Administrator has determined that addi- 
tional dimensional latitude is necessary, and 
therefore Standard No. 109 specifies that to pro- 



vide for tire growth, protective side ribs, orna- 
mentation, manufacturing tolerances, and design 
differences for each tire size designation, actual 
tire section width and overall tire width may 
exceed the section width specified in Table I of 
the Standard by 7 percent. 

In response to requests, additional tire size 
designations and load/inflation schedules were 
added when necessary information was available. 
In addition, Table I of Standard No. 109 and 
Table II of Standard No. 110 have been com- 
bined to collate related information. 

Persons desiring an amendment to Standard 
No. 109 adding tires not presently listed, should 
submit sufficient pertinent information relative 
to these tires in 10 copies to the Secretary of 
Transportation ; Attention : Motor Vehicle Safety 
Performance Service, National Highway Safety 
Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 
20591. 

Data received have shown that the rim refer- 
ences indicated in the proposed Standards were 
inadequate in coverage. Therefore, a more com- 
prehensive list of foreign and domestic trade 
association publications containing appropriate 
rim standards or practices has been referenced 
in the Standards. 

Data received demonstrated that the bead un- 
seating and tire strength requirements were in- 
appropriate for certain groups of small tires. 
Accordingly, tires were regrouped and the test 
values revised to provide requirements for these 
small tires that are proportional to the require- 
ments for other sizes of tires. 

Although Standard No. 109 applies to tires 
for use on passenger cars manufactured after 
1948, some of the tires covered by the Standard 
may also be used on earlier model vehicles. 



PART 571: S 109— PRE 1 



MkMv*: Jonuory 1, 194S 



The testing procedures set forth in the Stand- 
ard, size designations, and related data are based 
upon existing standards or practices using in- 
formation furnished by such organizations as 
the Society of Automotive Engineers, Federal 
Trade Commission, Tire and Rim Association, 
European Tire and Rim Technical Organization, 
Japanese Standards Association, Japan Automo- 
bile Tire Manufacturers Association, Rubber 
Manufacturers Association, Tyre Manufacturers 
Conference, Ltd., and the Society of Motor 
Manufacturers and Traders, Ltd. 

To permit production of sufficient quantities 
of tires complying with the requirements of 
Standard No. 109 after its effective date of Jan- 
uary 1, 1968, Standard No. 110 applies to pas- 
senger cars manufactured on or after April 1, 
1968. 

A single table of load/pressure values for 
radial ply tires was included in the notice and 
this was supported by many comments. Other 
comments stressed the importance of including 
different load/pressure values for optimum tire 
deflections. Although a single table of load/ 
pressure schedules combining these values for 
these radial ply tires would be desirable, it was 
not considered advisable to include such a table 
in the standard promulgated under the present 
notice. 

In accordance with section 201 of the Act, 
S4.3 of Standard No. 109 requires that each tire 
be labeled with the name of the manufacturer or 
his brand name and an approved code mark to 
permit the tire seller to identify the tire manu- 
facturer upon the purchaser's request. Any tire 
manufacturer desiring an approved code mark 
should apply for his code number assignment to 
the Secretary of Transportation; Attention: 



Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, Na- 
tional Highway Safety Bureau, Federal High- 
way Administration, U.S. Department of Trans- 
portation, Washington, D.C. 20591. 

Several comments, including the suggested use 
of a "load range" system, will be considered for 
future rulemaking. (See 32 F.R. 14279). 

Since it was clearly the intent of the Congress 
that, to enhance the safety of the general public, 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for 
tires become effective as soon as practicable, and 
since no adverse comments were received perti- 
nent to the proposed effective date presented in 
the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (32 
F.R. 2417), at a Government-industry technical 
meeting, and in the notice of proposed rulemak- 
ing (32 F.R. 10812), and no undue burden was 
demonstrated, good cause is shown that an ef- 
fective date earlier than 180 days after issuance 
is in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, is amended .... Standard No. 109 
becomes effective January 1, 1968, and Standard 
No. 110 becomes effective April 1, 1968. 

(Sees 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407) ; delegation of authority of Mar. 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 5606), as amended Apr. 6, 1967 (32 
F.R. 6495), July 27, 1967 (32 F.R. 11276), Oct. 
11, 1967 (32 F.R. 14277), Nov. 8, 1967). 

Issued in Washington, D.C, on November 8, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

32 F.R. 15792 
November 16, 1967 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 2 



Eff*ctlv«: January 1, 1968 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 
New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 18) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (32 
F.R. 15792) specifies tire dimensions and lab- 
oratory test requirements for bead unseating 
resistance, strength, endurance, and high speed 
performance; defines tire load ratings; and speci- 
fies labeling requirements for new pneumatic 
tires for use on passenger cars manufactured 
after 1948. 

Certain labeling requirements are set forth 
in S4.3, including, in paragraph (i), a require- 
ment for an approved recital (or the symbol 
specified in Figure 1) that the tire conforms to 
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand 
ards. Figure 1 contains lettering detail dimen- 
sions for that symbol. 

The Federal Highway Administration has de- 
termined that it is not necessary to specify the 
width and stroke of individual letters nor the 
space between letters if the overall length and 
height is specified, and that more latitude is 
needed in the depth and overall length require- 
ments for this symbol. Therefore, Standard No. 
109 is being amended by striking out the un- 
needed dimensions and by providing increased 
latitude for the letter depth and the overall 
length requirements. 

Since this amendment provides an alternative 
means of compliance, relieves a restriction, and 



imposes no additional burden on any person, 
notice and public procedure hereon are unneces- 
sary and good cause is shown that an effective 
date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in 
the public interest and the amendment may be 
made effective less than 30 days after publication 
in the Federal Register. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Standard No. 109 is amended by de- 
leting Figure 1 (32 F.R. 15794) and in its place 
inserting the following Figure 1. 

(Sees. 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407) ; delegation of authority of Mar. 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 6506), as amended Apr. 6, 1967 (32 
F.R. 6495), July 27, 1967 (32 F.R. 11276), Oct. 
11, 1967 (32 F.R. 14277), and Nov. 8, 1967 (32 
F.R. 15710)) 

This amendment becomes effective January 1, 
1968. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 11, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

33 F.R. 17938 
December 15, 1967 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 3-4 



MkHv* April 11, 1«6« 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 18R) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (32 
F.R. 15792), as amended (32 F.R. 17938), speci- 
fies tire dimensions and laboratory test require- 
ments for bead unseating resistance, strength, 
endurance, and high speed perf ormanace ; defines 
tire load ratings; and specifies labeling require- 
ments for new pneumatic tires for use on pas- 
senger cars manufactured after 1948. Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (32 F.R. 
15798) specifies tire selection and rims require- 
ments to prevent tire overloading. 

Figures 2 and 3 of Standard No. 109 are 
drawings of the bead unseating test fixture used 
in performing the test specified in S5.2. 

Section S5.4.2.3 specifies the 50 miles-per-hour 
test schedule for the tire endurance test. 

Tables I-A through I-H list the various tire 
types and sizes with proper load and inflation 
values. 

After review of Petitions for Reconsideration 
received under Docket No. 18R, the Administra- 
tor has determined that certain parts of Standard 
No. 109 require clarification, the tire tables need 
revision to include a number of new sizes and 
there is need for a table listing a new series of 
tires. 

In addition, Standard No. 110 requires an ad- 
ditional table to list alternative rims for tire and 
rim combinations not presently covered by the 
standard. 

Therefore, Standard No. 109 is being amended 
by- 

(a) Revising Figures 2 and 3, which depict 
the bead unseating test fixture, by adding one 
additional dimension to Figure 2 and a center- 
line and tangent line to Figure 3 ; 

(b) Specifying that the test required by 
S5.4.2.3 be conducted without pressure adjust- 
ment or other interruption; 



(c) In table I-A through I-H 

(1) Adding additional tire size designations ; 

(2) Adding footnotes permitting the use of 
the letter "H","S", or "V"; 

(3) Correcting typographical errors; 

(d) Adding Table I-J which lists a new series 
of low section height tires. 

In addition. Standard No. 110 is being 
amended by — 

(a) Revising paragraph S4.4.1 to include al- 
ternative rims, not presently listed in the refer- 
ences cited in the definition of Test Rim in S3 
of Standard No. 109 ; and 

(b) Adding a new table of approved alterna- 
tive rims. 

Since these amendments provide clarification 
and alternative means of compliance, relieve re- 
strictions, and impose no additional burden on 
any person, notice and public procedure hereon 
are unnecessary. The Administrator finds, for 
good cause shown, that no preparatory period is 
needed to effect compliance and it is therefore in 
the public interest to make the amendments ef- 
fective immediately. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Standard No. 109 (32 F.R. 15792), as 
amended (32 F.R. 17938), and Standard No. 110 
(32 F.R. 15798), are amended, effective April 11, 
1968 

(Sees. 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407) ; delegation of authority of March 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 5606), as amended Nov. 8, 1967 (32 
F.R. 15710)). 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 11, 1968. 
Lowell K. Bridwell, 
Federal Highway Administrator. 
33 F.R. 5944 
April 18, 196« 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 5-6 



Eff*ctlv*: S«pl*mb*r 27, 196B 



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



On September 11, 1968, the Federal Highway 
Administration published in the Federal Register 
amendments to Standard Nos. 109 and 110 (33 
F.R. 12842). Omitted from publication as part 
of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 were Tables 
1-A through 1-J. For the convenience of per- 
sons using the tables the preamble to the amend- 
ments published September 11, 1968, and the 
text of the amendments, as corrected by the ad- 
dition of the omitted tables are published below. 
Additionally, Appendix A of Standard No. 110 
has been changed to specify the information that 
should be submitted with requests for the addi- 
tion of alternative rim sizes. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 

109 (32 F.R. 15792), as amended (32 F.R. 17938 
and 33 F.R. 5944), specifies tire dimensions and 
laboratory test requirements for bead unseating 
resistance, strength, endurance and high speed 
performance; defines tire load ratings; and 
specifies labeling requirements for new pneumatic 
tires for use on passenger cars manufactured 
after 1948. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 

110 (32 F.R. 15798) as amended (33 F.R. 5949) 
specifies tire selection and rim requirements to 
prevent tire overloading. 

Tables 1-A through 1-J of Standard No. 109 
list various tire types and sizes with proper load 
and inflation values. 

Standard No. 109 is being amended to desig- 
nate Tables 1-A through 1-J as Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109. 

In addition, Table 1-H is being amended by 
adding additional tire size designations. 

Table I of Standard No. 110 is a list of alter- 
native rims for tire and rim combinations that 
are not contained in any reference in ■§ 3 of 
Standard No. 109. 



Standard No. 110 is being amended to desig- 
nate Table I as Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

In addition, the table is being amended by 
adding, as alternative rims for tire size 8.55x15, 
rim sizes 5V2-JK, 5i^-JJ, 5V2-J: F70-14, rim 
size 7JJ ; and G70-14, rim size 7JJ. 

Additionally, guidelines by which persons re- 
questing routine additions to Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109 and Appendix A of Standard 
No. 110, are set forth as introductory- language 
to both appendices. The guidelines provide an 
abbreviated rule making procedure for adding 
tire sizes to Standard No. 109, whereby the ad- 
dition becomes effective 30 days from date of 
publication in the Federal Register if no com- 
ments are- received. If comments objecting to 
the amendment warrant, the Administration will 
provide for additional rule making pursuant to 
the Rule Making Procedures for Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards (23 C.F.R. 216). 

Since these amendments provide an alternative 
means of compliance, relieve restrictions, and 
impose no additional burdens on any person, 
notice and public procedure hereon are unneces- 
sary and the Administrator finds, for good cause 
shown, that no preparatory period is needed to 
effect compliance and it is in the public interest 
to make the amendments effective immediately. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Section 
371.21 of Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Standard No. 109 (32 F.R. 16792), 
as amended (32 F.R. 17938 and 33 F.R. 6944), 
and Standard No. 110 (32 F.R. 15798), as 
amended (33 F.R. 5949), are amended effective 
this date as set forth below. 

These amendments are made under the author- 
ity of Sections 103 and 119 of the National 



PART 571 ; S 109— PRE 7 



EffKllva: S«pf«mb«r 27, 1968 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 J^ued in Washington, D.C., on September 27, 

(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) and tiie delegation from ' j^^ ^ Jamieson, Deputy 

the Secretary of Transportation, Part I of the Federal Highway Administrator 

Regulations of the Office of the Secretary (49 33 F.R. 1*964 

^ , ,, October 5, 1968 
C.F.R.§ 1.4(c)). 



PART 571 ; S 10^-PRE 8 



Effactiv*: March 10, 19«9 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 69-4; Notice No. 1) 



On October 5, 1968, the Federal Highway 
Administration published guidelines in the Fed- 
eral Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which routine 
additions could be added to Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109 and the Appendix A of Stand- 
ard No. 110. These guidelines provided an ab- 
breviated rule-making procedure for adding tire 
sizes to Standard No. 109 and alternative rim 
sizes to Standard No. 110, whereby the addition 
becomes effective 30 days from date of publica- 
tion in the Federal Register if no objections to 
the proposed additions are received. If com- 
ments objecting to the amendment warrant, 
rule making pursuant to the rule-making proce- 
dures for motor vehicle safety standards (49 
CFR Part 353) will be followed. 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
petitioned for the addition of the C70-15 tire 
size designation to Table I-B and the F60-15 
tire size designation as a new categorj' of tire to 
be listed within the tables. The Firestone Tire 
& Rubber Company has petitioned for the addi- 
tion of the E50C-16, F50C-16, and H50C-17 
tire size designations as a new category of tires. 

On the basis of the data submitted by the 
Rubber Manufacturers Association and the Fire- 
stone Tire & Rubber Company indicating com- 
pliance with the requirements of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 and 
other information submitted in accordance with 
the procedural guidelines set forth. Appendix A 
of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 is 
being amended and Table I of Appendix A of 
Standard No. 110 is being amended. 



In consideration of the foregoing, f 371.21 of 
Part 371 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Appendix A of Standard No. 109 (33 F.R. 
14964) and Appendix A of Standard No. 110 
(33 F.R. 14969) are amended as set forth below 
effective 30 days from date of publication in the 
Federal Register. 

These amendments are issued under the dele- 
gation of authority published October 5, 1968 
(33 F.R. 14964) and sections 103 and 119 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) and the delegation 
from the Secretary of Transportation, Part I of 
the Regulations of the Office of tiie Secretary 
(49 CFR 1.4(c)). 

Issued on February 3, 1969. 

H. M. Jacklin, Jr. 

Acting Director 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

Performance Service 

National Highway Safety Bureau 

Motor Vohicio Safety Standard No. 109 

(1) Table I-B of Appendix A is amended by 
inserting between the tire size designation L70-14 
and D70-15 . . . new tire size C70-15 data. 

(2) . . . Tables I-K and I-L are added to 
Appendix A listing new categories of tire size 
designations. 

34 F.R. 1908 
February 6, 1969 



PART 571 ; S 109— PRE 9-10 



t 



c 



EffKllv*: MoKh 15, 1969 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 69-3; NoHce No. 1) 



The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting 
amendments to Table I-A and Table I-B of 
Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109 — New Pneumatic Tires — Pas- 
senger Cars. 

The petition requests the following changes : 

(1) In Table I-A for tire size designation 
8.25-15 the minimum size factor be changed from 
37.57 inches to 35.57 inches. 

(2) In Table I-B for tire size designation 
D70-13 the minimum size factor be changed from 
32.32 ih<^hes to 32.34 inches; for tire size desig- 
nation D70-14 the minimum size factor be 
changed from 32.87 inches to 32.81 inches ; for tire 
size designation F70-14 the minimum size factor 
be changed from 34.18 inches to 34.16 inches; 
for tire size designation G70-14 the minimum 
size factor be changed from 35.14 inches to 35.18 
inches; for tire size designation J70-14 the 
minimum size* la^tor be changed from 36.91 
inches to 36.87 inchesj for tire size designation 
L70-14 the minimum size factor be changed from 
37.69 to 37.62 and the section width be changed 
from 9.80 inches to 9.76 inches; for tire size 
designation D70-16 the minimum size factor be 
changed from 33.34 inches to 33.37 inches and 
the section width be changed from 7.75 inches to 
7.70 inches; for tire size designation E70-15 the 
minimum size factor be changed from 34.17 
inches to 34.13 inches; for tire size designation 
F70-15 the minimum size factor be changed 
from 34.91 inches to 34.89 inches; for tire size 
designation G70-15 the minimum size factor be 
changed from 36,68 inches to 35.66 inches; for 
tire size designation H70-15 the minimum size 
factor be changed from 36.68 inches to 36.64 
inches; for tire size designation J70-15 the mini- 
mum size factor be changed from 37.34 inches 



to 37.36 inches; and for tire size designation 
K70-16 the minimum size factor be changed 
from 37.62 inches to 37.66 inches. 

RMA states in its petition that the requested 
changes are either (1) corrections of typographi- 
cal errors in material submitted earlier by the 
RMA, upon which the present tables found in 
Appendix A of Standard No. 1 9 are based; or 
(2) slight modifications that reflect the most 
recently calculated data. 

The request changes are being made. However, 
should any comments be received from interested 
persons objecting to, and giving reasons why the 
changes should not be made, the amendment will 
be modified as considered appropriate. 

Since, to the extent they are other than cor- 
rective, these amendments make only minor 
technical changes at the request of the affected 
industry, the Administrator finds that, for good 
cause, notice of public procedure thereon is im- 
practicable and unnecessary. Interested persons 
may submit written data, views, or arguments 
relating to the amendments. Comments should 
identify the Docket (No. 69-3) and be submit- 
ted in an original and three copies to the Na- 
tional Highway Safety Bureau, Rules Docket, 
Room 512, Federal Highway Administration, 
Washington, D.C. 20591. All comments submit- 
ted will be available for examination by inter- 
ested persons at the docket room. 

In consideration of the foregoing, section 371.21 
of Part 371 (formally section 255.21 of Part 265), 
Tables I-A and I-B of Appendix A of Federal 
Motor "Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 as 
amended (33 F.R. 19714) is amended effective 
March 15, 1969 .... (Sees. 103 and 119 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966; (16 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); and the dele- 
gation of authority contained in § 1.4(c) of 



PART 671; S 109— PRE 11 



Eff«tiv«: Mprch 15, 1969 

Part I of the Regulations of the Office of the 
Secretary (49 CFR 1.4 (c)). 

Issued in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 
1969. 



John R. Jamieson, Deputy 
Federal Highway Administrator 

34 F.R. 2252 
February 15, 1969 



L 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 12 



i 



IffwMv*) Jonuoiy 1, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Doclcet No. 69-12; Notice No. 2) 



A proposal to amend Part 571 (formerly Part 
371), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger 
Cars" was published on July 11, 1969 (34 F.R. 
11501), as a notice of proposed rule making to 
deleite the exemption for deep-tread, winter-type 
tires contained in the high-speed requirements. 
Interested persons were invited to submit com- 
ments to this notice. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
109 (49 CFR 571.21), as amended (33 F.R. 
19711), specifies tire dimensions and laboratory 
test requirements for bead unseating resistance, 
strength, endurance and high-speed performance ; 
defines tire load ratings; and specifies labeling 
requirements for new pneumatic tires for use on 
passenger cars manufactured after 1948. 

Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 109 specifies 
that for the high-speed performance aspects of 
the standard, tires are to be tested at 76 m.p.h. 
for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. for 30 minutes, and 
(except for deep-tread, winter-types tires) 85 
m.p.h. for 30 minutes. 

Because, in actual practice, deep-tread, winter- 
type tires are often repaired to perform at the 
same rate of speed as other type passenger car 
tires it was considered in the public interest to 
amend S5.5.4 to require the same level of high- 
speed performance of deep-tread, winter-type 
tires as other type tires are required to meet. 

Several comments, including comments from 
one association representing new tire manufac- 
turing companies, stated that the deep- tread, 
winter-type tires had groove depths deeper than 
conventionally treaded tires and that shoulder 



temperatures of the tires on the laboratory test 
wheel operating at 80 m.p.h. are comparable to 
actual highway speeds in excess of 100 m.p.n. 
These commentators also indicated that to com- 
ply with the proposed amendment, the tread 
depths and lug configurations for the deep-tread, 
winter-type tires would have to be redesigned. 
However, research conducted for the Bureau has 
indicated that all deep-tread, winter-type tires 
when properly designed and constructed will 
conform to the present high-speed requirements 
for conventionally treaded passenger car tires. 
In addition, test wheel data submitted show that 
although the temperature of the crown of the 
tire of deep-tread, winter-type tires may rvm, 
higher during the high-speed wheel test the dif- 
ference in shoulder temperature appears insig- 
nificant 

Since deep-tread, winter-type tires murt often 
perform at the same motor vehicle speeds and 
driving conditions as conventionally treaded 
tires, it is in the public interest that they meet 
the same minimum performance levels. 

In oonsiaeration of the above, Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 paragraph 
85.5.4 is amended 

This amendment becomes effective January 1, 
1971. 

Issued on July 8, 1970. 

Douglas W. Toms, 

Director, 

National Highway Safety Burwiu 

35 F.R. 11241 
July 14, 1970 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 13-14 



r 



^ 



Effective: December 1, 1970 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 70-2; Notice No. 2) 



A propK>sal to amend Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard 109, New Pneumatic Tires — 
Passenger Cars, 49 CFR Part 571, was published 
on April 22, 1970 (35 F.R. 6440). The purpose 
of the proposed rule was to prevent the sale of 
tires that failed to pass the passenger car tire 
standard Motor Vehicle Safety (Standard No. 
109) but were nevertheless being sold for pas- 
senger car use. As indicated in the notice of the 
proposed rule, Bureau investigations disclose 
that this has been a widespread practice. The 
use of such tires on passenger cars is considered 
a safety hazard. 

In spite of the notice and press releases on the 
subject, the Bureau has found that unscrupulous 
distributors and dealers are continuing to buff 
off restrictive labeling on the tires and are selling 
them to unsuspecting members of the public. 
This amendment is therefore necessary to control 
the relatively large number of tires being re- 
classified and to provide a better means of en- 
forcing the regulation against persons who are 
selling these tires for passenger car use. 

The amendment changes the passenger car tire 
standard to require tires that are not certified by 
the manufacturer as complying with the pas- 
senger car tire standard to be branded with the 
phrase "Unsafe for Highway Use" and to have 
a label attached indicating that sale of the tire 
for passenger car use subjects the person selling 
the tire to a $1,000 civil penalty. The amend- 
ment also requires tire manufacturers to report 
to the Bureau periodically on the number of 
these tires sold and the names of distributors or 
dealers to whom they are sold. 

Interested persons have been offered an oppor- 
tunity to participate in the making of this amend- 
ment. It was almost unanimously agreed that 



there should be some restrictions placed on tires 
that had not been certified as complying with 
Standard No. 109. Several comments to the 
notice objected, however, to the requirement that 
the phrase "Unsafe for Normal Highway Use" 
be on the tire, on the ground that the word 
"Normal" was ambiguous. This designation has 
been found to have merit, and the word "Normal" 
has been omitted from the required phrase. 

The requirement that the phrase be superim- 
posed upon the manufacturer's name, or brand 
name, with lettering three-quarters of an inch 
high was objected to because the phrase would 
not be legible and could be easily removed. To 
avoid these problems, the requirement has been 
changed to provide that the phrase "Unsafe for 
Highway Use" be placed between the maximum 
section width and the tread and the height of the 
lettering reduced to one-half inch. 

The proposal that the lettering of the term 
signifying the tire was unsafe for highway use 
be one-sixteenth of an inch deep was objected to 
because some tire casings have less than one- 
sixteenth of an inch of rubber on the outside of 
the sidewall and the alternative of one-half the 
thickness of the rubber covering the outside ply 
was not meaningful because the thickness coidd 
not always be determined. However, it is essen- 
tial that the lettering be deep enough so that any 
attempt to buff it off will be easily recognizable 
and, therefore, the requirement that the lettering 
be one-sixteenth of an inch deep is being main- 
tained. The change from the proposal to allow 
the lettering to be located anywhere between the 
maximum section width and the tread will allow 
the manufacturer to select a location where the 
rubber thickness is sufficient to impress lettering 
one-sixteenth of an inch. 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 15 



■ff*cHv«i D*«*mb«r 1, 1970 



Some comments suggested that the words 
"tube" or "tubeless" be required on the tire, even 
though the tire would not be used for passenger 
care. This suggestion has been adopted in the 
final rule. 

The requirement that the maximum inflation 
pressure and the maximum load ratting be on the 
tire was omitted because they pertain to tires 
manufactured for passenger car use, not tires for 
off-road usage. 

Some comments objected to the requirement 
tlhat manufacturers report the quantity and serial 
numbers of reclassified tires sold and the names 
of distributors and dealers who purchase them. 
It was argued that keeping track of serial num- 
bers, and distributors or dealers the tires were 
sold to would be burdensome and serve no safety 
related purpose. The Bureau feels that report- 
ing of reclassified tiree that are unsafe for high- 
way use will provide the necessary control over 
these reclassified tires to assure that the tires will 
not be sold for passenger car use. Therefore, the 
reporting requirements have been maintained. 



In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49 — 
Transportation, Chapter V — National Highway 
Safety Bureau, Department of Transportation, 
Subchapter A — Motor Vehicle Safety Begula- 
tions, Part 571 — Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires — Pas- 
senger Cars is amended. 

Effective date : December 1, 1970. 

Since this amendment is designed to prevent 
a practice which can endanger the lives and prop- 
erty of the general public and because no com- 
ments were received objecting to the proposed 
effective date of December 1, 1970, in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking, good cause is shown that 
an effective date earlier than 180 days after issu- 
ance is in the public interest. 



Issued on October 22, 1970. 



Douglas W. Toms, 
Director 

35 F.R. 16734 
Oclob«r 29, 1970 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 16 



<t 



EffKllva: May 22, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71^; Notice No. 1) 



Federal Motxjr Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
109, 49 CFR Part 571, as amended (35 F.R. 
16735), specifies requirements for passenger car 
tire dimensions and laboratory test requirements, 
defines tire load ratings, specifies labeling re- 
quirements and sets forth the limited conditions 
under which passenger car tires that are not 
certified as complying with the standard may be 
sold. One of the labeling requirements of the 
standard (S4.3(d)) is that each tire be labeled 
on both sidewalls with the manufacturer's name 
or, if the tire is a brand name tire, with the 
brand name and an approved code mark assigned 
the manufacturer by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (formerly the Na- 
tional Highway Safety Bureau). Another label- 
ing requirement (S4.3(i)) in the standard is that 
each tire contain on both sidewalls a certification 
statement or the symbol DOT, constituting the 
manufacturer's certification that the tire conforms 
to the standard. Both of these requirements are 
aflFected by the Tire Identification and Record- 
keeping Regulation (49 CFR Part 574), as re- 
vised and published in this issue of the Federal 
Register (36 F.R. 1196), in that the Tire Iden- 
tification and Recordkeeping Regulation specifies 
the location of the DOT symbol and requires 
that it be on either sidewall of the tire. Part 574 
also establishes a system whereby all tire manu- 
facturers apply for an assigned two-symbol code 
designation which is to be part of the tire iden- 
tification number and placed on either sidewall. 
It is intended that these requirements take the 
place of the requirements in Standard No. 109 
tihat tire manufacturers be assigned a three- 
number code and that it be placed on both side- 
walls of brand name tires. 



In view of the above, S4.3 of the passenger car 
tire standard is amended as set forth below to 
reconcile the requirements of Standard No. 109 
with the requirements of the Tire Identification 
and Recordkeeping Regulation. 

In addition, the labeling requirements (S4.3) 
are changed as set forth below to make it clear 
that each tire shall be labeled with only one size 
designation found in the tables in Appendix A 
of Standard No. 109, except that tires may have 
equivalent inch and metric size designations. 
The labeling requirements are further changed 
by deleting the paragraph which deals with tires 
manufactured before August 1, 1968, since the 
exception is no longer relevant. 

Requirements for reclassified tires (S6.) are 
being amended to provide that the serial number 
required by S6.1(c), and the manufacturer's code 
symbol, if used, can be on either sidewall. 

It is further noted that the correction published 
in the Federal Register of November 26, 1970 
(35 F.R. 18118), was inaccurately stated as "for 
the period covering November 1, 1970 through 
July 31, 1971". Actually, the phrase to be cor- 
rected was "for the period covering December 1, 
1970 through July 31, 1971." S6.2 should read 
"for the period covering December 1, 1970 
through June 30, 1971", and for clarity S6.2 is 
republished with the correct language. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 109 of § 571.21 of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, is amended. 

Effective date : May 22, 1971. 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 17 



EffccMvt- May 22, 1971 

Because this amendment to Standard No. 109 Issued on January 19, 1971. 

relieves restrictions, clarifies the intent expressed 

in the standard, makes a correction to the stand- Douglas W. Tons, 

ard and imposes no additional burden on any Acting Administrator, National 

person, notice and request for comments on such Highway TraflSc Safety Ad- 

notice are found to be unnecessary and imprac- ministration 

ticable, and good cause is shown that an eflFective 

date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in 36 F.R. 1195 

the public interest. January 26, 1971 



t 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 18 



»c 



4, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-6; Notice 1) 



On January 26, 1971, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pub- 
lished in the Federal Register (36 F.R. 1196) a 
revision of Part 574, Tire Identification and 
Record Keeping (Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 
5) to become effective May 22, 1971. Part 574, 
as revised, provides that the DOT symbol, con- 
stituting the manufacturer's certification that 
the tire conforms with applicable motor vehicle 
safety standards, must be above, below, or to the 
left or right of the tire identification number. 
In addition, under this part the tire identification 
number must include, as the first grouping within 
the number, a two-symbol code assigned by the 
NHTSA that identifies the manufacturer of the 
tire. This notice amends Standard No. 109 of 
Part 571, in order to allow manufacturers, at 
their option, to convert to the new tire identifi- 
cation system before the May 22, 1971, effective 
date. 

The requirements of Part 574 relating to the 
certification symbol and the manufacturer's code 
number will take the place of the requirements 
in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Part 
.571 of this chapter, that the tire manufacturers 
place the DOT symbol and an assigned three- 
digit code number (in the case of brand-name 
tires) on both sidewalls. Accordingly, a notice 
published January 26, 1971 (36 F.R. 1195), 
amends Standa'rd No. 109, effective May 22, 1971, 
to reconcile the requirements of that standard 
with the requirements of the Tire Identification 
and Record Keeping Regulation. 



The Administration has received requests that 
tires manufactured before May 22, 1971, the 
effective date of Part 574, that are marked as 
prescribed by that part, not be required to be 
labeled on both sidewaUs with the DOT symbol 
and the manufacturer's three-digit code required 
by Standard No. 109. 

The requests have been found reasonable. In 
order to avoid unnecessary costs and allow for a 
smoother transition to the new requirements, 
Standard No. 109 is by this notice amended to 
provide that tires manufactured from March 1, 
1971 to May 22, 1971, shall either meet the re- 
quirements of § 574.5, or, on both sidewalls, con- 
tain the DOT symbol and the manufacturer's 
three-digit code number required by S4.3(d) and 
S4.3(i) of Standard No. 109. Thus, tires manu- 
factured during this period may be marked ac- 
cording to the current system, the new one 
effective May 22, 1971, or both. 

Because this amendment to Standard No. 109 
relieves restrictions and imposes no additional 
burden on any person, it is found that notice 
and public procedure thereon are unnecessary 
and impracticable, and that, for good cause 
shown, an effective date earlier than 180 days 
after issuance is in the public interest. 

Issued on February 26, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms, 
Acting Administrator 

36 F.R. 4290 
March 4, 1971 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 19-20 



e 



ir 



EffMtIv*: Octobai 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

Reclassified Tires 
(Docket No. 70-2; NoHce 4) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, to prohibit the 
manufacture and sale of passenger car tires that 
do not meet the performance requirements of the 
standard. Such tires are presently allowed to be 
sold as "reclassified tires." A notice proposing 
this action was published on November 27, 1971 
(36 F.R. 22688). 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New 
Pneumatic Tires," was amended October 29, 
1970 (35 F.R. 16743), to allow passenger car 
tires which manufacturers did not certify as 
conforming to the performance tests of the stand- 
ard, to be sold for off-highway purposes. The 
amendment required such tires to be labeled so 
that purchasers would be aware that they were 
considered unsafe for highway use. Moreover, 
manufacturers of such tires were required to re- 
port semi-annually to the NHTSA the nimiber 
of tires sold. The purpose of the requirement 
was to allow the sale of such tires for off-high- 
way purposes where a legitimate market existed 
for low-priced inexpensive tires, and where the 
fact that they failed to meet Federal perform- 
ance tests would not pose a threat to users. De- 
spite the conditions imposed by this amendment, 
the NHTSA continued to receive reports that 
significant numbers of these tires were being sold 
by unscrupulous dealers for passenger car, on- 
highway use. 

Based upon its investigative efforts, and the 
material submitted to the docket in response to 
the notice of November 27, 1971, the NHTSA 
has determined that the continued sale of these 
tires should be prohibited, and that the substance 
of the rule proposed on November 27, 1971, 
should be implemented. Data which the NHTSA 
receives from manufacturers show an annual 



production of these tires in the neighborhood of 
200,000 units. The NHTSA has concluded that 
it cannot by enforcement measures alone prevent 
a significant number of these tires from being 
sold as "reclassified tires" for use on motor 
vehicles. 

As indicated in the preamble to the notice of 
November 27, the tire industry manufactures 
tires designed specifically for off-road applica- 
tions which are not greatly more expensive than 
most reclassified tires. The dangers that may 
result from vehicles equipped with substandard 
tires far outweigh, in the opinion of NHTSA, 
the economic benefits obtainable from allowing 
these tires to be sold for off-road purposes. 

Certain issues raised by the comments to the 
notice of proposed rulemaking have been de- 
termined to be of merit, and they are incorpo- 
rated into this amendment. The comments 
pointed out that the reference to all tires of the 
type and size designation found in the appendix 
of Standard No. 109 included tires other than 
passenger car tires, namely, certain tires manu- 
factured for agricultural purposes that are not 
required to conform to Standard No. 109. As 
issued, this amendment applies only to those tires 
of a type and size designation appearing in the 
appendix of Standard No. 109 that are designed 
for use on passenger cars. 

The comments also pointed out that prohibit- 
ing the sale of these tires as of the amendment's 
effective date would penalize many dealers who 
may have large stocks of such tires on hand. It 
was not the NHTSA's intention to penalize 
dealers, who in good faith have purchased such 
tires for sale as "reclassified tires" under existing 
regulations, but rather to prevent the further re- 
classification of tires by manufacturers, and to 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 21 



Effective: October 1, 1972 



require them to dispose of such tires in a way 
that their use as motor vehicle equipment will be 
impossible. This amendment, therefore, applies 
to tires manufactured (not sold) after its effec- 
tive date and prohibits, after that date, the 
further reclassification of tires and their sale by 
manufacturers. "Reclassified tires" presently 
on dealer's shelves may continue to be distributed 
and sold in accordance with the existing provi- 
sions (S6.) of Standard No. 109 dealing with 
reclassified tires imtil supplies are exhausted. 

The comments further pointed out that the 
language of the notice that prohibited the sale 
of these tires "for any purpose" would not allow 
them to be sold even for scrap materials. The 
comments indicated that advantageous uses for 
scrap tires are presently being developed. The 
NHTSA has no reason to prevent the sale of 
these tires if their use as motor vehicle equipment 
is impossible, and the amendment allows their 
sale as scrap materials. 



In light of the above, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires," ap- 
pearing at 49 CFR 571.109, is amended .... 

Effective date: October 1, 1972. The purpose 
of this amendment is to prevent a practice which 
is in violation of existing regulations, and whose 
continuance poses a threat to all users of the 
highways. Accordingly, it is hereby found that 
good cause exists for an effective date less than 
180 days from the day of issuance. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, 119, and 201 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1401, 1407, 1421) and the delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on August 11, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 16604 
August 17, 1972 



PART 571 ; S 109— PRE 22 



EffacHva: July 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-23; Notice No. 2) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneu- 
matic Tires", to require safety labeling informa- 
tion to be placed on the tire between the 
maximum section width and the bead, in order 
that this information can be retained on the 
casing if the tire is retreaded. A notice of pro- 
posed rulemaking regarding this subject was 
issued on December 21, 1971 (36 F.R. 24824). 

A majority of the comments received in re- 
sponse to the notice agreed with the intent of the 
proposed amendment. However, objections were 
raised to the proposed requirement that the label- 
ing information be located between the maximum 
section width and the bead on bath sidewalls. 
The comments indicated that the use of white- 
wall designs limited the area between the section 
width and the bead, and that as a consequence, 
certain labeling information is placed between 
the maximum section width and the shoulder 
area to comply with the labeling requirements 
of Standard No. 109. Placing the information 
between maximum section width and bead on 
both sidewalls would evidently require the re- 
designing both of molds and lines of tires. 

The agency has concluded after review of the 
information submitted to the docket that all 



labeling information should be located on both 
sidewalls of the tires as presently required by 
Standard No. 109. However, in response to the 
objections to the proposed requirements, only one 
sidewall is required to have the labeling infor- 
mation between the maximum section width and 
the bead. This will still allow information to be 
retained on casings so that retreaders need not 
relabel tires in meeting the requirements of 
Standard No. 117 (49 CFR 571.117). 

In light of the above, Paragraph S4.3 of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneu- 
matic Tires", § 571.109 of Title 49, Code of Fed- 
eral Regulations, is amended .... 

Effective Date: July 1, 1973. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, 113, 114, 119 and 201 of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 
15 use 1392, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1407, 1421, and 
the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on October 31, 1972. 

Charles H. Hartman 
Acting Administrator 

37 F.R. 23536 
Novombor 4, 1972 



PART 671 ; S 109— PRE 23-24 



r 



( 



t 



EffKHv*: July 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 71-23; NoHce 3) 
(Docket No. 1-8; Notice 10) 



This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards Nos. 109 and 117 (49 CFR 571.109) 
to reduce the minimum size of permanent safety 
labeling to 0.078 inches. Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires," was 
amended November 4, 1972 (37 F.R. 23536), to 
specify both a location on the tire sidewall for 
safety labeling and a labeling size of not less 
than %2 of an inch. Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires", 
was amended March 23, 1972 (37 F.R. 9590), to 
specify permanent labeling of the same minimum 
size. 

The Michelin Tire Company has protested 
that the %2 inch minimum size is inconsistent 
with the existing practice of European tire 
manufacturers of labeling tires in letters having 
a size of 0.078 inches (2nmi). It has pointed 
out that as a consequence of the amendment, 
European tire manufacturers will have to in- 
crease the size of all existing labeling. The 
NHTSA has concluded that the difference be- 
tween letters 0.078 inches in size and those of 
0.093 inches is not significant, and does not jus- 
tify the resultant expense to manufacturers of 
modifying tire molds. By this notice the 
NHTSA therefore reduces the minimum size to 
0.078 inches for labeling required by S4.3 of 
Standard No. 109. 



Because the permanent labeling provisions of 
Standard No. 117 are intended to be ultimately 
met with new tire labeling, the size requirements 
for permanent labeling in that standard are also 
modified. 

In light of the above. Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109, and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, 49 CFR 
571.117, are amended as follows : 

Effective dates: July 1, 1973, for the amend- 
ment to S4.3 of 49 CFR 571.109; February 1, 
1974, for the amendment to S6.3.2 of 49 CFR 
571.117. These amendments relieve an imneces- 
sary restriction without a significant effect on 
motor vehicle safety. Consequently, it is found 
for good cause that notice and public procedure 
thereon are unnecessary, and that an effective 
date less than 180 days from the day of issuance 
is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 113, 114, 119, 201, Pub. L. 
89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1402, 
1403, 1407, 1421; delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on March 8, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Acting Administrator 

38 F.R. 6999 
March 15, 1973 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 25-26 



f 



t 



t 



Effactiva: March 29, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-10; Notice 3) 



This notice amends the requirements for high 
speed performance and endurance applicable to 
passenger car tires in Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires", by 
adding additional criteria to the description of 
tire failure. A notice of proposed rulemaking 
on which this amendment is based was published 
September 20, 1972 (37 F.R. 19381). That notice 
proposed to modify the criteria for tire failure 
in both Standard No. 109 and Standard No. 117, 
"Retreaded Pneumatic Tires". As the tests for 
high speed performance and endurance have 
been revoked in Standard No. 117, this amend- 
ment affects only the requirements of Standard 
No. 109. 

The proposal of September 20, 1972, was de- 
signed to expand the description of tire failure 
to include certain characteristics which had ap- 
peared in tires tested by NHTSA, and which 
were considered to be evidence of potential in- 
service tire failure, but which were not spe- 
cifically prohibited by the existing language of 
the standard. These conditions included tread- 
groove cracking, deep sidewall separations, and 
damage to areas such as the tire innerliner. 
Standard No. 109 presently prohibits tires tested 
to the high speed performance and endurance 
tests of the standard from exhibiting "tread, ply, 
cord, or bead separation, chunking, or broken 
cords". The proposal would have prohibited, as 
a result of either of the two tests, the displace- 
ment of any tire component from its design po- 
sition, including partial or complete separation 
of any component from any other component, 
but would not have prohibited exposure of chafer 
fabric and surface cracking that did not expose 
ply cord or belt cord. Any crack in a tread 
groove that exceeded three-sixteenths of an inch 



in length would, however, have also been pro- 
hibited. The proposal also contained an "air- 
loss" test, which would have required the tire to 
retain at least 95 percent of its initial inflation 
pressure when measured immediately after each 
performance test. 

Numerous comments were received in response 
to the proposal. AVhile most were in agreement 
with its general purpose, to provide a more in- 
clusive definition of tire failure, almost all dis- 
agreed with the method proposed. The principal 
objection, raised by the Rubber Manufacturers' 
Association and major tire companies, was that 
the proposed language was too broad: that it 
included within the concept of tire failure many 
conditions that were in no way detrimental to 
tire performance. It was pointed out that many 
such conditions might exist in tires before lab- 
oratory wheel tests had been conducted and were 
considered by industry to be no more than in- 
consequential manufacturing imperfections. The 
comments argued that such conditions included 
cracking at an innerliner splice, innerliner blis- 
ters, innerliner folds, mold off-register, sidewall 
blisters, light tread, tearing or chipping of tread 
element, cord impression in the bead area, light 
bead, and bead cracks at the toe. The comments 
suggested as an alternative to the proposed lan- 
guage that the requirements be revised to spe- 
cifically include the problem conditions that 
NHTSA testing had produced, and provided 
possible definitions to describe these conditions. 

The NHTSA has determined that this sug- 
gested approach will satisfy the purpose of the 
proposal, and adopts it essentially as suggested 
by the domestic tire industry. Prohibitions 
against sidewall and innerliner separation, 
cracking, and open splices will be added to 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 27 



EffMtiva: March 29, 1974 



the standard. New definitions, for "inner- 
liner" and "innerliner separation", "cracking", 
"open splice", and "sidewall separation" are 
added to the standard. These definitions are 
essentially as suggested by the Rubber Manu- 
facturers' Association, with the exception of 
"innerliner separation". The suggested defini- 
tion would have limited tire failures involving 
innerliner separation to those demonstrating air 
loss. The NHTSA has not adopted this air-loss 
restriction for the following reasons. First, the 
NHTSA is of the opinion that innerliner sepa- 
ration exhibited on a "hot tire", one having just 
completed either of the laboratory wheel tests, 
is evidence of potential in-service tire failure, 
irrespective of whether actual air loss has oc- 
curred at that point. Second, the air-loss test 
adopted for the standard, and discussed in 
greater detail below, measures only a gross, or 
substantial air loss occurring during the test, 
and not the type of lesser air-loss that might 
result from an innerliner separation. 

The standard is presently silent with respect 
to the method for determining whether the pro- 
hibited tire conditions exist. Se\ernl comments 
proposed that the failure modes be determined 
"visually". One comment suggested that touch, 
or X-rays, be specified. As amended, the stand- 
ard specifies that prohibited conditions will, con- 
sistently with the larger body of opinion, be 
determined visually. This method is that used 
by NHTSA in past testing, and it has proven 
satisfactory. It is specifically included in the 
standard for purposes of clarification, but is not 
intended to preclude the use of simple hand 
magnification. 

The standard is likewise silent on the issue of 
a given tire's condition before the running of 
the two laboratory wheel tests. The position 
taken by NHTSA in its enforcement of this 
standard up to now is that the specified labora- 
tory tests are not required to be performed in 
order for a tire to be considered a failure, when 
the tire evidences any of the prohibited condi- 
tions before it is subjected to either test. The 
Rubber Manufacturers' Association submission 
to this docket implicitly reflects this point of 
view. The substance of that submission was that 
the proposed langiuige would have categorized 
as failures certain conditions which appear in 



untested, newly manufactured tires. The NHTSA 
is specifically amending Standard No. 109 in 
this issuance to reflect past agency interpretation / 

and enforcement practice, by adding to the gen- 
eral requirements language prohibiting any tire 
before test from exhibiting those characteristics 
prohibited after either of the laboratory wheel 
tests. 

One comment requested that a minor loss of 
tread resulting from the micro-siping process 
should not be considered a failure, despite the 
fact that this condition arguably comes within 
the prohibitory language. The position of the 
NHTSA is that micro-siping should be treated 
similarly to any other manufacturing process. 
Consequently, the removal of very small tread 
section during micro-siping, which is part of the 
manufacturing process, will not be considered 
a nonconformity. However, where the chunk- 
ing of tread occurs as a result of the specified 
laboratory wheel tests, it will be considered a 
failure regardless of its amount. 

One comment argued that the proposed test 
procedure, calling for a test rim that undergoes 
no permanent deformation, was not reflective of 
actual conditions. It argued that such a rim 
would have to be of massive construction, and 
suggested alternatively the continued use of ( 

existing test rims. The comment misunderstands 
the purpose of the procedure. The condition 
precluding any permanent deformation of the 
rim is intended only to ensure, together with the 
other language regarding air loss, that any air 
leaks will result necessarily from the tire, and 
not the test device. In other words, the provi- 
sion is inserted to ensure that the tire will not 
be "blamed" for any air loss due to rim deforma- 
tion. The condition that the rim undergo no 
permanent deformation is not intended to re- 
quire the manufacture of a new genre of test 
rims; in practice, test rims currently in use do 
not deform significantly during the laboratory 
wheel test procedures, and the amended regula- 
tion will not prevent their continued use. 

Many comments objected to the proposed air 
loss test, requiring the tire to have at least 95 
percent of its original cold inflation pressure 
when tested immediately after both the high 
speed and endurance tests. The comments argued 
that conducting an air-pressure reading imme- 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 28 



Effective: March 29, 1974 



diately after the running of the tests was poten- 
tially hazardous to persons conducting the test. 
In addition, certain comments argued that the 
95 percent air-retention requirement was inade- 
quate, in that the test called for the measurement 
to be made on a "hot" tire, and the pressure 
would be significantly less if the tire were first 
allowed to cool. 

The NHTSA has retained in the amendment 
both an air-loss test, and the requirements that 
the measurement be made, as proposed, imme- 
diately after both the high speed and endurance 
tests are completed. The XHTSA believes that 
inspection of the tire to determine if any pro- 
hibited conditions exist should be made when the 
tire is still at the higher temperatures created 
during the laboratory tests. As tires do increase 
in temperature during actual use, tlie inspection 
of tested tires at higher temperatures provides a 
more realistic environment for the discovery of 
conditions that can result in failure. Thus, it 
becomes mandatory to conduct the air-loss test 
immediately after the tire has been subjected to 
the laboratory wheel tests in order that the inside 
of the tire can be examined for failure modes 
while the tire is still at higher temperatures. 

The NHTSA does not consider an objection to 
a test requirement on tiie basis that it may pre- 
sent a hazard to testing personnel to have merit. 
Test laboratories are places where products are 
subjected to extreme, often destructi\e, processes 
under controlled conditions by trained techni- 
cians using whatever equipment and safeguards 
are necessary, in order to assure the safety of the 
public that must use those products under uncon- 
trolled conditions without comparable training 
or safeguards. The XHTSA is not indifferent 
to the safety of test technicians. On tiie con- 
trary, it urges those in charge of test laboratories 
to take all necessary steps to assure the safety 
and health of their employees. But if a par- 
ticular method of running a regulatory test such 
as the one in question here is found hazardous 
to test personnel, the proper remedy is not to 
change the regulation, but to devise methods and 



equipment to perform the test process safely. 
The NHTSA is confident that modern technology 
and the testing profession are equal to the task. 

The argument that the proposed test allowed 
a significant air loss to occur is meritorious. The 
NHTSA has modified the proposal by restricting 
the allowable air-loss to not less than the tire's 
inflation pressure at the beginning of the tests. 
Admittedly, this modification is not fully re- 
sponsive to the comments, for this requirement 
permits as well a rather significant air loss. 
However, the air-loss test is designed to prevent 
only gross, exaggerated air-loss, and not instances 
of slow air leaks. Moreover, while tire inflation 
pressure will increase under test, it appears that 
the amount of increase may vary greatly from 
test to test. Variables such as tire expansion 
may also affect any increase in inflation pressure. 
Consequently, it is difficult to establish a value, 
in excess of the original i)ressure, that can ac- 
curately indicate a condition of air loss. The 
XHTSA has determined, therefore, to require 
only that the tire, when hot, have at least its 
initial cold inflation pressure. This lowers the 
amount of permissible air loss from that pro- 
posed, prohibits the exaggerated air loss which 
is XHTSA"s primary concern, and still takes 
into account the variations in inflation pressure 
increase that may occur. 

In light of the above. Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard Xo. 109, "Xew Pneumatic Tires,'' ap- 
pearing at 49 CFR § 571.109, is amended. . . . 

Effective date : March 29, 1974. 

(Sections 103, 119, 201, and 202 Public Law 
89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, 
and 1422; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51.) 

Issued on September 24, 1973. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 27050 
September 28, 1973 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 29-30 



t 



EfFecllva: March 29, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-10; Notice 5) 



This notice responds to petitions for reconsid- 
eration received in response to the notice, pub- 
lished September 28, 1973 (38 F.R. 27050), 
revising the performance requirements of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 
571.109). That notice modified the criteria for 
tire failure when tires are subjected to the high 
speed performance and endurance tests of the 
standard. 

Timely petitions for reconsideration were re- 
ceived from five parties: The Firestone Tire and 
Rubber Company, Rubber Manufacturers' Asso- 
ciation, Uniroyal Tire Company, B. F. Goodrich 
Tire Company, and the General Tire and Rubber 
Company. The petitions requested the agency to 
reconsider the definition of "innerliner separa- 
tion" and the requirement that the tire be re- 
moved from the test wheel for inspection 
immediately after the prescribed tests are com- 
pleted. 

The petitions have argued that the definition 
of "innerliner separation" (a "parting of the 
innerliner from the carcass") is inconsistent with 
the definition of "carcass" ("the tire structure, 
except tread and sidewall rubber"), for the for- 
mer unlike the latter creates the inference that 
the innerliner is not part of the carcase. One 
petitioner (B. F. Goodrich) argued that inner- 
liner should not be considered part of the carcass 
and would redefine carcass to so specify. The 
NHTSA agrees with the comments which argue 
that the definition of "innerliner separation" 
should reflect that the innerliner is part of the 
carcass. That definition is accordingly modified 
as recommended by the petitions to mean a sepa- 
ration of the innerliner from the cord material 
of the carcass. The NHTSA believes no ascer- 
tainable benefit would be achieved by further 



distinctions within the definition of "carcass." 
The requirement prohibiting the separation of 
the innerliner from the carcass cord material is 
the same whether or not the definition of "car- 
cass" is further refined. 

The petitions also state that innerliner is fre- 
quently composed of more than one layer of 
material. The definition of innerliner is revised 
to take this into account. However a separation 
of one innerliner layer from another does not 
constitute "innerliner separation" under the 
standard. That term means only a separation 
of the innerliner from the carcass cord material. 
The requirements specify that "visual evidence" 
of enumerated conditions will constitute a failure 
to the standard. The NHTSA believes the 
visual test, which has been consistently used in 
the past, to be satisfactory. However, in the 
case of innerliner separation, the visual evidence 
may not reflect an actual separation of the cord 
material from the innerliner. In such cases the 
standard is not intended to preclude a more de- 
tailed examination of the condition, including a 
cutting of the tire. This procedure has been 
afforded to manufacturers in past NHTSA en- 
forcement efforts, and is considered consistent 
with the revised requirements. 

The petitions also requested modification of 
the requirement that each tested tire be removed 
from the test wheel for inspection immediately 
after its testing is completed. The petitions 
argue that rapid deflation of a hot tire can cause 
innerliner separation. While several petitions 
recommended that the tire be allowed to cool to 
ambient temperature, Uniroyal has indicated that 
a one-hour period had been found sufficient to 
eliminate the chance that artificially caused 
separations will occur. The NHTSA agrees with 
the comment from Uniroyal that a one-hour 



PART 571 ; S 109— PRE 31 



Efftctlva: March 29, 1974 



period is adequate for the tire to cool and has 
amended the standard accordingly. 

The Rubber Manufacturers' Association has 
argued that minor nicks and tears in the tread 
which would not grow in size during service 
might be improperly considered "chunking" 
under the standard. RMA alludes to the dis- 
cussion of the micro-siping process in the pre- 
amble to the notice of September 28, 1974, 
claiming it recognizes that small pieces of the 
tread can be broken away which do not affect 
performance. The standard is clear that chunk- 
ing in a new tire before testing will be considered 
a failure. A minor tear in the tread does not 
appear to involve a removal of rubber from the 
tire, and is not within the definition of chunking. 
Whether a "nick" in the tread represents chunk- 
ing would necessarily be based on its size. As in 
micro-siping, minor tread loss resulting from the 
manufacturing process that is evident before test 
does not constitute a failure. Any loss resulting 
from the laboratory wheel test is a failure. 



In light of the above, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires," ap- 
pearing at 49 CFR 571.109, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: March 29, 1974. This amend- 
ment modifies slightly amendments whose effec- 
tive date was originally established as the above 
date on September 28, 1973. As these amend- 
ments relieve restrictions, provide clarification, 
and impose no additional burden on any person, 
good cause is found for an effective date less than 
30 days from publication. 

(Sees. 103, 110, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on March 25, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 



39 F.R. 11423 
March 28, 1974 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 32 



EfFeclive: January 1, 1968 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 74-29; Notice 1) 



This notice republishes and corrects the text of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 
(49 CFR § 571.109a), excluding Table I of the 
Appendix. 

The corrections eliminate both typographical 
errors which occurred in the codification of the 
standard (in the Code of Federal Regidations) 
and material now extraneous as a result of 
amendments to the standard and the adoption of 
the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Regu- 
lations, 49 CFR Part 574. The corrections are 
as follows: 

(1) Figure 1 is deleted, and Figures 2 and 3 
are redesignated Figures 1 and 2 respectively. 

(2) Paragraph S5.2.1.3 and 85.2.2.1 are modi- 
fied to reflect the changes in the designations of 
Figures 2 and 3. 

(3) Paragraph S6 is corrected to reflect the 
amendment of August 17, 1972 (37 F.R. 16604), 
by deleting paragraph S6.1 and the paragraphs 
following. 



The notice also redesignates the standard as 
§ 571.109. The previous designation, § 571.109a, 
resulted from an amendment (38 F.R. 27050, 
September 28, 1973) with a future effective date 
(March 29, 1974) outstanding at the time the 
most recent version of the Code was published. 
The passing of that effective date eliminates the 
need for Section 571.109a. 

In light of the above, § 571.109a (excluding 
Table I of the Appendix) of Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, is redesignated § 571.109 
and corrected and republished .... 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, 1422; dele- 
gations of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on August 7, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 31322 
August 28, 1974 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 33-34 



Effeclive: October 7, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

(Docket No. 74-3; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) to specify 
the use of test wheels having up to 6 test posi- 
tions in NHTSA compliance testing. A notice 
of proposed rulemaking regarding this subject 
was published January 10, 1974 (39 F.R. 1516). 

Standard No. 109 has not previously specified 
the number of test positions which may be pres- 
ent on any given test wheel. Agency testing has 
been conducted on test wheels having up to six 
positions, which appears to be the maximum ca- 
pacity of these wheels. The NHTSA is of the 
opinion that this testing is fully consistent with 
the standard's test procedure, but in order to 
avoid legal disputes has decided to clarify the 
standard by specifically incorporating into it 
NHTSA's present compliance testing practice. 

The one comment which was received regard- 
ing the proposal did not object to the amend- 
ment's substance, but requested that temperatures 
be carefully monitored in NHTSA testing. The 
test temperature is specified in the standard and 
applies to each test regardless of the number of 
positions on a given test wheel. The NHTSA 



will continue to carefully monitor its tire testing 
program to ensure the accuracy of the results 
obtained. 

In light of the above, 49 CFR § 571.109 (Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109) is amended 
by the addition of a new paragraph (f) in 
S4.2.1 .... 

Effective date: October 7, 1974. This amend- 
ment is clarifying in nature, reflecting present 
practice, and poses no additional burden on any 
person. Consequently, good cause is found for 
an eifective date less than 180 days from publi- 
cation. 

(Sees. 103, 108, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89- 
563; 80 Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1.397, 1407, 
1421, 1422; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51.) 

Issued on August 30, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 32321 
September 6, 1974 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 35-36 



Effective: August 5, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 74-25; Notice 2) 



This notice amends the definition of "test rim" 
in 49 CFR 571.109 (Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 109) and modifies related provisions of 
tha't section and section 571.110 (Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 110). A conforming 
amendment is made to similar provisions in sec- 
tion 571.119 (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 119). The notice of proposed rulemaking 
on which this amendment is based was published 
on July 10, 1974 (39 F.R. 25329). 

The definition of "test rim" has previous to 
this amendment referenced the 1967 and earlier 
editions of publications of various foreign and 
domestic tire and rim associations as the source 
for determining rim specifications and appro- 
priate tire/rim matching information for testing 
tires to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, and for equipping passenger 
cars pursuant to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 110. The Rubber Manufacturers' Associa- 
tion petitioned that this reference be changed 
because the publications have become outda/ted 
in terms of the rim information they provide. 
This amendment, which adopts the proposed 
rule of July 10, 1974, in essentially the form 
proposed, deletes the references to the 1967 and 
earlier publications and substitutes for them the 
publications of the various associations current 
at the time of tire manufacture. 

Under the amendment, a "test rim" will be 
any rim listed for use with a tire size designation 
in any of the current publications of the various 
foreign and domestic tire and rim associations. 
The listing will apply to all tires that fit the 
description (by tire size designation, use category, 
etc.) unless the publication itself or a separately 
published manufacturer's document srtates other- 
wise. A manufacturer wishing to except any 



tire manufactured by him from any listing would 
be expected to request the association to publish 
the exception in its publication. If it does not, 
the manufacturer must himself publish the ex- 
ception in his own listing, which he must dis- 
tribute to his dealers, this agency, and to any 
member of the public on request. The language 
of the proposal is clarified, and a conforming 
amendment made to Standard No. 119 to show 
that an exception must be published in each 
association publication listing the tire and rim 
combination. The amendment further specifies 
that a "listing"' of a rim must contain dimen- 
sional specifications, including diagrams, for the 
rim. This is necessary to provide for uniformity 
of rim dimensions and reflects the present prac- 
tice of association publications of publishing 
such dimensional specifications. However, di- 
mensional specifications or a diagram of a rim 
need not be included in manufacturers' separate 
listings if the specifications and diagram for the 
rim appear in each association publication where 
it is listed. 

By referencing the current publications, the 
amendment ends the need for Appendix "A" of 
Standard No. 110, which lists tire/rim combina- 
tions approved for use subsequent to the 1967 
and earlier associations publications. The asso- 
ciations and various manufacturere should ascer- 
tain that all tire/rim combinations presently 
listed in that Appendix are incorporated into at 
least one of their respective publications before 
the effective date of this amendment. Moreover, 
the addition of new tire/rim combinations sub- 
sequent to the effective date becomes the sole 
responsibility of the industry. Appendix "A" 
of Standard No. 109, listing tire size designa- 
tions, is not affected by this amendment. 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 37 



Effective: August 5, 1975 



An efTect of the amended definition of test rim 
is to clarify this agency's ix)sition that each tire 
must be able to pass eacli performance require- 
ment (except that for physical dimensions) of 
Standard No. 109 with any rim with which it is 
listed, regardless of rim width, unless that tire 
is specifically excepted from each listing where 
it appears. The requirements for physical di- 
mensions must be met only on a test rim of the 
width specified for the tire size designation in 
Standard No. 109. A tire failing the require- 
ments on any test rim would be considered as 
having failed the requirements on all test rims. 
This continues existing NHTSA enforcement 
policy. 

One of the two comments received regarding 
the proposal objected to this aspect of the amend- 
ment, arguing that some manufacturers have 
traditionally certified conformity on the basis of 
test results using only the test rims of the speci- 
fied test rim width and that no safety problems 
had been encountered. The NHTSA believes, 
however, that the interest of safety demands that 
manufacturers ensure that tires certified as con- 
forming to Standard No. 109 will conform to 
the standard's requirements on any rim which 
the manufacttirer lists for use ^vith the tire and 
with which the tire may consequently be used in 
service. This position has been reflected in the 
guidelines for the additions of new tire/rim 
combinations to the Appendix of Standard No. 



110, which have required that the manufacturer 
demonstrate conformity to Standard No. 109 on 
each newly recjuested rim. If a manufacturer 
doubts the ability of his tires to conform to the 
standard on certain recommended rims, he has 
the option of excepting his tires from being used 
with those rims. No other objections to the pro- 
posed rule were received. 

In light of the above, amendments are n:!ade 
to 49 CFR §§ 571.109, 571.110, and 571.119 .... 

Effective date: August 5, 1975 for Standard 
No. 109 and 110; March 1, 1975, for Standard 
No. 119. The' amendment to Standard No. 119 
is of a clarifying nature, and should be made 
effective with the existing effective date of that 
standard. The amendment does not require sub- 
stantial leadtime for conformity, and it is fovmd 
for good cause shown that an effective date less 
than 180 days from publication is in the public 
interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. §§1392, 1407, 1421, 1422; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on January 31, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 5529 
February 6, 1975 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 38 



( 



Effective: March 7, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 74-25; Notice 4) 



This amendment of safety Standard No. 109, 
New Pnewmatic Tires, permits the manufacture 
of both a new series of tires having load ratings 
and inflation pressures expressed in metric units 
and a newly designed tire having a maxim""! 
inflation pressure of 60 psi. The change 
metric-unit tires accommodates a world- wx. 
standardization process, and the change for 60- 
psi tires accommodates tires designed as substi- 
tutes for conventional spare tires, in order to 
reduce the overall weight of, and increase storage 
space in, passenger cars. 

Eifective date: March 7, 1977. 

For further information contact: 

Arturo Casanova 
Office of Crash Avoidance 
Motor Vehicle Programs 
National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration 
Washington, D.C. 20590 
(202-426-1715) 

On September 30, 1976, the NHTSA published 
a proposed rule (41 FR 43192) to amend the 
requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 
571.109) as indicated in the summary statement. 
All comments received supported the amend- 
ments, except that Dunlop Corporation suggested 
that adoption of metric-series tires be delayed 
while other approaches to the world-wide stand- 
ardization of tire sizes and nomenclature are 
studied. Because the agency's ability to further 
modify the standard in response to future stand- 
ardization efforts is not hindered by final action 
on metric-series tires, the proposed changes are 
adopted, for the reasons set forth below. 

TIRE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and the 
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) peti- 



tioned for the adoption of new requirements and 
test specifications necessary to permit the produc- 
tion of a metric-series family of tires that differ 
in specification and construction from existing 
tire types. The metric-series tires have load rat- 
ings expressed in kilograms (in place of pounds) 
and inflation pressures expressed in kilopascals 
(kPa) (in place of pounds per square inch 
(psi)). 

Firestone Tire and Rubber Company petitioned 
for the adoption of new requirements and test 
specifications necessary to permit the production 
of a "temporary use" spare tire that differs sub- 
stantially in specification and construction from 
conventional tires. This tire type has a higher 
inflation pressure (60 psi), different dimensions, 
and a shorter treadwear life than conventional 
tires. In some cases its diameter may differ from 
that of the conventional tires it is designed to 
replace. 

The NHTSA concluded that the new tire types 
should be accommodated by appropriate revisions 
of the requirements and test specifications, as 
long as they can meet the same safety perform- 
ance levels of the standard as conventional tires 
do. Data supplied by Firestone indicate that no 
significant degradation of vehicle handling occurs 
when the 60-psi tire is used on a vehicle in con- 
junction with three conventional tires, despite the 
substantial differences in its construction and 
other characteristics. 

Endurance and high-speed performance. The 
standard sets forth endurance and high-speed 
performance requirements that are conducted by 
pressing the tire against a test wheel at various 
levels of force. The appropriate force levels are 
taken from tables of information contained in 
the standard that list each passenger car tire size 
presently produced for use in the United States. 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 39 



EffecHve: March 7, 1977 



In anticipation of deletion of these tire tables, 
the agency proposed that the appropriate force 
levels for the new tire types be stated as percent- 
ages of the maximum load rating of the tire, 
corresponding to the values set out in the stand- 
ard's existing tables, but without the need to add 
additional tables to the standard. 

Vehicle manufacturers, the RMA, and Good- 
year requested that, in the case of metric-series 
tires, the new force levels be adopted using tire 
tables instead of the percentage method. De- 
tailed review of the proposal demonstrates that 
use of a flat percentage would have an unintended 
result. Specifically, the tire selection standard 
for passenger cars (Standard No. 110, Tire Se- 
lection and Rims (49 CFR 571.110)) requires 
that the normal load-carrying ability assigned to 
a tire be no more than that used for the test 
loading in the Standard No. 109 high-speed per- 
formance test. Thus, the practical result of 
replacing specifically assigned test loads in Stand- 
ard No. 109 with percentages would be an unin- 
tentional reduction of the tire's assignable 
load-carrying capabilities in some cases. Good- 
year and the RMA provided tire tables for the 
metric-series tires that specify values that are 
approximately the same as the percentage values 
proposed. 

Having reviewed these comments and the tables 
provided by the tire industry, the NHTSA finds 
that test values derived from the tables are, for 
safety purposes, virtually the same as the per- 
centage values proposed and therefore fall within 
the ambit of the proposal. Accordingly, the 
agency has decided to incorporate additional 
tables in the standard as the basis for amend- 
ments of the high speed and endurance require- 
ments for metric-series tires. Percentage values 
are required for the 60-psi tires because their tire 
tables do not list the appropriate values. 

The general issue of deletion of tire tables from 
Standard No. 109 will be addressed comprehen- 
sively in future rulemaking. 

With regard to the new tire tables, Goodyear 
and the RMA noted that additional metric-series 
tire sizes have been developed since the submis- 
sion of their petitions. Firestone noted that ad- 
ditional 60-psi type tires have also been added to 
those proposed. These commenters asked that 



the additional tire listings be added to the stand- 
ard. Although not proposed, the agency believes 
that the new listings can be added to the standard 
in the same manner that routine tire table changes 
are regularly made by the agency in accordance 
with published procedures (33 FR 14964, October 
5, 1968) (39 FR 28980, August 31, 1974). These 
guidelines specify procedures by which routine 
additions are made without notice, unless any ob- 
jection is subsequently received.. 

Testing of a conventional tire on a test wheel 
is conducted at the "design" load level (with 
overloading in the case of endurance testing up 
to the maximum load rating of the tire) and 
corresponding inflation pressure. Because the 
60-psi tire does not have a "design" load level but 
only a single load level at its maximum inflation 
pressure of 60 psi, the agency used this single 
load level as if it constituted the design load 
level. The RMA demonstrated that the single 
load level of these tires is more accurately char- 
acterized as its maximum load level, and that a 
lower load level would constitute the tire's design 
load. Because the 60-psi tire is intended only for 
occasional use as a spare tire, it is not assigned 
the lower "design" load ratings that are provided 
in the case of conventional tires to improve ve- 
hicle ride. 

The NHTSA accepts this view of the 60-psi 
tire's design load rating and makes appropriate 
adjustments in the tables that appear in S5.4.2.3 
and S5.5.1. In the case of inflation pressures, 
52- and 58-pound values are utilized in Table III, 
consistent with comparable values for conven- 
tional tires. 

Strength requirements. The agency proposed 
breaking energy requirements for the new tire 
types that are comparable to those for existing 
tires. The only comment on these proposed 
amendments were RMA suggestions for modifica- 
tion of terminology and the statement of break- 
ing energy values in Table III. The test values 
are made final as proposed. 

The RMA believed that reference to tires with 
a certain "designated" section width would be 
clarified by reference to "specified" section width 
instead. The agency disagrees, and notes that 
the word "designated" conveys the intended 
meaning that section width characteristics are 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 40 



EBectlve: MoKh 7, 1977 



controlled by the manufacturer and not "speci- 
fied" by this or any other Federal regulation. 

In its comments on this and other aspects of 
the proposal, the RMA suggested that the listing 
of English-system equivalents following metric- 
system values (and vice versa) would improve 
the clarity and informational value of Standard 
No. 109. General Motors Corporation (GM) also 
encouraged the listing of measurement equivalents 
in safety standards. 

The agency believes it made clear in its pro- 
posal the reason why the publication of equiv- 
alent values in a motor vehicle safety standard 
is totally inappropriate. Motor vehicle safety 
standards are not informational or advisory 
documents but rather are minimum standards 
which must be complied with on pain of civil 
penalty. For this reason they must be stated 
objectively, without confusion. Because the 
equivalence of the metric and English systems is 
not exact, using significant figures, the listing of 
approximate English-system equivalents in the 
standard would produce some confusion concern- 
ing what are the real test conditions or perform- 
ance levels required. For example, several 
NHTSA requirements specify a 30-mph barrier 
crash as a procedure underlying certain minimum 
crashworthiness capabilities. If the metric equiv- 
alent (49 km/h) were list«d next to this 30-mph 
value, it would convey the impression that the 
manufacturer (and the agency) has the choice 
whether to test at 30 mph or at 30.4 mph. Thus, 
the statement of an "equivalent value" that is not 
in fact equivalent only confuses in a regulatory 
environment where objectivity is important and 
is required by statute (15 U.S.C. § 1392(a)). For 
this reason, the RMA suggestion to add English- 
system and metric equivalents to Table II and 
the GM suggestion to add "dual dimensioning" 
throughout the standard are not adopted. 

Physical dhnensions. The NHTSA proposed 
a "growth allowance" for the new tire types that 
is comparable to the requirement for existing 
tires, with the addition of a 0.4-inch minimum 
for technical reasons in the case of both the 
metric-series tires and the 60-psi tire. Goodyear 
and the RMA requested that the 0.4-inch allow- 
ance be restated as a 10-millimeter allowance, in 
view of its association with metric series tires. 



These requests are denied, because the 0.4-inch 
allowance is also associated with the 60-psi tire 
which does not have metric values. As a general 
matter, the agency intends to make a systematic 
change to metric measurements in its standards, 
rather than making isolated and arbitrary 
changes which consist of simple substitutions of 
near equivalents without regard to the basic units 
of the metric system. 

Tubeless tire resistance to head unseating. The 
NHTSA proposed that the force levels which 
must be sustained by conventional tubeless tires 
without bead unseating should be modified appro- 
priately for the 60-psi tire because of its unchar- 
acteristic section width. No objection was made 
to thQ proposed performance values and they are 
made final without change. The RMA noted 
that its earlier recommendations for test fixture 
modification should be implemented in two minor 
respects based on further testing of the new tire 
type. One dimension of the text fixture should 
have been three-tenths-of-an-inch longer than 
proposed, and the cross section of the bead un- 
seating block should have been narrower to avoid 
contact with the rim on which the tested tire is 
mounted. The agency considers these minor 
modifications from the proposed values to fall 
within the scope of the proposal and adopts the 
changes in the final rule. 

TIRE LABELING 

The NHTSA proposed that the metric-unit in- 
flation pressure and load rating on metric-series 
tires be supplemented by English-system equiv- 
alents on the tire sidewall. Unlike the confusing 
listing of near-equivalent values in a performance 
standard, the use of equivalent markings on the 
tire sidewall can be of substantial benefit to the 
user without introducing confusion. No com- 
menter objected to the proposed supplementary 
markings, and they are made final as proposed. 
General Motors suggested that "rounding" con- 
ventions be established to further assist the con- 
sumer. The agency does not wish to restrict the 
tire manufacturer's latitude in this area, and de- 
clines to adopt this suggestion in the absence of 
a demonstrable safety problem. 

The agency proposed that the legend "Inflate 
to 60 psi" appear on the sidewall of the new 
60-psi tire to make clear its distinctive inflation 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 41 



Effective: March 7, 1977 



requirement. The RMA suggested that the pro- 
posed limits on location of the legend should be 
somewhat relaxed in view of the comparatively 
small size of the 60-psi sidewall. The agency 
agrees that some relaxation of the requirement is 
justified. As made final, location of the legend 
is limited to the area between the tire shoulder 
and the bead of the tire. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 

The agency specifically addressed the possibil- 
ity that consumers would have difficulty with the 
unconventional characteristics of the 60-psi tire, 
and that some safety problems could result from 
the confusion. The only problem raised by the 
agency that was responded to by comment«rs was 
the issue of storage of a large conventional tire 
after replacement by the smaller 60-psi tire, as- 
suming that the car's trunk were full. Comment- 
ers minimized the extent of the problem, and 
Firestone noted that a majority of tires fail when 
the vehicle has been parked for a significant 
period of time, not on the highway. 



In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) is amended. . . . 

Effective date fnding: Because the amend- 
ments relieve a restriction and do not create 
additional requirements for any person, and be- 
cause of vehicle manufacturers' need to settle on 
allowable tire designs as soon as possible, an 
immediate effective date is found to be in the 
public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 112, 114, 119, 201, 202, Pub. L. 89- 
563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 
1407, 1421, 1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on March 1, 1977. 



John W. Snow 
Administrator 



42 F.R. 12869 
March 7, 1977 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 42 



( 



c 



Effective: March 23, 1978 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 74-25; Notice 6) 



This amendment clarifies the applicability of 
the Fi^re 2A bead unseating block and corrects 
typographical errors in Figure 2A. This amend- 
ment is made pureuant to a request from the 
Rubber Manfacturers Association (RMA). 
Effective Date: March 23, 1978. 
For Further Information Contact: 
John A. Diehl, Crash Avoidance Division, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590 (202-426-1715). 

Supplementai-y Information : The Rubber Man- 
ufacturers Association (RMA) has petitioned the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) to amend the language of S5.2.1.3 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) 109 to clarify that only a Figure 2A 
l)ead unseating block is to be used in testing tires 
having an inflation pressure of 60 psi. The cur- 
rent language has created imcertainty as to 
whether only the Figure 2A block must be used, 
or whether both the Fig-are 2 and Figure 2A 
blocks must be used, depending on the type of 
tire being tested. In addition, the RMA re- 
(juested the correction of several typographical 
errors in Figure 2A. 



The NHTSA agrees that the current language 
is ambiguous and that Figure 2A contains in- 
accuracies. The NHTSA therefore finds both 
RMA requests to be reasonable, and they are 
granted. 

As this amendment is interpretative in nature 
and reflects current understanding and practice, 
it is found for good cause that notice and public 
procedure thereon are unnecessary, and that an 
immediate effective date is in the public interest. 

The principal authors of this document are 
John A. Diehl, Crash Avoidance Division, and 
Robert M. Churella, Office of Chief Counsel. 

Accordingly, paragraph S5.2.1.3 of 49 CFR 
§ 571.109 is amended 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422) ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on March 17, 1978. 

Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

43 F.R. 12015 
March 23, 1978 



PART 571; S 109— PRE 43-44 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 80-01; Notice 1) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to petitions by the Rubber 
Manufacturers Association (RMA) and the Michelin 
Tire Corporation (Michelin), this notice amends 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 
New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars, by adding 
certain tire size designations to Appendix A of that 
standard. This amendment permits the introduction 
into interstate commerce of the new tire sizes. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 30 days from the date of 
publication in the Federal Register, if objections 
are not received before that date. March 20, 1980. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. 
80-01 and be submitted to Docket Section, Room 
5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. (Docket hours 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

John Diehl, Office of Automotive Ratings, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20950 (202-426-1714). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

According to agency practice, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
responds to petitions for adding new tire sizes to 
Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 by 
quarterly issuing final rules under an abbreviated 
rulemaking procedure for expediting such routine 
amendments. Guidelines for this procedure were 
published at 33 FR 14964; October 5, 1968, and 
amended at 36 FR 8298; May 4, 1971; 36 FR 13601; 
July 22, 1971; and 39 FR 28980; August 13, 1974. 
These guidelines provide that these final rules 
become effective 30 days after their date of publica- 
tion if no comments objecting to them are received 



by NHTSA during this 30 day period. If objections 
are received, regular rulemaking procedures for 
issuing and amending motor vehicle safety standards 
are initiated. 

On November 27, 1979, RMA petitioned for the 
addition of a new tire size to an existing table within 
Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 109. RMA 
also petitioned on December 4, for the addition of 
three other tire sizes to existing tables in Table I. 
Further, RMA petitioned on December 4, for the 
addition of a new table to Table I, and requested that 
this new table list two tire sizes. Michelin petitioned 
for the addition of two new tires sizes to an existing 
table on November 7, 1979. On November 26, 
Michelin petitioned for the establishment of a new 
table to Table I, and that this table include a new tire 
size. The bases for accepting or denying requests to 
add new tire size designations are set forth in the 
introductory guidelines to Appendix A. Briefly, the 
tests are the appropriateness of the information 
submitted for inclusion in the tire tables, and the ap- 
propriateness of the requested location within the 
tables of the requested tire sizes. The eight new tire 
size designations requested to be added to Standard 
No. 109 appear to meet these criteria. Accordingly, 
the RMA and Michelin petitions are granted, and 
eight new tire sizes are added to Table I of Appendix 
A of the Standard pursuant to the abbreviated 
rulemaking procedure. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.109 is amended as specified below, subject to 
the 30 day comment period outlined above: 

§ 571.109 New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Appendix amended) 

1 . Tables I-KK, I-RR, and I- WW are amended by 
adding the following new tire size designations and 
corresponding values: 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 45 



Table I-KK 
tire load rating, test rims, minimum size factors and section widths for "p/60" series iso type tires 







Maximum tire loads (kilograms) at various cold inflation pressures (kPa) 




Test rim 


Minimum 

size factor 

(mm) 


SecUon ' 
width 
(m-n) 




120 


140 160 180 200 220 240 


260 


280 (inches) 


P265/60 R 15 


645 


695 745 790 835 875 915 


950 


985 7 


943 


262 







' The letter "H", "S", or "V" may be included in any specified tire size designation adjacent to the "R". 
■ Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified section width by more than 7 percent. 

Table I-RR 

TIRE load RATING, TEST RIMS, MINIMUM SIZE FACTORS AND SECTION WIDTHS FOR "P/65" SERIES ISO TYPE TIRES 

ALL MILLIMETRIC FOR TR OR JM RMS 







Maximum tire loads (kilograms) 


at 


various 


cold inflation 


pressures (kPa) ' 




Test rim 
u-idth 


Minimum 

size factor 

(mm) 


Section ' 
wklth 




120 


140 


160 


180 




200 


220 


240 


260 


280 (mm) 


(mm) 


PI 95/65 R 365 


400 
535 


430 
575 


460 
615 


490 
655 




515 
690 


540 
720 


565' 
755 




135 
165 


800 
894 


194 


P225/65R39 


228 



' The letter "H", "S", or "V" may be included in any specified tire size designation atjjacent to the "R". 
' Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified section width by more than 7 percent. 
' The letter "D" for diagonal and "B" for bias-belted may be used in place of the "R" 

Table I-WW 
TIRE LOAD RATING. TEST RIMS. MINIMUM SIZE FACTORS AND SECTION WIDTHS FOR "P/es" SERIES ISO TYPE TIRES 







Maximum tire loads (kilograms) at various cold inflation 


pressures (kPa) 






Test rim 
width 
(inches) 


Minimum 

size factor 

(mm) 


Section ' 




120 


140 


160 


180 


200 


220 


240 


260 


280 


(mm) 


P196/65R13 

P205/65R14. ... 


375 
425 
650 


400 
460 
705 


430 
495 
750 


455 
525 
795 


480 
550 
840 


505 
580 
880 


525 
605 
920 


550 
630 
960 


570 
655 
995 


5'/i 
7 


767 
811 
950 


196 
203 


P2.'i.'i/65R15 


255 



' The letter "H", "S", or "V" may be included in any specified tire size designation adjacent to the "R". 
' Actual section wkith and overall wkith shall not exceed the specified section wkith by more than 7 percent. 



2. Two new tables, Table I-XX and I-YY, are added to Table I of Appendix A to read as set forth below: 

Table I-XX 
TIRE LOAD RATING, TEST RIMS, MINIMUM SIZE FACTORS AND SECTION WIDTHS FOR "P/70" SERIES ISO TYPE TIRES 

ALL MILLIMETRIC FOR TR OR JM RIMS 







Maximum tire loads (kilograms) at various cold inflation pressures (kPa) ' 




Test rim 


Minimum Section' 




120 


140 160 180 200 220 240 


260 


280 (mm) 


(mm) (mm) 


P165/70R366 


325 


350 375 395 420 440 460 




120 


752 167 



' The letter "H", "S", or "V" may be included in any specified tire size designation adjacent to the "R". 
* Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified section width by more than 7 percent. 
' The letter "D" for diagonal and "B" for bias-belted may be used in place of the "R". 

Table I-YY 
TIRE LOAD RATING. TEST RIMS. MINIMUM SIZE FACTORS AND SECTION WIDTHS FOR "P/55" SERIES ISO TYPE TIRES 







Maximum tire loads (kilograms) 


at various 


cold inflation 


pressures ( 


[kPa) 






Test rim 
wkith 
(inches) 


Minimum 

size factor 

(mm) 


SecUon ' 
width 




120 


140 


160 


180 


200 


220 


240 




260 


280 


(mm) 


P255/55R14 __ . 


535 
560 


575 
605 


615 
645 


655 

685 


690 
720 


725 
755 


755 
790 




785 
825 


815 
855 


7 
7 


875 
900 


255 


P2.'i.'i/55R1S 


255 







' The letter "H", "S", or "V" may be included in any specified tire size designation acljacent to the "R". 
* Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified section width by more than 7 percent. 



i 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 46 



Interested persons are invited to submit comments 
on these additions. Comments must be limited so as 
not to exceed 15 pages in length. Necessary at- 
tachments may be appended without regard to the 15 
page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary conunents in a 
concise fashion. Those persons desiring to be notified 
upon receipt of their comments in the rules docket 
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in 
the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving 
the comments, the docket supervisor will return the 
postcard by mail. 

The agency has reviewed the impacts of this rule, 
and determined that permitting the introduction of 
these tire sizes will benefit those manufacturers 
desiring to produce the sizes and will have no effect 
on those manufacturers who do not. The public will 



be minimally affected by this rule. Accordingly, 
NHTSA has determined that this is not a signifi- 
cant regulation within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12044. 

The program official and attorney principally 
responsible for the development of this rule are 
John Diehl and Stephen Kratzke, respectively. 

Issued on February 11, 1980. 



Michael M. Finkelstein 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 



45 F.R. 10798 
February 19, 1980 



PART 571; S 109-PRE 47-48 



i 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 80-01; Notice 3) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to petitions by the Japan 
Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association (JAT- 
MA), Michelin Tire Corporation (Michelin), and the 
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), this 
notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires- 
Passenger Cars, by adding certain tire size 
designations to Appendix A of that standard. This 
notice also corrects some dimensions for a tire size 
in which RMA calculated those dimensions using 
the wrong test rim width. This amendment permits 
the introduction into interstate commerce of the 
new tire sizes. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 30 days from the date of 
publication in the Federal Register, if objections 
are not received before that date. 

ADDRESS: Comments should refer to Docket No. 
80-01 and be submitted to Docket Section, Room 
5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washing- 
ton, D.C. 20590. (Docket hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 
Monday through Friday.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Office of Automotive Ratings, National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 
(202-426-0852). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: According to 
agency practice, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) responds to peti- 
tions for adding new tire sizes to Table I of Appen- 
dix A of Standard No. 109 by quarterly issuing 
final rules under an abbreviated rulemaking pro- 
cedure for expediting such routine amendments. 
Guidelines for this procedure were published at 33 



FR 14964; October 5, 1968, and amended at 36 FR 
8298; May 4, 1971; 36 FR 13601; July 22, 1971; and 
39 FR 28990; August 13, 1974. Those guidelines 
provide that these final rules become effective 30 
days after their date of publication in the Federal 
Register if no comments objecting to them are 
received by NHTSA during this 30-day period. If 
objections are received, regular rulemaking pro- 
cedures for issuing and amending motor vehicle 
safety standards are initiated. 

On May 19, 1980, JATMA petitioned for the ad- 
dition of a tire size to an existing table within Table 
I of Appendix A of Standard No. 109. On June 25, 
1980, Michelin petitioned for the addition of two 
new tire sizes to an existing table. RMA petitioned 
for the addition of four new tire sizes to existing 
tables on May 27, June 6, July 10, and July 14. Ad- 
ditionally, RMA filed a petition requesting changes 
to the physical dimensions published for a tire size, 
because RMA had erroneously calculated those 
dimensions using the wrong test rim width. 

The bases for accepting or denying requests to 
add new tire size designations to the tire tables are 
set forth in the introductory guidelines to Appen- 
dix A. Briefly, the tests are the appropriateness of 
the information submitted for inclusion in the tire 
tables and the appropriateness of the location 
within the tables of the requested tire size. The 
seven new tire size designations requested to be 
added to Standard No. 109 appear to meet these 
criteria. Accordingly, the JATMA, Michelin, and 
RMA petitions are granted, and seven new tire 
sizes are added to Table I of Appendix A of the 
Standard pursuant to the abbreviated rulemaking 
procedures. Additionally, the RMA request to cor- 
rect the physical dimensions for a previously 
published tire size is granted, and the correction is 
made. 



PART 571; S 109-PRE-49 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.109 is amended as specified below, subject to 
the 30-day comment period outHned above. 



§571.109 New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 

(Appendix amended) 

Table I-LL 



1. Tables I-K, I-T, IKK, I-QQ, and I- WW are 
amended by adding the following new tire size 
designations and corresponding values: 

2. Table I-LL is amended, with the following 
values substituted for the T155/D9016 tire size: 



TIRE LOAD RATINGS, TEST RIMS, MINIMUM SIZE FACTORS, AND SECTION WIDTHS FOR 

"T SERIES" 60 LB/IN ' TIRES 



Tire size designation ' 



Maximum tire loads 

(pounds at 60 p.s.i. 

cold inflation pressure) 



Test rim 
width (inches) 



Minimum size 
factor (inches) 



Section width ^ 
(inches) 



T155/D9016_ 



60 p.s.i. 
2.335 lbs. 



Interested persons are invited to submit com- 
ments on these additions. Comments must be 
limited so as not to exceed 15 pages in length. 
Necessary attachments may be appended without 
regard to the 15 page limit. This limitation is in- 
tended to encourage commenters to detail their 
primary arguments in a concise fashion. Those per- 
sons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self- 
addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope with 
their comments. When the comments are received, 
the docket supervisor will return the post card by 
mail. 

The agency has reviewed the impacts of this rule 
and determined that permitting the introduction of 



these tire sizes will benefit those manufacturers 
desiring to produce these sizes, and will have no ef- 
fect on those manufacturers who do not. The public 
w\\\ be minimally affected by this rule. Accord- 
ingly, NHTSA has determined that this is not a 
significant regulation within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12044. 
Issued on September 8, 1980. 



Michael M. Finkelstein 
Associate Administrator 



45 F.R. 62083 
September 18, 1980 



PART 571; S 109-PRE-50 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

Safety Standards for New Pneumatic Tires 

[Docltet No. 80-14; Notice 7] 
[Docket No. 71-18; Notice 12] 



ACTION: Technical amendment. 

SUMMARY: In this agency's safety standards ap- 
plicable to new pneumatic tires for use on motor 
vehicles, there are listings of standardization 
organizations whose publications of specifications 
are accepted under the standards as means for 
determining appropriate rim sizes on which to 
mount the tires during testing, and for providing 
other technical data. This agency has received two 
petitions requesting changes to these listings. The 
Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders Ltd. 
(SMMT) stated that they no longer set or maintain 
standards for new tires, and that those functions 
are now handled for the group by the British Stan- 
dards Institution, a group already listed in both 
new tire standards. SMMT requested that their 
name be deleted from the list of standardization 
organizations in the new tire standards. Japan 
Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc. 
(JATMA) asked that the name of the Japanese 
group currently listed in the standard for new tires 
for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars 
be deleted, because that group does not issue 
specific tire standards. JATMA, which does issue 
such standards, asked that its name be added to 
the list of standardization organizations. This 
notice makes the changes requested by these peti- 
tions. Additionally, this notice corrects an error in 
the name of the Grerman standardization organiza- 
tion in the passenger car tire standard. 

DATE: This amendment is effective June 6, 1983. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 
S4.4.1Cb) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 



Tires— Passenger Cars (49 CFR § 571.109), and sec- 
tion SS.lfb) of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic 
Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger 
Cars (49 CFR § 571.119), both contain listings of 
the VEirious standardization organizations. A stan- 
dardization organization is a voluntary association 
composed of representatives of each of the member 
tire companies. The purpose of a standardization 
organization is to establish and promulgate 
engineering standards for tires, rims, and their 
allied parts. NHTSA relies on the standardization 
organizations to list the acceptable rim sizes for 
each tire size nd for certain technical information 
regarding the tire sizes. 

Two petitions recently submitted to the agency 
indicate that these listings of standardization 
organizations need to be updated in order to reflect 
the current status of standardization activities. In 
the first petition, SMMT stated that it no longer 
performs any of the tasks associated with standard- 
ization organizations, and that those activities are 
now performed for SMMT by the British Standards 
Institution, a group already listed in both stan- 
dards. Accordingly, SMMT requested that its name 
be deleted from the list of standardization 
organizations. 

In the second petition, JATMA noted that the 
group currently listed in Standard No. 119 as the 
Japanese standardization organization is Japanese 
Industrial Standards. JATMA noted that that 
organization is an organization for all Japanese in- 
dustries, not just the Japanese tire industry, and 
does not currently perform the functions associated 
with a standardization organization. JATMA does 
perform those functions, and is so recognized in 
Standard No. 109, which no longer lists Japanese 



PART 571; S109-PRE 51 



Industrial Standards. JATMA requested that 
Standard No. 119's list of standardization organiza- 
tions be amended to correspond to the listing in 
Standard No. 109 with regard to the Japanese 
standardization organization. 

Both of these petitions are granted. Additionally, 
the agency erroneously listed the German 
standardization organization as the Deutsches In- 
stitut fur Norming in its response to the petitions 
for reconsideration of the final rule deleting the tire 
tables from Standard No. 109 (47 FR 36180; 
August 19, 1982). The correct name for that 
organization, and the name which has been used 
in all previous agency rulemaking notices referring 
to that standardization organization, is Deutsche 
Industrie Norm. The correct name is substituted 
in Standard No. 109 by this amendment. 

These changes represent only technical correc- 
tions to the agency's listing of recognized standard- 
ization organizations. They impose no obligations 
on any party, but only accommodate the wishes of 
the listed organizations or correct an error by this 
agency. Accordingly, the agency finds for good 
cause that notice and opportunity for comment are 
unnecessary, and these changes are eff"ective as 
soon as this notice is published. 



In consideration of the foregoing, section S4.4.1(b) 
of 49 CFR § 571.109 and section S5.1(b) of 49 CFR 
§ 571.119 are revised to read as follows: 

:«; :t: * * * 

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

The Tire and Rim Association 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical 
Organisation 

Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' 
Association, Inc. 

Deutche Industrie Norm 

British Standards Institution 

Scandanavian Tire and Rim Organization 

Issued on May 27, 1983 



Diane K. Steed, 
Acting Administrator. 

48 F.R. 25209 
June 6, 1983 



PART 571; S109-PRE 52 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
[Docket No. 85-03; Notice 1] 



ACTION: Technical amendment. Correction of 
Error in Code of Federal Regulations. 

SUMMARY: This agency has discovered an error 
in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
relating to two of the tables following Standard 
No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars. 
This notice corrects that error. The correct ver- 
sion of these tables has previously appeared in the 
Federal Register, so no new obligations or re 
quirements are imposed on any party as a result of 
this correction. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 1985. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard 
No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(49 CFR §571.109) sets forth a number of perfor- 
mance and labeling requirements which must be 
satisfied by each new tire for use on passenger 
cars manufactured after 1948. One of the re- 
quirements which those tires must meet is a 
strength test. Section S4.2.2.4 specifies that each 
tire shall meet the requirements for minimum 
breaking energy specified in Table I. 

With the introduction of temporary spare tires 
in the mid-70's, NHTSA published a final rule 
adding tables specifying the minimum breaking 
energy for these new tires at 42 FR 12869, March 
7, 1977. These tables specified that those tires with 
a maximum load rating of 880 pounds and above 
had to have a higher minimum breaking energy 
than tires with a maximum load rating below 880 
pounds. However, the version of these tables 
published in the Code of Federal Regulations has 
the respective minimum breaking energy values 
transposed, so that it appears that the tires with 



the lower maximum load rating must have the 
higher breaking energy. This notice corrects that 
error. 

Publication of the correct version of these re- 
quirements imposes no duties or obligations on 
any party, nor does it alter existing obligations. 
The agency has always used the correct version of 
these requirements for the purposes of its compli- 
ance testing, and the correct version of these re- 
quirements was published in the Federal Register. 
This notice simply ensures that the public will 
have a correct copy of the requirements of Stan- 
dard No. 109. Accordingly, the NHTSA finds for 
good cause that notice and opportunity for com- 
ment on this correction are unnecessary, and the 
correction is effective as soon as this notice is 
published. 

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

1. Table I-D in Appendix A of §571.109 is re- 
vised to read as follows: 

TABLE I-D— FOR TIRES WITH 60 LB/IN^ MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE 

INFLATION PRESSURE AND MAXIMUM LOAD RATING OF 

880 LB AND ABOVE 



Cord Material 



Inch pounds 



Rayon 

Nylon or polyester . 



1,650 
2,600 



2. Table I-E in Appendix A of §571.109 is re- 
vised to read as follows: 

TABLE I-E— FOR TIRES WITH 60 LB/IN^ MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE 
INFLATION PRESSURE AND MAXIMUM LOAD RATING BELOW 880 LB 



Cord Material 



Inch pounds 



Rayon 

Nylon or polyester , 



1,000 
1,950 



Issued on March 13, 1985. 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

50 FR 10968 
March 19, 1985 



PART 571; S109-PRE 53-54 



(. 



c 



^ 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 85-09; Notice 02) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New 
Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars, to delete 
paragraph S4. 2.2.2(b) of the standard. Paragraph 
S4. 2.2. 2(b) imposes a size factor dimensional require- 
ment on tires manufactured for passenger cars. The 
agency has concluded that the size factor re- 
quirement provides no safety benefits, and that 
removing that requirement relieves an unnecessary 
restriction on tire manufacturers. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, 
New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars. 49 CFR 
571.109, specifies the requirements for all tires 
manufactured for use on passenger cars manufac- 
tured after 1948. Under that safety standard, tires 
must meet specified dimensional, strength, 
resistance to bead unseating, endurance, and high 
speed requirements, and be labeled with certain 
safety information. 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisa- 
tion (ETRTO) petitioned NHTSA to amend Stan- 
dard No. 109 to delete the size factor requirement 
in paragraph S4. 2. 2. 2(b). "Size factor" is defined in 
paragraph S3 of the standard as "the sum of the 
section width and the outer diameter of a tire deter- 
mined on the test rim." The basis for ETRTO's re- 
quest was that size factor provides no safety benefits 
and should be deleted for the same reasons stated 
by the agency for deleting the minimum size factor 
requirement. (See, 46 FR 61473, December 17, 1981; 
47 FR 36180; August 19, 1982.) NHTSA tentative- 
ly agreed that the size factor dimensional require- 
ment provides no safety benefits and issued a notice 
on July 12, 1985 (50 FR 28426), granting ETRTO's 
petition and proposing to delete tlje size factor 
requirement. 



Background 
A rule published in December 1981, deleted an in- 
formational table (referred to as "Table 1") that had 
been included in FMVSS No. 109 to list dimensional 
and loading information for all passenger car tire 
sizes, including dimensional specifications for 
"minimum size factor." The information had been 
used by the agency for testing tires for compliance 
with FMVSS No. 109 and for determining the appro- 
priateness of the tires used on particular vehicles, 
in accordance with FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection 
and Rims. NHTSA determined that retaining Table 
1 was not necessary because the required specifica- 
tions for compliance testing could be determined 
from the information labeled on the sidewall of the 
tires, and because no safety-related justifications for 
keeping the table were found to exist. 

In deleting Table 1 from Standard No. 109, 
NHTSA intended to reduce unnecessary paperwork 
burdens for manufacturers and facilitate the in- 
troduction of new technology in tires, and thus 
amended the standard's requirements for tire sizes 
and load factors to reference publications of private 
standards groups. Commenters to the NPRM on this 
action had requested the agency to delete the dimen- 
sional requirements of Standard No. 109 in its final 
rule, but NHTSA determined that those requests 
could not be considered since the public was not 
given an opportunity to comment on such a change. 
NHTSA thus issued the final rule which amended 
S4.2.2.2 to simply delete reference to Table 1 and 
instead include the new references to the private 
publications. 

Since dimensional requirements were being re- 
tained in S4.2.2.2, several commenters were 
concerned that some of the standardization 
organizations do not publish the size factor dimen- 
sion. NHTSA addressed this concern by explaining 
that all yearbooks specify a tire's overall diameter 
and section width, and that added together, those 
dimensions equal the size factor. However, when 
Table 1 was deleted from Standard No. 109, NHTSA 



PART 571; S109-PRE 55 



should have distinguished between specifications 
referring to "size factor" and those which had re- 
ferred previously to "minimum size factor." As 
explained below, this oversight resulted in an 
unintended removal of dimensional tolerances 
previously permitted by the standard. 

Size factor 

Prior to the deletion of Table 1, paragraph 
S4.2. 2.2(b) of the standard had required that a tire's 
size factor be at least as large as the size factor pro- 
vided by the table. Accordingly, a "minimum size 
factor" was specified in Table 1 for each tire size 
designation. The minimum size factor for a par- 
ticular tire size was always less than the size factor 
of that tire. A tire could meet the size factor dimen- 
sional requirement of FMVSS No. 109 when its size 
factor was equal to on greater than the size factor 
provided by Table 1 for its size designation. (For ex- 
ample, according to data from the 1982 Tire and Rim 
Association Yearbook, the size factor for the tire 
hsted as P195/75R14 is 33.23 inches, while its 
minimum size factor is calculated as 32.64 inches.) 

When the agency deleted Table 1, NHTSA re- 
moved Standard No. 109's listing of minimum size 
factors for tire sizes. NHTSA determined that the 
requirement was no longer necessary because 
manufacturers would not undersize their tires ab- 
sent such a requirement. The agency amended the 
standard to require that a tire's size factor be at least 
as large as that specified in a submission made by 
an individual manufacturer to NHTSA, pursuant to 
the requirements of paragraph S4.4.1(a) of the 
standard, or in one of the standardization organiza- 
tion's publications described in 84. 4. 1(b), for the 
tire's size designation and type. However, since size 
factor is simply the sum of the section width and the 
outer diameter of a tire and is actually a design goal, 
the unintended effect of specifying that a tire's size 
factor be "at least as large as" that specified in a 
publication or yearbook was to revise S4. 2. 2. 2(b) to 
remove the dimensional tolerances previously per- 
mitted by the minimum size factors provided in 
Table 1. 

ETRTO's petition 

When the agency denied petitions for reconsidera- 
tion of its decision to delete the minimum size fac- 
tor requirement, NHTSA reiterated its conclusion 
that such a requirement was not needed in Standard 
No. 109. (47 PR at 36181). ETRTO subsequently 
petitioned the agency to delete or amend S4. 2. 2.2(b) 
to accord with NHTSA's determination that a 
dimen- 



sional requirement for tire size factor was 
unnecessary and "to avoid any confusion" regarding 
that matter. NHTSA granted the petition and issued 
an NPRM proposing to remove paragraph 
S4.2.2.2(b) from Standard No. 109 and the defini- 
tion of "size factor" from paragraph S3 (50 PR 
28426; July 12, 1985). 

The July 1985 NPRM explained that the size fac- 
tor requirement should be deleted for the same 
reasons that minimum size factor was deleted. As 
explained in that notice, the agency tentatively 
determined that there were no safety benefits to re- 
taining the size factor requirement since it would be 
implausible that tire manufacturers would either in- 
tentionally or inadvertently undersize their pas- 
senger car tires, due to the engineering and quality 
control efforts that are involved in designing and 
producing new tire sizes. First, the size factor of a 
tire cannot be changed after the mold is set up to 
produce that tire size. Second, tire manufacturers 
are reqiiired to certify that their tires can carry 100 
percent of its maximum load at a speed of 50 miles 
per hour for 24 hours. Undersized tires would be 
overloaded and would predictably have a high failure 
rate during this test, which would alert tire manufac- 
turers and NHTSA to any undersizing. Further, 
product liabOity awards and negative publicity would 
more than offset the few dollars saved by undersiz- 
ing, and would serve as compelling disincentives to 
manufacturers. Finally, NHTSA believed that the 
size factor requirement was unnecessary because the 
absence of such a requirement in Safety Standard 
No. 119, which applies to tires for use on all motor 
vehicles other than passenger cars, had not created 
any problems. Accordingly, since NHTSA believed 
that tire manufacturers would not intentionally or 
inadvertently produce a tire which was smaller than 
the size labelled on the sidewall, the agency proposed 
to delete the size factor requirement as a means of 
relieving an unnecessary restriction on tire 
manufacturers. 

Comments 

The agency received four comments on the pro- 
posal. Ford agreed that the size factor requirement 
provides no safety benefits and should therefore be 
deleted from Standard No. 109, while Volkswagen, 
BMW, and Daimler-Benz AG (Mercedes-Benz) op- 
posed the proposal. 

Volkswagen (VW) argued that deleting the size 
factor requirement would eliminate one of the last 
constraints on tire manufacturers. VW cited ex- 
amples of identical tires being marked with different 



PART 571; S109-PRE 56 



sizes due to the overlap between maximum and 
minimum dimensions. That company beheved that 
the performance requirements of Standard No. 109 
do not represent a safeguard against undersizing of 
tire section width, so that tire manufacturers could 
continue to designate a tire in different ways which 
can enable them to charge unjustified premiums for 
certain tires marked with larger sizes. VW sug- 
gested NHTSA adopt lower tolerance limits for tire 
section width. 

In response to this comment, NHTSA believes 
that motor vehicle manufacturers must use their 
owm expertise in tire selection to comply with both 
FMVSS No. 109 and FMVSS No. 110. The practices 
of some tire manufacturers to supply identical tires 
at different prices is one which can occur regardless 
of the size factor requirement in Standard No. 109. 
Since there are means available to motor vehicle 
manufacturers to guard against those types of ac- 
tions, NHTSA has concluded that VW has not pro- 
vided a sufficient basis for retaining the size factor 
requirement. 

BMW believed that the agency should not limit its 
consideration of undersized tires to tire strength and 
durability. BMW urged NHTSA to consider that tire 
size affects drivability, braking and steering, and is 
dependent on wheelwell clearances, and that tire 
revolutions per mile affect speedometer and 
odometer accuracy, noise and exhaust emission and 
fuel economy. That commenter also believed that a 
minimum dimensional requirement is necessary in 
light of the use of aftermarket tires, and that, given 
the entry of other countries into tire production, 
"compliance with some existing voluntary size 
standard could become a nebulous quantity." 

NHTSA agrees that the factors cited by BMW can 
be affected by tire size. However, the agency 
believes that the effect, if any, would not be signifi- 
cant. Further, there is no reason to believe that 
manufacturers will produce tires which do not ac- 
cord with their labeled sizes. 

In their petitions for reconsideration of NHTSA's 
decision to remove the minimum size factor require- 
ment, commenters argued that, absent a minimum 
size factor requirement, it would be possible for 
manufacturers to undersize their tires. The agency 
did not agree that manufacturers will undersize their 
tires absent a minimum size factor requirement, and 
explained its decision in the follovdng manner: 

The size factor of a tire cannot change after the 
mold is set up to begin producing that size of tire. 
With all of the engineering and quality control 



effort involved in designing and producing new 
tire sizes, it is simply implausible that a tire 
manufacturer would either intentionally or inad- 
vertently undersize the molds. The undersized 
tires that would be produced might save the 
manufacturers a few dollars per tire, but .the 
savings would be more than offset by product 
liability awards and negative publicity generated. 
Since automobile manufacturers design cars to a 
tire's rated load, undersized tires would be 
overloaded on those cars, and would predictably 
exhibit higher failure rates than properly sized 
tires made by other manufacturers. This appears 
to be a very compelling disincentive to undersiz- 
ing tires. Hence, the agency concludes that the 
minimum size factor is not needed in Standard 
No. 109. (47 FR at 36181; August 19, 1982.) 

The agency has concluded that the rationale 
against undersizing is still valid. Therefore, NHTSA 
does not agree with BMW that tire undersizing by 
after-market or foreign tire manufacturers might 
occur absent a size factor requirement. 

Daimler-Benz AG (DBAG) agreed with NHTSA 
that it is highly improbable that tires with insuffi- 
cient load carrying capacities wall be produced, even 
in the absence of a size factor requirement. How- 
ever, that company believed that future tires will 
have less width than current tires if the size factor 
requirement were deleted. Although DBAG 
acknowledged that this might not necessarily result 
in a direct safety hazard with respect to tire strength 
and endurance, that commenter was concerned 
about decreases in tire width. DBAG believed that, 
since the wheelwell spaces have to be determined 
on the basis of the largest possible dimensions of the 
designated tire size, narrower tires in set wheel wells 
might not be esthetically pleasing to customers. 
Customers might therefore replace their original 
tires with larger sizes which could interfere with the 
surrounding body and suspension parts. DBAG was 
also concerned that customer cost and dissatisfac- 
tion could increase if smaller tires were produced, 
since smaller tires tend to wear more rapidly. 

NHTSA does not agree that customers will pur- 
chase tires that are oversized for their vehicles. 
FMVSS No. 110 requires that consumers be inform- 
ed of recommended tire sizes for their vehicles, to 
ensure that existing tires are not replaced with tires 
of sizes not recommended for a particular vehicle. 
Further, the agency believes that tire dealers will 
exercise great care in order to avoid tort liability for 
selling incompatible tires. 



PART 571; S109-PRE 57 



NHTSA has concluded that the size factor require- 
ment in Standard No. 109 provides no safety bene- 
fits. The agency has concluded that removing size 
factor not only relieves an unnecessary restriction 
on tire manufacturers but also recognizes that mass- 
produced products have some minor product-to- 
product variations, and that these variations can be 
perfectly acceptable. Therefore, NHTSA is amend- 
ing FMVSS No. 109 to delete S4.2.2.2(b), and the 
definition of "size factor" from paragraph S3. 

Effective date 

The changes to Standard No. 109 described herein 
are effective upon publication of this rule in the 
FEDERAL REGISTER. These changes relieve a 
restriction on tire manufacture which the agency has 
determined to be unnecessary. The revisions to the 
standard do not specify different test procedures or 
additional requirements, and no leadtime for prepara- 
tion by tire or vehicle manufacturers is required. 
NHTSA therefore finds good cause for making these 
changes effective upon publication of this final rule 
in the Federal Register. 

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

1. Paragraph S3 is amended by removing the 
following paragraph: 



"Size Factor" means the sum of the section width 
and the outer diameter of a tire determined on the 
test rim. 

2. Paragraph S4.2.2.2 is amended by revising it 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 maximimi permissible infla- 
tion pressure of -32, 36, or 40 psi) 7 percent, or 

(2) (For tires with a maximum permissible infla- 
tion pressure of 60 psi or 240, 280, or 300kPa) 7 per- 
cent or 0.4 inch, whichever is larger. 



Issued on: April 29, 1986 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

51 F.R. 16517 
May 5, 1986 



L 



PART 571; S109-PRE 58 



^ 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 



New Pneumatic Tires 
(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 PR 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 571; S109-PRE 59 



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 maximvun 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 11 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 Ib/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 571; S109-PRE 60 



571.109-Appendix A 
Table IB For Bias Ply Tires With Designated Sectign Width Below 6 Inches 



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) 


1,000 
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 lb/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 571; S109-PRE 61-62 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

53 F.R. 17950 
May 19, 1988 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

Tire Selection and Rims for Motor 

Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 89-14; Notice 1) 

RIN: 2127-AD20 



ACTION: Technical Amendment. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition by the Tyre and 
Rim Association of Australia (TRAA), this notice 
amends Standard No. 109, Standard No. 119, and 
Standard No. 120 to include the TRAA in the list of 
standardization organizations. In addition, this notice 
corrects an oversight in an earlier technical amend- 
ment. Because these changes represent only technical 
corrections to the agency's listing of recognized standard- 
ization organizations and impose no obligations on any 
party, the agency finds for good cause that notice and 
opportunity for comment are unnecessary. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 1989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 
S4.4.1{b) of Standard No. 109, AVw Pneumatic Tires — 
Passenger Cars and section S5. Kb) of Standard No. 119 
(49 CFR 571.109), New Pneumatic Tires for Motor 
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119) 
each contain listings of various standardization organ- 
izations. Similarly, section S5.2(a)of Standard No. 120, 
Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than 
Passenger Cars, sets forth rim marking symbols related 
to the standardization organizations. A standardization 
organization is a voluntary association composed of 
representatives of member tire companies. The purpose 
of a standardization organization is to establish and 
promulgate engineering standards for tires, rims, and 
their allied parts. NHTSA relies on standardization 
organizations to list acceptable rim sizes for each tire 
size and for technical information regarding tire sizes. 

The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia (TRAA) 
submitted a petition to NHTSA requesting that it be 
included in NHTSA's listing of standardization or- 
ganizations in Standard No. 109 and Standard No. 119. 
TRAA also submitted its Articles of Incorporation. 

NHTSA has decided to grant the petition and adopt 
the petitioner's request without affording an op- 
portunity for public comment because these changes 
represent only technical corrections to the agency's 
listing of recognized standardization organizations. 
They impose no obligations on any party. Rather, they 
accommodate the wishes of the listed organization. 
Accordingly, the agency finds for good cause that 



notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary, 
and these changes are effective as soon as this notice is 
published. 

In addition, on June 6, 1983, NHTSA issued a similar 
technical amendment which intended to eliminate 
from the list of standardization organizations the 
Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders Ltd. 
(SMMT) (48 PR 25209). It has come to the agency's 
attention that the 1983 notice deleted only some of the 
references to SMMT. That notice failed to delete 
references to SMMT in Appendix A, paragraph 4 of 
Standard No. 109 and section 5.2(a) of Standard No. 
120. This notice eliminates these references. Because 
these technical corrections impose no obligations on 
any party, the agency finds for good cause that notice 
and opportunity for comment are unnecessary. 

1. Inconsiderationof the foregoing, section S4. 4. 1(b) 
of 49 CFR §571.109 is revised to read as follows: 

(b) Contained in publications, current at the date of 
manufacture of the tire or any later date, of at least one 
of the following organizations: 
The Tire and Rim Association 
The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, 
Inc. 

Deutsche Industrie Norm 
British Standards Institution 
Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization 

The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia 

***** 

2. Appendix A, paragraph 4 of 49 CFR § 571.109 is 
revised to read as follows: 

4. A statement as to whether the tire size designation 
and load inflation schedule has been coordinated with 
the Tire and Rim Association, the European Tyre and 
Rim Technical Organisation, the Japan Automobile 
Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc., the Deutsche 
Industrie Norm, the British Standards Institution, the 
Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization, and the 

Tyre and Rim Association of Australia. 

***** 

3. Section S 5.1(b) of 49 CFR § 571.119 is revised to 
read as follows: 



PART 571; S109-PRE 63 



(b) Contained in publications, current at the date of 
manufacture of the tire or any later date, of at least one 
of the following organizations: 
The Tire and Rim Association 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, 
Inc. 

Deutsche Industrie Norm 
British Standards Institution 
Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization 
The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia 



(4) "D" indicates Deutsche Industrie Norm. 

(5) "B" indicates British Standards Institution. 

(6) "S" indicates Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organ- 
ization. 

(7) "A" indicates The Tyre and Rim Association of 
Australia. 

(8) "N" indicates an independent listing pursuant to 
S4.4.1(a) of Standard No. 109orS5.1(a)of Standard No. 

119. 

***** 

Issued on: September 12, 1989 



4. Section S5.2(a) of 49 CFR§ 571. 120 is revised to read 
as follows: 



(a) A designation which indicates the source of the 
rim's published nominal dimensions, as follows: 

(1) "T" indicates The Tire and Rim Association. 

(2) "E" indicates The European Tyre and Rim Tech- 
nical Organisation 

(3) "J" indicates Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' 
Association, Inc. 



Jeffrey R. Miller 
Acting Administrator 

54 F.R. 38385 
Septenfiber 18, 1989 



PART 571; S109— PRE 64 



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



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

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

53. Definitions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Groove" means the space between two ad- 
jacent tread ribs. 

"Innerliner" means the layer(s) forming the 
inside surface of a tubeless tire that contains the 
inflating medium within the tire. 



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ply separation" means a parting of rubber 
compound between adjacent plies. 

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

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

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

"Section width" means the linear distance be- 
tween the exteriors of the sidewalls of an in- 
flated tire, excluding elevations due to labeling, 
decoration, or protective bands. 

"Sidewall" means that portion of a tire be- 
tween the tread and the bead. 



PART 571; S 109-1 



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

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

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

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

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

S4. Requirements. 

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

54.2 Performance requirements. 

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

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

(b) Its maximum permissible inflation pressure 
shall be either 32, 36, 40, or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 
300, [or 340 kPal. 

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

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



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

(f) It shall meet the requirements of S4.2.2..5 
and S4.2.2.6 when tested on a test wheel described 
in S5.4.2.1 either alone or simultaneously with up 
to 5 other tires. 

S4.2.2 Test requirements. 

54.2.2.1 Test sample. For each test sample 
use— 

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

(b) Another tire for tire endurance; and 

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

54.2.2.2 Physical Dimensions. The actual sec- 
tion width and overall width for each tire measured 
in accordance with S5.1, shall not exceed the sec- 
tion width specified in a submission made by an in- 
dividual manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4.1(a) or in 
one of the publications described in S4.4. 1(b) for its 
size designation and type by more than: 

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

(2) (For tires with a maximum permissible in- 
flation pressure of 60 psi or 240, 280, or 300, lor 
340 kPaJ) 7 percent or 0.4 inches, whichever is 
larger. 

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

54.2.2.3 Tubeless tire resistance to bead 
unseating. 

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

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

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



(Rev. 5/19/88) 



PART 571; S 109-2 



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

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

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

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

[(c) 2,500 poimds for tires with a maximum load 
rating of 1,400 pounds or more, using the max- 
imum load rating marked on the sidewall of the 
tire. (47 F.R. 36180-August 19, 1982. Effective: 
August 19, 1982)1 

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

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

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

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

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

S4.3 Labeling requirements. Except as provided 
in S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 each tire shall have perma- 
nently molded into or onto both sidewalls, in letters 



and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high, the 
information shown below in (a) through (g). On at 
least one sidewall, the information shall be posi- 
tioned in an area between the maximum section 
width and bead of the tire. However, in no case 
shall the information be positioned on the tire so 
that it is obstructed by the flange of any rim 
designated for use with that tire in Standard Nos. 
109 and 110 (571.109 and 571.110 of this part). 

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

(b) Maximum permissible inflation pressure; 

(c) Maximum load rating; 

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

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

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

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

54.3.1 Each tire shall be labeled with the symbol 
DOT in the manner specified in Part 574 of this 
chapter, which shall constitute a certification that 
the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehi- 
cle safety standards. 

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

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

(a) Comply with S4.3(d) (2) and S4.3(i) (as effec- 
tive until May 22, 1971); or 

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

54.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a 
tire is 240, 280, or 300 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 parentheses by the equivalent load 



(Rev. 8/19f82) 



PART 571; S 109-3 



rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole 
number. 

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

S4.4 Tire and rim matching information. 

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

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

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

[The Tire and Rim Association. 
The European Tyre and Rim Technical 
Organisation. 

Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Asso- 
ciation, Inc. 

Deutsche Industrie Norm 
British Standards Institution. 
Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization. 
The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia 
(54 F.R. 38385— September 18, 1989. Effective: 
September 18, 1989.)! 

54.4.2 Information contained in any publication 
specified in S4.4.1(b) which lists general categories 
of tires and rims by size designation, type of con- 
struction and/or intended use, shall be considered 



to be manufacturer's information pursuant to 
S4.4.1 for the listed tires and rims, unless the 
publication itself or specific information provided 
according to S4.4.1(a) indicates otherwise. 

S5. Test procedures. 

55.1 Physicai Dimensions. Determine tire physi- 
cal dimensions under uniform ambient conditions 
as follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

55.2 Tubeless tire bead unseating resistance. 

55.2.1 Preparation of tire-wheel assembly. 

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

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

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

55.2.2 Test procedure. 

S5.2.2.1 Apply a load through the block to the 
tire outer sidewall at the distance specified in 
Figure 1 for the applicable wheel size at a rate of 2 
inches per minute, with the load arm substantially 
parallel to the tire and rim assembly at the time of 
engagement. 



(Rev. 9/18/89) 



PART 571; S 109-4 



S5.2^.2 Increase the load until the bead unseats or 
the applicable value specified in S4.2.2.3 is reached. 

S5.2.2.3 Repeat the test at least four places 
equally spaced around the tire circumference. 

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



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

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

55.3.1.3 Readjust its pressure to that specified in 
S5.3.1.1. 






Dimension 


"A 


■for 


tires with 


Wheel 


TfuixnnuTn 


inflation 


■pressure 


Size 


Other than 
60 Iblin^ 






60 Ib/ini 


17" 


12.0" 






— 


16" 


11.5" 






9.9" 


15" 


Il.O" 






9.4" 


14" 


10.5" 






8.9" 


13" 


10.0" 






8.4" 


12" 


9.5" 






— 


11" 


9.0" 






— 


10" 


8.5" 






— 


320 mm 


8.50" 








340 mm 


9.00" 








345 mm 


9.25" 








365 mm 


9.75" 








370 mm 


10.00" 








390 mm 


11.00" 








415 mm 


11.50" 









(Rev. 12/17/81) 



Figure 1— Bead Unseating Fixture— Dimesions In Inches 

PART 571; S 109-5 



1.0 R 




-10' 



SECTION A-A 




TANGENT 




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



FIGURE 2— Diagram of Bead Unseating Block Dimensions in Inches 

PART 571; S 109-6 




loT 



1.0 R 



SECT. A ■ A 






SECT. B - B 




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



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

PART 571; S 109-7 



S5.3.2 Test procedure. 

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

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

55.3.2.3 Compute the breaking energy for each 
test point by means of the following formula: 



FxP 



W=- 



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

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

S5.4 Tire endurance. 

55.4.1 Preparation of tire. 

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

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

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

55.4.2 Test procedure. 

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

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



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

[The loads for the following periods are the 
specified percentage of the maximum load rating 
marked on the tire sidewalk 

Percent 

4 hours 85 

6 hours 90 

24 hours 100 

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

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

S5.5 l-ligh-speed performance. 

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

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

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

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

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

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



(Rev. 12/17/81) 



PART 571; S 109-8 



APPENDIX A 

GUIDELINES FOR ABBREVIATED RULEMAKING PROCEDURE FOR ADDING TIRE SIZES 

TO STANDARD NO. 109 



Tables I-A through I-J of Standard No. 109, as 
amended (33 F.R. 5946-5949) are deleted and in 
their places the following is inserted: 

The following tables list tire sizes and tire con- 
structions with proper load and inflation values. 
The tables group tires of related contruction and 
load/inflation values. Persons requesting the addi- 
tion of new tire sizes to the tables or the addition of 
tables for new tire construction may, when the ad- 
ditions requested are compatible with existent 
groupings, or when adequate justification for new 
tables exists, submit five (5) copies of information 
and data supporting the request to the Secretary 
of Transportation, Attention: Motor Vehicle Pro- 
grams, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 
ministration, U.S. Depart of Transportation, 
Washington, D.C. 20590. 

The information should contain but not be 
limited to the following: 

(1) The tire size designation and whether the tire 
is an addition to a category of tires listed in the 
tables, or a new category for which a table has not 
been developed. 

(2) The tire dimensions, including aspect ratio, 
size factor, section width, overall width and test 
rim size. 

(3) The load-inflation schedule of the tire. 

(4) [A statement as to whether the tire size 
designation and load inflation schedule has been 
coordinated with the Tire and Rim Association, the 



European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, 
the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' 
Association, Inc., the Deutsche Industrie Norm, 
the British Standards Institution, the Scandina- 
vian Tire and Rim Organization, and the Tyre and 
Rim Association of Australia. (54 F.R. 38385— 
September 18, 1989. Effective: September 18, 1989)] 

(5) Copies of test data sheets showing test condi- 
tions, results and conclusions obtained for in- 
dividual tests specified in FMVSS No. 109. 

(6) Justification for the additional tire sizes. 

The addition of new size tires to the tables, or the 
addition of tables for new tire construction, is ac- 
complished through an abbreviated procedure con- 
sisting of the publication in the Federal Register of 
the petitioned tire sizes or tables. If no comments 
are received, the amendment becomes effective 
after 30 days from the date of publication. If com- 
ments objecting to amendment are received, ad- 
ditinal rule making pursuant to Part 353 of the 
Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Stan- 
dards will be considered. 

Amendments to Appendix A of Standard No. 
109 may be issued by the Director of Motor Vehicle 
Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. 



33 F.R. 14964 
October 5, 1968 



(Rev. 9/18/89) 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 1-2 



ffhcflva: October 13, 1969 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

STANDARD NO. 109 

(Dock«t No. 69-30; NeHc* No. 1) 



On October 5, 1968, the Federal Highway Ad- 
ministration published guidelines in the Federal 
Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which routine ad- 
ditions could be added to Appendix A of Stand- 
ard No. 109 and the Appendix A of Standard 
No. 110. These guidelines provided an abbrevi- 
ated rule-making procedure for adding tire sizes 
to Standard No. 109 and alternative rim sizes to 
Standard No. 110, whereby the addition becomes 
effective 30 days from date of publication in the 
Federal RcgUter if no objections to the proposed 
additions are received. If comments objecting 
to the amendment warrant, rule making pursuant 
to the rule making procedures for motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR 353) will be followed. 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organ- 
isation has petitioned for the addition of the new 
"Millimeter 70 Series" radial ply tires and the 
new "Low Section" radial ply tires to Table I of 
Appendix A of Standard No. 109 and the appro- 
priate test and alternative rims to Table I of 
Appendix A of Standard No. 110. Also, the 
Toyota Motor Company, Ltd. has petitioned for 
the addition of the 5-K alternative rim size for 
the 165R15 tire size designation to Table 1 of 
Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

On the basis of the data submitted by the 
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
and the Toyota Motor Company, Ltd., indicating 
compliance with the requirements of Federal 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and No. 
110 and other information submitted in accord- 
ance with the procedural giiidelines set forth. 
Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109 is being amended and Table I 
of Appendix A of Standard No. 110 is being 
amended. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Section 
371.21 of Part 371 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Appendix A of Standards No. 109 
(33 F.R. 14964) and Appendix A of Standard 
No. 110 (34 F.R. 16102) are being amended as 
set forth below effective 30 days from date of 
publication in the Federal Register. 

These amendments are issued under authority 
of Sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 
1392, 1407), and delegation from the Secretary 
of Transportation contained in § 1.4(c) of Part 1 
of the Regulations of the Office of the Secretary 
(49 CFR 1.4(c)), and the delegation from the 
Federal Highway Administrator of October 5, 
1968 (33 F.R. 14964). 

H. M. Jacklin, Jr. 
Acting Director 

Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service 

34 F.R. 14376 
S«pt«mb«r 13, 1969 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 3-4 



Effective: June 3, 1971 



APPENDIX A— FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 



The following tables list tire sizes and tire 
constructions with proper load and inflation 
values. The tables group tires of related con- 
structions and load/inflation values. Persons 
requesting the addition of new tire sizes to the 
tables or the addition of tables for new tire con- 
structions may, when the additions requested are 
compatible with existent groupings, or when ade- 
quate justification for new tables exists, submit 
five (5) copies of information and data support- 
ing the request to the Secretary of Transporta- 
tion, Attention: Motor Vehicle Programs, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, 
D.C. 20590. 

The information should contain the following: 

1. The tire size designation, and a statement 
that the tire is an addition to a category for 
which a table has not been developed. 

2. The tire dimensions, including aspect ratio, 
size factor, section width, overall width, and test 
rim size. 

3. The load-inflation schedule of the tire. 

4. A statement thSit the tire size designation 
and load inflation schedule has been coordinated 



with the Tire and Rim Association, the European 
Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, the So- 
ciety of Manufacturers and Traders Limited, the 
Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Associa- 
tion, the Deutsche Industrie Norm and the Scan- 
dinavian Tire and Rim Organization. 

5. Copies of test data sheets showing test con- 
ditions, results and conclusions obtained for 
individual tests specified in Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109. 

6. Justification for the additional tire sizes. 

The addition of new size tires to the tables, or 
the addition of tables for new tire construction, 
is accomplished through an abbreviated proce- 
dure consisting of publication in the Federal 
Register of the petitioned tire sizes or tables. If 
no comments are received, the amendment be- 
comes eflFective 30 days from the date of publica- 
tion. If objections to the amendment are 
received, additional rulemaking pursuant to Part 
553 of the procedural rules for Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards will be initiated. 

36 F.R. 8298 
May 4, 1971 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 6-6 



ElfecHv*: June 3, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 71-9; Notice No. 1) 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published The European Tyre and Rim Technical Or- 

in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14969) by which ganisation has also petitioned for the addition 

routine additions of tire and rim sizes could be of the following alternative rims to Table I — 

added to Appendix A of Standard No. 109 and Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

to Appendix A of Standard No. 110. Under Alternative 

these guidelines, the addition becomes effective Tire size designation : Hm 

30 days from the date of its publication in the 175-13/6.95-13 5%-J. 

Federal Register, if no objections to the proposed oivT r 14 ti^Ik: 

additions are received. If objections to the 205 R 15 6%-L 

amendment are received, rulemaking pursuant 

to the procedures for motor vehicle safety stand- ^^ addition to the above, the following errors 

ards (49 CFR Part 553) are followed. Numer- i" the tables have been brought to the National 

ous additions to Appendix A of Standard 109 Highway Traffic Safety Administration's atten- 

and Appendix A of Standard 110 have been t ion and are hereby corrected : 

made under these procedures, and Appendix A (a) Standard No. 109 — Appendix A — Table 

of Standard No. 109 and Appendix A of Stand- I-B. The 26-pound inflation pressure maximum 

ard No. 110 are being reissued at this time to load for the A70-13 tire size designation is 

incorporate all the changes that have been made changed to read "940". 

to these appendices since October 5, 1968. (b) Standard No. 110— Appendix A— Table I. 

At the top of each table in the appendices The alternate rim "5V^-J" of the 6.40-15 tire 

there is an amendment number that indicates the size in section Table I-C is corrected to read 

number of times the table has been amended "5V^-JJ". 

since its original issue, '^^^lere feasible, a brief j^ consideration of the foregoing, § 571.21 of 

note below the table mdicates the substance of p^^ 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 

the change bemg made. This procedure will be ^^^^^ Appendix A of Standard No. 109 and Ap- 

fbllowed m future amendments to the tables. ^^^^^ ^ ^^ Standard No. 110 are amended . . . 

In addition to republishing all previous addi- effective 30 days from date of publication in the 

tions to the tables, new tire size designations and Federal Register. 
alternative rims are hereby added to various 

tables. The European Tyre and Rim Technical ^^^^ °^ ^P"^ 1^' l^^^' 

Organisation has petitioned for the addition of Rodolfo A. Diaz 

140 R 12 and 6.5-13 as tire size designations in Acting Associate Administrator, 

Appendix A of Standard No. 109, and has re- Motor Vehicle Programs 
quested that test and alternate rim(s) for these 

tires be added to Appendix A of Standard No. 36 F.R. 8298 

110. May 4, 1971 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 7-8 



IffMflva; July a, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-12; Notice No. 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire sizes and 
alternative rim sizes to the passenger car tire 
standard and the tire selection and rim standard. 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be added to Appendix A, 
Standard No. 109 and to Appendix A, Standard 
No. 110. Under these guidelines, the addition 
becomes effective 30 days from date of publica- 
tion in the Federal Register, if no objections to 
the proix)sed additions are received. If objec- 
tions to the amendment are received, rulemaking 
pursuant to the procedures for motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR 553) are followed. 
All changes made to the appendices as of April 
16, 1971 were reissued and incorporated into the 
tables and republished in the Federal Register 
of May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8298). 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
petitioned for the addition of the new AR78-13, 
CR78-13, D78-13, DR70-13, BR78-14, CR70-14, 
E60-14, H60-14, A78-15, AR7&-15, and HR60-15 
tire size designations to Table I, Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109 and the appropriate test and 
alternative rims to Table I, Appendix A of 
Standard No. 110. 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
also petitioned for the addition of the 6-JJ 
alternative rim size for the JR70-15 and LR70-15 
tire size designations; the 8-JJ alternative rim 
size for the FR60-15 and GR60-15 tire size 
designations and the 4-JJ alternative rim size 



for the 175R13 tire size designation to Table I, 
Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Or- 
ganisation has petitioned for the addition of the 
81^-L and 8-K alternative rims for the GP70-15 
tire size designation to Table I, Appendix A of 
Standard No. 110. 

The Ford Motor Company has petitioned for 
the addition of the 5i^-JJ alternative rim size 
for the 175R13 tire size designation to Table I, 
Appehdix A of Standard No. 110. 

On the basis of the data submitted by the 
Rubber Manufacturers Association, the European 
Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, and the 
Ford Motor Company indicating compliance 
with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other 
information submitted in accordance with the 
procedural guidelines set forth, Table I, Ap- 
pendix A of Standard No. 109 is being amended 
and Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 110 
is being amended. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 671.21 of 
Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Appendix A of Standard No. 109 and Ap- 
pendix A of Standard No. 110 are amended to 
read as set forth below, effective 30 days from 
date of publication in the Federal Register. 

Issued on May 24, 1971, 

Robert L. Carter 

Acting Associate Administrator 

Motor Vehicle Programs 



36 F.R. 10733 
Jun* 2, 1971 



PART 671; S 109A-PRE 9-10 



EffKlhr*: Auguit 21, 197) 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 71-16; Notice No. 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire sizes and 
alternative rim size to the passenger car tire 
standard and the tire selection and rim standard. 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be added to Appendix 
A, Standard No. 109 and to Appendix A, Stand- 
ard No. 110. Under these guidelines, the addi- 
tion becomes effective 30 days from date of pub- 
lication in the Federal Register^ if no objections 
to the proposed additions are received. If ob- 
jections to the amendment are received, rule- 
making pursuant to the procedures for motor 
vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 553) are fol- 
lowed. All changes made to the appendices as 
of April 16, 1971 were reissued and incorporated 
into the tables and republished in the Federal 
Register of May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8298). 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Or- 
ganisation has i^etitioned for the following: 

(1) The addition of the new 205/70 R14, 
215/70 R14, 225/70 R14, 195/70 R15, 205/70 
R15, 215/70 R15, 225/70 R15, 150 R12, 150 R14 
and 180 R15 tire size designations to Table I, 
Appendix A of Standard No. 109 and the ap- 
propriate test and alternative rims to Table I, 
Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

(2) The addition of the 5.50 B altonative rim 
for the 165 R13 tire size designation to Table I, 
Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

(3) The addition of the 16 psi and 18 psi 
loads to Table I-H, Appendix A of Standard 
No. 109. 



The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
petitioned for the addition of the 6-JJ alterna- 
tive rim size for the DR 78-14 tire size designa- 
tion to Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 
110. 

On the basis of the data submitted by the 
European Tyre aand Rim Technical Organisa- 
tion and the Rubber Manufacturers Association 
indicating compliance with the requirements of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 
and 110 and other information submitted in ac- 
cordance witn the procedural guidelines, § 571.21 
of Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Appendix A of Standard No. 109 
and Apj)endix A of Standard No. 110 are 
amended to read as set forth below, effective 
30 days from date of publication in the Federal 
Register. 

In addition, Appendix A of Standard No. 109 
is amended in order to make it clear that requests 
for additional tire sizes should specify whether 
the tire is an addition to a category of tires 
listed in the tables, or a new category for which 
a table lias not been developed. 

Issued on July 13, 1971. 

Robert L. Carter 

Acting Associate Administrator 

Motor Vehicle Programs 

36 F.R. 13601 
July 22, 1971 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 11-12 



Eff«cNv«i August 29, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 71-17; Notice No. 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire sizes and 
alternative rim size to the passenger car tire 
standard and the tire selection and rim standard. 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be added to Appendix A, 
Standard No. 109 and to Appendix A, Standard 
No. 110. Under these guidelines, the addition 
becomes effective 30 days from date of publica- 
tion in the Federal Register, if no objections to 
the proposed additions are received. If objec- 
tions to the amendment are received, rulemaking 
pursuant to the procedures for motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR 553) are followed. 
All changes made to the appendices as of April 
16, 1971 were reissued and incorporated into the 
tables and republished in the Federal Register 
on May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8298). 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Or- 
ganisation has petitioned for the addition of the 
7-K alternative rim size for the 185/70 R15 tire 
size designation and the 6-JJ alternative rim 
size for the 205/70 R14 tire size designation to 
Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
l^etitioned for the addition of the 614-JJ alter- 
native rim size for the G78-15 tire size designa- 
tion to Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 
110. 



The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
petitioned to change the test rim from 714-inch 
to 7-inch for the J60-14, J60-15 and L60-15 
tire size designations currently listed within the 
Table I-K, Appendix A of Standard No. 109. 

Also, the Rubber Manufacturers Association 
has petitioned to correct the section width and 
minimum size factor measurements for the 
GR60-15 tire size designation listed within Table 
I-R, Appendix A of Standard No. 109. 

On the basis of the data submitted by the 
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
and the Rubber Manufacturers Association in- 
dicating compliance with the requirements of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 
and 110 and other information submitted in ac- 
cordance with the procedural guidelines, § 571.21 
of Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Appendix A of Standard No. 109 
and Appendix A of Standard No. 110 are 
amended as set forth below, effective 30 days 
from date of publication in the Federal Register. 

Issued on July 22, 1971. 

Robert L. Carter 

Acting Associate Administrator 

Motor Vehicle Programs 

36 F.R. 14134 
July 30, 1971 



PART 571 ; S 109A— PRE 13-14 



Effacriv*: Oacambar 6, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-20, Notice 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire sizes and 
alternative rim sizes to the passenger car tire 
standard and tire selection rim standard. 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be added to Appendix A, 
Standard No. 109 and to Appendix A, Standard 
Xo. 110. Under these guidelines, the addition 
becomes effective 30 days from date of publica- 
tion in the Federal Register, if no objections to 
the proposed additions are received. If objec- 
tions to the amendment are received, rulemaking 
pursuant to the procedures for motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are followed. 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
IJetitioned for the following: 

(1) The addition of the new GR60-14 tire 
size designation to Table I, Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109 and the appropriate test and 
alternative rims to Table I, Appendix A of 
Standard No. 110. 

(2) The addition of the following alternative 
rims to Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 
110: 

(a) The 9-JJ alternative rim size for the 
G60-15 tire size designations. 

(b) The .5-JJ and 6-JJ alternative rim 
sizes for the FR78-14 tire size designation. 

(c) The 8-JJ alternative rim size for the 
F70-14 tire size designation. 

(d) The 5-JJ alternative rim size for the 
1)70-14 tire size designation. 

(e) The 7-JJ alternative rim size for the 
GR70-15 tire size designation. 

(f) The 614-JJ alternative rim size for the 
8.25-15 tire size designation. 



The European Tyre and Rim Technical Or- 
ganisation has petitioned for the following: 

(1) The addition of the new 230-15, 245/60 
R14 and 255/60 R15 tire size designations to 
Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 109 and 
the appropriate test and alternative rims to Table 
I, Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

(2) The addition of the following alternative 
rims to Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 
110: 

(a) The 9-L alternative rim size for the 
HR60-15 tire size designation. 

(b) The 8K and 814-L alternative rim sizes 
for the 225/70 R15 tire size designation. 

(c) The 5V^-JJ alternative rim size for the 
155 R13 tire size designation. 

On the basis of the data submitted by the 
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
and the Rubber Manufacturers Association in- 
dicating compliance with the requirements of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 
and No. 110 and other information submitted in 
accordance witli the procedural guidelines, § 571.- 
21 of Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Appendix A of Standard No. 109 
and Appendix A of Standard 110 are amended 
to read as set forth below, effective 30 days from 
date of publication in the Federal Register. 

Issued on October 21, 1971. 

Robert L. Carter 

Acting Associate Administrator 

Motor Vehicle Programs 

36 F.R. 21355 
November 6, 1971 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 1&-16 



EffMHv* January 23, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 71-22; Notice No. 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire sizes and 
alternative rim sizes to the passenger car tire 
standard and tire selection and rim standard. 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by 
which routine additions could be added to Ap- 
pendix A, Standard No. 109 (§571.109) and to 
Appendix A, Standard No. 110 (§571.110). 
Under these guidelines, the addition becomes 
effective 30 days from date of publication in the 
Federal Register, if no objections to the proposed 
additions are received. If objections to the 
amendment are received, rulemaking pursuant 
to the procedures for motor vehicle safety 
standards (49 CFR Part 553) is followed. 

The Rubber Manufacturers Association has 
petitioned for the following: 

(1) The addition of the new AR70-13. B60- 
13 and BR60-13 tire size designations to Table I, 
Appendix A of Standard No. 109 and the ap- 
propriate test and alternative rims to Table I, 
Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

(2) The addition of the following alternative 
rim sizes to Table I, Appendix A of Standard 
No. 110: 

(a) The 6i/^-JJ alternative rim size for the 
F78-15 tire size designation. 

(b) The 6V^-JJ alternative rim size for the 
7.75-15 tire size designation. 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Orga- 
nisation has petitioned for the addition of the 
following alternative rim sizes to Table I, Ap- 
pendix A of Standard No. 110: 

(1) The 5-JJ alternative rim size for the 
145R13 tire size designation. 

(2) The 4- J J alternative rim size for the 
150R13 tire size designation. 



(3) The 6%-JJ alternative rim size for the 
185R14 tire size designation. 

(4) The 6V^-JJ alternative rim size for the 
9.00-15 tire size designation. 

The Ford Motor Company has petitioned for 
the addition of the 514-JJ alternative rim size 
for the 6.45-13/165-13 tire size designation to 
Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

The Toyota Motor Clompany, Ltd., has peti- 
tioned for the addition of the 4-JJ alternative 
rim for the 155R13 tire size designation to Table 
1, Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

On the basis of the data submitted by the 
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, 
the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Ford 
Motor Company and Toyota Motor Company, 
Ltd. indicating compliance with the requirements 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 
109 and No. 110 and other information submitted 
in accordance with the procedural guidelines, 
§ 571.109 and § 571.110 of Title 49, Code of Fed- 
eral Regulations are amended, effective 30 days 
from date of publication in the Federal Register. 

(Sees. 103 and 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 and 
501.8) 

Issued on December 15, 1971. 

Robert L. Carter 

Acting Associate Administrator 

Motor Vehicle Programs 

36 F.R. 24940 
December 24, 1971 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 17-18 



Effactiv*: S«pl«mb*r I, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO 
APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 72-18; Notice 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire sizes and 
accompanying values, and amends values for 
existing tire size designations in Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFK §571.109), 
and adds alternative rim sizes and test rims to 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 
§571.110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by 
which routine additions could be added to Ap- 
pendix A, Standard No. 109, and to Appendix 
A, Standard No. 110. Under these guidelines 
the additions become eflFective 30 days from the 
date of publication in the Federal Register, if 
no objections are received. If objections are re- 
ceived, rulemaking pursuant to the procedures 
for motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 553) 
is followed. 

Beginning in January 1972, the NHTSA in- 
augurated a procedure whereby amendments to 
the tables of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 
and Appendix A of Standard No. 110 would be 
published approximately 4 times per year: on 



or about January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 
1. Amendments to the tables were not published 
April 1 or July 1, 1972, and this notice publishes 
the amendments that would normally have been 
published on those dates. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR §571.109), 
and Appendix A of Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 110 (49 CFR §571.110), are amended, 
subject to the thirty-day provision indicated 
above, as specified below. 

This notice is issued imder the authority of 
sections 103, 119, 201, and 202 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 
1392, 1407, 1421, 1422) and the delegations of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51 and 49 CFR 601.8. 

Issued on July 27, 1972. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator for 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

37 F.R. 15430 
August 2, 1972 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 19-20 



EffccMvc: AUflUtI 29, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO 
APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires, Tire Selection and Rims for Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 72-18; Notice 2) 



The NHTSA published on August 2, 1972 (37 
F.R. 15430), additions and amendments to the 
tables in the Appendices of Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.- 
110). Guidelines published in the Federal Reg- 
ister on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), provide 
that routine additions to the Tables become effec- 
tive 30 days from the publication date if no 
objections are received. If objections are re- 
ceived, rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 553 
is initiated. 

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Asso- 
ciation (E.T.A.T.O.) has raised an objection to 
changes made by the August 2 publication to 
load values in Table I-H of Standard No. 109. 
Accordingly, the amendment to Table I-H, 
Appendix A, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 109 (571.109), published August 2, 1972 (item 



3, page 15430), is hereby revoked. Notice of 
proposed rulemaking regarding these load values 
will be issued. The other amendments issued in 
the publication of August 2, 1972, will become 
effective if no further objections are received 
by September 1, 1972. 

This notice is issued pursuant to sections 103, 
119, 201, and 202 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 
1421, and 1422) and the delegations of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51, 49 CFR 501.8. 

Issued on August 29, 1972. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

37 F.R. 17837 
September 1, 1972 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 21-22 



EffMNvai OclDbcr 15, 1*7S 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO 
APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHiaE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires, Tire Selection and Rims for Passenger Girs 
(Docket No. 72-21; Notic* 1) 



This amendment adds certain new tire size 
designations and accompanying values and 
amends values for existing tire size designations 
in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 
CFR §571.109), and adds alternative rim sizes 
and test rims to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 110 (49 CFR § 571.110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be added to Appendix A, 
Standard No. 109, and to Appendix A, Standard 
No. 110. Under these guidelines the additions 
become effective 30 days from the date of publica- 
tion in the Federal Register, if no objections are 
received. If objections are received, rulemaking 
pursuant to the procedures for motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 533) is followed. 
An amendment to the tables was published on 
August 2, 1972 (37 F.R. 15430). This notice 
adds tire size designations inadvertently omitted 



and corrects certain errors made in that publica- 
tion. It also adds a new tire size designation on 
which a petition was received after August 2, 
1972. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR §571.109), 
and Appendix A of Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 110 (49 CFR § 571.110), are amended . . . 

Effective: October 15, 1972 

(Sec. 103, 119, 201, 202, National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 
1421, 1422 delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51, 49 CFR 501.8) 

Issued on September 8, 1972. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

37 F.R. 18733 
S«pt«mb«r 15, 1972 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 2^-24 



EffKllv*: S«pl«mb«r U, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO 
APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires, Tire Selection and Rims for Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 72-18; Notice 3) 



The NHTSA published on August 2, 1972 (37 
F.R. 15430), additions and amendments to the 
Tables in the Appendices of Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109 (49 CFR § 571.109) and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 
§571.110). Guidelines published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), pro- 
vide that routine additions to the Tables become 
effective 30 days from the publication date if no 
objections are received. If objections are re- 
ceived, rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 553 
is initiated. 

The Rubber Manufacturers' Association (R.M. 
A.) and the B.F. Goodrich Tire Company have 
raised an objection to the change made by the 
August 2 publication to Footnote 1, Table I-R 
of Standard No. 109, which would have allowed 
the letters "HR", "SR", or "VR" to be included 
in any tire size designation adjacent to or in 



place of the dash. Accordingly, the amendment 
to Footnote 1, Table I-R of Appendix A, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (571.109), pub- 
lished August 2, 1972 (Item 17, page 15432), is 
hereby revoked. Notice of proposed rulemaking 
regarding this change will be issued before the 
rule is amended. 

This notice is issued pursuant to sections 103, 
119, 201, and 202 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 
1421, and 1422) and the delegations of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51, 49 CFR 501.8. 

Issued on September 14, 1972. 

Elwood T. Driver 

Acting Associate Administrator 

Motor Vehicle Programs 

37 F.R. 19138 
September 19, 1972 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 25-26 



EllMtlv*: Nev«mb«r 19, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 72-25; Notice!) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
109 (49 CFR 571.109) and adds alternative rim 
sizes and test rims to Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be made to Appendix A, 
Standard No. 109, and to Appendix A, Standard 
No. 110. Under these guidelines the additions 
become effective 30 days from the date of publi- 
cation in the Federal Register, if no objections 
are received. If objections are received, rule- 
making pursuant to the procedures for motor 
vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) is 
followed. 



Accordingly, Appendix A of Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and 
Appendix A of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110), are amended, subject 
to the 30-day provision indicated above .... 

This notice is issued pursuant to sections 103, 
119, 201 and 202 of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1392, 
1407, 1421, 1422) and the delegation of authority 
of 49 CFR 1.51 and 40 CFR 501.8. 

Issued on October 16, 1972. 

•Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 

37 F.R. 22620 
October 20, 1972 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 27-28 



EfftcMv*: April 30, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 73-7; Notice 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size designa- 
tions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) and adds alternative 
rim sizes and test rims to Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be made to Appendix A, 
Standard No. 109, and to Appendix A, Standard 
No. 110. Under these guidelines the additions 
become effective 30 days from publication in the 
Federal Register^ if no objections are received. 
If objections are received, rulemaking procedures 
for the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards 
(49 CFR Part 553) are followed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.- 



109), and Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110), 
are amended, subject to the 30 day provision in- 
dicated above, as specified below. 

Effective date: April 30, 1973, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sec. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 1422; 
delegations of authority 49 CFR 1.51, 49 CFR 
501.8) 

Issued on- March 26, 1973. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

38 F.R. 8514 
April 3, 1973 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 29-30 



IHkHv*: Awgutt 3, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 73-18; NoNco 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) and adds 
alternative rim sizes and test rims to Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 
571.110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by 
which routine additions could be made to Ap- 
pendix A, Standard No. 109, and to Appendix 
A, Standard No. 110. Under these guidelines 
the additions become effective 30 days from pub- 
lication in the Federal Register, if no objections 
are received. If objections are received, rule- 
making procedures for the issuance of motor 
vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are 
followed. 



Accordingly, Appendix A of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No, 109 (49 CFR 571.- 
109), and Appendix A, of Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110), are 
amended, subject to the 30 day provision in- 
dicated above. . . . 

Effective date: August 2, 1973, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Public Law 89- 
563, 80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422; delegation of authority at 38 F.R. 12147) 

Issued on June 26, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 17842 
July 5, 1973 



PART 671; S 109A— PRE 81-32 



MMllvat NavMiibar •, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

N«w Pneumatic Tiras— PasMnger Cars 
(Dockat No. 73-23; Netic* 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR §571.109 (Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109) and adds 
alternative and test rim sizes to 49 CFR § 671.110 
(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be made to Appendix A, 
§ 671.109, and to Appendix A, § 671.110. Under 
these guidelines the additions become effective 
30 days from publication in the Federal Regitter, 
if no objections are received. If objections are 
received, rule making procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
663) are followed. 



Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 671.109 
and Appendix A of 49 CFR §671.110 are 
amended, subject to the 80-day provision indi- 
cated above. 

Effective date : November 9, 1973, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sections 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89- 
563, 80 Stat. 718, 16 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422; delegations of authority at 49 CFR § 1.61 
and 49 CFR § 501.8.) 

Issued on October 8, 1973. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

38 F.R. 28569 
October 15, 1973 



PART 671; S 109A— PRE 38-34 



Effeellve: March 7, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

(Docket No. 74-«; Notice 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations and corrects certain tire size criteria in 
49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109). It also adds alternative and 
test rim sizes to 49 CFR 571.110 (Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be made to Appendix A, 
§571.109 and to Appendix A, §571.110. Under 
these guidelines the additions become effective 
30 days from publication in the Federal Register, 
if no objections are received. If objections are 
received, rulemaking procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
553) are followed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
and Appendix A of 49 CFR §571.110 are 



amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above .... 

Effective date : March 7, 1974, if objections are 
not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563; 
80 Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422; delegations of authority at 49 CFR § 1.51 
and 49 CFR §501.8.) 

Issued on January 30, 1974. 

Robert L. Carter 

Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

39 F.R. 4664 
February 6, 1974 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 35-36 



Effecflve: Moy 22, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

(Docket No. 74-17; Notice 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109) and adds alter- 
native and test rim sizes to 49 CFR 571.110 
(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be made to Appendix A, 
§571.109 and to Appendix A, §571.110. Under 
these guidelines the additions become effective 
30 days from publication in the Federal Register, 
if no objections are received. If objections are 
received, rulemaking procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
553) are followed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
and Appendix A of 49 CFR §571.110 are 



amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above .... 

Effective date: May 22, 1974, if objections are 
not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 1422; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR § 1.51 and 
49 CFR §501.8.) 

Issued on April 16, 1974. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

39 F.R. 14595 
April 25, 1974 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 37-38 



KhcH**: Awfutl 19, 1*74 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

(Docket No. 74-26; Notic* 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109) and adds 
alternative and test rim sizes to 49 CFR 571.110 
(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by which 
routine additions could be made to Appendix A, 
§ 571.109 and to Appendix A, § 571.110. Under 
these guidelines the additions become effective 
30 days from publication in the Federal Register, 
if no objections are received. If objections are 
received, rulemaking procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
553) are followed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
and Appendix A of 49 CFR §571.110 are 



amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above .... 

Effective date: August 19, 1974, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 1422; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 and 49 
CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on July 11, 1974. 

Francis Armstrong 

Acting Associate Administrator 

Motor Vehicle Programs 

39 F.R. 26404 
July 19, 1974 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 39-40 



IffMtiv*! November 21, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 74-38; Notice 1) 



This amendment adds tire load ratings to 49 
CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109) and adds alternative rim 
sizes to 49 CFR 571.110 (Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 110). 

On October 5, 1968, guidelines were published 
in the Federal Register (33 F.R. 14964) by 
which routine additions would be made to Ap- 
pendix A, § 571.109 and to Api)endix A, § 571.110. 
Under these guidelines the additions become ef- 
fective 30 days from publication in the Federal 
Register, if no objections are received. If objec- 
tions are received, rulemaking procedures for 
the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards 
(49 CFR Part 553) are followed. 



Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
and Apijendix A of 49 CFR §571.110 are 
amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above .... 

Effective date: November 21, 1974, if objec- 
tions are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 1422; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 and 49 
CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on October 16, 1974. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 
39 F.R. 37489 
October 22, 1974 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 41-42 



Effective: Febrvary 24, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 75-1; Notice 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109) and adds 
alternative and test rim sizes to 19 CFR 571.110 
(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
110). 

Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), and 
amended August 13, 1974 (39 F.R. 28980), speci- 
fying procedures by which routine additions are 
made to Appendix A, § 571.109 and to Appendix 
A, § 571.110. Under these guidelines the addi- 
tions become effective 30 days from publication 
in the Federal Register^ if no objections are re- 
ceived. If objections are received, rulemaking 
procedures for the issuance of motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are fol- 
lowed. 



Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR §571.109 
and Appendix A of 49 CFR §571.110 are 
amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above .... 

Effective date : February 24, 1975, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 1422; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR § 1.51 and 
49 CFR §501.8.) 

Issued on January 17, 1975. 

Robert. L. Carter 

Associate Administrator 
Motor Vi'.hicle Programs 

40 F.R. 3597 
Januory 23, 1975 



PART 571 ; S 109A— PRE 43-44 



Effective: August 2, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 75-1; Notice 2) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109) and adds 
alternative and test rim sizes to 49 CFR 571.110 
(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
110). 

Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), and 
amended August 13, 1974 (39 F.R. 28980), speci- 
fying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made to Appendix A, § 571.109 and to 
Appendix A, § 571.110. Under these guidelines 
the additions become effective 30 days from 
publication in the Federal Register, if no objec- 
tions are received. If objections are received, 
rulemaking procedures for the issuance of motor 
vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are 
followed. 



Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
and Appendix A of 49 CFR §571.110 are 
amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 

Effective date: August 2, 1975, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 1422; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR § 1.51 and 
49 CFR § 501.8.) 

Issued on June 26, 1975. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

40 F.R. 28457 
July 7, 1975 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 45-t6 



Effective: December 15, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 75-1; Notice 3) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFK 571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109). 

Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), and 
amended August 13, 1974 (39 F.R. 28980), speci- 
fying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made to Appendix A, § 571.109. Under 
these guidelines the additions become effective 
30 days from publication in the Federal Register, 
if no objections are received. If objections are 
received, rulemaking procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
553) are followed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 



Effective date: December 15, 1975, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563. 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on November 6, 1975. 



Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

40 F.R. 53033 
November 14, 1975 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 47-48 



Effective: February 23, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 75-1; Notice 2) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109). 

Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), and 
amended August 31, 1974 (39 F.R. 28980), speci- 
fying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made to Appendix A, § .571.109. Under 
these guidelines the additions become effective 30 
days from publication in the Federal Register^ 
if no objections are received. If objections are 
received, rulemaking procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
553) are followed. 



Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 

Eifective date: February 23, 1976 if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 59 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on January 20, 1976. 

Robert L. Carter 

Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

41 F.R. 3870 
January 27, 1976 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 49-50 



Effective: May 22, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 75-1; Notice 2) 



This amendment adds a new tire size desig- 
nation to 49 CFR .571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109). 

Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964), and 
amended August 31, 1974 (39 FR 28980), speci- 
fying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made to Appendix A, § 571.109. Under 
these guidelines the additions become effective 30 
days from publication in the Federal Register^ 
if no objections are received. If objections are 
received, rulemaking procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
553) are followed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 



Effective date: May 22, 1976 if objections are 
not received. 

(Sec. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on April 19, 1976. 



Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

41 FR. 16804 
April 22, 1976 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 51-52 



Effective: October 18, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 76-3; Notice 3) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109). 

Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964), and 
amended August 31, 1974 (39 FR 28980), speci- 
fying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made to Appendix A, § 571.109. Under 
these guidelines the additions become effective 30 
days from publication in the Federal Register, 
if no objections are received. If objections are 
received, rulemaking procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
553) are followed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 



Effective date: October 18, 1976 if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on September 10, 1976. 



Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

41 FR. 40473 
September 20, 1976 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 53-54 



EffacHva: February 22, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 76-3; Notice 4) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109). 

Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964), and 
amended August 31, 1974 (39 FR 28980), speci- 
fying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made effective 30 days from publication 
in the Federal Register, if no objections are re- 
ceived. If objections are received, rulemaking 
procedures for the issuance of motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are fol- 
lowed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 



Effective date: February 22, 1977, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on January 12, 1977. 



Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 



42 F.R. 3844 
January 21, 1977 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 55-56 



Effective: March 14, T977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 77-02; Notice 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR 571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109). 

Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 CFR 14964), 
and amended August 31, 1974 (39 FR 28980), 
specifying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made effective 30 days from publication 
in the Federal Register, if no objections are re- 
ceived. If objections are received, rulemaking 
procedures for the issuance of motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are fol- 
lowed. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended subject to the 30 day provision indi- 
cated above, as specified below. 



E-ffective date: March 14, 1977, if objections 
are not received. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on February 4, 1977. 



Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

42 F.R. 9022 
February 14, 1977 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 57-58 



Effective: July 11, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 77-02; Notice 2) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to 49 CFR .571.109 (Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109, Nexo Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger Cars). 

Elective date: July 11, 1977, if objections are 
not received. 

For further information contact: 

John Diehl 

Office of Crash Avoidance 

Motor Vehicle Programs 

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(202-426-1715) 
According to agency practice, regular amend- 
ments are published modifying the Appendix of 
Standard No. 109. Guidelines were published 
in the Federal Reghter on October 5, 1968 (33 
FR 14964), and amended August 31, 1974 (39 
FR 28980), specifying procedures by which rou- 
tine additions could be made effective 30 days 



from publication in the Federal Register., if no 
objections are received. If objections are re- 
ceived, rulemaking procedures for the issuance 
of motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 
553) are followed. 

The principal authors of this document are 
John Diehl, Office of Crash Avoidance, and 
Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended subject to the 30 day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on June 3, 1977. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

42 F.R. 30620 
June 16, 1977 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 59-60 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 77-02; Notice 3) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to Standard No. 109, New Prieimbatic 
Tires — Passenger Cars. This addition is made 
pursuant to a request from the European Tyre 
and Rim Technical Organisation to permit the 
production of tires with the specified designa- 
tions. 

Effective date: September 7, 1977, if objections 
are not received. 

For further information contact: 

John A. Diehl 
Office of Crash Avoidance 
Motor Vehicle Programs 
National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 
400 Seventh Street, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20590 
(202-426-1715) 

Supplementary information : According to 
agency practice, regular amendments are pub- 
lished modifying the Appendix of Standard No. 
109. Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), 
and amended August 31, 1974 (39 F.R. 28980), 



specifying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made effective 30 days from publication 
in the Federal Register, if no objections are re- 
ceived. If objections are received, rulemaking 
procedures for the issuance of motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are followed. 

The principal authors of this document are 
John A. Diehl, Office of Crash Avoidance, and 
Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended subject to the 30 day provision in- 
dicated above. . . . 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 1422) ; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 
CFR 501.8.) 

Is.sued on August 1, 1977. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

42 F.R. 39984 
August 8, 1977 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 61-62 



Effective; September 7, T977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

(Docket No. 77-02; Notice 4) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desigTia- 
tions to Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires 
— Pasesnger Cars. This addition is made pur- 
suant to a request from the Rubber Manufacturers 
Association to pennit the production of tires 
with the specified designations. 

Effective date: September 7, 1977, if objections 
are not received. 

For further information contact: 

John A. Dielil 
Office of Crash Avoidance 
Motor Vehicle Programs 
National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 
400 Seventh Street, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20590 
(202-426-1715) 

Supplementary Information : Accoring to 
agency practice, regular amendments are pub- 
lished modifying the Appendix of Standard No. 
109. Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964) , and 
amended August 31, 1974 (39 F.R. 28980), spec- 
ifying procedures by which routine additions 



could be made effective 30 days from publication 
in the Federal Register, if no objections are re- 
ceived. If objections are received, rulemaking 
procedures for the issuance of motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are followed. 

The principal authors of this docimient are 
John A. Diehl, Office of Crash Avoidance, and 
Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended subject to the 30 day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8). 

Issued on August 1, 1977. 

Robert L. Carter 

Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 



42 F.R. 39983 
August 8, 1977 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 63-64 



Effective: November 25, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

(Docket No. 77-02; Notice 5) 



This amendment adds certain tire size designa- 
tions to Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires 
— Passenger Cars. This addition is made pur- 
suant to a request from the Rubber Manu- 
facturers Association (RMA) to permit the 
production of tires with the specified designation. 
Effective Date: November 25, 1977, if objections 
are not received. 

For Further Information Contact : 
John A. Diehl, Office of Crash Avoidance, 
Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202- 
426-1715). 

Supplementary Information : According to 
agency practice, regular amendments are pub- 
lished modifying the Appendix of Standard No. 
109. Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964), and 
amended August 31, 1974 (39 FR 28980), specify- 
ing procedures by which routine additions could 
be made effective 30 days from publication in the 
Federal Register, if no objections are received. 



If objections are received, rulemaking procedures 
for the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards 
(49 CFR Part 553) are followed. The RMA 
petitioned for this addition to the tire tables to 
permit production of tires with the specified 
designation. Their request is granted. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended subject to the 30 day provision indi- 
cated above, as specified below. . . . 

The principal authors of this document are 
John A. Diehl, Office of Crash Avoidance, and 
Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8) 

Issued on October 17, 1977. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

42 FR. 56333 
October 25, 1977 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 65-66 



PREAMBLE TO APPENDIX A OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 77-02; Notice 5) 



Action: Final rule. 

Surrwnary statement: This amendment adds cer- 
tain tire size designations to Standard iVo. 109, 
New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars. The 
addition is made pursuant to a request from 
the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Asso- 
ciation to pennit the production of tires with the 
specified designations. 

Effective date: January 11, 1978, if objections 
are not received. 

For further information contact: 

John A. Diehl, Office of Crash Avoidance, 
Motor Vehicle Progi-ams, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. 400 Seventh 
Street, Sw!, Washington, D.C. 20590, 
202-426-1715. 

Supplementary information: According to 
agency practice, regular amendments are pub- 
lished modifying the Appendix of Standard 
No. 109. Guidelines were published in the Fed- 
eral Register on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964), 
and amended April 31, 1974 (39 FR 28980), 
specifying procedures by which routine addi- 
tions could be made effective 30 davs from 



publication in the Federal Register, if no objec- 
tions are received. If objections ai'e received, 
rulemaking procerhires for the issuance of motor 
vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are 
followed. The Japan Automobile Tire Manu- 
facturers Association petitioned for this addition 
to the tire tables to permit the production of 
tires with the specified designations. 

The principal authors of this document are 
John A. Diehl, Office of Crash Avoidance, and 
Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR 571.109 
is amended, subject to the 30-day provision indi- 
cated above. . . . 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on December 7, 1977. 

Robert L. Carter 
Associate Administrator 
Motor Vehicle Programs 

42 F.R. 62386 
December 12, 1977 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 67-68 



Effective: March 8, 1978 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

(Docket No. 78-03; Notice 1) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to Standard No. 109, New Pneiematic 
Tires — Passenger Cars. This addition is made 
pursuant to a request from the Rubber Manufac- 
turers Association (RMA) to permit the produc- 
tion of tires with the specified designations. 

Effective Date: March 8, 1978 if objections are 
not received. 

For further information contact : 

John A. Diehl, Crash Avoidance Division, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590 (202-426-1715). 

Supplementary Information: According to 
agency practice, regular amendments are pub- 
lished modifying the Appendix of Standard No. 
109. Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), 
an damended August 31, 1974 (39 F.R. 28980), 
specifying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made effective 30 days from publication 
in the Federal Register, if no objections are re- 
ceived. If objections are received, rulemaking^ 



procedures for the issuance of motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 533) are fol- 
lowed. The RMA petitioned for thise addition 
to the tire tables to permit production of tires 
with the specified designations. This request is 
granted. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended subject to the 30 day provision indi- 
cated. . . . 

The principal authors of this document are 
John A. Diehl, Office of Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, and Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421 and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on January 27, 1978. 

Elwood T. Driver 

Acting Associate Administrator 

for Rulemaking 

43 F.R. 4859 
February 6, 1978 



PAST 571; S 109A-PRE e»-70 



Effective: March 8, 1978 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

(Docket No. 78-03; Notice 2) 



This amendment adds certain tire size desig- 
nations to Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger Cars. This addition is made 
pursuant to a request from the Miclielin Tire 
Corporation to permit the production of tires 
with the specified desip^nations. 

Effective Date : March 8, 1978, if objections are 
not received : 

For further information contact: 

John A. Diehl, Crash Avoidance Division, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590 (202-426-1717). 

Supplementarj' Information : According to 
agency practice, regular amendments are pub- 
lished modifying the Appendix of Standard No. 
109. Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Regmter on October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), and 
amended August 31, 1974 (39 F.R. 28980), spec- 
ifying procedures by which routine additions 
could be made effective 30 days from publica- 
tion in the Federal Register^ if no objections are 
received. If objections are received, rulemaking 



procedures for the issuance of motor vehicle 
safety standards (49 CFR Part 553) are fol- 
lowed. The Michelin Tire Corporation peti- 
tioned for this addition to the tire tables to 
permit production of tires with the specified 
designations. This request is granted. 

The principal authors of this document are 
John A. Diehl, Crash Avoidance Division, and 
Robert M. Churella, Office of Chief Counsel. 

Accordingly, Appendix A of 49 CFR § 571.109 
is amended subject to the 30 day provision indi- 
cated. . . . 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on January 27, 1978. 

Elwood T. Driver 

Acting Associate Administrator 

for Rulemaking 

43 F.R. 4860 
February 6, 1978 



PAKT671; S 109A-PRE 71-72 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 78-04, Notice 2, Docket No. 78-03, Notice 4) 



This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 109, New Pnev/matic Tires — 
Passenger Cars, by adding four new metric tire 
size designations to Appendix A of the standard 
and by establishing: criteria for testing and label- 
ing higher inflation pressure tires. These amend- 
ments are made in response to petitions by the 
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and the Rubber 
Manufacturers Association (RMA) in support 
of a Goodyear tire, and Michelin Tire Corp. 
The notice permits the introduction into inter- 
state commerce of certain new metric-unit tires, 
one of wliich is a higher inflation tire enabling 
improved automobile fuel economy. The addi- 
tion of the metric-unit tires accommodates the 
nation's conversion to the metric system, and the 
addition of tlie higher inflation tire also responds 
to the nation's need to conserve energy. This 
notice defers final action on proposals, issued in 
response to petitions by the RMA and Michelin 
Tire Corp., to amend the standard by adding 
two other new metric tire size designations to 
Appendix A. 

Effective date : Date of publication of this notice 
in Federal Register, June 5, 1978. 

^or further information contact: 

Arturo Casanova, Crash Avoidance Division, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590, 202^26-1715. 

Supplementary information: This notice estab- 
lishes a final rule with respect to two separate 
rulemaking actions, one initiated pursuant to a 
petition by Michelin Tire Corp. (Michelin), and 
the other initiated pursuant to petitions by the 



Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Goodyear) and 
the RMA. 

In response to a petition by Michelin, (October 
17. 1977), the NHTSA published a final rule 
(February 6, 1978; 43 FR 4859) amending Ap- 
pendix A of Standard No. 109 by adding five 
new metric tire size designations under an ab- 
breviated rulemaking pi'ocedure for expediting 
routine amendments to Appendix A tire tables. 
Guidelines for this procedure (October 5, 1968, 
33 FR 14963; as amended May 4, 1971, 36 FR 
8298; July 22, 1971, 36 FR 13601 ; and August 31, 
1974, 39 FR 28980) provide that such additions 
may be made without being preceded by a notice 
of proposed rulemaking. However, if objections- 
to a final rule are received within the 30 day 
comment period provided, the iiile does not be- 
come effective. In this case regular rulemaking 
procedures for issuing and amending motor ve- 
iiicle safety standards are initiated. Objections 
to the February 6, 1978, amendments were re- 
ceived. On April 3, 1978, the agency published 
a notice (43 FR 13903) proposing amendments 
of Standard No. 109 which would modify Ap- 
pendix A by adding four new metric tire size 
designations and revise the table in Figure 1 of 
the standard by adding a new wheel size and its 
corresponding bead unseating test dimension. 
The proposed revisions of the table in Figure 1 
are necessary to enable perfonnance of the bead 
unseating test (section 4.2.2.3) on one of the pro- 
posed tire sizes. 

In response to petitions from Goodyear (No- 
vember 3, 1977) and the RMA (November 17, 
1977) in support of a Goodyear tire, and from 
the RMA (January 17, 1978) in support of a 
Dunlop tire, the NHTSA published a notice 
(March 2, 1978; 43 FR 8570) proposing amend- 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 73 



ments of Standard No. 109 wliich would modify 
Appendix A of the standard by adding two new 
metric tire size designations and modify the 
standard to allow a higher maxininm inflation 
pressure and establish criteria for- performance 
testing of higher inflation pressure tires. 

All comments received on these notices have 
been considered and the most significant are dis- 
cussed beloM^ 

For the reasons set forth below this notice (1) 
adopts the amendments proposed in the Michelin 
notice with respect to the addition to Appendix 
A of the new tire size designations 195/60K390, 
180/65E390, and 190/65R390, requested by 
Michelin, (2) adopts the amendments proposed 
in the Goodyear-RMA notice with respect to the 
addition to Appendix A of the new tire size 
designation P215/65E390 requested by Goodyear 
and RMA in support of a Goodyear tire, and the 
modifications of the standard necessary to enable 
testing that tire, and (3) defers final action on 
(a) the amendments proposed in the Michelin 
notice to add the 180/65R365 tire size designation 
to Appendix A and to revise the table in Figure 
1 of the standard to enable conducting the bead 
unseating test on this tire size, requested by 
Michelin, and (b) the amendment proposetl in 
the Goodyear-RMA notice to add the P195/ 
65R370 tire size designation to Appendix A, re- 
quested by RMA in support of a Dunlop tire. 
Goodyear, Dunlop, and Michelin Tires : Intermix. 
The nation's gradual conversion from the Eng- 
lish system of measurement to the metric system 
is reflected in the current proposals to add metric 
tire size designations to Appendix A tire tables. 
Some similarity in size between existing English- 
unit tires and new metric-unit tires requested 
seems inevitable during the conversion. How- 
ever, the problems posed by conversion, if any. 
should be temporary, i.e., limited to the transition 
phase. 

Comments objecting to the addition of each of 
the new metric tire size designations proposed in 
the Michelin and Goodyear-RMA notices alleged 
that "intermix" or "mismatch" problems could 
accidentally occur when replacing a tire in the 
course of vehicle use. Some commentei-s asserted 
that, because the nominal diametei-s of the pro- 
posed metric tires and corresponding metric rims 



(365mm, 370mm, and 390mni) are verj' nearly 
the same as those of certain existing English-unit 
tire/rim diameters (14 inch, 15 inch, and 16 inch), 
it would be technically possible to mount an 
English-unit tire on a requested metric unit rim, 
or conversely to mount a metric-unit tire on an 
existing English-unit rim. Some commenters 
alleged that serious safety problems, such as tire 
explosion during, or road failures shortly after 
tire mounting could occur as a result of such 
intermixing. General Motors (GM) and the 
Armstrong Rubber Company (Armstrong) di- 
rected such allegations to all of the requested 
tires in both -notices, and the Department of 
California Highway Patrols directed this objec- 
tion to the Michelin requests. Other commenters 
predicted that tire/rim mismatchas could occur 
among certain combinations of the new metric 
tire and rim sizes proposed for amendment of 
Standard No. 109. should all proposed amend- 
ments be adopted. However, none of the objec- 
tions summarized above were supported by data 
demonstrating the safety hazards alleged, or 
even demonstrating that a tire could actually be 
mounted on an inappropriate rim and hold air. 

GM requested that the NHTSA defer action 
on all the jn-oposed new tire sizes for one year to 
allow the tire and vehicle industries to work out 
a general solution to potential intermix problems 
raised by these and other metric tires recpiested 
later. Dunlop requested that the NHTSA take 
no final action on the tires proposed in both 
notices without considering the potential safety 
hazards involved. The Department of California 
Highway Patrol recommended that the trend of 
proliferation of tire sizes be eliminated from the 
passenger car tire market in view of potential 
safety problems suggested. Mercedes-Benz as- 
serted that the diilerences among the proposed 
tires were sufficient to prevent intermix, but that 
the anticipated introtluction of additional tire- 
rim combinations raised the possibility of mis- 
match problems. Mercedes stated that the 
anticipated proliferation of metric tire sizes 
raised the prospect that the spare parts industry 
might not expand quickly enough to meet after- 
market needs, in view of the fact that a vehicle 
owner would need to replace his tires with the 
same type tire originally mounted. Mercedes 
suggested that the NHTSA encourage the devel- 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 74 



opment of uniform and interchangreable tires and 
rims. Armstrong objected to tlie Michelin and 
Goodyear proposals because of alleged confusion 
to the public and tire service personnel arising 
from the slight dimensional differences in metric 
and English tire/rim combinations. 

Other persons submitted that no intermix prob- 
lems were posed by the proposed tires. Chrysler 
Corporation stated that the P21o/6r)R390 Good- 
year tire raised no uniqiie tire/rim intermix issues, 
but submitted no supporting data. Gooflyear 
stated that its proposed metric tire and .TM rim 
were designed with an objective of pi-eventing 
misapplication with existing tires and rims. 
Goodyear submitted data on a series of automatic 
and hand tire-mounting trials conducted by the 
Tire and Rim Association (T&RA) on an earlier 
version of the 390 JM rim associated witli this 
tire. The data, together with data submitted on 
the JM contour, demonstrated that the designated 
maxinuun well-depth of the 390 JM rim design 
precluded misapplication of 15 inch tires on it. 
Goodyear also submitted that while the GcKxlyeaT- 
390 mm tire (15.3.5 inches) can be mounted on a 
standard 15-inch rim, it will not hold air because 
flutes molded into the lower bead area of the tire 
bleed out air. No supporting data was provided. 
Ford submitted data on intermix tests conducted 
by Goodyear in conjunction with the T&RA on 
the precursor of the requested Goodyear tire and 
rim, and also data on tests conducted by Ford on 
the 390 nun tire requested by Gmxlyear and on 
the 390 mm TR rim requested by Michel in for 
use with its requested 390 mm tire.s. Test results 
were (1) that a 15 inch tire could not be mounted 
on the precursor to the JM rim or on the TR 
rim, and (2) that the Goodyear tire could be 
mounted on a 15 inch rim, but that the molded 
flutes or "blow-by" feature of the Goodyear tire 
bead prevented the formation of an air-tight seal. 
Based on test results. Ford supported appi'oval 
of the 390 mm Goodyear and Michelin tires, but 
recommended that Standard No. 109 be amended 
to require this "blow-by" feature on metric tires 
to prevent misapplication with Englisli-unit rims. 
Saab-Scania submitted that it iiad attempted to 
mount a 15 inch tire on the Michelin 390 mm TR 
rim and found it impossible; and that while its 
attempts to mount the 390 mm Michelin tire on a 



15 inch JJ rim were successful, the tire could not 
be inflated. 

The intennix concerns of several commentei's 
would have been more appropriately raised in a 
petition for nilemaking that addressed any safety 
problems demonstrated as caused by intermixing 
inappropriate tires and rims. Alternatively, 
the concern could have been raised in a petition 
to commence an investigation to detemiine 
whether the size or configuration of the tires and 
rims constituted, in light of the alleged possi- 
bility of intei'mix and associated safety hazard, 
a safety related defect. On its own initiative, the 
agency is preparing to issue an advanced notice 
of proposed rulemaking on this subject. In view 
of its responsibility and broad authority under 
the Act to deal with safety problems, the agency 
believed that the allegation of intermix problems 
with respect to the current proposals to add new 
metric tires to Standard No. 109 warranted im- 
mediate inquiry. Accordingly, tl^e agency ini- 
tiated a program to test the intermix potential 
of these tires and associated rims with existing 
English-unit tires and rims, i.e., to test whether 
the propo.sed tires can be mounted on existing 
rims, or existing tires mounted on the proposed 
rims, and if so, whether safety hazards are found 
during mounting or on-road use. 

In response to a request by the XHTSA, 
Goodyear submitted the 390 mm P215/65R390 
tire and 390 mm JM rim, and Michelin sub- 
mitted one of its 390 mm tires, the 190/65R390 
tire and the 390 mm TR rim. Dunlop and 
Michelin stated they would not be able to submit 
the 370 mm P195/65R370 and the 365 mm 
180/65R365 tires, respectively, until a later date. 

The XHTSA tests conducted at the agency's 
Safety Research Lalxiraton- in Riverdale, Maiy- 
land corroborated the test data submitted in sup- 
port of the proposed 390 mm Goodyear and 
Michelin tires and rims, as simimarized above. 
A standard 15 inch tire could not be intennixed 
with either the 390 mm JM or the 390 mm TR 
rim, because the well-depths established for these 
rims precluded mounting the tire. While the 390 
mm Goodyear and Miclielin tires submitted could 
be mounted on tlie existing 15 inch JJ contour 
rim. the special "flutes" incorporated on the bead 
seal area of each of these tires prevented the tire 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 75 



from holding air. Althouirli comments alleged 
potential intermix problems relative to the re- 
quested 390 mm tires and rims and the 16 inch 
tire and 16 inch JJ rim, this allegation is aca- 
demic since no 16 inch tires have ever been de- 
signed or produced for the 16 inch JJ rim. 
(Original equipment use of 16 inch passenger car 
tires included in Standard Xo. 109 tire tables was 
discontinued during the mid 19a0s, and the JJ 
rim contour was not introduced imtil 1967.) 

The Michelin 195/60R390 and 180/65R390 
tires with their associated 390 mm JM or TR 
rims were not submitted for testing. However, 
the results of the tests perfoniied on the Michelin 
and the Goodyear tires submitted and on their 
associated rims are conclusive with respect to the 
intermix potential of these two proposed Michelin 
tires and rims. This is because all four tires and 
associated rims are the same with respect to the 
variables found to be critical in preventing in- 
appropriate intermixing of the tested tires and 
rims. The critical variables are : the nominal 
diameter of the tire and rim, or 390 mm for all 
four tires and associate rims; rim contour, e.g.. 
TR or JM. which determines well-depth; and 
tire "flutes" molded into the tire bead. The 
nominal diameters of the tire and rim of the 
fourth Michelin tire requested, the 180/65R365 
(365 mm), and of the requested Dunlop tire, the 
P195/6.5R370 (370 mm), are different from those 
tested. Another difference characterizing the 
Dunlop tire is the proposed DL rim contour. 
Therefore the XHTSA tests conducted to date 
are not conclusive as to whether either of these 
two tires and their associated rims can be inter- 
mixed with existing rims and tires, or intennixed 
one with the other, and if so, what any conse- 
quences of any such intemiix might be. 

The agency decided to proceed with final rule- 
making action on all of the 390 mm tires pro- 
posed. The agency decided to defer final 
rulemaking on the 370 mm Dunlop tire and the 
365 mm Michelin tire until agency intermix tests 
are performed on these tires. 

The Michelin Tires: InjcyrTnation Submitted 
for Inclusion m Appendix A Tire Tables. The 
bases for accepting or denying requests to add 
new tire size designations to Table I of Appendix 
A of Standard Xo. 109 are set forth in inti'o- 



ductory guidelines to the appendix (October 5, 
1968, 33 FR 14964, as amended May 4, 1971, 36 
FR 8298; July 22, 1971, 36 FR 13601; August 
13, 1974, 39 FR 28980). In sum, the tests are 
appropriateness of the values submitted for in- 
clusion in the tire tables, and appropriateness of 
the requested location within the tables of the 
requested tires. 

As discussed in the April 3 Michelin notice, 
GM objected to the absence of a prefix "P" for 
4 of the 5 new tire sizes requested by Miclielin 
published in the February- 6 Michelin notice. 
GM urged that this prefix be made mandatory 
to distinguish. International Standards Organi- 
zation (ISO) metric tire size designations from 
other metric tire size designations. The ISO 
standard for "Passenger car tyres and rims 
(Future series) Part 1: Tyres" states: 

This symbol ("P") may be used where there 
may be ambiguity regarding the tyre type. 
Where the optional marking is used, it should 
be so positioned that confusion cannot result 
from its proximity to any other ser\-ice con- 
dition marking. 

GM's comments noted that a<^cording to the 
practice of the T&RA, the prefix "P" is required 
to distinguish ISO metric size designations from 
other metric designations, even though the ISO 
standard makes use of the prefix optional. The 
XHTSA is of course not bound by the standards 
or practice of either organization. Xeither the 
ISO nor the T&RA submitted comments dis- 
cussing long-range effects of mandating the use 
of the prefix. Xeither GM nor anyone else elab- 
orated a rationale for preferring the T&RA prac- 
tice to the ISO standard. Further, Michelin's 
response to the GM comment asserted that the 
tires requested in the April 3 Michelin notice 
have been and are currently marketed in Europe, 
where they are not designated by the prefix "P". 
In the absence of any rationale for mandating 
nomenclature to distinguish ISO metric tire des- 
ignations from other metric tire sizes, in the ab- 
sence of any data on or discussion of any 
ambiguity resulting from the nomenclature as 
proposed, and in the interest of maintaining con- 
sistency between European and U.S. nomen- 
clature for the tire, the agency concludes that the 
absence of the prefix "P" is not inappropriate. 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 76 



This conclusion is consistent witli the fact that 
Table I-Y in Appendix A already lists a metric 
tire size designation which does not use the jirefix 
"P". (195/60R350) Therefore, the agency ac- 
cepts the tire size nomenclature requested by 
Michelin, as proposed. 

Armstrong objected to the inclusion of the 
Michelin 195/60R;390 and P20o/60R390 tires as 
not being compatible with existing Standard No. 
109 tire tables and as not having been approved 
by any technical standardizing body. Michelin 
subsequently withdrew its request to add the 
P205/60R390 tire to the standard. Under Ap- 
pendix A guidelines, the test of compatibility is 
applicable to requests for addition of new tire 
sizes to existent tire tables. Where, as here, ad- 
ditional new tables for new tire construction are 
requested, the applicable test is "adequate justi- 
fication" for the new tables. The NHTSA finds 
that there is adequate justification for the pro- 
posed new tables I-XN and I-PP pi-ecisely 
because the constructions of the new metric tires 
requested for inclusion in the new tables are dis- 
tinguishable from those of tires in existing tables. 
Appendix A guidelines do not require approval 
of requested tire sizes by a recognized technical 
standardizing body, but only "A statement as to 
whether the tire size designation has been coor- 
dinated with" the organizations listed (guideline 
#4). Michelin submitted such a statement with 
respect to its requested metric tire size designa- 
tions. 

In the April 3 Michelin notice, the XHTSA 
requested comments on the alternative use of JM 
and TR rim profiles in conjunction with any of 
the requested Michelin metric tires, as proposed 
in that notice. JM is a metric rim profile estab- 
lished by the T&RA (October 7, 1977, "Design 
Guide of Tire and Rim Association"). TR is a 
metric rim profile establisiied by the European 
Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) 
(1978 ETRTO Data Book, p. RP.ll). Arm- 
strong commented that the concurrent existence 
of the JM and TR rims on the market would 
entail potential safety-related consequences. Arm- 
strong asserted that the "snap-in" valve used for 
the JM rim, with its 8.9nim (.350 inch) diameter 
valve hole specification, could accidentally be 
fitted into the TR valve hole, with its 10.0mm 
(.394 inch) diameter specification. The result 



would be loss of inflation pressure. Michelin has 
subsequently informed the NHTSA that it will 
petition the ETRTO to adopt a 8.9mm diameter 
valve hole dimension for the TR rim. 

No commenter specifically addressed the issue 
of the alternative use of the JM and TR rim 
contours. NHTSA analysis of these contours 
indicates that, with the Michelin change to the 
9mm valve hole dimension, the remaining differ- 
ences between the two rims are insignificant in 
terms of their equivalent appropriateness for use 
in mounting any of the meti"ic size tires requested 
by Michelin. 

Armstrong raised a number of points alleged 
to safety-relatetl weaknesses in the "snap-in" 
valve design of the JM rim. In comments on the 
Febi-uary 6 Michelin notice, Annstrong had al- 
leged that safety problems could also arise from 
the potential accidental installation of an Eng- 
lish-unit valve in the TR valve hole, resulting in 
loss of inflation pressure. Such considerations 
of the potential consequences of the use of the 
rims requested in conjunction with the i-equested 
new tire size designations fall outside the per- 
missible bases of agency denial of requests to 
amend Appendix A tire tables. The appropriate 
course of action is to submit a petition for nile- 
making to establish or amend a standard to ad- 
dress the issues. Accordingly, the alternative use 
of the J^I and TR rims in conjunction with the 
proposed Michelin tires is adopted, as proposed. 

The Goodyear Tire: Fuel Economy, Vehicle 
Ride and Handling, ami Labeling. The amend- 
ment of Standard No. 109 as proposed in the 
Goodyear-RMA notice would increase the maxi- 
mum permissible inflation pressure permitted 
under the standard to 300 kPa (44 psi) and make 
conforming amendments throughout the standard 
to establish test criteria to enable conducting the 
standard's various perfonnance tests on the pro- 
posed tire. The notice proposed that tire per- 
formance tests be established at the same load 
levels as prescribed for the 240 kPa (35 psi) tire, 
based on the agency's tentative conclusion that 
these load levels represent test conditions more 
severe than would result from utilization of a 
higher test inflation pressure, so that the safety 
of the tire is better assured. No comments were 
submitted addressing this point. Accordingly, 
the agency adopts these amendments as proposed. 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 77 



The Goodyear new tire size designation 
P215/65R390 meets the criteria set forth in intro- 
ductory guidelines to Appendix A for adding 
new tire sizes to Appendix A tire tables. Ac- 
cordingly, the proposed amendment of Appendix 
A of Standard No. 109 adding this new tire size 
is adopted, as proposed. 

Comments and data were submitted on the is- 
sue of the potential of the proposed higher infla- 
tion pressure tires to enable improved fuel 
economy in vehicle use compared to the potential 
of existing tii-es to enable improved vehicle fuel 
economy when tested under higher inflation pres- 
sures. All commenters agreed that the higher 
inflation pressure design of the requested Good- 
year tire provides lowered rolling resistance, 
which enables improved fuel economy in vehicle 
use. Other comments and data were submitted 
in regard to ride quality and handling charac- 
teristics of vehicles using the proposed highei- 
inflation pressure tires. All of these comments 
relate to issues which fall outside tlie ambit of 
Appendix A. 

GM submitted that the addition of the Good- 
year tire to Standard No. 109 necessitated an 
amendment of the labeling requirements of S4.3 
of the standard to specify pressure at maximum 
load rating, in order to distinguish this pressure 
from maximum permissible inflation pressure 
where these two values do not correspond. Stand- 
ard No. 109 requires labeling of maximum load 
rating and of maximum permissible inflation 
pressure. With respect to existing tires, values 
for maximum load rating and for maximum per- 
missible inflation pressure always correspond. 
With respect to the Goodyear tire, there may be 
several inflation pressures for the maximum load 
rating. However, the maximum permissible in- 
flation pressure for the Goodyear tire is always 
an appropriate inflation pressure for the maxi- 



mum load rating. The labeling requirements do 
not purport to cover all possible inflation pres- 
sures and load ratings, but only the most extreme 
(i.e. "maximum") conditions under which it is 
safe to operate a tire. Since the information on 
these maximum conditions for inflation pressure 
and load ratings must be labeled on the Goodyear 
tire, it is unnecessary to amend the labeling re- 
quirements as requested. 

In accordance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)) and 
Executive Order 12044, the NHTSA has reviewed 
the environmental and economic impacts of these 
amendments. There should be no negative en- 
vironmental impacts. Further, since these are 
minor technical amendments of the standard 
which will permit the production of four new 
tire sizes, there should be no costs associated with 
their implementation. The agency has further 
concluded that this is not a significant regulation 
within the meaning of the Executive Order. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Title 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.109 
(Standard No. 109, Neio Pjieumatic Tires-Pas- 
senger Cars) is amended. . . . 

The principal authors of this notice are Arturo 
Casanova of the Crash Avoidance Division, John 
Diehl of the Tire Perfonnance Group, and Nancy 
Eager of the Office of Chief Counsel. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 
1422) ; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 601.8.) 

Issued on May 30, 1978. 

Howard Dugoflf 
Acting Administrator 

43 F.R. 24310-24314 
June 5, 1978 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 78 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 78-03; Notice 5) 



Pursuant to petitions by the European Tyre 
and Rim Tex-hnical Organisation (ETRTO) and 
by the Rubber Manufacturers Association 
(RMA), this notice amends Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 109, Neic Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger Cars, by adding ten new tire 
size desifjiiations to Table I of Appendix A of 
the standard. The amendment pennits the intro- 
duction into interstate commerce of the new tire 
sizes. 

Effective date: 30 days from publication in the 
Federal Register, if objections are not received 
prior to that date. 

Address: Comments should refer to the docket 
number and be submitted to Room 5108, Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington. 
D.C. 20590. 

For further information contact: 

lohn Dichl, Office of Automotive Ratings. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- 
tration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washing- 
ton. D.C. 20690, 202-426-1714. 

Supplementally information: According to 
agency practice, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) responds to 
petitions for adding new tire sizes to Table I 
of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 by quarterly 
issuing final rules under an abbreviated rule- 
making procedure for expediting such routine 
amendments. Guidelines for this procedure 
(October 5, 1968, 33 FR 14964, as amended 
May 4, 1971, 36 FR 8298; July 22, 1971. 36 
FR 13601 ; and August 13, 1974," 39 FR 28980) 
provide that these final rules become effective 
30 days after their date of publication if no 
comments objecting to them are received by 



the agency during this 30-day period. If objec- 
tions are received, regular rulemaking procedures 
for issuing and amending motor vehicle safety 
standards (49 CFR Part 553) are to be initiated. 

On March 20, 1978, the ETRTO petitioned for 
the addition of four new English-unit tire size 
designations to existing tables within Table I of 
Appendix A of Standard No. 109. On (April 
11. 1978, April 25, 1978, May 25, 1978, and June 
16. 1978) the RMA petitioned for the addition 
of six new English-unit tire size designations to 
existing tables within Table I of Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109. The bases for accepting or 
denying requests to add new tire size designations 
are set forth in introductory guidelines to the 
appendix (October 5, 1968. 33 FR 14964, as 
amended May 4. 1971, 36 FR 8298; July 22, 1971, 
36 FR 1360l"; and August 13, 1974, 39 FR 28980). 
In sum, the tests are appropriateness of the in- 
formation submitted for inclusion in the tire 
tables, and appropriateness of the rex|uested loca- 
tion within the tables of the requested tire sizes. 
The ten new tire size designations requested to 
be added to Standard No. 109 meet thase criteria. 
Accordingly, the ETRTO and the RMA i^etitions 
are granted, and the ten new tire size designations 
are added to Table I of Appendix A of the stand- 
ard pursuant to the abbreviated rulemaking 
procedure. 

In accordance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)) and 
Executive Order 12044, the NHTSA has reviewed 
the environmental and economic impacts of these 
amendments. There should be. no negative en- 
vironmental impacts. Further, since these are 
minor technical amendments of the standard 
which will pennit the production of four new 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 79 



tire sizes, there should be no costs associated with 
their implementation. The agency has further 
concluded that this is not a significant regulation 
within the meaning of the Executive Order. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regvdations (Part 571.109 
(Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires — Pas- 
senger Cars) ) is amended. . . . 

All comments submitted must be limited to 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 
arguments in a succinct and concise fashion. It 
is requested but not required that 10 cojiies of 
comments be submitted. 

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, sliould be sub- 
mitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 
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 informa- 
tion falls within 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b) (4), and 
that disclosure of the information is likely to 



result in substantial competitive damage; specify- 
ing 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 requested is in fact con- 
fidential within the meaning of section 552(b) (4) 
and that a diligent search has been conducted by 
the commenter or its employees to assure that 
none of the specified items has previously been 
released to the public. 

The principal authors of this notice are Jolin 
Diehl of the Tire Perfonnance Group and Nancy 
Eager of the Office of Chief Counsel. 

(Sec. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 1422) ; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 
CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on September 25, 1978. 

Michael M. Finkelstein 

Acting Associate Administrator 

for Rulemaking 

43 F.R. 45366 
October 2, 1978 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 80 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 78-17; Notice 1) 



Pursuant to petitions by the Michelin Tire 
Corporation (Michelin) and by the Rublier 
Manufacturers Association (RMA), this notice 
amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 109, Nexo Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars. 
by adding four new tire size designations to 
Table I of Appendix A of the standard. The 
amendment permits the introduction into inter- 
state commerce of the new tire sizes. 

Effective date: .30 days from publication in the 
Federal Register, if objections are not received 
prior to that date. 

Address: Comments should refer to the docket 
number and be submitted to Room ,5108, Nassif 
Building. 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20590. 

For further information contact: 

John Diehl, Office of Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 
ministration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1714). 

Supplementary infoi'mation: According to 
agency practice, the National Highway Traffic 
safety Administration responds to petitions for 
adding new tire sizes to Table I of Appendix 
A of Standard No. 109 by quarterly issuing final 
rules under an abbreviated rulemaking procedure 
for expediting such routine amendments. 

On July 13, 1978, Michelin petitioned for the 
addition of two new tire size designations re- 
quested to be located in a new table, I-QQ within 
Appendix A of Standard No. 109. On July 18. 
1978, and August 3, 1978, the RMA petitioned 
for the addition of two new tire size designations 
to existing tables within Table I of Appendix A 



of the standard. The bases for accepting or de- 
nying requests to add new tire size designations 
are set forth in introductory guidelines to the 
appendix (October 5, 1968, 33 FR 14964, as 
amended May 4, 1971, 36 FR 8298; July 22, 1971, 
36 FR 13601; and August 13, 1974, 39 FR 
28980). The four new tire size designations re- 
quested to l)e added to Standard No. 109 meet 
these criteria. Accordingly, the Michelin and the 
RMA petitions are granted, and these new tire 
size designations are added to Table I of Ap- 
pendix A of the standard pursuant to the ab- 
breviate<l nilemaking procedure. 

In accordance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c) and 
Executive Order 12044, the NHTSA has reviewed 
the environmental and economic impacts of these 
aniendments. There should be no negative en- 
vironmental impacts. Further, since these are 
minor technical amendments of the standard 
which will permit the production of four new 
tire sizes, there should be no costs associated with 
their implementation. The agency has further 
concluded that this is not a significant regulation 
within the meaning of the Executive Order. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Title 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (Part 571.109 
(Standard No. 109, Ne\c Pneumatic Tires — Pas- 
senger Cars) ) is amended. . . . 

All connnents 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 
arguments in a succinct and concise fashion. It 
is requested but not required that 10 copies of 
comments be submitted. 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 81 



If a coiuinenter wishes to submit certain infor- 
mation under a claim of confidentiality, three 
copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential infonnation, should be 
submitted to the Chief Counsel, XHTSA, at the 
address given above, and seven copies from wliich 
the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Sec- 
tion. Any claim of confidentiality must be sup- 
ported 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 dam- 
age; specifying the period during w'hich the in- 
formation 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 re- 
quested is in fact confidential within the meaning 
of section 552 (b)(4) and that a diligent search 



has been conducted by the commenter or its em- 
ployees to assure that none of the specified items 
has previously been released to the public. 

All comments received before the close of busi- 
ness 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. 

The principal authors of this notice are John 
Diehl of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 
and Nancy Eager of the Office of Chief Counsel. 

(Sec. 103, 119, 201, and 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 1421, and 1422) ; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 
CFR 501.8.) 

Issued on November 27, 1978. 

Michael M. Finkelstein 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 

43 F.R. 56668-56671 
December 4, 1978 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 82 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 79-01; Notice 1) 



Action: Final rule. 

Surmnary: Pursuant to petitions by the Rub- 
ber Manufacturers Association (RMA), Euro- 
pean Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
(ETRTO), and Michelin Tire Corporation 
(Michel in), this notice amends Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Nev) Pnenmatir 
Tires — Passenger Cars, by adding certain tire 
size designations to Appendix A of the standard. 
This amendment permits the introduction into 
interstate commerce of the new tire sizes. 

Elective date: 30 days from the date of pub- 
lication in the Federal Register, if objections 
are not received before that date. 

Address: Comments should refer to Docket 
79-01 and be submitted to Docket Section. Room 
5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. 

For further information contact: 

John Diehl, Office of Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 
ministration. 400 Seventh Street, S.AV., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1714). 

Supplementary infoi^mation : According to 
agency practice, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) responds to 
petitions for adding new tire sizes to Table I 
of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 by quar- 
terly issuing final rules under an abbreviated 
rulemaking procedure for expediting such rou- 
tine amendments. Guidelines for this procedure 
were published at 33 FR 14964, October 5, 1968 
and amended at 36 FR 8298, May 4, 1971 ; 36 FR 
13601, July 22, 1971; and 39 FR 28980, August 
13, 1974. These guidelines provide that these 



final rules become effective 30 days after their 
date of publication if no comments objecting to 
them are received by the agency during this 30 
day period. If objections are received, regular 
rulemaking procedures for issuing and amending 
motor vehicle safety standards are initiated. 

ETRTO petitioned for the addition of a new 
tire size to an existing table within Table I of 
Appendix A of Standard No. 109 on September 
28. 1977. On October 24. 1978. Michelin peti- 
tioned for the addition of a new P-metric series 
tire size to an existing table within Table I of 
Appendix A of Standard No. 109. On November 
1, 1978, and December 1, 1978, RMA filed peti- 
tions requesting the addition of five new P-metric 
tire sizes to the existing tables. The basis for 
accepting or denying requests to add new tire 
size designations is set forth in introductory 
giiidelines to the appendix. Briefly, the tests 
are the appropriateness of the information sub- 
mitted for inclusion in the tire tables, and appro- 
priateness of the requested location within the 
tables of the requested tire sizes. The seven new 
tire size designations requested to be added to 
Standard No. 109 appear to meet these criteria. 
Accordingly, the Michelin, ETRTO, and RMA 
petitions are granted, and the seven new tire size 
designations are added to Table I of Appendix 
A of the standard pursuant to the abbreviated 
rulemaking procedure. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.109 is amended . . . subject to the 30 day 
comment period outlined above. 

Interested persons are invited to submit com- 
ments on these additions. Comments must be 
limited so as not to exceed 15 pages in length. 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 83 



submissions without regard to the 15 page limit. AUTHORITY : Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, 

This limitation is intended to encourage com- Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 

menters to detail their primary arguments in a 1407, 1421, and 1422) ; delegations of authority 

succinct and concise fashion. at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. ^ 

The agency has reviewed the impacts of this Issued on February 21. 1979. 
proposal and determined that they are minimal 

and that this is not a significant regulation within Michael M. Finkelstein 

the meaning of Executive Order 12044. Associate Administrator 

The program official and attorney principally ^ 

responsible for the development of this notice are 44 F.R. 1 1549 

John Diehl and Stephen Kratzke, respectively. March 1, 1979 



PAET 571; S 109 A— PRE 84 

r 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 77-02; Notice 7) 



Action: Final rule. 

Summary: This notice grants in part and de- 
nies in part a petition submitted by the Japan 
Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association re- 
questing the addition of two new tire size desig- 
nations to Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 109, Neir Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger Cars. The requested sizes 
have been redesignated using the alpha numeric 
system, because if the metric system wore used, 
the values given for these tires would differ from 
those agreed upon by the International Organi- 
zation for Standardization, ■\^'^len the alpha 
numeric system of designating tire sizes is used, 
one of the requested tire sizes duplicates a size 
currently included in the Api^endix. Inclusion 
of that size again is unnecessary and therefore 
the request is denied. The request for inclusion 
of the other tire size is granted. Promulgation 
of this final iide permits the introduction of that 
size into interstate commerce. 

Ineffective date: May 10, 1979. 

For further information contact: 

John Diehl, Office of Automotive Ratings, 
Crash Avoidance Division, National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration. 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590 (202-426-1714). 

Supplementary infm'matian: According to 
agency practice, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) respond to 
petitions for adding new tire sizes to Appendix 
A of Standard No. 109 by quarterly issuing 
final rules under an abbreviated rulemaking 
procedure for expediting such routine amend- 
ments. Guidelines for this procedure (33 FR 



14964, October 5, 1968, as amended at 39 FR 
28980, August 13, 1974) provide that these final 
rules become effective 30 days after their date of 
publication if no comments objecting to them are 
received by NHTSA during this 30-day period. 
If objections are received, rulemaking procedures 
for proposing and issuing motor vehicle safety 
standards (49 CFR Part 553) are to be initiated. 

Pursuant to a jietition from the Japan Auto- 
mobile Manufacturers Association (Juh' 26, 
1977). a final rule amending Appendix A by 
adding two new tire size designations was pub- 
lished at 42 FR 62386, December 12, 1977, using 
the abbreviated inilemaking procedure. An ob- 
jection to this amendment was timely submitted 
by General Motors Corp. (GM) on January 11, 
1978. Accordingly, the amendment did not be- 
come effective. 

NHTSA published a notice of proposed rule- 
making on this addition at 43 FR 22420, May 25, 
1978. In response to that notice, comments on 
the proposed tire sizes were submitted by GM 
and the B.F. Goodrich Company (Goodrich). 

The petition had requested that two tire sizes, 
225/60R13 and 225/60R14. be added to the ap- 
pendix. GM and Goodrich both commented that 
the proposed millimetric 225/60R14 size designa- 
tion was already included in Table I-R, under 
the alpha numeric designation of DR 60-14. A 
millimetric size designation describes the tire's 
cross-section width in millimeters, while the alpha 
numeric system describes the tire's cross-section 
width in inches. All the tire loads and other 
values for the requested 225/60R14 tire size were 
identical with those already listed for the DR 
60-14 size. The commenters suggested that it 
would be most appropriate for NHTSA to add 
the values for the requested 225/60R13 size, but 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 85 



designate this size as DR 60-13, and deny the 
request with respect to the 225/60R14 size, since 
that size already appears in the tables. 

There were two reasons offered in the comments 
for redesigTiating the requested tire sizes from 
225/60R13 and 225/60R14 to DR 60-13 and DR 
60-14. First, according to the commenters, the 
test rim widths and section widths requested by 
the petitioner for those tire sizes did not agree 
with the test rim widths and section widths 
agreed upon for those size tires by the Interna- 
tional Organization for Standardization. Second, 
the commenters stated that consistency with 
international standardization efforts required the 
load values for the requested sizes to be expressed 
in kilograms and kilo Pascals, rather than in 
pounds and pounds per square inch, as proposed. 
There would be no inconsistency with the inter- 
national standardization efforts for tire size 
designations if the tire sizes were redesignated 
as shown above. 

NHTSA concurs with the suggestion that the 
international standardization of tire size designa- 
tions is a desirable goal. "VVTien this can be pro- 
moted without any unduly great burden to the 
manufacturers or the public, NHTSA will gen- 
erally follow this course. With respect to this 
petition, a redesignation of the tire sizes does not 
impose any significant burden on the manufac- 
turers. The redesignation allows the tires to be 
sold without any further computation of values 
or testing by the manufacturer. Therefore, the 
benefits to be gained from harmonization of tire 



size designations outweighs the minimal burden 
imposed on the manufacturer by having to re- 
designate these tire sizes. 

With this redesignation, the requested new tire 
sizes 225/60R13 and 225/60R14 become DR 60-13 
and DR 60-14. The request for the DR 60-13 
size is gi'anted with the values proposed in the 
notice of proposed ndemaking for the 225/60R13 
size. The request for the DR 60-14 size is de- 
nied, because that size is already included in 
Table I-R of the Appendix to Standard No. 109. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Title 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.109 is 
amended 

NHTSA has reviewed this rule and determined 
that it is not a significant regulation within the 
meaning of Executive Order 12044. Further this 
action does not require an environmental impact 
statement under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

The program official and attorney principally 
responsible for the development of this rule are 
John Diehl and Steplien Kratzke, respectively. 

AUTHORITY: Sees. 103, 109, 201, and 202, 
Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat, 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407, 1421, and 1422) ; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.50. 



Issued on May 1, 1979. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

44 F.R. 27395 
May 10, 1979 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 86 



C 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 78-03; Notice 6; Docket No. 78-04; Notice 3) 



Action: Final rule. 

Sunvmary : This notice amends Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Neio Pneu- 
matic Tires — Passenger Cars, by adding two 
new metric tire size designations to Appendix A 
of that Standard. These, amendments are made 
in response to petitions by Michelin Tire Cor- 
poration and the Rubber Manufacturers Associa- 
tion (RMA). Issuance of this notice permits 
the introduction of these metric tire sizes into 
interstate commerce. 

Effective date: May 10, 1979. 

For further information contact: 

Arturo Casanova, Crash Avoidance Division, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington. D.C. 
20590 (202-42&-171.5). 

Supplementar^j information : This notice estab- 
lishes a final rule with respect to two separate 
rulemaking actions, one initiated pursuant to 
a petition by RMA and the other initiated 
pursuant to a petition by Michelin Tire Cor- 
poration (Michelin). In response to a peti- 
tion by RMA (January' 17, 1978) supporting a 
Dunlop tire which would use a higher inflation 
pressure and is designed to be retained on the 
tire rim in the event of rapid tire deflation, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) published a notice of proposed rule- 
making at 43 FR 8570, March 2, 1978. That 
notice also proposed the addition of a Goodyear 
tire designed to use a higher inflation pressure. 
Several comments objecting to the inclusion of 
these tires in Table I of Appendix A of Standard 
No. 109 were received by NHTSA. 



In response to a petition by Michelin (October 
3, 1977) requesting the addition of new metric 
tire size designations, NHTSA published a rou- 
tine amendment to Table I at 43 FR 4860, Feb- 
ruary 6, 1978. Under the procedures established 
by NHTSA for routine tire table amendments 
(33 FR 14964, October 5, 1968, as amended by 
39 FR 28980, August 31, 1974), new size desig- 
nations are published as a final rule which be- 
comes effective 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register, unless objections are received 
before the expiration of that 30-day period. 
Objections were received, so the sizes were not 
added. Subsequently, NHTSA published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking to include these sizes in 
Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 109; 
43 FR 13903, April 3, 1978. 

NHTSA resolved the issues raised by the com- 
ments on the inclusion of the Goodyear tire and 
all but one of the Michelin tire sizes, and pub- 
lished a final rule for these tire sizes at 43 FR 
24310, June 5, 1978. In that rule. NHTSA indi- 
cated that it would publish separately a final rule 
dealing with the Dunlop and remaining Michelin 
tire sizes. This notice sets forth a final rule for 
those sizes. 

Comments objecting to the addition of these 
two tire size designations alleged that "intermix" 
or "mismatch" problems could accidentally occur 
when replacing a tire on a vehicle. Some of the 
commenters asserted that, because the nominal 
diameters of the proposed metric tires and cor- 
responding metric rims (365mm and 370mm) are 
very nearly the same as those of certain existing 
English-unit tire/rim diameters (14 inch and 15 
inch), it would be technically possible to mount 
an English-unit tire on the requested metric unit 
rim, or conversely, to mount a metric unit tire on 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 87 



an existing English-unit rim. Some commenters 
alleged that serious safety problems, such as tire 
explosions during, or road failures shortly after 
tire mounting could occur as a result of such 
intermixing. General Motors (GM) and the 
Armstrong Rubber Company (Annstrong) di- 
rected such allegations to both tires in this notice 
and the Department of California Highway 
Patrols directed its objection to the Michelin 
request. However, none of the objections sum- 
marized above were suppoi-ted by data demon- 
strating that the safety hazards alleged liad 
occurred or even that they could occur. 

GM requested that the NHTSA defer action 
on all the proposed new tire sizes for one year to 
allow the tire and vehicle industries to work out 
a general solution to potential intermix problems 
raised by these and other metric tires. Dunlop 
requested that NHTSA take no final action on 
the tires proposed without considering the poten- 
tial safety hazards involved. The Department 
of California Highway Patrol recommended that 
the trend toward proliferation of passenger car 
tire sizes be halted in view of the potential safety 
problems discussed above. Mercedes-Benz as- 
serted that the differences among the proposed 
tires were sufficient to prevent intermix, but that 
the anticipated introduction of additional tire- 
rim combinations raised the possibility of mis- 
match problems. Mercedes stated that the 
anticipated proliferation of metric tire sizes 
raised the prospect that the spare parts industt-y 
might not expand quickly enough to meet after- 
market needs, in view of the fact that a vehicle 
owner would need to replace the tires on the 
vehicles with the same type of tires originally 
mounted thereon. Mercedes suggested that 
NHTSA encourage the development of uniform 
and interchangeable tires and rims. Annstrong 
objected to the Michelin proposal because of al- 
leged confusion of the public and tire service 
personnel arising from the slight dimensional 
differences in metric and English unit tire/rim 
combinations. 

With respect to this larger issue of general 
standardization of tires sizes, NHTSA believes 
it is not necessary to resolve it before permitting 
these tire sizes to be introduced. As explained 
below, the intermix problem has been alleviated 
with respect to these particular tire sizes. Since 



this is the case, it is inappropriate to delay the 
introduction of these sizes while awaiting a reso- 
lution of the larger issue. 

In the June 5, 1978, notice establishing a final 
rule for the Goodyear tire and the 390mm 
Michelin tires, the agency indicated that it would 
defer final rulemaking on the Michelin 365mm 
tire and the Dunlop 370mm tire until agency 
intermix tests were performed on these tires. 
NHTSA subsequently conducted its own intermix 
tests at this agency's Safety Research Laboratory 
in Riverdale, Maryland. These tests indicated 
that these two tire sizes would not present the 
alleged intemiix problems. Both Dunlop and 
Michelin have incorporated a design feature, 
called "blow-by", in the bead seat area which 
will not allow intermixing. "Blow-by" consists 
of flutes molded onto the lower bead area of the 
tire which bleed out air in the event the tire is 
not mounted on the proper rim. Hence, if one 
of these tires were mounted on an English-unit 
rim, the tires would not be able to hold air. In 
addition, the Michelin 365mm tire and rim con- 
cept cannot be intermixed with Dunlop 370mm 
tire and rim concept and vice versa. Since this 
feature precludes any intermix problems, and no 
commenter raised any other issues regarding 
these tire sizes, NHTSA is proceeding with final 
rulemaking action on these proposed tire sizes. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.109 is amended 

The agency has review^ed the impacts of this 
rule and determined that they are minimal and 
that this is not a significant regulation within 
the meaning of Executive Order 12044. 

The program official and attorney principally 
responsible for the development of this rule are 
Arturo Casanova and Stephen Kratzke, respec- 
tively. 

AUTHORITY: Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, 
Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407, 1421, and 1422) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51. 



Issued on May 2, 1979. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

44 F.R. 27394 
May 10, 1979 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 79-01; Notice 2) 



Action: Final rule. 

Summary: Pursuant to petitions by the Rub- 
ber Manufacturers Association (RMA). Euro- 
pean Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
(ETRTO), and Michelin Tire Corporation 
(Michelin), this notice amends Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneu- 
matic Tires — Passenger Cars, by adding certain 
tire size designations to Appendix A of that 
standard. This amendment permits the intro- 
duction into interstate commerce of the new tire 
sizes. 

Effective date: 30 days from the date of pub- 
lication in the Federal Register, if objections 
are not received before that date. June 9. 1979. 
ADDRESS: Comments should refer to Docket 
79-01 and be submittexl to Docket Section. Room 
5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington. D.C. 
20590. 

For further information contact: 

John Diehl, Office of Automotive Ratings, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- 
tration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washing- 
ton, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1714). 

Supplementary information: According to 
agency practice, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) respons to 
petitions for adding new tire sizes to Table I 
of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 by quar- 
terly is-suing final rules under an abbreviated 
rulemaking procedure for expediting such rou- 
tine amendments. Guidelines for this procedure 
were published at 33 FR 14964, October 5, 1968, 
and amended at 36 FR 8298, May 4, 1971 ; 36 FR 
13601, July 22, 1971; and 39 FR 28980, August 
13, 1974. These guidelines provide that these 



final rules become effective 30 days after their 
date of publication if no comments objecting to 
them are received by the agency during this 30 
day period. If objections are received, regular 
nilemaking procedures for issuing and amending 
motor vehicle safety standards are initiated. 

On December 19, 1978, RMA petitioned for the 
addition of three new tires sizes to an existing 
table within Table T of Appendix A of Standard 
No. 109. RMA petitioned for the addition of 
seven new tire sizes to an existing table on Jan- 
uary 23, 1979. RMA also petitioned on January 
24, Januarj- 26, Januarj' 29, and February 1, 
1979, for the addition of four other tire sizes to 
Table I. ETRTO petitioned on November 3, 
1978, for the addition of a new table to Table I, 
and for three new tire sizes to be included in 
that table. ETRTO also petitioned on February 
21, 1979 for the addition of five new tire sizes to 
existing tables in Table I. Michelin petitioned 
on January 19, 1979, for the addition of a new 
tire size to an existing table. The bases for ac- 
cepting or denying requests to add new tire size 
designations are set forth in the introductory 
guidelines to Appendix A. Briefly, the tests are 
the appropriateness of the information submitted 
for inclusion in the tire tables, and the appro- 
priateness of the requested location within the 
tables of the requested tire sizes. The 24 new 
tire size designations requested to be added to 
Standard No. 109 appear to meet these criteria. 
Accordingly, the Michelin, ETRTO, and RMA 
petitions are granted, and 23 new tire sizes desig- 
nations are added to Table I of Appendix A of 
the standard pursuant to the abbreviated rule- 
making procedure. 



PART 571; S 109A— PRE 89 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.109 is amended . . . subject to the 30-day 
comment period outlined above. 

Interested persons are invited to submit com- 
ments on the,se additions. Comments must be 
limited so as 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 com- 
menters to detail their primaiy arguments in a 
succinct and concise fashion. 

The agency has reviewed the impacts of this 
rule and detennined that they are minimal and 
that this is not a significant regulation within 
the meaning of Executive Order 12044. 



The program official and attorney principally 
responsible foi- the development of this nde are 
John Diehl and Stephen Ki'atzke, respectively. 

AUTHORITY: Sees. 103, 119, 201, and 202, 
Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407, 1421, and 1422) ; delegations of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. 



Issued on May 2, 1979. 



Michael M. Finkelstein 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 

44 F.R. 27396 
May 10, 1979 



r 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 90 



^ 



PREAMBLE TO APPENDIX A OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 



New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 79-01; Notice 3) 



Action: Final rule. 

Summary: Pursuant to petitions by tlie Rubber 
Manufacturers Association (RMA), and Dunlop 
Tire and Rubber Corporation (Dunlop), this 
notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires — Pas- 
senger Cars, by adding certain tire size designa- 
tions to Appendix A of that standard. This 
amendment permits the introduction into inter- 
state connuerce of the new tire sizes. 

Effective Date: October 4, 1979 if objections are 
not received before that date. 

Address: Comments should refer to Docket No. 
79-01 and be submitted to Docket Section, Room 
5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.. Washington. 
D.C. 

For Further Inform/ition Contact : 

John Diehl, Office of Automotive Ratings. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- 
tration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.. AV'ashing- 
ton, D.C. 20590 (202-426-1714). 

Supplementary Information: According to 
agency practice, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) responds to 
petitions for adding new tire sizes to Table I of 
Appendi-x A of Standard No. 109 by quarterly 
issuing final rules under an abbreviated rule- 
making procetlure for expediting such routme 
amendments. Guidelines for this procedure were 
published at 33 FR 14964, October 5, 1968, and 
amended at 36 FR 8298, May 4, 1971; 36 FR 
13601, July 22, 1971; and 39 FR 28980, August 
13, 1974. These guidelines provide that these 
final rules become effective 30 days after their 
date of publication if no comments objecting to 
them are rex>eived by NHTSA during this 30 
day period. If objections are received, regular 



rulemaking procedures for issuing and amending 
motor vehicle safety standards are initiated. 

On March 22, 1979, RMA petitioned for the 
addition of a new tire size to an existing table 
within Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 
109. RMA also petitioned on March 28, June 4, 
June 19, and June 28, 1979, for the addition of 
five other tire sizes to existing tables in Table I. 
Dunlop petitioned on April 6, 1979, for the addi- 
tion of a new table to Table I, and for a new tire 
size to be included in that table. The bases for 
accepting or denying requests to add new tire 
size designations are set forth in the introductoi-y 
guidelines to Appendix A. Bi'iefly, the tests are 
the appropriateness of the information submitted 
for inclusion in the tire tables, and the appro- 
priateness of the requested location within the 
tables of the requested tire sizes. The seven new 
tir size designations requested to be added to 
Standard No. 109 appear to meet these criteria. 
Accordingly, the Dunlop and RMA, petitions are 
granted, and seven new tire sizes are added to 
Table I of Appendix A of the standard pursuant 
to the abbreviated rulemaking procedure. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.109 is amended as specified below, subject 
to the 30-day comment period outlined above 

Interested persons are invited to submit com- 
ments on these additions. Comments must be 
limited so as not to exceed 15 pages in length. 
Necessary attachments may be appended without 
regard to the 15 page limit. This limitation is 
intended to encourage conuaenters to detail their 
primary arguments in a succinct and concise 
fashion. 

The agency has reviewed the impacts of this 
rule and determined that they are minimal and 
that this is not a significant regulation within 
the meaning of Executive Order 12044. 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 91 



The program official and attorney principally Issued on August 28, 1979. 

resiK)nsible for the development of this rule are /-,■»<• n- • 

, / ^. , , , ,., , T' ^ 1 t- 1 A. C. Malliaris 

John Diehl and btephen Kratzke, respectively. *]■•** 

^ •^ •• Acting Associate Administrator 

AUTHORITY : Sees. 103, 119, 201 and 202, for Rulemaking 

Pub. L. 89-563, 80 8tat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 

1407, 1421 and 1422) ; delegations of authority 44 F.R. 51603 

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8. September 4, 1979 



f 



( 



PART 571; S 109 A— PRE 92 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 79-01; Notice 4) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to petitions by the Rubber 
Manufacturers Association (RMA) and the 
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation 
(ETRTO), this notice amends Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires— Passenger Cars, by adding certain tire size 
designations to Appendix A of that standard. This 
amendment permits the introduction into 
interstate commerce of the new tire sizes. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 30 days from date of publica- 
tion in the Federal Register, if objections are not 
received before that date. January 16, 1980. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket 
No. 79-01 and be submitted to Docket Section, 
Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. (Docket hours 8 a.m. to 4 
p.m.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

John Diehl, Office of Automotive Ratings, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590 (202)426-1714. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: According to 
agency practice, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) responds to peti- 
tions for adding new tire sizes to Table I of 
Appendix A of Standard No. 109 by quarterly 
issuing final rules under an abbreviated rule- 
making procedure for expediting such routine 
amendments. Guidelines for this procedure were 
published at 33 FR 14964; October 5, 1968, and 
amended at 36 FR 8298; May 4, 1971; 36 FR 
13601; July 22, 1971; and 39 FR 28980; August 13, 
1974. These guidelines provide that these final 
rules become effective 30 days after their date of 



publication if no comments objecting to them are 
received by NHTSA during this 30 day period. If 
objections are received, regular rulemaking pro- 
cedures for issuing and amending motor vehicle 
safety standards are initiated. 

On July 9, 1979, RMA petitioned for the addition of 
a new tire size to an existing table with Table I of Ap- 
pendix A of Standard No. 109. RMA also petitioned 
on September 14, September 18, and September 20 
for the addition of three other tire sizes to existing 
tables in Table I. ETRTO petitioned for the addition 
of two new tire sizes to existing tables on July 16, 
1979. The bases for accepting or denying requests to 
add new tire size designations are set forth in the 
introductory guidelines to Appendix A. Briefly, the 
tests are the appropriateness of the information 
submitted for inclusion in the tire tables, and the 
appropriateness of the requested location within the 
tables of the requested tire sizes. The six new tire size 
designations requested to be added to Standard No. 
109 appear to meet these criteria. Accordingly, the 
RMA and ETRTO petitions are granted, and six new 
tire sizes are added to Table I of Appendix A of the 
Standard pursuant to the abbreviated rulemaking 
procedure. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.109 is amended by the addition of new tire 
size designations and corresponding values to 
Tables I-R, I-S, I-KK, I-LL, and I- WW. 

Interested persons are invited to submit 
comments on these additions. Comments must be 
limited so as not to exceed 15 pages in length. 
Necessary attachments may be appended without 
regard to the 15 page limit. This limitation is 
intended to encourage commenters to detail their 
primary comments in a concise fashion. Those 
persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self- 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 93 



addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope with 
their comments. Upon receiving the comments, 
the docket supervisor will return the postcard by 

mail. 

The agency has reviewed the impacts of this 
rule, and determined that permitting the intro- 
duction of these tire sizes will benefit those 
manufacturers desiring to produce the sizes and 
will have no effect on those manufacturers who do 
not. The public will be minimally affected by this 
rule. Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that 
this is not a significant regulation within the 
meaning of Executive Order 12044. 



The program official and attorney principally 
responsible for the development of this rule are 
John Diehl and Stephen Kratzke, respectively. 

Issued on December 7, 1979. 



Michael M. Finkelstein 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 

44 F.R. 73102 
December 17, 1979 



( 



( 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 94 



( 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109A 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 
New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars 

(Docket No. 80-14; Notice 3) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule deletes Table I from 
Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard 109. That table required that, 
before introducing and selling a new tire size, 
a manufacturer had to submit load and 
dimensional information to this agency and 
await the inclusion of the tire size in Table I. 
The agency has determined that this 
procedure was an unnecessary burden on the 
tire manufacturers for several reasons. First, 
submission to the agency of the load and 
dimensional data, which is needed for 
conducting compliance tests, was 
unnecessary since the data could be obtained 
simply from a tire standardization 
organization. Second, the agency did not 
attempt to validate independently the 
submitted data. Instead, NHTSA simply 
checked the submitted data against that 
published for the tire size in one of the 
standardization organization yearbooks. 
Under the new procedure published today, a 
manufacturer may introduce new tire sizes as 
soon as the load and dimensional information 
for the new size has been either submitted to 
this agency and to that manufacturer's 
dealers or published as a part of one of the 
standardization organization's yearbooks. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment becomes 
effective 180 days after publication in the 
Federal Register. 



ADDRESS: Petitions for reconsideration 
may be submitted within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard 
No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger 
Cars, 49 CFR § 571.109, specifies the 
requirements for all tires manufactured for 
use on passenger cars manufactured after 
1948. This standard, which was issued under 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act (Safety Act), requires that the tires meet 
specified strength, resistance to bead 
unseating, endurance, and high speed 
requirements, and be labeled with certain 
safety information. Closely related to this 
standard is Standard 110, Tire Selection and 
Rims— Passenger Cars, 49 CFR § 571.110, 
which requires that each passenger car be 
equipped with tires that comply with 
Standard 109, that tires on all cars be capable 
of carrying the load of that vehicle, that the 
rims on the car be appropriate for use with 
the tires, and that certain data about the car 
and tires appear on a placard in the 
passenger car. 

For purposes of testing tires and vehicles 
to determine their compliance with these 
standards, several variable factors such as 
the tire's inflation pressure, the load on the 
tire, and the rim on which the tire is mounted, 
must be specified. Under the procedures 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 95 



previously followed, when a tire 
manufacturer intended to introduce a new 
tire size, it had to submit these variable 
factors to the agency for inclusion via a 
rulemaking proceeding in Table I of 
Appendix A of Standard 109. Until these 
factors were published in Table I, the new 
tire size could not be imported into or sold in 
this country. 

Michelin Tire Corporation (Michelin) filed a 
petition with the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting 
that the agency eliminate Table I from 
Standard 109. Michelin argued that Standard 
119, which applies to all motor vehicle tires 
other than those for passenger cars, has been 
successfully implemented without any tire 
tables, and that the provision of Standard 109 
requiring tire sizes to appear in Table I 
needlessly delays the introduction of 
innovative tire technology. 

During its consideration of this petition, 
NHTSA reexamined its role and that of the 
various tire standardization organizations in 
connection with the approval of new tire 
sizes. These standardization organizations 
are voluntary associations composed of 
representatives of each of the member tire 
companies. The purpose of these 
standardization organizations is to establish 
and promulgate engineering standards for 
tires, rims, and their allied parts. Generally, 
when a tire manufacturer wanted to introduce 
a new tire size, it first presented the load and 
dimensional data on the new size to a 
standardization organization. The 
standardization organization checked the 
data against t*'at derived from its established 
formulae foi _ -t'ng these data, and if 

they were accurate, published the data as 
part of its yearbook. Concurrently, the tire 
manufacturers associations or individual tire 
company submitted a petition with the 
appropriate data to NHTSA, requesting the 
inclusion of the new size in Table I. This 
agency then duplicated the work of the 
standardization organizations, checking to 
see that the load carrying data were 
calculated according to the proper formula. If 
they were, the agency included the tire size 
in the next routine amendment to Table I. No 



independent testing of the load carrying 
capabilities of new tire sizes was ever 
undertaken by the agency before adding 
those tires to the table. 

NHTSA also considered the effect that 
deleting Table I would have on the 
substantive requirements of Standard 109 
and on the introduction of new tires. There 
would be no change in the substantive 
requirements. Any tire to be sold in the 
United States would still be required to pass 
all the performance requirements set forth in 
the standard. However, there would be a 
change in the ease with which new tires could 
be introduced. There would no longer be any 
situations where a tire which fully complied 
with all of the requirements of Standard 109 
would have its introduction delayed because 
of the necessity of first listing that size in the 
standard. With the elimination of the tire 
table, manufacturers would be able to sell 
tires in the United States as soon as the 
manufacturer certified that those tires 
comply with all of the substantive 
requirements of Standard 109. Thus, 
Michelin's petition presented the agency with 
an opportunity to facilitate the introduction 
of new technology without relaxing any 
safety requirements. 

The petition also presented the agency 
with an opportunity to explore the possibility 
of relying on private standards groups as an 
alternative to mandatory regulation by a 
Federal agency. This situation seemed like a 
particularly excellent opportunity to pursue 
that alternative since NHTSA was already 
relying on those organizations' determinations 
of the validity of their calculations. 

Accordingly, because deletion of Table I 
would enable the agency to remove a 
requirement that imposed time-consuming 
administrative burdens and delayed the 
introduction of new tire technology without 
providing commensurate safety benefits, the 
agency decided to issue a proposal deleting 
that table. The notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) was published at 45 F.R. 57466 on 
August 28, 1980. 

The agency received 11 comments on the 
NPRM. Comments supporting the proposal 
to eliminate Table I were submitted by 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 96 



Chrysler, Ford, Michelin, Volkswagen of 
America, and JATMA (the Japanese 
standardization organization). Comments 
opposing the proposal were submitted by 
General Motors, the Rubber Manufacturers 
Association (RMA, the trade association 
representing U.S. tire manufacturers), and 
the Tire & Rim Association (T&RA, the 
American standardization organization). 

Several commenters stated that, without 
the tire tables, the intermix controversy 
could have produced serious safety hazards 
for persons mounting tires. This controversy 
involved the only safety issue which has ever 
arisen in the 14 year history of Table I in 
connection with a petition to add new tire 
sizes to that Table. This issue was the 
possible "intermix" of English unit tires and 
rims with the more recently introduced 
metric unit tires designed for use on metric 
unit rims. Since the sizes of these tires and 
rims may be a close, but not exact match, it 
would be possible to mismatch an English 
unit tire on a metric rim or vice versa. That 
mismatching could cause the bead of the tire 
to explode during inflation, or the tire to 
suddenly lose air while in use. 

There were several other comments 
related to the mismatch controversy. One 
commenter, a member of the Illinois Vehicle 
Equipment Safety Commission, stated that 
before the tire tables could safety be deleted, 
some amendment would have to be made to 
Standard 109 to make it impossible to mount 
tires on rims not compatible with those tires. 
Similarly, other commenters stated that the 
agency assumed in the NPRM that the 
standardization organizations would 
undertake new duties which historically they 
have not undertaken, and which they may be 
unwilling to undertake. 

The agency is not aware of explosions due 
to mismatch ever actually happening. 
However, the possibility of such explosions 
was raised as a possibility when NHTSA 
proposed to add new metric tire sizes to 
Table I in 1978 and again in 1980 and 1981. 
Some provision to eliminate the possibility of 
such intermix would eliminate any potential 
safety problems which might arise from 
"mismatches." 



Half of this potential problem has already 
been removed by the routine incorporation of 
a "blow-by" feature in the new millimetric 
tires designed for use on millimetric rims. 
The "blow-by" feature consists of flutes or 
grooves in the bead area of the tire which 
prevent the tire from forming a seal with the 
rim and holding air when the tire is 
improperly mounted on an English-unit rim. 
The agency believes that the manufacturers 
are very unlikely to stop incorporating this 
feature on these tires because its use is so 
simple and inexpensive. Also discontinuance 
would expose the tire manufacturer to a 
product liability suit if the tire failed as a 
result of being intermixed. Accordingly, the 
agency believes it is reasonable to assume 
that the problem of intermix of English-unit 
rims with the millimetric tires will not be a 
problem in the future. 

The agency recognizes that there is 
apparently no similarly simple design change 
currently used to prevent an intermix of an 
English-unit tire with the millimetric rims 
designed for use with millimetric tires. The 
agency is considering several options to deal 
with this situation. One option is the adoption 
of minimum and maximum well depths for 
these rims. These requirements prevent an 
English-unit tire from "buttonholing" on the 
millimetric rim. "Buttonholing" refers to the 
process of stretching the beads of a tire over 
the flange of the rim and derives its name 
from its similarity to the process of 
manipulating a bottonhole so that it fits over 
a button. T&RA already has a practice of 
adopting well depth requirements for these 
rims. Also, the European Tyre Rim and 
Technological Organization (ERTRTO) has 
recently established well depth requirements 
for some millimetric rims. If these 
requirements were adopted by all of the 
standardization organizations, they would 
effectively eliminate the possibility of any 
intermixing English-unit tires with these 
rims. 

Another option would be for NHTSA to 
propose requiring that the rim size be labeled 
on passenger car rims. Such a requirement 
would parallel the existing requirement in 
Standard 120 that the rim size be labeled on 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 97 



rims other than passenger car rims. 
Compliance with that requirement has 
apparently been accomplished in a fairly 
simple and inexpensive manner. If the rim 
size were labeled on car rims, any person 
mounting a tire could compare the rim size 
with the tire size required to be labeled on 
the tire and thereby ensure that the tire and 
rim sizes were compatible. 

Both of these options would effectively 
minimize the chances of a dangerous intermix 
actually occurring. In view of the substantial 
role already played by the standardization 
organizations in establishing tire load and 
dimensional specifications, the agency 
believes that it is appropriate to allow those 
organizations to solve the potential problem 
by adopting minimum and maximum well 
depth requirements for millimetric rims. If 
these organizations do not undertake to 
establish these requirements as routine 
matter, the agency will examine further the 
desirability of proposing to require that the 
rim size be labeled on passenger car rims. 

Some commenters stated that deletion of 
Table I would remove the only single source 
for determining proper loads and dimensions 
for all tires used in the United States. The 
loss of that single source was asserted to be 
significant, because the foreign standardizing 
bodies do not list all the information shown in 
the table. It was suggested that persons 
desiring to obtain that information would 
encounter greater difficulty in locating it. 

NHTSA agrees that there will not be any 
single source for this information when Table 
I is abolished. However, NHTSA does not 
believe and the commenters do not allege 
that the loss of that single source would 
create any significant problems for current 
users of this table. The three possible users 
are: (1) a car manufacturer deciding on the 
most appropriate tires for use on a new or 
redesigned model; (2) a tire dealer replacing 
tires on a consumer's car; or (3) this agency 
when it is testing the tires for compliance 
with Standard 109. The sources of expertise 
and information available to car manufacturers 
and their experience in regularly purchasing 
large quantities of tires for their new cars 
make it possible for those manufacturers to 



maintain full knowledge of all possible tire 
sizes which could be used on their cars 
without having to resort to consulting Table 
I. The tire dealer has limited need for 
information about the wide variety of tires in 
Table I since most tire replacements are 
believed to involve simply using the same tire 
size already on the car. With respect to those 
instances in which a different tire size is 
used, the agency believes that it is most 
likely that the tire dealer simply consults the 
booklets published by the individual tire 
manufacturers or one of the yearbooks 
published by the standardization organizations 
to determine an appropriate tire size. It 
seems improbable that a tire dealer consults 
a copy of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations before installing replacement 
tires on a consumer's car. In the case of this 
agency, NHTSA can obtain information from 
the appropriate yearbooks or from the 
individual tire manufacturers before testing 
the tires. The data from these sources, 
together with the information labeled on the 
sidewall of the tire, will provide all the 
information that this agency needs to test the 
tires. Thus, it does not appear that any of the 
parties which might potentially derive some 
benefit from the convenience of a single 
source of specifications for all tire sizes will 
have any difficulty obtaining the information 
they need without this single source. 

The agency's belief that a single source is 
not indispensable is borne out by the 
experience with truck tires under Standard 
119. Unlike Standard 109, Standard 119 does 
not contain a single listing of all tire sizes. 
Yet, in the eight years since Standard 119 
became effective, there have not been any 
reported safety problems or difficulties that 
were attributed to any limitation on the 
availability of specifications for the various 
sizes. Truck manufacturers have not had any 
reported problems in deciding on appropriate 
tires nor have tire dealers had problems 
selecting appropriate replacement sizes. 
Further, there have not been any problems 
for the agency in determining the appropriate 
tire specifications for compliance testing 
purposes. 

While not indicating why it believed that 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 98 



the absence of Table I might create problems 
for car manufacturers and tire dealers, one 
commenter argued that the experience with 
Standard 119 is not relevant as a guide for 
what would result under Standard 109 
without tire tables because of the differences 
in marketing car and truck tires. The agency 
agrees that buyers of truck tires are 
generally more knowledgeable about their 
purchase. It agrees also that there is not as 
great a variety of truck tire sizes as there is 
for car tire sizes. However, the significance of 
these differences is substantially diminished 
by the reliance of car tire purchasers on the 
knowledge of tire dealers about the 
specifications of the new car tires. Since tire 
dealers typically sell tires made by only a few 
tire manufacturers, the dealers need to know 
the capabilities of only those manufacturers' 
tires. They gain this knowledge from the 
information booklets distributed by the 
individual manufacturers and from the 
standardization organization yearbooks. 
Since deletion of Table I will have no affect on 
the continued availability of these sources, 
dealers will still be able to rely on them in the 
future. 

A commenter argued that deletion of the 
tire table would allow a single manufacturer 
to introduce tires and rims incompatible with 
existing ones, giving rise to safety problems. 
Absent Table I, this commenter argued that 
there would be no opportunity for advance 
notice and scrutiny of these potential 
conflicts. NHTSA does not agree with this 
comment. The degree of care induced by the 
possibility of product liability suits and 
unfavorable publicity make it unlikely that a 
manufacturer would knowingly introduce 
tire and rim sizes which might actually cause 
safety problems. It is possible that, in spite of 
reasonable care on the part of the 
manufacturer, tire or rim sizing could 
inadvertently give rise to some other safety 
problems, such as those that theoretically 
might have occurred as a result of the 
potential for intermix. Since the only 
potential problem identified to date is 
intermix and that problem is likely to be 
foreclosed as suggested above, it is difficult 
to foresee what that other safety problem 



might be. However, if a specific new type of 
safety problem actually does arise, NHTSA 
can use its authority under the Safety Act to 
take appropriate action in response to that 
concrete situation. 

Some commenters stated that the deletion 
of Table I would lead to proliferation of tire 
sizes. Commenters stated also that because 
the formula used by the foreign tire 
manufacturers to calculate the load-carrying 
capability of their tires differs from that used 
by the U.S. manufacturers, the deletion of 
Table I could result in a proliferation of load 
schedules for the same size tires. These 
commenters argued that this proliferation 
would make it possible for a consumer to buy 
a replacement tire with the proper size, but 
insufficient load-carrying capacity for his or 
her car. 

The agency does not believe that deletion 
of Table I would lead to a proliferation of 
either tire sizes or load schedules or create a 
safety problem. The mere existence of the 
table does not exclude the possibility of 
multiple load schedules. In the case of several 
tire sizes, there are already varying load 
schedules listed for each of those tire sizes. 
(See, for instance, the values shown for the 
225/70 R15 size in Tables IT and I-JJ. The 
domestic version of this tire size is preceded 
by the letter "P," but the dimensions of the 
tires are identical.) 

Like the problem of intermix, the 
proliferation of tire sizes and load schedules 
has occurred notwithstanding the existence 
of Table I. This is because Table I was never 
intended to serve as a barrier to any 
manufacturer either introducing any new tire 
size it wanted, provided that appropriate 
data for that tire size were listed in the table, 
or determining the load schedule appropriate 
for its tires. Table I was designed to be 
nothing more than it is, i.e., a simple listing of 
tire sizes. It is not a mechanism for regulating 
or controlling the number or variety of those 
sizes or load schedules. The appropriate 
mechanisms for considering any safety 
problems regarding tires are proceedings to 
determine whether new performance 
requirements should be established or 
whether a finding of safety-related defect 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 99 



should be made. 

These variations in sizes and load 
schedules have occurred since the load 
schedules in Table I are freely drawn from 
the yearbooks of the standardization 
organizations and since these organizations 
permit different load schedules to be 
established for the same tire size. Since the 
table has had no influence on the incidence of 
load schedule proliferation, it is not 
reasonable to suppose that deletion of the 
table will have any influence on the extent of 
proliferation either. 

NHTSA does not believe that the existence 
of different load schedules for the same tire 
size will create any safety problems. The 
agency has not received reports of any safety 
problems or of any incidents in which 
consumers have had tires with insufficient 
load-carrying capacity installed on their cars. 
There are several other factors which 
underlie the agency's belief. An amendment 
adopted by this rule requires that the load 
rating for a tire be equal to or greater than a 
load rating published for that tire size in the 
yearbook of one of the standardization 
organizations. This phraseology differs 
slightly from that proposed in the NPRM. 
This nonsubstantive change was made in 
response to a request by JATMA that the 
provision be worded so that it would exactly 
parallel the language of Standard 119. This 
allows a manufacturer or standardization 
organization to specify that its tire can carry 
a greater load than has been published for 
that size, and be subjected to a more 
strenuous test by this agency. 

More important, the agency believes that 
deletion of Table I will not reduce the 
incentive tire dealers have to make certain 
that the maximum load capability of the tires 
they sell to consumers is not less than that of 
the consumers' old tires. Notwithstanding 
the deletion of the table, the dealers will 
continue to exercise great care in order to 
avoid tort liability for selling tires with 
insufficient maximum load capability. The 
maximum load of each tire is required to be 
labeled on the tire by Standard 109. Thus, it 
does not matter what load schedules are 
published for that size. To ensure that the 



replacement tire is appropriate for the 
vehicle, the dealer can compare the load- 
carrying capability with the weight of the 
vehicle on each axle. That information is 
required to be labeled on the vehicle by Part 
567. 

The agency disagrees with the suggestion 
by some commenters that, absent the process 
of adding new tire sizes to Table I, there 
would not be any forum for addressing any 
international concerns about safety problems 
that might arise regarding new tire sizes. 
Under section 124 of the Safety Act, domestic 
and foreign parties could petition the agency 
to commence rulemaking or defect proceedings 
to address such problems. Rulemaking and 
defect proceedings are initiated in response 
to a petition when the agency finds that the 
petitioner sufficiently demonstrates the 
likely existence of a significant safety 
problem. If proceedings were commenced 
regarding any tire safety problems, those 
parties would also have the opportunity to 
participate in those proceedings. 

Further, the membership of the 
standardization organizations is international. 
Since all of the tire companies are members 
of at least one of the tire standardization 
organizations, they are fully informed about 
the tire sizes that the standardization 
organizations are considering be added to 
their yearbooks. For instance, Firestone, 
Goodyear, Uniroyal, Goodrich, and Mohawk 
are all members of the ETRTO and the STRO 
(the Scandinavian standardization 
organization), as well as the T&RA. Thus, 
there is ample opportunity for these 
companies to present their views on tire and 
rim sizing to these organizations, and have 
these groups address the merits of those 
views. In the same way, the foreign tire 
manufacturers are affiliated members of 
T&RA. They can present any objections they 
might have regarding tire and rim sizing to 
that organization. NHTSA believes that these 
organizations will give any objections a full 
consideration. If a tire manufacturer is 
dissatisfied with the response to its 
objections, it can submit an appropriate 
petition to NHTSA. 

Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors all 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 100 



urged that if the standard were to be revised 
by deleting Table I, the procedures for 
conducting the high speed performance test 
should be revised so that they do not require 
testing a tire at only 85 percent of its 
maximum load as proposed in the NPRM. 
These commenters explained that the 85 
percent figure would require them to use 
larger tires on some of their models even 
though there isn't any evidence that the tire 
sizes currently being used by the vehicle 
manufacturers are causing any safety 
problems. 

In proposing use of the 85 percent figure, 
NHTSA was unaware of this possibility. It did 
not intend that deleting Table I would have 
the indirect effect of necessitating the use of 
larger tires by the vehicle manufacturers. 

The car manufacturers suggested two 
possible revisions in the high speed test 
requirement that would avoid having to 
increase the size of any tires. General Motors 
suggested that NHTSA use the same reference 
to the intermediate load formerly shown in 
Standard 109, but that instead of referring to 
the intermediate load column in Table I, refer 
to the intermediate load column in the 
yearbooks of the various standardization 
organizations. NHTSA notes that there 
would be a problem with this suggestion. 
Only the American standardization 
organization publishes the intermediate loads 
which would be needed for the high speed 
test. Thus, if the agency adopted this 
approach, all foreign standardization 
organizations would be forced to publish 
intermediate loads. This step is unnecessary 
since the agency has accepted an alternative 
suggestion by other commenters. 

Chrysler and Ford both suggested that the 
load on the tires during the high speed test be 
increased from the proposed 85 percent of the 
load at the maximum permissible inflation 
pressure to 88 percent of that load. This 
change, according to both companies, would 
eliminate any need for using larger tires. The 
agency agrees. Accordingly, this suggestion 
is adopted in this final rule. 

Two commenters urged that the dimensional 
requirements be deleted from Standard 109. 
JATMA argued that these requirements are 



unnecessary because manufacturers will, as 
part of their quality control program, 
produce tires whose dimensions conform 
with those on the tires' labels. JATMA stated 
that there have not been any safety problems 
with improperly sized truck tires even 
though Standard 119 has no dimensional 
requirements. It stated also that there have 
not been any problems with improperly sized 
rims even though neither Standard 110 nor 
Standard 120 have any dimensional 
requirements. NHTSA believes that these 
arguments are accurate, but is unable to 
adopt the commenters' suggestions in this 
final rule. A substantive change to a standard 
cannot be adopted without giving the public 
an opportunity to comment on the proposed 
change. Since the NPRM did not indicate that 
the agency was considering such a step, it 
cannot be adopted in this final rule. The 
agency will consider initiating rulemaking to 
eliminate these requirements from Standard 
109 in the future based on the reasons given 
by JATMA. 

Michelin also argued that the dimensional 
requirements should be deleted because the 
language in the NPRM referring to these 
requirements would have effectively 
prohibited an individual manufacturer from 
introducing new tire sizes without the 
approval of some standardization 
organization. Standard 109 currently allows 
tire manufacturers desiring to introduce a 
new tire size either to use the data listed in 
one of the standardization organization 
yearbooks for the tire size or to develop their 
own data for the tire and submit it to NHTSA 
without first coordinating with any 
standardization organization. Regardless of 
their source, these data were submitted to 
NHTSA for inclusion in Table I. When the 
tire size and its data were included, the tires 
of that size were tested in accordance with 
the included data. 

The NPRM proposed two changes in the 
current procedure. First, the agency proposed 
to eliminate Table I so that data for new tire 
sizes would not have to be included in that 
table prior to the importation or sale of new 
tires of those sizes. Second, the agency 
proposed that all new tire sizes would have to 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 101 



be accepted by some standardization 
organization prior to importation or sale. 

Michelin objected to the second proposal. 
The agency agrees that its goal of facilitating 
the introduction of new tire technology would 
be best served if the standardization 
organizations were not indirectly given 
ultimate authority over the tire 
manufacturers in the area of tire sizing. 
Accordingly, the agency has not adopted that 
second proposal. Instead, the agency has 
specified in the amendments made by this 
notice that, as under the current standard, 
tire manufacturers may either use the 
dimensional data published by one of the 
standardization organizations or furnish the 
data directly to NHTSA, each of its dealers, 
and, if requested, to members of the public. 

As another reason for retaining Table I, 
several commenters observed that the 
NPRM would have required the size factor of 
tires to be at least as large as that published 
by one of the standardization organizations 
even though the foreign standardization 
organizations do not publish the size factor 
dimension. This observation is correct, but in 
a technical sense only. While the yearbooks 
do not contain the size factor, they do contain 
equivalent information. Every yearbook 
specifies a tire's overall diameter and section 
width. Added together, these dimensions 
equal the size factor. 

The deletion of Table I from Standard 109 
becomes effective 180 days after this notice is 
published in the Federal Register. The 
180-day period will give the tire manufacturers 
and the various standardization organizations 
an opportunity to examine the yearbooks to 
ensure that all of the sizes currently listed in 
Table I of Standard 109 are shown in one of 
the yearbooks. 

JATMA requested that the agency state in 
this preamble that tire sizes which are 
currently listed in Table I may be produced 
after the table is deleted. That organization 
did not explain what problem, if any, prompted 
this comment. Most tire sizes in Table I are 
already in at least one of the yearbooks of the 
standardization organizations. It is only the 
very old or very new tire sizes that might not 
be in one of the yearbooks. Addition of the 



data for those sizes to a yearbook should be a 
fairly simple process since the data for those 
sizes already exist in Table I. The leadtime of 
180 days provided by this notice should 
provide ample time for the manufacturers 
and standardization organizations to add that 
data. JATMA and the other standardization 
organizations should check the tire sizes to be 
listed in their 1982 yearbooks to be sure that 
all of the sizes that their members plan to sell 
in the United States are among those listed 
sizes. 

NHTSA has analyzed the impacts of this 
action and determined that this action is not 
"major" within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12291 or "significant" within the 
meaning of the Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. The 
principal impacts of adopting this rule will be 
to reduce unnecessary paperwork burdens 
for the manufacturers and to facilitate the 
introduction of new technology in tires. As a 
result, there will be some cost savings for the 
manufacturers. Also, both innovative tire 
manufacturers and consumers will benefit 
from the earlier introduction of new tire 
technology. A regulatory evaluation 
regarding these impacts has been prepared 
and placed in the docket for this action. 
Copies of the evaluation may be obtained by 
writing the Docket Section or calling it at 
(202) 426-2768. 

The agency has considered the environmental 
implications of this rule in accordance with 
the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 
determined that this rule will not significantly 
affect the human environment. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not 
applicable to this rule since that Act applies 
only to rulemaking proceedings in which the 
NPRM was issued on or after January 1, 
1981. The NPRM in this rulemaking action 
was issued in August 1980. If that Act were 
applicable, NHTSA would have determined 
that this rule will not "have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities" and that a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis was therefore not 
required. The reduced costs resulting from 
this rule do not have a significant effect on 
the tire manufacturers. Further, the agency 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 102 



believes that few of the tire manufacturers motor vehicle equipment. Since this rule will 

would qualify as small businesses. Any tire not significantly affect the price of tires, 

manufacturers that do qualify as small small governmental units and small 

businesses will enjoy the same reduction of organizations will not be affected, 
paperwork and opportunity to avoid delays in Issued on December 8, 1981. 

the introduction of new tire sizes as the 
larger manufacturers. Small governmental 

units and small organizations are generally Diane K. Steed 

affected by amendments to the Federal Acting Administrator 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as 46 F.R. 61473 

purchasers of new motor vehicle and new December 17, 1981 



PART 571; S 109A-PRE 103-104 



( 



c 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 82-10; Notice 1) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to petitions filed by 
Michelin Tire Corporation (Michelin) and the 
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization 
(ETRTO), this notice amends Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires— Passenger Cars, by adding certain tire 
size designations to Table I of Appendix A of that 
standard. This amendment permits the introduction 
into interstate commerce of the new tire sizes. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2. 1982, if no objections 
are received from commenters before that date. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: According 
to agency practice, NHTSA responds to petitions 
for adding new tire sizes to Table I of Appendix A 
of Standard No. 109 by quarterly issuing final 
rules under an abbreviated rulemaking procedure 
for expediting such routine amendments. 
Guidelines for this procedure were published at 
33 F.R. 14964, October 5, 1968, and were amended 
at 36 F.R. 8298, May 4, 1971; 36 F.R. 13601, July 
22, 1971; and 39 F.R. 28980, August 13, 1974. 
Those guidelines provide that these final rules 
become effective June 2, 1982 if no comments are 
received objecting to the final rules during this 
30-day period. If objections are received, regular 
rulemaking procedures for issuing and amending 
motor vehicle safety standards are initiated. 

Michelin petitioned to add two tire sizes to 
existing tables. Additionally, Michelin petitioned 



for the addition of a new tire table, and requested 
that six new tire sizes be included in that new 
table, ETRTO requested the addition of one new 
tire size to an existing table, and requested that a 
new table be established for a new tire size. 

The bases for accepting or denying requests to 
add new tire size designations to the tire tables are 
set forth in the introductory guidelines to Appendix 
A. Briefly, the tests are the appropriateness of the 
information submitted for inclusion in the tire 
tables and the appropriateness of the location 
within the tables of the requested tire size. The ten 
new sizes included in this notice meet these criteria. 
Accordingly, the Michelin and ETRTO petitions 
are granted, and ten new tire sizes are added to 
Table I of Appendix A of the standard pursuant 
to the abbreviated rulemaking procedures. 

NHTSA expects that this may be the last time 
it uses these abbreviated rulemaking procedures, 
because it has published a final rule deleting 
Table I from Appendix A of Standard 109 (46 F.R. 
61473, December 17, 1981). That rule becomes 
effective June 15, 1982, at which time Table I will 
be deleted and no further petitions for additions 
will be necessary. The agency is presently 
considering several petitions for a reconsideration 
of that rule. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.109 is amended as specified below, subject to 
the 30-day comment period outlined above: 

1. Table I of Appendix A is amended by adding 
the following sizes and corresponding values to 
Table I-H, I-QQ, I-RR, and I-AAB: 



Table I.— H Tire Load Ratings, Test Rims, Minimum Size Factors, and Section Widths for "R" Type Radial Ply Tires 









Maximum tire loads (pounds) at various cold inflation pressures (psi) 






Test rim 

widtti 

(inches) 


Minimum 

size 

factor 

(incfies) 




Tire size^ 
designation 


16 


18 


20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 


38 


40 


Sectiori 
width^ 
(Indies) 


175R16 


920 


980 


1.040 1.100 1.160 1.210 1,260 1.310 1.360 1.400 1.450 


1,490 


1,540 


5 


33.49 


700 









'The letters "H." "S." or "V" may be included In any specified tire size designation adjacent to the "R." 
^Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified as^Urr width by more than 7 percent. 



PART 571; S109A-PRE 105 



Table I.— QQ Tire Load Ratings, Test Rims, Minimum Size Factors, and Section Widths for "55" Series All Milllmetric Radial Ply Tires 

for (TR or JM Rims) 

Maximum tire loads (pounds) at various cold inflation pressures (psi) 



Tire size 
designation 



24 



26 



28 



30 



32 



34 



36 



38 



40 





Minimum 




est rim 


size 


Section 


width 


factor 


width^ 


(mm) 


(mm) 


(mm) 



200/55R390 790 



895 



940 



990 



1,030 1.075 1,115 1,155 1,195 1,235 1,270 1,310 



150 



801 



204 



Vhe letters "H," "S," or "V" may be included in any specified tire size designation adjacent to tfie "R." 
^Actual section widtti and overall width stiall not exceed ttie specified section wrdtfi by more ttian 7 percent. 

Table I. — RR Tire Load Ratings, Test Rims, IMinimum Size Factors, and Section Widths for 'P/65' Series ISO Type Tires 

Maximurri tire loads (kilograms) at various cold inflation pressures (kPa) 



Tire size 
designation 



120 



220 



240 



260 



280 





Minimum 




Test rim 


size 


Section' 


widtti 


factor 


width 


(inches) 


(mm) 


(mm) 



P185/65R365 365 



470 



495 



520 



Vhe letters "D" for diagonal and "B" for bias belted may be used in place of the "R." 

^Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified width by more than the amount specified in S4.2.2.2. 

■^The letters "H." "S." or "V" may be included in any specified tire size designation adjacent to the "R." 

'*The designated cold inflation pressures may be increased to a maximum of 300kPa to meet special vehicle requirements. 

Table I.— AAB Tire Load Rating, Test Rims, Minimum Size Factors, and Section Widths for T'90' Series 60 Lb/ln^ Tires 



Maximum tire loads (Pounds at 60 psi cold Inflation pressure) 



Tire size 

3 
designation 



Minimum 
Test rim size 

width factor 

(inches) (inches) (inches) 



Section 
width^ 



T115/90R13 1,225 



3% 



25.43 



4.65 



Hhe letters "D" for diagonal and "B" for bias belted may be used in place of the "R." 

^Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified width by more than the amount specified in S4.2.2.2. 

2. Table I of Appendix A is amended by adding two new tables, Tables I-AAC and I-AAD, with the 
following tire sizes included therein: 

Table I.— AAC Tire Load Rating, Test Rims, Minimum Size Factors, and Section Widths for T'110' Series 60 LB/ln^ Tires 

Maximum tire loads (pounds at 60 psi cold inflation pressure) 



Tire size 

3 
designation 





Minimum 




Test rim 


size 


Section 


width 


factor 


width 


(inches) 


(inches) 


(inches) 


3 


24.76 


3.90 


3 


2579 


3.90 


3 


26.77 


3.90 


S'/j 


27,17 


4.65 


3V2 


28.19 


465 


3Vi 


29 17 


4.65 



T95/110R13 925 

T95/110R14 990 

T95/110R15 1,035 

T115/110R13 1,280 

T115/110R14 1,355 

T115/110R15 1.430 



Vhe letters "D" for diagonal and "B" for bias belted may be used in place of the "R." 

^Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified width by more than the amount specified in S4, 2.2,2, 

Table I.— AAD Tire Load Ratings, Test Rims, Minimum Size Factors, and Section Widths for Series "R" Type Radial 



Maximum tire loads (pounds) at various cold inflation pressures (psi) 



Tire size 
designation 



18 



20 



28 



30 



32 



38 



Minimum 
Test rim size 

width factor width' 

(inches) (inches) (inches) 



Section 
k2 



215/80R16 . 



1,290 1.380 1.460 1,540 1,620 1.690 1,770 1,830 1,900 1,970 2.030 2,090 2,150 



37.38 



8.50 



The letters "H." "S." or "V" may be included in any specified tire size designation adjacent to the "R," 
Actual section width and overall width shall not exceed the specified section width by more than 7 percent. 



PART 571; S109A-PRE 106 



Interested persons are invited to submit 
comments on these additions. Comments must be 
limited so as not to exceed 15 pages in length. 
Necessary attachments may be appended without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is 
intended to encourage commenters to detail their 
primary arguments in a concise fashion. Those 
persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of 
their comments in the rules docket should enclose 
a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope 
with their comments. When the comments are 
received, the docket supervisor will return the 
postcard by mail. 

The agency has reviewed the impacts of this 
rule and determined that they are limited to 
permitting the introduction of the newly listed 
tire sizes by those manufacturers wishing to do 
so. The rule does not impose any regulatory 
burden on any manufacturer. The rule increases 
the availability of new tire sizes to the public. 
Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that this 
rule is neither major within the meaning of 



Executive Order 12291 nor significant within the 
meaning of the Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. Further, the 
agency reviewed this amendment under the 
National Environmental Policy Act and 
determined that the rule will have no significant 
effects on the human environment. 

The program official and attorney principally 
responsible for the development of this rule are 
John A. Diehl and Stephen Kratzke, respectively. 

Issued on April 23, 1982. 



Courtney M. Price 
Associate Administrator 
for Rulemaking 



47 F.R. 18904 
May 3, 1982 



PART 571; S109A-PRE 107-108 



r 



( 



i 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 109 

New Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 80-14; Notice 5) 



ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration; 
final rule. 

SUMMARY: This agency received five petitions 
for reconsideration of its final rule deleting 
Table I from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109. Subsequently, one of the 
petitioners filed another petition "renewing" its 
petition for reconsideration. In response to these 
petitions, the agency is making the following 
editorial changes to the final rule previously 
published: 

(1) The maximum load for a tire size need not 
be published in a standardization organization 
publication, but can be submitted by an individual 
manufacturer to this agency and to the 
manufacturer's tire dealers along with the other 
required technical information related to that 
new tire size. 

(2) The maximum load labeled on the tire 
sidewall will be used to determine test conditions 
for the tire in the bead unseating test for 
temporary spare tires and determining the 
maximum permissible vehicle load on the tires for 
purposes of Standard No. 110. The final rule 
specified that the maximum loads published in a 
standardization organization yearbook or 
submitted to this agency by an individual 
manufacturer would be used as a reference. 

(3) The name of the Japanese standardization 
organization is corrected. 

This notice defers action on the requests to 
change the loading for the high speed test. Recent 
amendments to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading 
Standards (UTQGS) have resulted in different 
tests being specified for the temperature 
resistance test in UTQGS and the high speed test 
in Standard No. 109. NHTSA has requested 
comments on possible means of specifying the 



same test procedures for these tests. No final 
comments have been analyzed. 

This notice also denies several requests for 
amendments. Specifically, it denies requests (1) to 
maintain a requirement for a minimum size 
factor, because the agency does not believe that 
any tire manufacturer will undersize its tires; (2) 
to alter the testing references for the endurance 
test, because no data or analyses were presented 
to suggest that these changes from the old 
endurance test procedures would pose any testing 
difficulties or significant changes from the 
procedures followed with Table I; and (3) to 
continue advance public notice of the introduction 
of new tire sizes or tire/rim concepts, because no 
safety purpose would be served by such advance 
notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The slight editorial changes 
made herein become effective August 19, 1982. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA has 
published a final rule deleting Table I from 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 
(49 CFR 571.109) at 46 F.R. 61473; December 17, 
1981. Table I was a listing of dimensional and 
loading information for all passenger car tire sizes. 
This information has been used by this agency for 
testing tires for compliance with Standard No. 
109 and for determining the appropriateness of 
the tires for use on particular vehicles in 
accordance with Standard No. 110. In so acting, 
NHTSA determined that Table I was not 
necessary to obtain these testing specifications, 
since they could be determined from the 
information labeled on the sidewall on the tires. 
No other safety-related justifications for 
retaining the listing were found to exist. 
Additionally, the agency's experience with 



PART 571; S109A-PRE 109 



administering this listing suggested that the 
process caused delays in the introduction of new 
tires and tire concepts and allowed competitors a 
chance to develop their own version of the new 
tires. Based on these considerations, NHTSA 
dropped the Table I from Standard No. 109, 
effective June 15. 1982.' 

Five petitions for reconsideration of that final 
rule were submitted to the agency. The agency 
has carefully considered those petitions and 
granted them to the extent set forth below. 

Source of load rating for a tire size. One 
petitioner, Michelin, generally supported the final 
rule, but objected to the requirement in section 
S4.2.1 of Standard No. 109 that the load rating for 
a tire size be listed in a publication of a 
standardization organization.^ According to 
Michelin, the requirement would allow the 
standardization organizations to block the listing 
of a new tire size for reasons unrelated to safety, 
thereby preventing the introduction of the tire. 

NHTSA has no information indicating that any 
standardization organization would behave in 
this fashion, and Michelin did not mention any 
standardization organization with which it had 
such an experience. In addition, however, in the 
final rule the agency had inadvertently omitted 
an alternative to this requirement. The 
dimensional specifications, test rim widths, and 
inflation pressure information for a new tire size 
are permitted by the December final rule either 
to be published in a standardization organization 
yearbook or to be submitted directly to the agency 
by an individual manufacturer. NHTSA intended 
to treat the maximum load information in the 
same manner as this other information, and the 
rule is amended now to do so. This change 
requires a conforming amendment to Section 
S4.3.1(c) of Standard No. 110, which also specified 
that the loading information be published by a 
standardization organization publication. 



'Persons interested in obtaining a copy of Table I as it 
existed on June 14, 1982, may do so by writing to the Docket 
Section or calling it at (202) 426-2768. 

^Standardization organizations are voluntary associations 
composed of representative of each of the member tire 
companies. The purpose of these standardization organizations 
is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for 
tires, rims, and their allied parts. 



The agency also received a petition for 
reconsideration from Japan Automobile Tire 
Manufactures' Association, Inc. (JATMA), the 
Japanese standardization organization. This 
organization generally supported the final rule, 
but requested three editorial changes. 

Japanese tire standardization organizations. 
First, JATMA asked that their organization be 
listed as the Japanese standardization organization. 
The standardization organization currently listed, 
Japanese Industrial Standards, is an organization 
for all Japanese industry, not just tires, and does 
not publish yearbooks showing tire load ratings 
and inflation pressures. Accordingly, this rule is 
amended to list JATMA as the Japanese 
standardization organization. 

Source of maximum load rating used to 
determine test conditions. Second, JATMA asked 
that Section S4.2.2.3(c) of Standard No. 109 (the 
bead unseating test for temporary spare tire 
sizes) and Section S4.2.1. of Standard No. 110 (the 
vehicle maximum load on the tires) be revised to 
specify that the maximum load ratings marked on 
the tire's sidewall be the reference used by the 
agency to determine the testing conditions. The 
final rule specified the use of the maximum load 
published in a standardization organization 
publication or submitted by an individual 
manufacturer. That rule already uses the 
maximum load marked on the sidewall to 
determine the test conditions for the high speed 
and endurance tests for Standard No. 109. Such a 
change would simplify the determination of test 
conditions for these latter tests and make them 
consistent with the other tests in Standard No. 
109. Accordingly, JATMA's second requested 
change to the final rule previously published is 
adopted. 

Clarification of references to maximum load 
ratings. Third, JATMA suggested a revision of 
section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 109 to clarify the 
references to maximum load ratings at the end of 
that section. As already noted, this section has 
been revised so as to permit manufacturers to 
individually submit maximum load ratings. In the 
course of that revision, the agency has clarified 
the references JATMA addressed in this 
comment. 

The other three petitions for reconsideration 
indicated that there were more serious problems 
with the previously published final rule. The three 



\ 



PART 571; S109A-PRE 110 



» 



petitioners were the Rubber Manufactuers 
Association (RMA), a trade association composed 
of domestic tire manufacturers, Goodyear Tire & 
Rubber Co. (Goodyear), and the Copper Tire 
Company (Cooper). 

Minimum tire size factor. All three of these 
petitioners objected to the requirement in the 
rule deleting the requirement for a minimum size 
factor. The essence of these objections was that, 
absent a minimum size factor, it would be possible 
for manufacturers to undersize their tires, and 
that this undersizing could lead to increased 
incidents of tire failure. 

NHTSA still does not believe that a requirement 
for a minimum size factor is necessary. The size 
factor of a tire cannot change after the mold is set 
up to begin producing that size of tire. With all of 
the engineering and quality control effort involved 
in designing and producing new tire sizes, it is 
simply implausible that a tire manufacturer would 
either intentionally or inadvertently undersize 
the molds. The undersized tires that would be 
produced might save the manufacturers a few 
dollars per tire, but the savings would be more 
than offset by product liability awards and 
negative publicity generated. Since automobile 
manufacturers design cars to a tire's rated load, 
undersized tires would be overloaded on those 
cars, and would predictably exhibit higher failure 
rates than properly sized tires made by other 
manufacturers. This appears to be a very 
compelling disincentive to undersizing tires. 
Hence, the agency concludes that the minimum 
size factor is not needed in Standard No. 109. 

Loading for endurance test. In addition, all 
three of these petitioners urged the agency to 
reconsider the changes in the loading of the tires 
for the endurance tests of Standard No. 109. For 
that test. Standard No. 109 formerly specified 
that tires be run for designated periods of time 
with the loads shown in various inflation columns 
in Table I. These loads averaged 85 percent of the 
maximum load of the tire for 4 hours, 93 percent 
of the maximum load for 6 hours, and 100 percent 
of the maximum load for 24 hours. Under the new 
rule published last December, the loads are now 
85 percent for 4 hours, 90 percent for 6 hours, and 
100 percent for 24 hours. In other words, there is 
a slight decrease in loading of three percent 
during the 6 hour phase of this test, while the 
loading for the other two phases remain constant. 



NHTSA does not believe that this slight change 
will effect the results of the endurance test or its 
validity as a check of a tire's endurance. The 
commenter who addressed this issue noted only 
that there was a change in the 6 hour phase of the 
test and did not provide any explanation of why 
they thought that the impact of the change was 
significant. Accordingly, the loading for the 
endurance test set forth in the December rule is 
retained as previously published. 

Loading for high speed test. The same three 
petitioners requested reconsideration of the 
changes in the loading for the high speed test. 
The standard requires that a tire must not exhibit 
any visible damage at the end of the test. Prior 
to the high speed test, the tire must be conditioned 
by being run at 50 miles per hour (mph) for two 
hours. Following this conditioning period, the tire 
is run for V2 hour at 75 mph, V2 hour at 80 mph, 
and V2 hour at 85 mph, for a total of 220 miles. The 
load used during the testing was shown in a 
particular inflation pressure column in Table I. 
The load averaged 85 percent of maximum load 
for alphanumeric tires, between 85 and 86 percent 
of maximum load for European radial tires, and 
87 percent for the domestic P-metric radial tires. 
The new loading schedule for the high speed test 
specifies that the tires be loaded with 88 percent 
of the tire's maximum load. Hence, the new 
schedule would increase the load on the tire during 
this test by anywhere from one to three percent 
of the maximum load, depending on the type of 
tire. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking to delete 
Table I (45 F.R. 57466; August 28, 1980) proposed 
that the load for the high speed test be 85 percent 
of the maximum load labeled on the sidewall of 
the tire. However, Chrysler, Ford, and General 
Motors all urged that this be increased to 88 
percent in the final rule (the same level used in 
Standard No. 119 for tires other than passenger 
car tires) since the 85 percent figure would 
require them to use larger tires on a few of their 
models. The change to the 88 percent figure was 
made in the final rule. 

RMA stated in its petition for reconsideration 
that the increase to 88 percent of maximum load 
was "significant and apparently inadvertent." 
RMA went on to say that while the agency had 
amended the proposal so as not to force 
unnecessary increases in tire sizes currently used. 



PART 571; S109A-PRE 111 



it might now be permitting unnecessary decreases 
in the tire sizes used. Goodyear and Cooper both 
also argued that this increase in loading could 
result in the downsizing of tires. 

The agency believes that its adoption of 88 
percent of a tire's maximum load as the test 
condition for the high speed test was appropriate 
and did not make a significant change to Standard 
No. 109. Eighty-eight percent is the same level 
which has been used as the load for the high 
speed test for all tires for use on motor vehicles 
other than passenger cars since Standard No. 119 
became effective. The experience with the testing 
under that Standard has not shown this loading to 
be high. 

Aside from the fact that this is the same level 
of loading used for the high speed test for all 
other tires, it is appropriate that a tire be able to 
carry a high percentage of its maximum load. 
Indeed, a properly inflated tire should be able to 
carry 100 percent of its maximum load on the 
road. The very definition of the term "maximum 
load" implies such a capability. 

However, for the high speed test, it is necessary 
to use a figure of less than 100 percent in order to 
account for the differences between actual on-road 
conditions and the laboratory test conditions and 
for the extreme stress to which the tire is 
subjected. Accordingly, a correction factor of 12 
percent of the maximum load was included in the 
December final rule, which specified that the tire 
would be tested at 88 percent of its maximum 
load. This correction factor is admittedly less than 
the previous specified 13 to 15 percent. But the 12 
percent correction factor has been used for 
testing tires under Standard 119 for seven years, 
and all experience shows that correction factor is 
sufficient to achieve its intended purpose. Absent 
data demonstrating the contrary, NHTSA can see 
no reason why this correction factor would not be 
adequate in Standard No. 109. 

As to the significance of the load change. 
Cooper was the only one of the three petitioners 
which offered any data on that issue. In an attempt 
to support its argument, Cooper selected four of 
its largest alphanumeric tire sizes, and subjected 
them to an extended version of the high speed 
test until the tires failed. To run an extended test 
on a tire, the tester does not stop testing the tire 
after the 85 mph phase. Instead, he increases the 
test speed to 90 mph and continues to increase 



the test speed by 5 mph every Vz hour until the 
tire fails. Cooper's tests were done first at 85 
percent of maximum load (the level formerly 
specified for these tires) for one set of tires of all 
four sizes and then at 88 percent of maximum load 
for another set of tires. Cooper's tests showed 
that, on average, its tires loaded at 85 percent 
failed at 367 miles shortly after beginnig the 105 
mph phase of the extended test. Its tires loaded 
at 88 percent failed at 332 miles, after completing 
slightly over half of the 100 mph phase. Thus, the 
increased load caused a decrease of 35 miles or 9.5 
percent. Cooper asserted that these results 
showed that the increase would shorten tire life 
on the road and therefore was a significant 
change to Standard No. 109. 

NHTSA does not believe that Cooper's tests 
support either of its assertions. The high speed 
test is designed only to measure the ability of the 
cord body of the tire to retain the tread during 
sustained high speeds and the resulting high 
temperatures. NHTSA is unaware of any data 
even suggesting a positive correlation between 
miles accumulated before failure on an extended 
high speed test and predicted service life of a tire. 
The extended high speed test would be useful in 
determining the suitability of tires for use on a 
police pursuit car or a racing car, but, even for 
those vehicles, the mileage accumulated before 
failure would not be a valid predictor of service 
life in miles of the tires. 

Moreover, NHTSA beleives that Cooper's data 
actually supports the agency's belief that the 
change in the loading conditions for the high 
speed test was insignificant. These data show 
that the tires passed the high speed test under 
both test loads by wide margins. In the extended 
high speed tests, Cooper's tires ran on average 
slightly over half of the 100 mph phase of the test 
under the 88 percent load before failing, while 
those under an 85 percent load failed shortly after 
entering the 105 mph phase of the test. In either 
case, the tires not only successfully completed the 
85 mph phase, but also exceeded the high speed 
requirement of Standard 109 by a wide margin. 
Further, none of the tires were the sort that 
would be chosen for occasional high speed 
operations. These data reinforce the agency's 
expressed belief that the slight increase in 
stringency for the high speed test is an 
insignificant increase which will not alter the 



PART 571; S109A-PRE 112 



results of any tests under the standard or require 
any redesign by tire manufacturers. 

Goodyear and Cooper further asserted that the 
increase in the high speed test loading would 
allow the car manufacturers to substitute smaller 
tire sizes than those currently used on new cars. 
Such substitution could theoretically occur 
because section S4.2 of Standard No. 110 requires 
that the normal vehicle load on the tires not 
exceed the loading used for the high speed test in 
Standard No. 109. If, for example, the test load of 
a particular tire type was previously 86 percent 
of the maximum load rating and is now increased 
to 88 percent, the 2 percent increase in 
permissible normal vehicle load might permit the 
use of the next smallest size of that type of tire on 
a vehicle. However, none of the petitioners 
identified which models they believed could be 
shifted to smaller tires. 

To test the petitioners' assertion, NHTSA 
checked the tires used on automobiles produced 
by U.S. manufacturers for the 1982 model year. 
All of these cars offered P-metric tires as 
standard equipment. As noted above, P-metric 
tires were formerly tested at an average 87 
percent of their maximum load. The one percent 
increase in load allowed by the December rule 
will not allow any substitution of a smaller tire 
size on any of these cars. 

All of the 1982 passenger cars offered by the 
Japanese and European manufacturers use 
European metric radials as standard equipment. 
These tires previously were tested at an average 
of between 85 and 86 percent of maximum load, so 
it is theoretically possible in isolated cases that 
the increase would permit the use of smaller 
tires. However, a survey by the agency of all 1982 
models did not reveal any instances in which 
smaller tire size could in fact be substituted on 
the cars. 

The type of tire for which substitution would 
most likely be feasible is the alphanumeric tires, 
formerly tested at 85 percent of their maximum 
load. This type of tire is no longer offered as 
standard equipment on any new passenger car. 
Based on the trend towards the use of radial tires, 
the alphanumeric tire is very unlikely to be 
offered as standard equipment on any future new 
cars. The agency's examination of the possibility 
of substitutions involving these three types of 
tires did not reveal any instances where the 



substitution of smaller tires would be an actual 
possibility. 

Even if there were one or two foreign vehicles 
on which smaller tire sizes could be and are used, 
the agency does not believe that that fact would 
be significant. All new cars must comply with the 
requirements of section S4.2 of Standard No. 110. 
This section states that the maximum vehicle 
load on a tire must not exceed the tire's maximum 
load, as labeled on its sidewall, and that the 
normal vehicle load must not exceed 88 percent of 
that maximum load. Tires and vehicles complying 
with these requirements would not, in this 
agency's judgment, present any increased safety 
hazards over vehicles and tires where the vehicle 
normal load did not exceed 85 percent of the 
maximum load. It would be inappropriate for this 
agency to prohibit the use of smaller tire sizes in 
situations where the smaller sizes can be used 
without compromising the safety of the finished 
automobile. 

After considering the above arguments, NHTSA 
has determined that none of the arguments show 
that 88 percent figure adopted in the December 
rule was inappropriate to use for high speed 
testing or that the increase in loading was a 
significant change to the standard. Accordingly, 
the agency is retaining the 88 percent figure. 

However, NHTSA is in the process of issuing a 
proposal which may result in changing the load 
for high speed testing. The proposal seeks 
comments on alternative ways of changing the 
loads used for high speed testing under Standard 
No. 109 and for the temperature resistance tests 
used under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading 
Standards (UTQGS) so that they are the same. 
Prior to the deletion of Table I from Standard No. 
109, the loads used for the two regulations were 
identical. As a result of changes to Standard No. 
109 and UTQGS necessitated by the deletion of 
Table I, that is no longer true. (See the December 
1981 final rule and the interim final rule issued at 
47 F.R. 25930: June 15, 1982.) 

Public notice of new tire sizes or tire/rim 
concepts. RMA argued that it was essential that 
there be advance public notice of new tire sizes or 
new tire/rim concepts. Cooper agreed with RMS 
on this point. It stated that a smaller tire 
manufacturer such as itself would not learn in 
advance of new tire size designations since it does 
not belong to any foreign standardization 



PART 571; S109A-PRE 113 



organizations and does not have day-to-day 
contact with the vehicle manufacturers. 
Additionally, Cooper argued that advance notice 
would preclude dangerous intermix situations. 

The agency does not believe that such 
formalized advance notice of the introduction of 
new tire sizes or new tire/rim concepts is 
necessary for any safety-related reason, as 
explained in the final rule on this subject. NHTS A 
does note that advance notice would be useful for 
competitive reasons. It would aid some 
manufacturers in learning about the introduction 
of new sizes and concepts and in producing 
similar tires of their own. If more manufacturers 
make a particular tire size, a consumer can expect 
the competition to produce lower retail prices of 
the tire size. 

On the other hand, the tire tables themselves 
introduced anti-competitive elements to the 
market, and may have served as an impediment 
to market entry. 

The NHTSA does not believe publishing 
notices about new tire sizes and concepts is 
a necessary or proper function for a safety agency, 
or that such a mechanism is appropriate for 
requirement in a safety standard. It appears to be 
a fairly simply matter for any manufacturer to 
keep abreast of the activities of foreign 
standardization organizations either through 
membership in a standardization organization or 
on their own. Nevertheless, the agency will 
consider publishing notice of new tire concepts 
and sizes when information about them is 
received from individual manufacturers if those 
concepts and sizes have not already been 
publicized as a result of being coordinated with a 
standardization body. The process of providing 
such notice would simply inform all interested 
persons about the introduction. It would not 
provide any opportunity for those persons to file 
submissions which would have the effect of 
delaying the introduction of the new sizes or 
concepts. 

Effective date. The changes made by this 
notice simply correct an oversight by the agency 
and change the reference to be used in certain 
tire tests from maximum load data furnished by a 
manufacturer or a standardization organization 



to the maximum load labeled on the tire sidewall. 
None of these changes specify different test 
procedures or additional requirements, nor do 
they require any leadtime for preparation by tire 
or vehicle manufacturers. Failure to make these 
changes effective on the date of publication could 
give rise to a situation described by Michelin, 
where a tire size which meets all existing safety 
requirements could not legally be sold until a 
maximum load rating for that size was published 
by a standardization organization. Since no 
additional leadtime is needed to adjust to these 
changes and since failure to make these changes 
effective at publication could result in needless 
delays in the introduction of new tire sizes, 
NHTSA has determined that good cause exists 
for making these changes effective upon 
publication. 

Analyses or regulatory impacts. 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 Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. These 
revisions will avert a situation where new tire 
sizes meeting all existing safety requirements 
could have their introduction delayed, and simplify 
the determination of appropriate test conditions. 
If these revisions have any effect on costs, that 
effect should be a minimal cost savings. The 
agency does not believe that these amendments 
would have any effect on the price of new tires. 
Innovative tire manufacturers and consumers 
might benefit from a slightly earlier introduction 
of new tire technology. Again, this impact would 
be very minimal. Accordingly, a full regulatory 
evaluation has not been conducted. 

Issued on August 12, 1982. 



Raymond A. Peck, Jr. 
Administrator 

47 F.R. 36180 
August 19, 1982 



PART 571; SlOyA-PRE 114 



Table I— minimum breaking energy values (inch-pounds) 
Table I— A— for bias ply tires with designated section width 6 inches and above 



Cord Material 



Maximum PermissMe Inflation Pressure 



32 Iblir^ 



36 Iblir^ 



iO Ib/ir^ 



2i0 kPa 



280 kPa 



300 kPa 



I3i0 kPa 



Rayon 

Nylon or 
Polyester 



1,650 in.-lbs. 2,574 in.-lbs. 3,300 in. -lbs. 1,650 in. -lbs. 3,300 in. -lbs. 1,650 in.-lbs. 3,300 in. -lbs. 

2,600 in.-lbs. 3,900 in.-lbs. 5,200 in.-lbs. 2,600 in.-lbs. 5,200 in.-lbs. 2,600 in.-lbs. 5,200 in.-lbs.l 



Table I— B— for bias ply tires with designated section width below 6 inches 



Cord Material 



Maxitnum Permis^hle Inflation Pressure 



32 Ib/ir^ 



36 Iblir^ 



J,0 Iblir^ 



2i0 kPa 



280 kPa 



SCO kPa 



ism kPa 



Rayon 

Nylon or 
Polyester 



1,000 in.-lbs. 1,875 in.-lbs. 2,500 in.-lbs. 1,000 in.-lbs. 2,500 in.-lbs. 1,000 in.-lbs. 2,500 in.-lbs. 

1,950 in.-lbs. 2,925 in.-lbs. 3,900 in.-lbs. 1,950 in.-lbs. 3,900 in.-lbs. 1,950 in.-lbs. 3,900 in.-lbs.l 



Table I-C-for radial ply tires 



Maximum Permissible Inflaticm Pressure 



Size Designation 32 lb/in? 



36 Ib/ir^ 



iO Ib/ir^ 



2i0kPa 



280 kPa 



300 kPa 



\3i0 kPa 



Below 160 
Millimeters 1,950 in.-lbs. 

160 Millimeters 
or above 2,600 in.-lbs. 



2,925 in.-lbs. 3,900 in.-lbs. 1,950 in.-lbs. 3.900 in.-lbs. 

3,900 in.-lbs. 5,200 in.-lbs. 2,600 in.-lbs. 5,200 in.-lbs. 



1,950 in.-lbs. 3,900 in.-lbs. 

2,600 in.-lbs. 5.200 in.-lbs.l 



Table I— D-for tires with 60 lb./in^ maximum permissible 

inflation pressure and maximum load rating of 880 POIFNDS 

and above 



Cord Material 



Inch-Pounds 



Rayon 

Nylon or Polyester 



1,650 
2,600 



Table I— E-for tires with 60 lb./in^ maximum permissible 

inflation PRESSIFRE AND MAXIMUM LOAD RATING BELOW 880 
POUNDS 



Cord Material 



Rayon 

Nylon or Polyester 



Table II-test inflation pressures 



Inch-Pounds 



1,000 
1,950 



Maximum Permissible 
Inflation Pressure 



32 


36 


40 


60 


240 


280 


300 


1340 


psi 


psi 


psi 


psi 


kPa 


kPa 


kPa 


kPa 


24 


28 


32 


52 


180 


220 


180 


220 


30 


34 


38 


58 


220 


260 


220 


2601 



Pressure to be used in tests for physical dimensions, 
bead unseating, tire strength, and tire endurance 

Pressure to be used in test for high-speed performance 



153 F.R. 17950— May 19, 1988. Effective: June 20, 1988)1 



(Rev. 5/19/88) 



PART 571; S 109A-1 



I 



MkHv*: AinU 1. 1*M 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110 

Tire Selection and Rims— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 18) 



A proposal to amend §371.21 of Part 371, 
Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 
by adding Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires — Passenger Cars; and Standard No. 110, 
Tire Selection and Rims — Passenger Cars; was 
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 
1967 (32 F.R. 10812). 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
amendment. 

Compliance with the labeling requirements of 
Standard No. 109, established in accordance with 
section 201 of the National TraflSc and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1421), 
and the tread wear indicator requirements found 
in the standard may necessitate the modification 
of tire molds. Several tire manufacturers re- 
quested that additional time be allowed to modify 
these tire molds. After evaluation of all data 
received, it was determined that an effective date 
of August 1, 1968, for paragraphs S4.2.1 and 
S4.3 would provide a reasonable amount of time 
to accomplirfi the necessary mold modifications. 

Many comments stated that no practical way 
is known to permanently affix a label onto the 
tire sidewall, as would have been required by 
proposed paragraph S4,3.1 until such time as a 
label is molded into or onto the tire. Accord- 
ingly, S4.3.1 of Standard No. 109 has been modi- 
fied to permit, until August 1, 1968, the use of a 
label or tag containing the required labeling 
information not permanently molded into or onto 
the tire. 

Many comments objected to the limitations 
imposed by the maximum tire section width di- 
mensions specified in the tables of the notice. 
The Administrator has determined that addi- 
tional latitude is necessary, and therefore Stand- 
ard No. 109 specifies that to provide for tire 



growth, protective side ribs, ornamentation, 
manufacturing tolerances, and design differences 
for each tire size designation actual tire section 
width and overall tire width may exceed the 
section width specified in Table I of the Standard 
by 7 percent. 

In response to requests, additional tire dze 
designations and load/inflation schedules were 
added when necessary information was available. 
In addition, Table I of SUndard No. 109 and 
Table II of Standard No. 110 have been com- 
bined to collate related information. 

Persons desiring an amendment to Standard 
No. 109 adding tires not presently listed, should 
submit sufficient pertinent information relative 
to these tires in 10 copies to the Secretary of 
Transportation ; Attention : Motor Vehicle Safety 
Performance Service, National Highway Safety 
Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 
20591. 

Data received have shown that the rim refer- 
ences indicated in the proposed Standards were 
inadequate in coverage. Therefore, a more com- 
prehensive list of foreign and domestic trade 
association publications containing appropriate 
rim standards or practices has been referenced 
in the Standards. 

Data received demonstrated that the bead un- 
seating and tire strength requirements were in- 
appropriate for certain groups of small tires. 
Accordingly, tires were regrouped and the test 
values revised to provide requirements for these 
small tires that are proportional to the require- 
ments for other sizes of tires. 

Although Standard No. 109 applies to tires 
for use on passenger cars manufactured after 
1948, some of the tires covered by the Standard 
may also be used on earlier model vehiclea 



PART 571; S 110— PRE 1 



MIkHv*i A^I 1, l*M 



The testing procedures set forth in the Stand- 
ard, size designations, and related data are based 
upon existing standards or practices using infor- 
mation furnished by such organizations as the 
Society of Automotive Engineers, Federal Trade 
Commission, Tire and Rim Association, European 
Tire and Kim Technical Organization, Japanese 
Standards Association, Japan Automobile Tire 
Manufacturers Association, Rubber Manufactur- 
ers Association, Tyre Manufacturers Conference, 
Ltd., and the Society of Motor Manufacturers 
and Traders, Ltd. 

To permit production of sufficient quantities 
of tires complying with the requirements of 
Standard No. 109 after its effective date of Jan- 
uary 1, 1968, Standard No. 110 applies to pas- 
senger cars manufactured on or after April 1, 
1968. 

A single table of load/pressure values for 
radial ply tires was included in the notice and 
this was supported by many comments. Other 
comments stressed the importance of including 
different load/pressure values for optimum tire 
deflections. Although a single table of load/ 
pressure schedules combining these values for 
these radial ply tires would be desirable, it was 
not considered advisable to include such a table 
in the standard promulgated under the present 
notice. 

In accordance with section 201 of the Act, 
S4.3 of Standard No. 109 requires that each tire 
be labeled with the name of the manufacturer or 
his brand name and an approved code mark to 
permit the tire seller to identify the tire manu- 
facturer upon the purchaser's request. Any tire 
manufacturer desiring an approved code mark 
should apply for his code number assignment to 
the Secretary of Transportation; Attention: 
Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, Na- 



tional Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transpor- 
tation, Washington, D.C. 20591. 

Several conmients, including the suggested use 
of a "load range" system, will be considered for 
future rule-making. (See 32 F.R. 14279). 

Since it was clearly the intent of the Congress 
that, to enhance the safety of the general public. 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for 
tires become effective as soon as practicable, and 
since no adverse comments were received perti- 
nent to the proposed effective date presented in 
the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (82 
F.R. 2417), at a Grovernment-industry technical 
meeting, and in the notice of proposed rulemak- 
ing (32 F.R. 10812), and no undue burden was 
demonstrated, good cause is shown that an effec- 
tive date earlier than 180 days after issuance is 
in the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, is amended . . . Standard No. 109 
becomes effective January 1, 1968, and Standard 
No. 110 becomes effective April 1, 1968. 

(Sees.' 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407) ; delegation of authority of Mar. 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 5606), as amended Apr. 6, 1967 (32 F.R. 
6495), July 27, 1967 (32 F.R. 11276), Oct. 11, 
1967 (32 F.R. 14277), November 8, 1967). 

Issued in Washington, D.C, on November 8, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator 

32 F.R. 15792 
November 16, 1967 



PART 671; S 110— PRE 2 



MmHv*: A^t 11, 1««l 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110 

Tir* Selection and Rims — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 18R) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (32 
F.R. 16792), as amended (32 F.R. 17938), speci- 
fies tire dimensions and laboratory test require- 
ments for bead unseating resistance, strength, 
endurance, and high speed performance; defines 
tire load ratings; and specifies labeling require- 
ments for new pneumatic tires for use on pas- 
senger cars manufactured after 1948. Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (32 F.R. 
15798) specifies tire selection and rims require- 
ments to prevent tire overloading. 

Figures 2 and 3 of Standard No. 109 are draw- 
ings of the bead unseating test fixture used in 
performing the test specified in S5.2. 

Section S5.4.2.3 specifies the 50 milee-per-hour 
test schedules for the tire endurance test. 

Tables I-A through I-H list the various tire 
types and sizes with proper load and inflation 
values. 

After review of Petitions for Reconsideration 
received under Docket No. 18R, the Administra- 
tor has determined that certain parts of Standard 
No. 109 require clarification, the tire tables need 
revision to include a number of new sizes and 
there is need for a table listing a new series of 
tires. 

In addition. Standard No. 110 requires an ad- 
ditional table to list alternative rims for tire and 
rim combinations not presently covered by the 
standard. 

Therefore, Standard No. 109 is being amended 
by- 

(a) Revising Figures 2 and 3, which depict 
the bead unseating test fixture, by adding on« 
additional dimension to Figure 2 and a center 
line and tangent line to Figure 3 ; 

(b) Specifying that the test required by 
S5.4.2.3 be conducted without pressure adjust- 
ment or other interruption ; 



(c) In table I-A through I-H 

(1) Adding additional tire size designations; 

(2) Adding footnotes permitting the use of 
the letter "H","S", or "V"; 

(3) Correcting typographical errors; 

(d) Adding Table I-J which lists a new series 
of low section height tires. 

In addition, Standard No. 110 is being amended 
by- 

(a) Revising paragraph S4.4.1 to include al- 
ternative rims, not presently listed in the refer- 
ences cited in the definition of Test Rim in S3 of 
Standard No. 109 ; and 

(b) Adding a new table of approved alterna- 
tive rims. 

Since these amendments provide clarification 
and alternative means of compliance, relieve re- 
strictions, and impose no additional burden on 
any person, notice and public procedure hereon 
are unnecessary. The Administrator finds, for 
good cause shown, that no preparatory period is 
needed to effect compliance and it is therefore in 
the public interest to make the amendments ef- 
fective immediately. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Standard No. 109 (32 F.R. 15792), as 
amended (32 F.R. 17938), and Standard No. 110 
(32 F.R. 15798), are amended, effective April 11, 
1968. . . . 

(Sees. 103, 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1892, 
1407) ; delegation of authority of March 31, 1967 
(32 F.R. 5606), as amended Nov. 8, 1967 (82 
F.R. 15710)). 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 11, 1968. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

33 F.R. 5944 
April 18, 1968 



PART 571; S 110— PRE 3-4 



Wncfiv#* S#pl9iiib#r 27^ ito* 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHIQE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110 



Tir« Selection and Rimt — PatSMig«r Cars 
(Docket No. 18) 



On September 11, 1968, the Federal Highway 
Administration published in the Federal Register 
amendments to Standard Nos. 109 and 110 (33 
F.R. 12842). Omitted from publication as part 
of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 were Tables 
1-A through 1-J. For the convenience of per- 
sons using the tables the preamble to the amend- 
ments published September 11, 1968, and the 
text of the amendments, as corrected by the ad- 
dition of the omitted tables are published below. 
Additionally, Appendix A of Standard No. 110 
has been changed to specify the information that 
should be submitted with requests for the addi- 
tion of alternative rim sizes. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 

109 (32 F.R. 16792), as amended (32 F.R. 17938 
and 33 F.R. 5944), specifies tire dimensions and 
laboratory test requirements for bead unseating 
resistance, strength, endurance and high speed 
performance; defines tire load ratings; and 
specifies labeling requirements for new pneumatic 
tires for use on passenger cars manufactured 
after 1948. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 

110 (32 F.R. 15798) as amended (33 F.R. 6949) 
specifies tire selection and rim requirements to 
prevent tire overloading. 

Tables 1-A through 1^ of Standard No. 109 
list various tire types and sizes with proper load 
and inflation values. 

Standard No. 109 is being amended to desig- 
nate Tables 1-A through 1-J as Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109. 

In addition. Table 1-H ia being amended by 
adding additional tire size designations. 

Table I of Standard No. 110, is a list of alter- 
native rims for tire and rim combinations that 
are not contained in any reference in § 3 of 
SUndard No. 109. 



Standard No. 110 is being amended to desig- 
nate Table I as Appendix A of Standard No. 110. 

In addition, the table is being amended by 
adding, as alternative rims for tire size 8.55 x 16, 
rim sizes 5%^JK, 5%-^J and 5i^-nJ; F70-14, 
rim size 7 J J ; and G70-14, rim size 7 J J. 

Additionally, guidelines by which persons re- 
questing routine additions to Appendix A of 
Standard No. 109 and Appendix A of Standard 
No, 110, are set forth as introductory language 
to both appendices. The guidelines provide an 
abbreviated rulemaking procedure for adding 
tire sizes to Standard No. 109, whereby the ad- 
dition becomes effective 30 days from date of 
publication in the Federal Register if no com- 
ments are received. If comments objecting to 
the amendment warrant, the Administration will 
provide for additional rulemaking pursuant to 
the Rule Making Procedures for Motor Vehicles 
Safety SUndards (23 C.F.R. 216). 

Since these amendments provide an alternative 
means of compliance, relieve restrictions, and 
impose no additional burdens on any person, no- 
tice and public procedure hereon are unnecessary 
and the Administrator finds, for good cause 
shown, that no preparatory period is needed to 
effect compliance and it is in the public interest 
to make the amendments effective immediately. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Section 
371.21 of Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, Standard No. 109 (32 F.R. 15792), 
as amended (32 F.R. 17938 and 33 F.R. 5944), 
and SUndard No. 110, (32 F.R. 15798), as 
amended (33 F.R. 5949), are amended effective 
this date as set forth below. 



PART 571; S 110— PRE 5 



MMtlvat Wpfwnbar 27, 1«6t 

These amendments are made under the author- Issued in Washington, D.C. on September 27, 

ity of Sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 1968. t v t> t • r. * 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. John RJamieson, Deputy 

1392, 1407) and the delegation from the Secre- F«<i«™l Highway Administrator 

tary of Transportation, Part I of the Regulations 33 F.i. 14964 

of the Office of the Secretary (49 C.F.R. § 1.4 (c) ) . Oct«b«r 5, 1 968 



PART 671; S 110— PRE 6 



^ 



Effective: August 5, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110 

Tire Selection and Rims 
(Docket No. 74-25; Notice 2) 



This notice amends the definition of "test rim" 
in 49 CFR 571.109 (Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109) and modifies related provi- 
sions of that section and section 571.110 (Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110). A conform- 
ing amendment is made to similar provisions in 
section 571.119 (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 119). The notice of proiwsed rulemaking 
on which this amendment is based was published 
on July 10. 1974 (39 F.R. 25329). 

The definition of "t«6t rim" has previous to 
this amendment referenced the 1967 and earlier 
editions of publications of various foreign and 
domestic tire and rim associations as the source 
for determining rim specifications and appro- 
priate tire/rim matching information for testing 
tires to tlie requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109, and for equipping passenger 
cars pursuant to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 110. Tiie Rubber Manufacturers' Associa- 
tion [jetitioned that this reference be changed 
because the publications have become outdated 
in terms of the rim information they provide. 
This amendment, which adopts the proposed rule 
of July 10, 1974, in essentially the form pro- 
jxjsed, deletes the references io the 1967 and 
earlier publications and svibstitutes for them the 
publications of the various associations current 
at the time of tire manufacture. 

Under the amendment, a "test rim" will be any 
rim listed for use with a tire size designation in 
any of the current publications of the various 
foreign and domestic tire and rim associations. 
The listing will apply to all tires tliat fit the 
description (by tire size designation, use cate- 
gory, etc.) unless the publication itself or a 
separately published manufacturer's document 
states otherwise. A manufacturer wishing to 



except any tire manufactured by him from any 
listing would be expected to request the associa- 
tion to i)ublish the exception in its publication. 
If it does not, the manufacturer must himself 
publish the exception in his own listing, which 
he must distribute to his dealers, this agency, and 
to any member of the public on request. The 
language of the proiwsal is clarified, and a con- 
forming amendment made to Standard No. 119 
to show that an exception must be published in 
each association publication listing the tire and 
rim combination. The amendment further speci- 
fies that a "listing" of a rim must contain di- 
mensional specifications, including diagrams, for 
the rim. This is necessary to provide for uni- 
fonuity of rim dimensions and reflects the pres 
ent practice of association publications of pub- 
lisliing such dimensional specifications. However, 
dimensional specifications or a diagram of a rim 
need not be included in manufacturers' separate 
listings if the specifications and diagram for the 
rim api)ear in eticli association i)ublication where 
it is listed. 

By referencing the current publications, the 
amendment ends the need for Appendix "A" of 
Standard No. 110, wiiich lists tire/rim combina- 
tions appro\ed for use subsequent to the 1967 
and earlier associations publications. The asso- 
ciations and various manufacturers should ascer- 
tain that all tire/rim combinations presently 
listed in that Appendix are incorporated into at 
least one of their respective publications before 
the effective date of tliis amendment. Moreover, 
the addition of new tire/rim combinations sub- 
sequent to the effective date becomes the sole 
responsibility of the industry. Apjiendix "A" 
of Standard No. 109, listing tire size designa- 
tions, is not affected by this amendment. 



PART 571 ; S 110— PRE 7 



Effective: August 5, 1975 



An effect of the amended definition of test rim 
is to clarify this agency's i^osition that each tire 
must be able to pass each performance require- 
ment (except that for physical dimensions) of 
Standard No. 109 with any rim with which it is 
listed, regardless of rim width, unless that tire 
is specifically excepted from each listing where 
it appears. The requirements for physical di- 
mensions must be met only on a test rim of the 
width specified for the tire size designation in 
Standard No. 109. A tire failing the require- 
ments on any test rim would be considered as 
having failed the requirements on all test rims. 
This continues existing NHTSA enforcement 
policy. 

One of the two comments received regarding 
the proposal objected to this aspect of the amend- 
ment, arguing that some manufacturers have 
traditionally certified conformity on the basis 
of test results using only the test rims of the 
specified test rim width and that no safety prob- 
lems had been encountered. The NHTSA be- 
lieves, however, that the interest of safety de- 
mands that manufacturers ensure that tires 
certified as conforming to Standard No. 109 will 
conform to the standard's requirements on any 
rim which the manufacturer lists for use with 
the tire and with which the tire may conse- 
quently be used in service. This position has 
been reflected in the guidelines for the additions 
of new tire/rim combinations to the Appendix 



of Standard No. 110, which have required that 
the manufacturer demonstrate conformity to 
Standard No. 109 on each newly requested rim. 
If a manufacturer doubts the ability of his tires 
to conform to the standard on certain recom- 
mended rims, he has the option of excepting his 
tires from being used with those rims. No other 
objections to the proposed rule were received. 

In light of the above, amendments are made 
to 49 CFR §§571.109, 571.110, and 571.119 .... 

Effective date: August 5, 1975 for Standard 
No. 109 and 110; March 1, 1975, for Standard 
No. 119. The amendment to Standard No. 119 
is of a clarifying nature, and should be made 
effective with the existing effective date of that 
standard. The amendment does not require sub- 
stantial leadtime for conformity, and it is found 
for good cause shown that an effective date less 
than. 180 days from publication is in the public 
interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, 201, 202, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. §§1392, 1407, 1421, 1422; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on January 31, 1975. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 5529 
February 6, 1975 



PART 571; S 110— PRE 8 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110 



Tire Selection and Rims— Passenger Cars 



51. Purpose and scope. This standard speci- 
fies requirements for tire selection to prevent tire 
overloading. 

52. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars. 

53. Definitions. 

"Accessory weight" means the combined weight 
(in excess of those standard items which may be 
replaced) of automatic transmission, power steer- 
ing, power brakes, power windows, power seats, 
radio, and heater, to the extent that these items 
are available as factory-installed equipment 
(whether installed or not). 

"Curb weight" means the weight of a motor 
vehicle with standard equipment including the 
maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant, and, if 
so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight 
optional engine. 

"Maximum loaded vehicle weight" means the 
sum of— 

(a) Curb weight; 

(b) Accessory weight; 

(c) Vehicle capacity weight; and 

(d) Production options weight. 

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

"Occupant distribution" means distribution of 
occupants in a vehicle as specified in the third col- 
umn of Table I. 

"Production options weight" means the com- 
bined weight of those installed regular production 
options weighing over 5 pounds in excess of those 
standard items which they replace, not previously 
considered in curb weight or accessory weight, in- 
cluding heavy duty brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, 
heavy duty battery, and special trim. 

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



"Vehicle maximum load on the tire" means that 
load on an individual tire that is determined by 
distributing to each axle its share of the maximum 
loaded vehicle weight and dividing by two. 

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

S4. Requirements. 

54.1 General. Passenger Cars shall be equipped 
with tires that meet the requirements of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New 
Pneumatic Tires— Passenger Cars." 

54.2 Tire load limits. 

S4.2.1 [The vehicle maximum load on the tire 
shall not be greater than the applicable maximum 
load rating specified in one of the publications 
described in S4.4.1(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109 for the tire's size designation 
and type. (46 F.R. 61473. Effective: 6/16/82)1 

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



Designated Seating 

Capacity, Number 
Occupants 

2 thru 4 
5 thru 10 



Vehicle Normal 

Load, Number of 

Occupants 

2 
3 



Occupant 
Distribution 
in a Normally- 
Loaded Vehicle 

2 in front 
2 in front 
1 in second seat 



S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall 
not be greater than the test load used in the high 
speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 for that tire. 



(Rev. 12/8fei) 



PART 571; S 110-1 



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

(a) Vehicle capacity weight; 

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

(c) [The tire rating specified in one of the 
publications described in S4.4.1(b) Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 109 for the tire size at that in- 
flation pressure is not less than the vehicle load on 
the tire for that vehicle loading condition. (46 F.R. 
61473. Effective: 6/16/82)1 

(d) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire 
size designation. 

S4.3.1 No inflation pressure other than the 
maximum permissible inflation pressure may be 
specified unless— 

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

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



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

S4.4 Rims. 

S4.4.1 Requirements. Each rim shall: 

(a) Be constructed to the dimensions of a 
rim that is listed pursuant to the definition of 
"test rim" in paragraph S3, of § 571.109 (Stand- 
ard No. 109) for use with the tire size designa- 
tion with which-the vehicle is equipped. 

(b) In the event of rapid loss of inflation 
pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight 
line at a speed of 60 miles per hour, retain the 
deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped 
with a controlled braking application. 



33 F.R. 14969 
Octobers, 1968 



(Rev. 12/8/81) 



PART 571; S 110-2 



EffacHv*: January 1, 1968 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. Ill 
Rearview Mirrors — Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles 

(Docket No. 13) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. Ill (32 
F.R. 2413) specifies requirements for rearview 
mirrors for use in passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multi- 
purpose passenger car equipment. 

Paragraph S2, entitled "Application" of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. Ill (32 F.R. 2413) 
requires that the application of the Standard be 
as follows: "This standard applies to passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and pas- 
senger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle 
equipment." 

Paragraph S3.2.1.2 entitled "Mounting" of 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. Ill (32 F.R. 
2413) requires that outside mirrors installed on 
passenger cars and multipurpose passenger ve- 
hicles be mounted as follows: "The mounting 
shall provide a stable support for the mirror 
and neither the mirror nor the mounting shall 
protrude further than ^ the widest part of the 
vehicle body, except to the extent necessary to 
meet the requirements of S3.2.1.1." 

The National Traffic Safety Agency has de- 
termined that the mirror mounting may exceed 
the width of the vehicle to the extent necessary 



to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding 
the requirements of paragraph S3.2.1.1 of Stand- 
ard No. Ill and that it would not be practicable 
to extend the application of the standard to re- 
placement parts for vehicles manufactured before 
the effective date of the standard. Therefore, 
the standard is being amended to apply to pas- 
senger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
and to permit a mirror to protrude further than 
the widest part of the vehicle body to the extent 
necessary to produce a field of view meeting or 
exceeding the field-of-view requirements of the 
standard. 

This amendment is made under the authority 
of sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C, 
sees. 1392, 1407) and becomes effective January 1, 
1968. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 29, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 
Acting Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Transportation 
33 F.R. 5498 
April 4, 1967 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 1-2 



EffMHva: Fabiuary 12, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHIUE SAFETY STANDARD NO. Ill 

Rearview Mirrors 
(Dockat No. 74-20; NoKc* 2) 



This notice amends Standard No. Ill, Rear- 
view Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111) to allow in- 
stallation of truck-type mirror systems in 
multipurpose passenger vehicles and to extend 
the coverage of the standard to trucks and buses. 

The NHTSA proposed in a notice published 
on May 1, 1974 (39 F.R. 15143) to amend Stand- 
ard No. Ill, to specify minimum requirements 
for mirror size, capability, and location which 
would be applicable to all trucks, buses, and 
motorcycles, and to establish an option which 
would allow multipurpose passenger vehicles to 
meet either the present passenger-car mirror 
requirements or to satisfy the requirements pro- 
posed in the notice for trucks and buses. Stand- 
ard No. Ill currently applies only to passenger 
cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, speci- 
fying the same rearview mirror requirements for 
each. The NHTSA has determined that a need 
exists to extend the standard's coverage to other 
vehicle types that presently lack uniform Federal 
regulation in order to ensure observance of mini- 
mum mirror performance levels essential to 
motor vehicle safety. 

The NHTSA also proposed in the notice pub- 
lished May 1, 1974 to require that all mirrors 
required by the standard, except those specified 
for motorcycles, be designed to reflect an image 
of unit magnification, thereby limiting any devia- 
tion from unit magnification to normal produc- 
tion variations and not variations which are the 
result of design. To this end it was proposed 
that the term "substantially" be deleted where 
it modifies "unit magnification" in the text of 
Standard No. 111. 

Interested persons were afforded an oppor- 
tunity to submit comments on the proposal by 
July 1, 1974 and due consideration has been 
given to the 36 comments received. 



Two commenters opposed deletion of the term 
"substantial" where it modifies "unit magnifica- 
tion" on the ground that only mirrors of pre- 
cisely unit magnification will now be acceptable. 
This view is erroneous. The interpretation fol- 
lowed by the NHTSA — and proposed to be in- 
corporated in Standard No. Ill in this issue of 
the Federal Register — is that deviations from 
unit magnification are acceptable under the 
standard as amended below provided that the 
deviations do not exceed normal manufacturing 
tolerances. 

All comments generally agreed with the 
NHTSA proposal to extend a Federal rearview 
mirror standard to trucks, buses and motorcycles. 
However, several comments recommended mir- 
rors of larger area than those required in the 
NHTSA proposal for trucks and buses, and 
suggested the use of convex mirrors in addition 
to unit magnification mirrors. Others recom- 
mended specific requirements for school buses 
and clarification of the proposed standard for 
motorcycles with regard to location and area of 
mirrors and use of convex mirrors. While the 
NHTSA considers that the proposed extension 
of the scope of Standard No. HI to cover trucks 
and buses will promote efficient rearward visi- 
bility, it agrees with those who have urged fur- 
ther research regarding requirements for school 
buses and motorcycles. Consequently, Standard 
No. HI is amended by this notice to extend the 
scope of its coverage to trucks and buses (in- 
cluding school buses). At the same time, how- 
ever, tile NHTSA is proposing in this issue of 
the Federal Register to amend Standard No. Ill 
to specify new rearview mirror requirements for 
motorcycles and further requirements for school 
buses. 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 3 



ElhcNv*: Fabruary 12, 1976 



The majority of comments favored the pro- 
posal that trucks, buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds 
or less comply either with the present passenger 
car mirror requirements, or with new require- 
ments specifying outside mirrors on both sides 
of the vehicle with not less than 19.5 in^ of 
reflective surface. This option is intended to 
overcome difficulties caused by classifying trucks, 
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles into 
groups specifying one mirror system adequate to 
fulfill the safety needs of all. 

In addition, several commenters felt that 
heavy commercial vehicles, such as truck tractors, 
moving vans, and dump trucks, needed outside 
mirrors larger than 50 in'. The NHTSA has 
determined that the 50 in'' mirror is adequate 
for buses and for smaller multipurpose passenger 
vehicles and trucks. However, for multipurpose 
passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVAVR ex- 
ceeding 25,000 pounds, a 75 in^ mirror appears 
better to meet the safety need. Therefore, while 
this notice amends Standard No. Ill to require 
that multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
and buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 
pounds have outside mirrors of not less than 
50 in= of reflective surface, the NHTSA is pro- 
posing in this issue of the Federal Register to 
amend Standard No. Ill to require mirrors of 
at least 75 in^ of reflective surface on multipur- 
pose passenger vehicles and trucks with a 
GV^VR of 25,000 pounds or more. 

Several persons contended with regard to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses that the provision requiring that mirrors 
be adjustable by "tilting in both the horizontal 
and vertical direction" did not take into account 



the methods used to mount mirrors on these 
types of vehicles. Large mirrors, such as the 
so-called "West Coast" mirror which affords 
approximately 96 square inches of reflective 
surface area, are commonly mounted on rigid 
brace assemblies. These mirrors can be adjusted 
to provide the driver a view to the rear. How- 
ever, once they are locked into place thej' are not 
capable of "tilting in both the horizontal and 
vertical direction." While mirrors mounted on 
ball sockets are fully adjustable in the horizontal 
and vertical directions by tilting, the NHTSA 
finds no reason to preclude the use of a mirror 
that possesses full adjustment capability and is 
only locked into a position once it satisfies the 
particular driver's viewing needs. 

The NHTSA has decided to delete the words 
"by tilting" from the requirements for multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. 
The rule requires that mirrors on such vehicles 
"shall be adjustable in both the horizontal and 
vertical directions to view the rearward scene." 

In consideration of the foregoing. Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. Ill, 49 CFR 571.111, 
is amended. . . . 

Effective date : February 12, 1976. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on : August 6, 1975. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 33825 
August 12, 1975 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 4 



Effective: February 19, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. Ill 

Rearview Mirrors 
(Docket 74-20; Notice 4) 



This notice responds to four petitions for re- 
consideration of the notice published August 12, 
1975 (40 F.R. 33825) which amended Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Xo. Ill, Rear- 
vieiv Mirror!^ (49 CFR 571.111), to allow in- 
stallation of ti-uck-type mirror systems in multi- 
purpose passen>;:er vehicles and to extend coverajje 
of the standard to trucks and buses. 

Petitions for reconsideration were received 
from American Motors, Ford, General Motors, 
and the Motoi- Vehicle Manufacturers Associa- 
tion. They all asked the NIITSA to amend the 
standard to include a statement tliat the eye 
reference points to l)e used to determine com- 
pliance with the Held of view requirements set 
forth in S4.1.1 and S4.2.1 may also be "at a 
nominal location appropriate for any 95th pei-- 
centile driver." The NIITSA iiad determined by 
a previously published interpretation (32 F.R. 
5498) that the standard in etl'ect in April of 1967 
permitted location of tlie driver's eye reference 
point in this manner. The recent amendments 



did not change this aspect of the standard. How- 
ever, in order to i-esolve any doubt concerning 
tlie applicability of the prior interpretation, the 
agency proposed in a notice published August 12, 
1975, to formally reaffirm this interpretation l)y 
amending the standard. Petitioners seek imme- 
diate adoption of this proposal. The XHTSA 
agrees that the standard may be amended at this 
time to incorporate the previous interpretation. 
Therefore, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ard \o. Ill, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), 
is amended. . . . 

Efective date: February 19, 1976. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563. 80 Stat. 718 (15 
r.S.C. 1392. 1407) ; delegation of authority at 49 
(^FR 1.50.) 

Is-sued February 12. 1976. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

41 F.R. 7510 
February 19, 1976 



PART 571: S 111— PRE 5-6 



e 



t 



e 



Effective: February 26, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. Ill 



Rearview Mirrors 
(Docket No. 74-20; Notice 5) 



This notice amends Standard No. Ill, Rear- 
view Mirrors^ to establisli separate requirements 
for school buses, to increase the amount of re- 
flective surface required for mirrors on multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a 
GVWR of 25,000 pounds or more, and to extend 
the coverage of the standard to motorcycles. 

By final rule published by the National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
on August 12, 1975 (40 P\R. 33825), Standard 
No. Ill (49 CFR 571.111) was amended to allow 
installation of truck-type mirror systems on 
multipurpose passenger vehicles and to e.\tend 
the coverage of the standard to trucks and buses. 
As amended, the standard specified identical re- 
quirements for all types of buses. No distinction 
was made between commercial buses and school 
buses. No requirements were set out for motor- 
cycles, as had been proposed in an earlier notice. 
Further, the standard imposed the same re(]uire- 
ments for all multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses with a GVWR of more than 
10,000 pounds. 

At the time of these changes, the NHTSA had 
completed further research and considered com- 
ments submitted by participants in that rule- 
making, and determined that the pronmlgation 
of separate rearview miror requirements for 
motorcycles, school buses, and multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles and trucks with a GA^VR of 
25,000 pounds or more would ensure the provision 
of minimum perfonnance levels essential to motor 
vehicle safety. Therefore, a notice proposing 
these changes was also published on August 12, 
1975 (40 F.R. 33828), and forms the basis of the 
present amendments. 

Interested persons were afforded an opportu- 
nity to submit comments on the proposal by 



September 26, 1975, and due consideration has 
been given to the 24 comments received. The 
National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council 
did not take a position on the proposed amend- 
ments. (Active dockets concerning rearview 
mirrors ai-e Docket No. 74-20 and Docket No. 
71-3a.) 

Commenters generalh- agreed with the NHTSA 
proposal to establish rearview mirror i-equire- 
ments for motorcycles. However, the Grote Man- 
ufacturing Company oposed the optional use 
of convex mirrors, contending that their use on 
motorcycles would be hazardous due to the distor- 
tion of distance characteristics of convex mirrors 
and the unfamiliarity of young drivers with 
them. The NHTSA has decided that both plane 
and convex motorcycle mirrors should be per- 
mitted, since available data does not support the 
contention that convex mirroi-s would be hazard- 
ous. The SAE Reconnnended Practice J268(a), 
"Rear View Mirroi-s — Motorcycles,'" specifies cri- 
teria for both plane and convex mirrors, and 
convex mirrors are presently in common usage 
on motorcycles. 

There were also reconunendations for both 
larger and smaller minimum reflective area 
requirements for motorcycle mirrors, and one 
recommendation for field-of-view performance re- 
quirements instead of a reflective area require- 
ment. The amendment specifies 12.5 in- of 
reflective surface for a plane motorcycle mirror 
or 10 in- of reflective surface for a convex mir- 
ror. The NHTSA concludes that these required 
reflective surface areas will ensure a safe level 
of rearview visibility on motorcycles. The 
NHTSA finds the larger reflective area is needed 
on the plane mirror to offset its smaller field-of- 
view compared to that of a convex mirror. It is 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 7 



Effective: February 26, 1977 



contemplated that field-of-view performance re- 
quirements will be developed in future rulemak- 
ing. 

The State of California commented that the 
SAE Recommended Practice J964a, specified in 
paragraph Sll of the standard, does not include 
a procedure for measuring the reflectance of 
convex mirrors, and suggested that a different 
procedure be specified. This suggestion is not 
well taken since, contrary to California's com- 
ment, the Recommended Practice does include a 
procedure for measuring convex mirror reflec- 
tance. 

This amendment excepts school buses from the 
general bus requirements specified in paragi-aphs 
S6 and S7 of the standard, as amended by this 
notice, and establishes a new paragraph, S9, 
which requires school buses to be equipped with 
outside mirrors of unit magnification with not 
less than 50 in^ of reflective surface and, except 
for forward control vehicles, with a convex 
cross-view mirror that has a minimum of 40 
in^ of reflective surface and an average radius 
of curvature not less than 12 inches and not 
greater than 25 inches. 

The Grote Manufacturing Company contended 
that a 50 in* plane mirror on the right side of a 
school bus is inadequate, but the NHTSA be- 
lieves that the 50 in- mirror in common use 
offers sufficient reflective area. Likewise, the 
NHTSA cannot agi-ee with the views of the 
States of California and Illinois that a 40 in^ 
cross-view mirrors is insufficient. Manufacturers 
can meet this requirement with the 7i^ inch- 
diameter convex mirror which is commonly in- 
stalled on school buses and which has been found 
to be adequate. 

California also opposed the proposal that for- 
ward control school buses be excluded from the 
cross-view mirror requirements, stating that 
cross-view mirrors might be necessaiy on some 
forward control configurations. Tlie NHTSA 
will consider tliis aspect of California's conunent 
in future rulemaking in which the agency plans 
to develop field-of-view performance tests. 

The State of Illinois, noting that the proposed 
amendments specified requirements for cross-view 
mirrors on school buses, recommended that the 
title of Standard No. Ill, Rearview Mirrors^ be 
shortened to "Mirrors." The NHTSA believes 



that such a change is unnecessary and might 
create confusion since the industry has come to 
associate the existing title with the standard 
number. Therefore, there is no change in the 
title of Standard No. Ill even though this amend- 
ment adds a provision for cross-view mirrors. 

Several commentei-s, including Blue Bird Body 
Company, the State of Illinois, and the Grote 
Manufacturing Company, disagreed with tlie pre- 
amble discussion concerning preemption that ap- 
peared in the notice proposing this amendment 
(40 F.R. 33828), in regard to Federal versus 
State requirements for rearview mirrore on school 
buses. There appears to be some confusion con- 
cerning tlie provision of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, P.L. 89-563 
(15 U.S.C. § 1392(d)) that allows states and 
political subdivisions to impose higher standards 
of performance than is required by Federal 
standards in the case of vehicles procured for 
their own use. Blue Bird Body Company com- 
mented that the interpretation in the preamble 
to the proposal "would allow local govermnents 
and other parties to specify potentially conflicting 
requirements with all NHTSA standards." This 
is incorrect. Section 103(d) of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides 
that no State or political subdivision of a State 
shall have autliority to establish a motor vehicle 
safety standard governing the same aspect of 
performance of a motor vehicle or of motor ve- 
hicle equipment as a Federal standard, unless it 
is identical to the Federal standard. The only 
exception, also provided in section 103(d) of 
the Act, is that a State may establish a safety 
requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor 
vehicle equipment procured for its own use if 
such requirement imposes a higher standard of 
performance than the Federal standard. This 
means that a State may impose requirements 
additional to those specified in an applicable 
Federal standard only if the vehicles are pro- 
cured specifically for use by the State or its 
political subdivision. Therefore, a State may not 
require vehicles manufactured or sold for use by 
private parties to meet any standards not identical 
with Federal standards, even if the State stand- 
ard would require a higher level of performance. 
Use of the phrase "higher standard of perform- 
ance" means that the State standard must not 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 8 



Effective: February 26, 1977 



conflict with the Federal standard but may con- 
tain additional requirements. 

The phrase does not mean that a State standard 
will be subjectively analyzed as a whole to deter- 
mine its comparable worth in safety terms in 
relation to a Federal standard. Such an inter- 
pretation would create impracticable results. 
Finally, as stated in the preamble of the notice 
proposing these amendments, the \ational Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does not 
prohibit a nongovernmental purchaser of a ve- 
hicle from contracting with a manufacturer or 
dealer for additional safety features beyond those 
required by Federal motor vehicle safety stand- 
ards. 

The majority of comments favored the proposal 
that multipurjjose passenger vehicles and trucks 
with a G^^VR of more than 10.000 and less than 
25,000 pounds, and buses, other than school buses, 
with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds con- 
tinue to be equipped with outside mirrors of unit 
magnification on liotli sides of the vehicle, each 
with not less than .50 in- of reflective surface. 

The Teamsters Union recommended that the 
proposed TS-square-inch reflective area require- 
ment for trucks and multipurpose vehicles with 
a G\^VR of 25,000 pounds or more l)e increased 
to a 96-square-inch requirement. The NHTSA 
has carefull}' considered the views of the Team- 
sters, but must conclude, based on available 
studies, that the proposed 75-square-inch mirror 
is adequate for safety purposes. Further, a 
larger reflective area requirement would prohibit 
the new truck mirrors tliat arc designed to be 
mounted below the driver's line of sight. Use of 
these mirrors is encouraged by the agency since 
they do not obstruct the forward view of the 
driver, as do the larger "West Coast" mirrors. 

The obsti'uction of the forward view due to 
the mounting location of some of the larger mir- 
rors can create a potential safety hazard, as 
pointed out by several commenters. However, 
rather than incorporating mounting location as 
a requirement of the standard at this time, the 
NHTSA believes the problem can better be 
solved through viewing performance requirements 
to be promulgated in the future. 

The State of California suggested that mini- 
mum width requirements be specified for side- 



mounted mirrors, and that track classification be 
based on a system other than GVWR. We see 
no need to specify width requirements. The Cali- 
fornia comments provided no evidence, and the 
agency has no indication, that manufacturers 
would circunivent the purposes of the standard 
by providing long and nari-ow side mirrors. No 
circumvention of this sort has occurred in the 
case of mirrors currently available on the mai'ket. 
The NHTSA recognizes that truck classification 
based on GVAVR ci'eates some artificiality in the 
applicability of requirements, but other methods 
of classification create similar problems. These 
problems can better V)e corrected in future rule- 
making with the specification of field-of-view 
performance requirements. 

Finally, several commenters recommended that 
combination plane and convex mirrors be required 
for large multipurpose passenger vehicles and 
trucks, in order to increase the field of view. 
The NHTSA agrees that the use of convex mir- 
rors on larger vehicles would be of some benefit 
because of the increased field of view they would 
provide. Therefore, the agency publishes in this 
i.ssue of the Federal Register a proposal to amend 
Standard No. Ill to specify the optional use 
of plane and convex mirror combinations on 
buses other than school buses, nmltipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles, and trucks that have a GVWR 
of 10,000 pounds or more. 

This amendment also clarifies the deflection 
requirements for inside rearview mirror mount- 
ings on passenger cars. The amendment specifies 
that the mounting is required to "break away" 
when the test force is applied to tlie reflective 
surface of the mirror in any direction that forms 
an angle of up to 45° with the forward longi- 
tudinal direction. The amendment clarifies that 
the mounting is required to deflect, collapse, or 
"bi-eak away" when the force is applied to the 
reflective surface in a generally forward direction. 

The provision of Standard No. Ill regarding 
mirror construction is amended to provide that 
the "average" reflectance value of the reflective 
film employed on any mirror required by the 
standard must be at least 35 percent. The pur- 
pose of this amendment is to make clear that the 
failure of any individual point or points on the 
reflective surface of a mirror to reflect 35 percent 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 



Effective: February 26, 1977 



of a light source does not constitute a failure to 
comply witli the standard if the average reflec- 
tance of the total points coniprisino; tlie reflective 
surface is at least 35 percent. 

The amendment incorpoi-ates into tlie mirroi- 
construction requii-ements the current test pro- 
cedures for measurement of average reflectance 
value found in the Societ}- of Automotive En- 
gineers Recommended Practice J96a, August. 
1974. 

Standard Xo. Ill is further amended l\y this 
notice to add a definition of the tenn "mirror of 
unit magnification." This definition incorporates 
a previous XHTSA interpretation to the effect 
that precise "unit magnification" is not required 
by the standard if any deviations are not in 
excess of normal manufacturing tolerances. The 
definition provides that a prismatic day-night 
adjustment rearview mirror, one of whose posi- 
tions provides unit magnification, is considered 
a unit magnification mirror. 

The notice proposing these amendments (40 
F.R. 33828) included a proposal that the term 
"driver's eye reference point" referred to in 
S5.1.1 and S5.2.1 of the standard as amended by 
this notice, be changed to "driver's eyes reference 
points" in order to more accurately describe the 
locations to which the term refers. The notice 
further proposed that tlie standard be amended 
to permit location of the driver's eye reference 
point at "a nominal location appropriate for any 
05th percentile male driver,'' as had been estab- 
lished in a previously published NHTSA inter- 
pretation (32 F.R. 5498). At the time of the 
proposal, Standard No. Ill only provided that 
the location of the driver's eye reference point 
"shall be that established in Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 104." The proposal provided that 
the location of the eye reference point could be 
derived through either formula. 

In response to four petitions for reconsidera- 
tion, by final rule issued February 19, 1976 (41 
F.R. 7510). Standard No. Ill was amended to 
partially adopt the proposed changes regarding 
driver's eye reference point. The standard was 
amended to incorporate the previous NHTSA 
interpretation which allowed location of the 
driver's eye reference point "at a nominal loca- 
tion appropriate for any 95th percentile adult 
male driver." The petitioners had requested that 



this aspect of the proposal be adopted imme- 
diately. 

Today's amendment completes the adoption of 
the pi-oposed changes by modifying the term 
"driver's eye reference point" to read "driver's 
eye reference points." As amended, the last 
sentence of S5.1.1 and S5.2.1 now reads: "The 
location of the driver's eye reference points shall 
be those established in Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 104 (§ 571.104) or a nominal loca- 
tion appropriate for any 95th percentile adult 
male driver." Even with these changes, however, 
there still appears to be much confusion con- 
cerning this aspect of the field-of-view perform- 
ance requirements for passenger cars. General 
Motors has recommended that the reference to 
Standard No. 104 in paragraphs S5.1.1 and S5.2.1 
be deleted, since that standard's designation of 
"eye reference points'' is ambiguous. In light of 
the evident confusion, the NHTSA is proposing 
in this issue of the Federal Register to amend 
paragraphs S5.1.1 and S5.2.1 of Standard No. 
Ill to specify that location of driver's eye refer- 
ence points shall be detennined in accordance 
with the procedure found in SAE Recommended 
Practice J1050, "Describing the Driver's Field 
of View," Section 7 (September, 1973). Refer- 
ences to Standard No. 104 and to the "nominal 
location'' method of determining the eye reference 
points would be tleleted from the standard. 

These amendments should have only a minimal 
economic and environmental impact, since manu- 
facturers are currently equipping vehicles with 
the same type miri'ors that are required by the 
amendments. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the amend- 
ments of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
Ill (49 CFR 571.111) are adopted without 
change. . . . 

Effecfive date: February 26. 1977. 

(Sees. 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 August 17, 1976. 

John "W. Snow 
Administrator 

41. F.R. 36023 
August 26, 1976 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 10 



Effective: February 26, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. Ill 

Rearview Mirrors 
(Docket No. 74-20; Notice 07) 



Tliis notice responds to petitions for recon- 
siderations of a recent amendment of Standard 
No. Ill, Rearview Mirrors, by reducing upcom- 
ing mirror size requirements to the level pi'esently 
specified by the standard. 

By notice published August 26. 1976 (41 F.R. 
36023), paragraph S8.1 of Standard No. Ill (49 
CFR 571.111) was established to increase from 
50 square inches to 75 scjuare inches the amount 
of reflective surface required for plane mirrors 
on niultipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks 
with a GV\VR of 25,000 pounds or more. The 
new requirement becomes effective February 26. 
1977. In the sjime issue of the Federal Register 
the NIITSA published a proposal to further 
amend Standard 111 to provide for the optional 
use of plane and convex mirror combinations on 
imiltipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with 
a GVWR of 25,000 pounds or more (41 F.R. 
36037). The projjosed requirements would allow 
manufacturers to equip their larger vehicles with 
either a 75-square-inch mirror of unit magnifica- 
tion or a combination mirror system comprised 
of a 45-square-inch plane mirror and a 25-square- 
inch convex mirror. 

Mr. M. W. Urban and the "\Miite Motor Com- 
pany petitioned the NHTSA to revoke the 
amendment requiring vehicles over 25,000 pounds 
to have plane mirrors with 75 square inches of 
reflective surface. Petitionei-s were concerned 
that the proposal to allow plane and convex com- 
binations for the larger vehicles would not l)e 
made a final rule by the time of the February 26. 
1977, effective date for the 75-square-inch plane 
mirror requirement. They noted that this would 
have the effect of prohibiting the use of combina- 
tion mirrors after February 26, 1977, although 
they are presently allowed and would be allowed 



again in the future under the outstanding pro- 
posal. 

The NHTSA has detennined that petitioners' 
argument has merit. As stated in the preamble 
to the August 26, 1976, proposal, the NHTSA 
recognizes that the larger vehicles (GVWR 
greater than 25,000 pounds) have rearward vis- 
ibility problems that can create potential safety 
iuizards, and that the use of both plane and 
convex mirrors on these vehicles should help to 
increase rearward visibility. The NHTSA does 
not wish to preclude the combination mirror sys- 
tems cuiTently being used on the MPVs and 
trucks, since most of these systems would meet 
dimensional specifications set forth in the out- 
standing proposal. 

While the NHTSA concluded tliat the larger 
plane mirrors are necessary on heavy vehicles not 
equipped with coml)ination mirroi's, many manu- 
facturers are already equipping these vehicles 
with "West Coast" mirrors that have 96 square 
inches of reflective surface. Therefore, postpone- 
ment of the 75-square-inch plane miiioi- require- 
ment for heavy vehicles .should not significantly 
reduce motor vehicle safety. 

The rearview mirror amendments published on 
August 26, 1976, established the requirement that 
school buses be ecpiipped with plane mirrors hav- 
ing 50 square inches of reflective surface. Mr. 
Urban's petition for reconsideration also re- 
quested that this requirement be postponed and 
modified to include separate requirements for 
small school buses. The petition stated that 
smaller plane mirrors in combination with convex 
mirrors should be allowed on van-type school 
l)uses on an optional basis. 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 11 



Effective: February 26, 1977 



The NHTSA considered all coininents to the 
notice proposing these school bus requirements 
prior to issuance of the final rule. It was deter- 
mined that 50-square-inch plane mirrors were 
necessary on school buses to provide the driver 
an adequate view to the rear along both sides 
of the vehicle. Since Mr. Urban did not submit 
his views regarding van-type school buses during 
the specified comment period, his comments will 
only be considered in future rulemaking on this 
subject. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the number 
"75 in=" in paragraph S8.1 of Standard No. Ill 
(as published Augoist 26, 1976 (41 F.R. 36023) 



and effective February 26, 1976) is amended to 
read "50 in-." 

Effective date: The change may be made im- 
mediately to the Federal Register text published 
August 26, 1976 (41 F.R. 36023) and is etfective 
February 26, 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 December 22, 1976. 

John W. Snow 
Administrator 

41 F.R. 56813 
December 30, 1976 



PART 571; S 111— PRE 12 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 111 

Rearview Mirror Systems 
(Docket No. 71 -Sa; Notice 6) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Federal Motor 
Safety Standard No. Ill (rearview mirrors) by 
permitting the use of convex rearview mirrors on 
the exterior, passenger side of passenger cars 
and light trucks, to meet the field of view 
requirements when they are not met by the inside 
rearview mirror. Previously, only flat (plane) 
outside mirrors could be used to supplement an 
inside mirror which did not fully satisfy those 
requirements. This amendment is issued in 
response to a petition by General Motors. The 
agency believes that this amendment will result 
in improved driver rearward visibility, thereby 
reducing motor vehicle accidents and injuries. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2, 1982. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. Ill 
establishes requirements for the use, field of 
view, and mounting of motor vehicle rearview 
mirrors. With respect to passenger cars, the 
standard requires that manufacturers mount flat 
(sometimes referred to as "plane" or "unit 
magnification") mirrors both inside the vehicle 
and outside the vehicle on the driver's side. The 
inside mirror must, except as specified below, 
have a field of view at least 20 degrees wide and 
extending to the horizon beginning not more than 
200 feet behind the vehicle. In cases where the 
interior mirror does not meet the specified field 
of view requirements, a plane, exterior mirror 
must be mounted on the passenger's side of the 
car. If a passenger side mirror is required to be 
used, it must be stably mounted, may not have 
sharp points or edges which could injure 
pedestrians, and must be adjustable. Reflectance 



(image brightness) criteria were also established. 
(If a manufacturer uses an interior mirror which 
meets the field of view requirements, and wishes 
to install an exterior passenger side mirror 
voluntarily, it may use any type of mirror for that 
purpose.) 

In the case of light trucks, manufacturers may 
either comply with the passenger car requirement 
or have flat outside mirrors with reflective surface 
area of not less than 19.5 square inches on each 
side of the vehicle. 

On May 26, 1976, General Motors Corporation 
(GM) petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS 111 
to permit ' e use of convex mirrors on the 
passenger side of cars and light trucks, where the 
interior mirror did not meet the field of view 
requirements of the standard. GM pointed out in 
its petition that convex mirrors would provide a 
wider field of view than the flat mirrors of the 
same size. On August 26, 1976, the agency issued 
a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the 
standard as requested by GM, but with certain 
limitations as to the characteristics of the convex 
mirrors which could be used. These limitations 
were considered necessary because some convex 
mirrors present a distorted image which could 
cause problems for some drivers. 

The 1976 NPRM was incorporated in a proposal 
for a major upgrading of all the requirements in 
FMVSS 111. See F.R. 51657, November 6, 1978. 
Among the provisions of the 1978 proposal were 
requirements increasing the minimum field of 
view of the mirror system, more specific 
breakaway and shatter resistance requirements, 
and image luminance (another measure of image 
brigthness) criteria. 

The 1978 NPRM also proposed to permit the 
use of convex outside mirrors which met certain 
additional requirements. The additional 



PART 571; Sill -PRE 13 



requirements, which were designed to reduce or 
eliminate problems certain drivers could 
experience when viewing images in convex 
mirror; included specifications of minimum and 
maximum radii of curvature, maximum variation 
of the radius of curvature for a given mirror, 
identification of convex mirrors (through the use 
of orange border) and discussions in owner's 
manuals for passenger cars and light trucks 
which use convex mirrors regarding the presence 
of the convex mirrors, the location of the mirrors, 
and the significance of the orange border. 

The agency has determined that it is appropriate 
to take final action on the portions of the 1978 
proposed rule relating to passenger side convex 
mirrors. The remaining provisions of the 1978 
NPRM require further evaluation by the agency 
and will be addressed in a future notice. 
Therefore, the agency is amending FMVSS 111 to 
permit the use of convex mirrors on the passenger 
side of passenger cars (and also light trucks, since 
they may comply with FMVSS 111 by meeting 
the car requirements) subject to the following 
restrictions. 

1) The radius of curvature of any convex mirror 
used shall not exceed 65 inches; 

2) The radius of curvature of such a mirror 
may not be less than 35 inches; 

3) The measured radius of curvature of a convex 
mirror, as specified in the agency's test 
procedure, may not vary by more than 12.5 
percent from the mean radius of curvature; 

4) Each convex mirror shall be readily 
identifiable by the following words etched on the 
lower portion of the glazing surface: "OBJECTS 
IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY 
APPEAR". 

The need for each of these requirements, and 
the comments received on the proposed convex 
mirror requirements, are discussed below. 

Comments on the NPRM. Several commenters 
questioned the desirability of permitting the use 
of convex mirrors on passenger cars and light 
trucks. Convex automotive mirrors exhibit a 
number of characteristics which differ from the 
common plane mirrors now in general use. One is 
that the image of an object viewed in a convex 
mirror is smaller than that of the same object 
viewed in a plane mirror. Therefore, such an 
object will appear to be farther away than it 
would when viewed in a plane automotive mirror. 



A driver who has always used plane mirrors 
might, when viewing a car to his or her rear in the 
immediately adjacent lane to the right (such as in 
a passing maneuver), perceive that that car is 
further to the rear than it actually is. In that 
situation, the driver might move to the right and 
change lanes before it is safe to do so. Some 
commenters believed that the combination of a 
plane and convex mirrors, and therefore differing 
image sizes, on the same car would add to the 
confusion. Other problems experienced by some 
users of convex mirrors include double vision, 
eyestrain, and nausea. 

Research by the agency and by the mirror 
manufacturers indicate that these problems with 
convex mirrors can be greatly mitigated by 
certain restrictions and by steps to assure that 
drivers are aware that the mirror being used is 
not a standard plane mirror. Image distortion 
problems, for example, can be substantially 
reduced by regulating variation in the radius of 
curvature. The agency's NPRM specified that the 
radius of curvature of any portion of the mirror 
may not vary more than 12.5 percent from the 
mean radius of curvature for the entire mirror. 
To alert the driver that a convex mirror is being 
used, the agency is requiring both a statement in 
the vehicle owner's manual and a clear warning 
on the mirror itself. 

The agency believes that, based on all available 
research, these safety criteria are necessary to 
reduce to within acceptable bounds any potential 
problems which drivers may experience with 
convex mirrors. In this regard, the agency has 
relied significantly upon a contract study 
performed by Vector Enterprises, Incorporated, 
for the agency, in which various convex mirrors 
meeting the specifications in the 1978 NPRM 
were evaluated. The passenger side convex 
mirror was found to be highly desirable in such 
maneuvers as moving to the right into an adjacent 
lane. The main safety benefit of such a system is 
that it provides an expanded field of view of the 
right, rear quadrant area adjacent to the vehicle, 
thus reducing the need of the driver to turn 
around to view that area directly. The study 
concluded that minimizing the total time a 
driver's attention is diverted from the forward 
area through the addition of a passenger side 
convex mirror should provide safety benefits. 
Another finding of that study was that drivers' 



PART 571; Sill -PRE 14 



abilities to use convex mirrors significantly 
improved with experience. 

Several comments were also received on the 
minimum allowable radius of curvature for convex 
mirrors. Smaller radius of curvature mirrors 
provide a wider field of view but have smaller 
image sizes. The Vector study found that a radius 
range of 40 to 60 inches provided the best results, 
and the 1978 proposal specified a 40 inch minimum 
radius. Donnelly Mirrors stated that mirrors with 
about 10 percent smaller radii of curvature would 
still provide acceptable performance, based on 
several studies it cited. Therefore, in light of the 
agency's analysis of these studies, the agency is 
specifying a 35 inch minimum radius of curvature 
for convex mirrors. 

The 1978 proposal also specified a 60 inch 
maximum radius of curvature for convex mirrors. 
Several commenters questioned the need for a 
maximum specification, since plane mirrors have 
always been permitted on the passenger side of 
cars and light trucks, and plane mirrors effectively 
have an infinite radius. Nevertheless, the agency 
feels that a maximum specification is necessary, 
to limit the range of convexities and therefore 
image minification to which drivers are exposed 
and to assure to the maximum extent possible 
that drivers are, whenever convex mirrors are 
used, aware due to image differences that the 
vehicle is equipped with such a mirror. Consistent 
with the available studies and to allow greater 
manufacturing flexibility, a 65 inch maximum 
radius is being established in this final rule. 

The 1978 NPRM established a criterion of 12.5 
percent for the maximum permissible variation in 
the radius of curvature over the surface of a 
convex mirror, and that criterion is being 
maintained in the final rule. Some commenters 
recommended reliance on the European criterion 
of 15 percent (using a different measuring device 
and excluding the areas of the mirror close to the 
edge). However, Donnelly Mirrors built a strong 
case in its comment on the 1978 NPRM for the 
need for a stringent distortion criterion. As 
Donnelly points out, low distortion mirrors 
reduce many of the problems drivers could 
experience with convex mirrors (double vision, 
nausea, dizziness). Further, they point out that 
mirrors of the quality level specified in the 
proposed standard are now available commercially 
at reasonable cost. Therefore, the agency cannot 



justify reducing that criterion. Variation in the 
radius of curvature would be measured by the 
procedure specified in the 1978 NPRM. 

The proposed standard specified that convex 
mirrors must have an orange border to alert 
drivers that the mirror was not planar. The 
proposal also asked about other methods, 
including a written warning on the mirror, to 
accomplish this purpose. Chrysler Corporation 
recommended that the former approach not be 
used, since the orange border might be 
misinterpreted as being a styling feature and 
conveys no inherent, specific meaning. Rather, 
several vehicle and mirror manufacturers 
suggested that the words "OBJECTS IN MIRROR 
ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR" should be 
etched along the bottom edge of the mirror, to 
give a clear warning. Such a warning is common 
practice on current convex mirrors, in fact. One 
European mirror manufacturer suggested that 
the etched warning would be costly to apply and 
could impair the image viewed in the mirror. 
Some vehicle manufacturers suggested that the 
statement in the owner's manual would provide 
an adequate warning or that no warning at all 
was necessary. 

Based on the previously discussed research, 
the agency remains convinced that a warning on 
the mirror itself is necessary. The fact that a 
convex mirror image appears different from that 
of a plane mirror does not, in the agency's view, 
provide an adequate warning that objects viewed 
in the convex mirror are closer than they appear. 
Further, the etched warning would serve as a 
reminder to the driver with each use and would 
assist drivers who had not read the owner's 
manual. Finally, the etched warning conveys a 
much clearer warning than the rather ambiguous 
orange border. With regard to the issue of image 
impairment, the agency's engineering judgment 
involving convex mirrors having this etched 
warning indicates that any such impairment 
caused by relatively small lettering on the bottom 
edge of the mirror surface is minimal. Further, 
the fact that such warnings are commonly used on 
current convex mirrors is a strong indication that 
the cost is not excessive. Therefore, the agency is 
requiring that convex mirrors used to comply 
with FMVSS 111 must have the words mentioned 
above etched on the bottom edge of the mirror 
surface in letters 3/16 to 1/4 inch high. 



PART 571; Sill -PRE 15 



Rolls Royce argued that the agency should not 
limit the permitted convex mirror surface 
configurations to spherical surfaces, since 
spherical mirrors exhibit spherical aberration. 
Spherical mirrors (which are designed to have a 
single radius of curvature over the entire mirror 
surface) are typically used for automotive 
applications since the more optically correct 
parabolic mirror surfaces would be prohibitviely 
expensive to manufacture. However, should a 
manufacturer desire to offer a parabolic convex 
mirror and demonstrate that the mirror's surface 
configuration has a degree of accuracy equivalent 
to that specified in the standard for spherical 
surfaces, the agency would initiate rulemaking to 
permit the use of the parabolic mirror. 

It should be emphasized that these requirements 
for convex mirrors do not apply to after-market 
mirrors or to convex mirrors which are not 
required to meet the field of view requirements 
specified in FMVSS 111. However, the agency 
strongly encourages vehicle and mirror 
manufacturers to consider using and designing 
mirrors to comply with the requirements of this 
standard even where not strictly required by the 
standard. The agency will continue to study the 
safety benefits of various rearview mirror 
systems and may establish requirements 
applicable to additional mirrors in future 
rulemaking. 

The agency is making this amendment effective 
immediately upon publication, since the 
amendment "relieves a restriction" within the 
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), by permitting the 
use of convex mirrors where they were previously 
unauthorized. The agency also finds that making 
this amendment effective immediately is in the 
public interest, in accordance with section 103(c) 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act, since doing so will permit the use of mirrors 
which provide wider fields of view for the 1983 
model year. Also, since the amendment relieves a 
restriction in FMVSS 111, providing 180 days 
lead time is unnecessary. 



NHTSA has determined that this proceeding 
does not involve a "major rule" within the 
meaning of section 1, paragraph (b), of Executive 
Order 12291 because it is not likely to have an 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, to 
result in a major increase in costs or prices, or to 
have a significant adverse effect on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, 
or the abUity of United States firms to meet foreign 
competition. Similarly, this action is not deemed 
"significant" for purposes of Department of 
Transportation procedures for internal review of 
regulatory actions. The economic impacts of this 
amendment are so minimal as to not warrant 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation, since 
the amendment merely permits the use of certain 
rearview mirrors which were previously 
prohibited. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 
agency has considered 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 rearview mirrors are small 
entities and that the impacts of this rule on those 
companies which decide to take advantage of the 
new alternative method of compliance should be 
small. 

Issued on August 18, 1982. 



Raymond A. Peck, Jr. 
Administrator 

47 F.R. 38698 
September 2, 1982 



PART 571; Sill -PRE 16 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT 
TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 111 

Rearvlew Mirror Systems 
Docket No. 71 -3a; Notice 7 



ACTION: Final rule and response to petitions. 



SUMMARY: This notice responds to a petition for 
reconsideration filed by Volkswagen of America 
regarding a recent amendment to Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) HI, and to a 
related petition for rulemaking filed by Toyota 
Motor Corporation. The amendment to FMVSS 111 
permitted the use of exterior passenger side con- 
vex mirrors on passenger cars and trucks, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses other 
tham schoolbuses with a gross vehicle weight rating 
of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the field of view 
requirements of that standard. The amendment re- 
quired that such convex mirrors must have "in- 
delibly etched" on the mirror's surface the warn- 
ing "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Ap- 
pear." The amendment also specified a maximum 
radius of curvature requirement for such mirrors. 
The agency is denying Volkswagen requests that 
the warning and maximum radius requirements 
be deleted, but in response to Volkswagen's and 
Toyota's petition, is modifying the warning re- 
quirements to permit the warning to be per- 
manently marked on the mirror by methods other 
than etching. 

DATE: This amendment is effective on August 26, 
1983. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 
2, 1982, NHTSA published an amendment to 
FMVSS 111, Rearview Mirrors. Prior to this 
amendment, the standard specified that field of 
view requirements (i.e., minimum permissible 
viewing area behind the vehicle) could be met only 
by using plane mirrors. This amendment, issued 



in response to a petition from General Motors Cor- 
poration, permitted field of view requirements to 
be met in part by using an exterior, passenger side 
convex mirror meeting certain specifications. 
Among these specifications were the requirements 
that a warning ("Objects in Mirror Are Closer 
Than They Appear") must be "indelibly etched" 
on the mirror and that the radius of curvature of 
the convex mirror must not exceed 65 inches. The 
warning was deemed necessary to alert drivers to 
the fact that the driver is using a convex mirror, 
which provides a different image than the common 
plane mirror. The maximum radius of curvature 
requirements was deemed necessary to limit the 
range of different image sizes to which drivers 
would be exposed and to provide an additional 
warning that the mirror being used is convex. With 
regard to the latter point, larger radius convex mir- 
rors provide images which approach those of plane 
mirrors. The agency concluded that large radius 
convex mirrors might mislead drivers into think- 
ing that a mirror was plane, when in fact it was 
convex and the distances from following vehicles 
was less than the drivers would realize. 

With respect to the warning requirement, 
Volkswagen argues in its October 4 petition for 
reconsideration that the requirement imposes a 
trade barrier, since other countries do not require 
a warning and sm English language warning would 
be of no use in non-English speaking countries. The 
agency agrees that this requirement would, as a 
practical matter, require manufacturers to use dif- 
ferent convex mirrors (at least with regard to the 
wEiming lettering) in vehicles sold in the U.S. than 
in vehicles sold in some other countries. However, 
as noted in the September 2 final rule, the agency's 
research indicates that providing a clear warning 
is necessary, given the relative inexperience of U.S. 



PART 571; Slll-PRE 17 



drivers in using automotive convex mirrors. Accor- 
dingly, the agency is denying Volkswagen's re- 
quest to delete the warning requirement 
altogether. 

Nevertheless, in response to Volkswagen's peti- 
tion and an October 6, 1982 rulemaking petition 
submitted by Toyota Motor Corporation, the 
agency will amend the warning requirement to 
facilitate compliance with it. Making this change 
may reduce the burdens associated with having to 
provide different mirrors for different markets. 
Toyota pointed out that the requirement that the 
warning be "indelibly etched" on the mirror un- 
necessarily restricts the methods available for 
assuring that the warning is permanently marked 
on the mirror. "Etching" implies that lettering is 
produced by the corrosive action of an acid on the 
mirror. Toyota suggests that sandblasting or glass- 
based ink printing can equally well produce per- 
manent lettering on mirrors whose reflective siu"- 
face is at the back side of the mirror glass. The 
agency agrees that manufacturers should be given 
additional flexibility in choosing their means of 
compliance. The agency is amending FMVSS 111 
to permit the use of any process which assures that 
the warning is "permanently and indelibly 
marked" on the mirror's reflective surface. The 
agency cannot foresee all possible methods which 
might be used to "permanently and indelibly" 
mark warning lettering on a mirror and does not 
wish to unnecessarily limit the use of new 
technology in this area. The agency notes that 
exterior-surface painting or the use of a plastic 
decal, either of which could be removed or become 
illegible, would not be deemed "permanent and in- 
delible" by the agency. 

Volkswagen also objected to the warning require- 
ment on the basis that no advance notice or oppor- 
tunity to conmient was provided with regard to the 
enactment of that provision. However, the agency 
specifically sought comment on this issue and sug- 
gested that warning lettering might be required. 
See 43 FR 51660, November 6, 1978. Further, the 
provision was adopted in response to several com- 
ments suggesting that warning lettering be 
required. 

With regard to the maximum radius of curvature 
requirement, Volkswagen argues that the require- 
ment differs from European requirements (which 
impose no maximum) and therefore imposes a 
trade barrier. Volkswagen also argues that large 
radius mirrors closely resemble plane mirrors in 
terms of the image provided, and therefore present 



no safety concerns. However, the agency still feels 
this requirement is necessary, given the relative 
inexperience of U.S. drivers with convex mirrors. 
The maximum radius requirement assures that 
drivers will be able to tell from the app>earance of 
the image when they are using a convex mirror. 
It also assures that drivers will not be exposed to 
a wide range of image sizes and corresponding 
depth perception and distortion effects. Further, 
mirrors meeting the U.S. meiximum radius re- 
quirements may still be used in European coun- 
tries, which have no maximum radius require- 
ment. Therefore, this requirement will be retained. 

The agency is making this amendment effective 
immediately upon publication, since the amend- 
ment "relieves a restriction" within the meaning 
of 5 U.S.C. 553(dXl), by permitting the use of ad- 
ditional methods for marking mirrors. The agen- 
cy also finds that making this amendment effective 
immediately is in the public interest, in accordance 
with section 103(c) of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, since doing so will 
facilitate the use of additional mirrors as soon as 
possible. Also, since the amendment relieves a 
restriction in FMVSS 111, providing 180 days lead 
time is unnecessary. 

NHTSA has determined that this proceeding 
does not involve a "major rule" within the mean- 
ing of section 1, paragraph (b), of Executive Order 
12291 because it is not likely to have an effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more, to result in 
a major increase in costs or prices, or to have a 
significant adverse effect on competition, employ- 
ment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of United States firms to meet foreign com- 
petition. Similarly, this action is not deemed 
"significant" for purposes of Department of 
Transportation procedures for internal review of 
regulatory actions. The economic impacts of this 
amendment are so minimal as to not warrant 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation, since 
the amendment merely permits the use of addi- 
tional methods for labeling rearview mirrors. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 
agency has considered the impact of this rule- 
making action on small entities. I certify 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 rearview mir- 
rors are small entities and that the impacts of this 



PART 571; Slll-PRE 18 



rule on those companies which decide to take 
advantage of the new alternative methods of 
labeling should be small. Since this action will 
impose no new costs, the action will not affect small 
governmental units or other organizations which 
purchase automobiles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Section 5.4.2 
of 49 CFR 571.111 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 571.111 Standard So. Ill; Rearview Mirrors 

***** 

Section 5.4.2 Each convex mirror shall have per- 
manently and indelibly marked at the lower edge 
of the mirror's reflective surface, in letters not less 
than 3/16 of an inch nor more than 1/4 inch high 
the words "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They 

Appear." 

***** 

Issued on August 19, 1983 



Diane K. Steed, 
Deputy Administrator 



PART 571; Slll-PRE 19-20 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 111 

Rearview Mirrors 
[Docket No. 81-21; Notice 2] 



ACTION: Final rule. 



SUIVIMARY: This rule amends Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111 to permit the use 
of nonuniform radius of curvature school bus mirrors 
to view the area immediately in front of the bus. 
Previously, only uniform radius mirrors could be 
used for this purpose. This action is taken in response 
to a petition from the North Carolina State Board 
of Education, and is intended to permit the use as 
original equipment of mirrors which provide a wider 
field of view of the area in front and along the side 
of the bus. The improved view will aid in detecting 
the presence of children in those areas. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 1983. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMVSS 111 
establishes requirements for mirror systems used on 
a variety of motor vehicles, including school buses. 
One requirement of that standard with regard to 
school buses is that those vehicles must have a 
crossview mirror permitting the bus driver to view 
the area in front of the bus. These mirrors are in- 
tended to aid bus drivers in determining, prior to 
moving from a stopped position (t^Tjically after 
loading or unloading children at a bus stop), whether 
any children are located in the area immediately in 
front of the bus. Being able to check those areas is 
important since, on average, approximately 40 
pedestrians each year are involved in school-bus- 
related accidents. 

Prior to the amendments made by this notice, the 
standard provided that crossview mirrors must be 
convex and have at least 40 square inches of reflec- 
tive surface. Such mirrors must have a single radius 
of curvature which is at least 12 inches but no more 
than 25 inches. These specifications were intended 
to assure not only that the image views in the mir- 
ror would not be unduly distorted and would be large 
enough to be clearly seen, but also that the field of 
view of the mirror would be great enough to permit 
a view of the entire area in front of the bus. 

North Carolina Board of Education petitioned the 
agency to permit the use of one specific type of mir- 



ror manufactured by Mirror-Lite Co. The radius of 
curvature of this mirror varies from 3.5 inches near 
the outer edge of the mirror to approximately 4.5 
inches in the central area. These small radii of cur- 
vature provide a much wider field of view than the 
crossview mirrors previously specified in FMVSS 
111, permitting a view of not just the area in front 
of the bus but also along the side of the bus. Although 
this wider field of view is gained at the expense of 
a smaller image size and greater optical distortion, 
the agency considers the quality of the image to be 
adequate for its intended purpose. Further, the 
wider field of view could improve safety by enabling 
school bus drivers to see children that they could not 
see with current mirrors. 

Therefore, the agency proposed to amend FMVSS 
HI to permit the use of mirrors of this type. See 46 
FR 60481, December 10, 1981. This proposal would 
have deleted minimum and maximum radius of cur- 
vature requirements and would have permitted the 
use of any nonuniform mirror surface. 

The agency received approximately 50 comments 
on its proposal, mainly from State boards of educa- 
tion and school bus operators. Most of these com- 
menters supported the use of nonuniform radius mir- 
rors Uke the Mirror-Lite design, pointing out that the 
vdder field of view provided by such mirrors should 
promote safety. Several other commenters sug- 
gested modifications to the agency's proposal. Bas- 
ed on these comments and the agency's further con- 
sideration of the relevant issues, the agency is amen- 
ding FMVSS 111 to permit the use of mirrors like 
the Mirror-Lite design, although it is not limited to 
that design. 

The agency received a number of comments 
regarding radius of curvature requirements. As 
noted above, FMVSS 111 has provided that cross- 
view mirrors must have a single radius of curvature 
which must be at least 12 inches but not more than 
25 inches. The maximum radius requirement was im- 
posed to assure that the mirror provides an adequate 
field of view. An overly large radius would provide 



PART 571; S 111-PRE 21 



an inadequate view since field of view decreases as 
radius of curvature increases. The minimum radius 
requirement was imposed to assure adequate image 
size and quality; as radius of curvature decreases, 
image size also decreases, and image distortion in- 
creases. Thus, the radius of curvature specifications 
reflect a trade-off between field of view on one hand 
and image size and accuracy on the other hand. The 
agency's proposal, in seeking to permit the use of 
mirrors with radii in the 3.5 inches to 4.5 inches 
range, deleted all radius of curvature requirements. 

Donnelly Mirrors, Inc., pointed out that pennitting 
unlimited variation in a mirror's radius of curvature 
would permit unacceptable levels of optical distor- 
tion. It was not the agency's intention to completely 
remove restrictions on radius of curvature for 
crossview mirrors. Rather, it was the agency's desire 
to permit the use of an additional type of mirror 
which had been showm to be highly effective. 
Therefore, this final rule retains the current max- 
imum radius of curvature requirement and 
establishes a minimum radius requirement consistent 
with the Mirror-Lite design. Requirements were also 
established in response to this comment to assure 
that the mirror surface does not have major, abrupt 
changes in radius of curvature or other surface 
discontinuities which could cause excessive optical 
distortion. 

The Grote Manufacturing Company (a mirror pro- 
ducer) and the Truck Safety Equipment Institute 
argued that the image produced by a mirror with a 
radius of curvature below 12 inches is too small to 
be readily identifiable. The agency disagrees. Bas- 
ed on NHTSA's own evaluation of the Mirror-Lite 
design in actual school bus service, the image pro- 
vided by the mirror is adequate to tell the bus driver 
whether a child is in front of the bus or along the 
side of the bus. The agency was also impressed by 
the numerous comments received from bus operators 
who had experience with after market nonuniform 
radius mirrors, and found them to be superior in ac- 
tual service to the uniform radius mirror. While it 
is true that the image provided by the Mu-ror-Lite 
mirror is smaller and more distorted than that of a 
uniform 12-inch radius mirror, the agency believes 
that the image size and quality for these murors is 
adequate for its intended purpose and that these 
disadvantages are fully offset by the wider field of 
view provided by the former. It should be pointed 
out that this mirror is to be used for a very limited 



purpose, i.e., to deteiTnine whether a child is in close 
proximity to the front of the school bus or along the 
side, especially where the child exits from the bus. 
While a small radius mirror might be inadequate to 
judge distance and velocity as would be required in 
an automotive rearview mirror, the agency finds 
them adequate for their intended purpose, and even 
superior in terms of providing an additional view of 
the side of the bus, another potentially dangerous 
area. 

Several commenters suggested imposing perform- 
ance requirements for the field of view of the 
crossview mirror, rather than specifying the radius 
of curvature. While the agency believes this to be 
a desirable goal, it is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. Specifying the field of view is a com- 
plicated task, which the agency is still evaluating in 
the context of its major rulemaking on reai-view mir- 
rors. See 43 FR 51657, November 6, 1978. 

Grote also recommended clarifying the require- 
ment that crossview mirrors must have 40 square 
inches of reflective sui-face. They suggested that this 
area requirement should be expressed in terms of 
the effective projected area of the reflective surface 
measui-ed on a plane at right angles to the axis of 
the mirror. Without such clarification, the require- 
ment could be interpreted to refer to surface area, 
which would vary for a muTor of given diameter, 
depending on the radius of curvature. The agency 
agrees and is adopting Grote's suggestion for the 
newly authorized mirrors. 

Several commenters suggested that FMVSS 111 
should require the use of two convex crossview mir- 
rors, one mounted on each side of the bus. The cur- 
rent requirement is for only one mirror mounted on 
either side of the bus, but many school buses employ 
additional crossview mirrors. The agency believes 
that the use of additional crossview mirrors on each 
side of the bus would provide both a better view of 
the front of the bus and a view of each side of the 
bus. The side ai-ea can be a major concern, particular- 
ly on the passenger exit side, since children standing 
in that area can be hit as the bus pulls away from 
the stop and makes a turn. However, requii-ing addi- 
tional mirrors is a matter beyond the scope of the 
proposal issued in this rulemaking. The agency will 
consider requiring more additional mirrors in subse- 
quent rulemaking. In the meantime, school districts 
are strongly encouraged to use additional mirrors as 



PART 571; S 111-PRE 22 



necessary to permit the driver to view the areas 
along the front and both sides of the bus. 

The agency has considered the economic and other 
effects of this action and has determined that the rule 
is not a major rule within the meaning of Executive 
Order No. 12291. The agency has further determined 
that the action is not significant within the meaning 
of the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
procedures. The basis for these determinations is 
that the rule relaxes a design restriction in the cur- 
rent standard. It does not require school buses to be 
equipped with new mirrors; it merely gives manufac- 
turers the flexibility to use a different type of mir- 
ror, whose performance is at least as effective as 
current mirrors. Accordingly, the agency has not 
prepared a full regulatory evaluation. 

The agency has also considered the effect of this 
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
and I certify that it would not have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small en- 
tities. The effect of the amendment on small busi- 
nesses is to give manufacturers the option of using 
new types of mirrors. It does not require any 
manufacturer to change its current practice. 

The action will not have a significant effect on a 
substantial number of small government jurisdictions 
and small organizations. Those entities are affected 
because they are purchasers of school buses. It is 
unknown how many of them will exercise the volun- 
tary choice of using new types of mirrors, but the 
cost impact, if any, should be minimal. Accordingly, 
no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. 

This action is being made effective on publication, 
to permit the immediate use of crossview mirrors 
which are at least equivalent to current mirrors in 
safety performance, and may be superior to current 
mirrors. Since this action "reUeves a restriction," the 
immediate effective date is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 
553(d). Since the immediate effective date may well 
promote safety and the amendment is merely an 
alternative method of compliance which does not 
necessarily impose additional costs or other burdens, 
the immediate effective date is in "the public in- 
terest" within the meaning of section 103(e) of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 
U.S.C. 1392(e). 



In consideration of the foregoing, section 9.2 of 49 
CFR 571.111 is amended to read as follows: 

S9.2 Outside crossview mirror. Each school bus, ex- 
cept one which is a forward control vehicle, shall have 
a convex mirror which complies with the re- 
quirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) The convex mirror shall have a radius of cur- 
vature not less than 3.5 inches and not more than 25 
inches. A convex mirror whose radius of curvature 
at its periphery is not less than 12 inches and not 
more than 25 inches shall have a surface area which 
is not less than 40 square inches. A convex mirror 
whose radius of curvature at any point on the mh-- 
ror is less than 12 inches shall have a projected area 
of not less than 40 square inches, measured on a plane 
at a right angle to the mirror's axis. A convex mir- 
ror with a nonuniform radius shall comply with the 
following criteria: 

(1) The radius at the periphery of the mirror shall 
be not less than 75 percent of the radius at the center 
of the mirror. 

(2) Along the intersection of any plane containing 
the axis of symmetry of the mirror and the surface 
of the mirror, the length of the radius, as measured 
by a spherometer, shall be monotonically non- 
increasing when moving from the axis of symmetry 
to the periphery along the intersection. 

(3) Along the intersection described in paragraph 
(aX2) of this section there shall be no discontinuities 
in the slope of the surface of the mirror. 

(b) The mirror shall be installed with a stable sup- 
port, and mounted so as to provide the driver a view 
of the front bumper and the area in front of the bus. 

Issued on August 30, 1983. 



Diane K. Steed 
Deputy Administrator 

48 FR 40260 
September 6, 1983 



PART 571; S 111-PRE 23- 24 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 111 
Rearview Mirrors 



51. Scope. This standard specifies require- 
ments for the performance and location of rear- 
view mirrors. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that 
occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not 
have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to 
the rear. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, buses, school buses and motorcycles. 

84. Definition. "Unit magnification mirror" 
means a plane or flat mirror with a reflective sur- 
face through which the angular height and width of 
the image of an object is equal to the angular 
height and width of the object when viewed di- 
rectly at the same distance except for flaws that do 
not exceed normal manufacturing tolerances. For 
the purposes of this regulation a prismatic day- 
night adjustment rearview mirror one of whose 
positions provides unit magnification is considered 
a unit magnification mirror. 

T'Convex mirror" means a mirror having a 
curved reflective surface whose shape is the same 
as that of the exterior surface of a section of a 
sphere. (47 F.R. 38698-September 2, 1982. Effec- 
tive: September 2, 1982)1 

S5. Requirements for passenger cars. 

S5.1 . Inside rearview mirror. Each passenger car 
shall have an inside rearview mirror of unit 
magnification. 

85.1.1. Fieldof view. Except as provided in S5.3, 
the mirror shall provide a field of view with an in- 
cluded horizontal angle measured from the pro- 
jected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and suffi- 
cient vertical angle to provide a view of a level road 
surface extending to the horizon beginning at a 
point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the 



vehicle when the vehicle is occupied by the driver 
and four passengers or the designed occupant 
capacity, if less, based on an average occupant 
A'eight of 150 pounds. The line of sight may be par- 
tially obscured by seated occupants or by head 
restraints. The location of the driver's eye 
reference points shall be those established in Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 (§ 571.104) or a 
nominal location appropriate for any 95th percen- 
tile male driver. 

85.1.2. Mounting. The mirror mounting shall 
provide a stable support for the mirror, and shall 
provide for mirror adjustment by tilting in both the 
horizontal and vertical directions. If the mirror is 
in the head impact area, the mounting shall deflect, 
collapse or break away without leaving sharp 
edges when the reflective surface of the mirror is 
subjected to a force of 90 pounds in any forward 
direction that is not more than 45° from the for- 
ward longitudinal direction. 

S5.2 Outside rearview mirror— driver's side. 

55.2.1. Field of view. Each passenger car shall 
have an outside mirror of unit magnification. The 
mirror shall provide the driver a view of a level 
road surface extending to the horizon from a line, 
perpendicular to a longitudinal plane tangent to 
the driver's side of the vehicle at the widest point, 
extending 8 feet out from the tangent plane 35 feet 
behind the driver's eyes, with the seat in the rear- 
most position. The line of sight may be partially 
obscured by the rear body or fender contours. The 
location of the driver's eye reference points shall 
be those established in Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 104 (§ 571.104) or a nominal location 
appropriate for any 95th percentile male driver. 

85.2.2. Mounting. The mirror mounting shall 
provide a stable support for the mirror, and 
neither the mirror nor the mounting shall pro- 
trude farther than the widest part of the vehicle 



(Rev. 9/2/82) 



PART 571; S 111-1 



body except to the extent necessary to produce a 
field of view meeting or exceeding the require- 
ments of S5.2.1. The mirror shall not be obscured 
by the unwiped portion of the windshield, and shall 
be adjustable by tilting in both horizontal and ver- 
tical directions from the driver's seated position. 
The mirror and mounting shall be free of sharp 
points or edges that could contribute to pedestrian 
injury. 

55.3 Outside rearview mirror passenger's side. 

Each passenger car whose inside rearview mirror 
does not meet the field of view requirements of 
S5.1.1 shall have an outside mirror of unit 
magnification or a convex mirror installed on the 
passenger's side. The mirror mounting shall pro- 
vide a stable support and be free of sharp points or 
edges that could contribute to pedestrian injury. 
The mirror need not be capable of adjustment by 
tilting in both horizontal and vertical directions. 

55.4 Convex mirror requirements. Each motor 
vehicle using a convex mirror to meet the require- 
ments of S5.3 shall comply with the following re- 
quirements: 

55.4.1 When each convex mirror is tested in ac- 
cordance with the procedures specified in S12 of 
this standard, none of the radii of curvature 
readings shall deviate from the average radius of 
curvature by more than plus or minus 12.5 percent. 

55.4.2 [Each convex mirror shall have per- 
manently and indelibly marked at the lower edge 
of the mirror's reflective surface, in letters not less 
than fie inch or more than V4 inch high, the words 
"Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They 
Appear." (48 F.R. 38842-August 26, 1983. Effec- 
tive: August 26, 1983)1 

55.4.3 The average radius of curvature of each 
such mirror, as determined by using the procedure 
in S12, shall be not less than 35 inches and not 
more than 65 inches. 

S6 Requirements for multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses, other than school buses, 
with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

S6.1 Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck and bus, other than a school bus, with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall have either— 

(a) Mirrors that conform to the requirements of 
S5; or 



(b) Outside mirrors of unit magnification, each 
with not less than 19.5 in^ of reflective surface, in- 
stalled with stable supports on both sides of the 
vehicle, located so as to provide the driver a view 
to the rear along both sides of the vehicle, and ad- 
justable in both the horizontal and vertical direc- 
tions to view the rearward scene. 

57. Requirements for multipurpose passenger 
vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 
and less than 25,000 pounds and buses, other than 
school buses, with a GVWR of more than 10,000 
pounds. 

S7.1. Each multipurpose passenger vehicle and 
trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds 
and less than 25,000 pounds and each bus, other 
than a school bus, with a GVWR of more than 
10,000 pounds shall have outside mirors of unit 
magnification, each with not less than 50 in^ of 
reflective surface, installed with stable supports on 
both sides of the vehicle. The mirrors shall be 
located so as to provide the driver a view to the 
rear along both sides of the vehicle and shall be ad- 
justable both in the horizontal and vertical direc- 
tions to view the rearward scene. 

58. Requirements for multipurpose passenger 
vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 25,000 pounds or 
more. 

S8.1 Each multipurpose passenger vehicle and 
truck with a GVWR of 25,000 pounds or more shall 
have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each 
with not less than 50 in^ of reflective surface, 
installed with stable supports on both sides of the 
vehicle. The mirrors shall be located so as to pro- 
vide the driver a view to the rear along both sides 
of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the 
horizontal and vertical directions to view the rear- 
ward scene. 

59. Requirements for school buses. 

S9.1. Outside rearview mirrors. Each school bus 
shall have outside mirrors of unit magnification, 
each with not less than 50 in^ of reflective surface, 
installed with stable supports on both sides of the 
vehicle. The mirrors shall be located so as to pro- 
vide the driver a view to the rear along both sides 
of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the 
horizontal and vertical directions to view the rear- 
ward scene. 



(Rev. 8/26/83) 



PART 571; S 111-2 



S9.2 Outside cross view mirror. [Each school 
bus, except one which is a forward control vehicle, 
shall have a convex mirror which complies with the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section. 

(a) The convex mirror shall have a radius of cur- 
vature not less than 3.5 inches and not more than 
25 inches. A convex mirror whose radius of cur- 
vature at its persphery is not less than 12 inches 
and not more than 25 inches shall have a surface 
area which is not less than 40 square inches. A con- 
vex mirror whose radius of curvature at any point 
on the mirror is less than 12 inches shall have a 
projected area of not less than 40 square inches, 
measured on a plane at a right angle to the 
mirror's axis. A convex mirror with a non-uniform 
radius shall comply with the following criteria: 

(1) The radius at the periphery of the mirror 
shall be not less than 75 percent of the radius at the 
center of the mirror. 

(2) Along the intersection of any plane contain- 
ing the axis of symmetry of the mirror and the sur- 
face of the mirror, the length of the radius, as 
measured by a spherometer, shall be monotonically 
non-increasing when moving from the axis of sym- 
metry to the periphery along the intersection. 

(3) Along the intersection described in para- 
graph (a) (2) of this section there shall be no discon- 
tinuities in the slope of the surface of the mirror. 

(b) The mirror shall be installed with a stable 
support, and mounted so as to provide the driver a 
view of the front bumper and the area in front of 
the bus. (48 F.R. 40260-September 6, 1983. Effec- 
tive: September 6, 1983)1 



S10. Requirements for motorcycles. 

S10.1. Each motorcycle shall have either a 
mirror of unit magnification with not less than 12.5 
in^ of reflective surface, or a convex mirror with 
not less than 10 in^ of reflective surface and an 
average radius of curvature not less than 20 inches 
and not greater than 60 inches, installed with a 
stable support, and mounted so that the horizontal 
center of the reflective surface is at least 11 inches 
outward of the longitudinal centerline of the 
motorcycle. The mirror shall be adjustable by 
tilting in both the horizontal and vertical direc- 
tions. 



S11. Mirror construction. The average reflec- 
tance value of the reflective film employed on any 
mirror required by this standard, determined in ac- 
cordance with SAE Recommended Practice J964a, 
August 1974, shall be at least 35 percent. If a mir- 
ror is of the selective position prismatic type, the 
reflectance value in the night driving position shall 
be at least 4 percent. 

S12 Determination of Radius of Curvature. 

S12.1 To determine the average radius of cur- 
vature of a convex mirror, use a 3-point linear 
spherometer, which meets the requirements of 
S12.2, at the 10 test positions shown in Figure 1 
and record the readings for each position. 



HORlZOnnAi. 
^MID-POIMT 
OF MIRROR 





TESTINGBOHDERl'* 
INS'DE THE EDGE 
OFTMEMIRHOR 



Figure! LOCATION OF TEN CONVEX MIRROR TESTING POSITIONS 



512.2 The 3-point linear spherometer has two 
outer fixed legs 1.5 inches apart and one inner 
movable leg at the mid-point. The spherometer has 
a dial indicator with a scale that can be read ac- 
curately to 0.0001 inches, with the zero reading be- 
ing a flat surface. 

512.3 The 10 test positions on the image display 
consist of two positions at right angles to each 
other at each of five locations as shown in Figure 1 . 
The locations are at the center of the mirror, at the 
left and right ends of a horizontal line that bisects 
the mirror and at the top and bottom ends of a ver- 
tical line that bisects the mirror. None of the 
readings are within 0.25-inch border on the edge of 
the image display. 

512.4 At each test position, the spherometer is 
held perpendicular to the convex mirror-surface 
and a record is made of the reading on the dial in- 
dicator to the nearest 0.0001 inch. 

512.5 Convert the dial reading data for each of 
the 10 test positions to radius of curvature calcula- 
tions using Table I. Consider the change as linear 



(Rev. 9/6/83) 



PART 571; S 111-3 



for dial readings that fall between two numbers in 
Table I. 

51 2.6 Calculate the average radius of curvature 
by adding all 10 radius of curvature calculations 
and dividing by ten. 

512.7 Determine the numerical difference be- 
tween the average radius of curvature and each of 
the 10 individual radius of curvature calculations 
determined in S12.5. 

512.8 Calculate the greatest percentage devia- 
tion by dividing the greatest numerical difference 
determined in S12.7 by the average radius of cur- 
vature and multiply by 100. 



INTERPRETATION 

(1) When a supplemental mirror is furnished in 
addition to the inside rearview mirror and the 
driver's side outside rearview mirror, the sup- 
plemental mirror need not be adjustable from the 
driver's seat. 

(2) The location of the driver's eye reference 
point may be that established in Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 104, or it may be a nominal 
location appropriate for any 95th percentile male 
driver. 

(3) The horizontal angle is measured from the 
projected eye point, rather than the plane of the 
mirror. 

32 F.R. 2413 
February 3, 1967 



PART 571; S 111-4 



Table I.— Conversion Table From Spherometer Dial 
Reading To Radius of Curvature 



Dial reading 


Radius of curvature (in 


Dial reading 


Radius of curvature (in 




inches) 




inches) 


.00330 


85.2 


.00980 


28.7 


.00350 


80.4 


.01004 


28.0 


.00374 


75.2 


.01022 


27.5 


.00402 


70.0 


.01042 


27.0 


.00416 


67.6 


.01060 


26.5 


.00432 


65.1 


.01080 


26.0 


.00450 


62.5 


.01110 


25.3 


.00468 


60.1 


.01130 


24.9 


.00476 


59.1 


.01170 


24.0 


.00484 


58.1 


.01200 


23.4 


.00492 


57.2 


.01240 


22.7 


.00502 


56.0 


.01280 


22.0 


.00512 


54.9 


.01310 


21.5 


.00522 


53.9 


.01360 


20.7 


.00536 


52.5 


.01400 


20.1 


.00544 


51.7 


.01430 


19.7 


.00554 


50.8 


.01480 


19.0 


.00566 


49.7 


.01540 


18.3 


.00580 


48.5 


.01570 


17.9 


.00592 


47.5 


.01610 


17.5 


.00606 


46.4 


.01650 


17.1 


.00622 


45.2 


.01700 


16.6 


.00636 


44.2 


.01750 


16.1 


.00654 


43.0 


.01800 


15.6 


.00668 


42.1 


.01860 


15.1 


.00686 


41.0 


.01910 


14.7 


.00694 


40.5 


.01980 


14.2 


.00720 


39.1 


.02040 


13.8 


.00740 


38.0 


.02100 


13.4 


.00760 


37.0 


.02160 


13.0 


.00780 


36.1 


.02250 


12.5 


.00802 


35.1 


.02340 


12.0 


.00822 


34.2 


.02450 


11.5 


.00850 


33.1 


.02560 


11.0 


.00878 


32.0 


.02680 


10.5 


.00906 


31.0 


.02810 


10.0 


.00922 


30.5 


.02960 


9.5 


.00939 


30.0 


.03130 


9.0 


.00960 


29.3 


.03310 


8.5 



PART 571; S 111-5-6 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO 112 

Headlamp Concealment Devices — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 

Buses, and Motorcycles 

(Docket No. 1-16) 



) 



A proposal to amend Part 371 by adding Fed- 
eral motor vehicle safety standard No. 112, Head- 
lamp Concealment Devices — Passenger Cars, 
Multipurpose Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Pas- 
senger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, and Motorcycles, 
was published as an advance notice of proposed 
rule making on October 14, 1967 (32 F.R. 14280) 
and as a notice of proposed rule making on De- 
cember 28, 1967 ( 32 F.R. 20865 ) . 

Interested persons have been given the oppor- 
tunity to participate in the making of this amend- 
ment, and careful consideration has been given 
to all relevant matter presented. 

Inadvertent actuation of a headlamp conceal- 
ment devices, due to a defective condition thereby 
causing headlamps to be blacked out, has com- 
promised the safety of occupants of the vehicle 
concerned and other highway users. There have 
been reports of several accidents and incidents 
caused by such inadvertent blacking out of head- 
lamps. In addition, the Administrator considers 
headlamp concealment devices present a contin- 
uing hazard to motor vehicle safety in that they 
may inadvertently black out headlamps while 
headlamps are in use. This standard requires 
that fully opened headlamp concealment devices 
must remain fully opened whenever there is a 
loss of power to or within the device and when- 
ever any malfunction occurs in components that 
control or conduct power for the operation of a 
concealment device. These requirements provide 
a fail-safe operation which serves to prevent fur- 
ther incidents of inadvertent blacking out of 
headlamps by headlamp concealment devices. 

In addition, other safety performance criteria 
are established. Thus, whenever any malfunc- 
tion occurs in components that control or conduct 
power for the actuation of the concealment de- 



vice, additional means for fully opening each 
headlamp concealment device must be provided. 
A single mechanism must be provided for actu- 
ating the headlamp concealment device and il- 
luminating the lights. The installation of each 
headlamp concealment device must be such that 
no component of the device, other than compo- 
nents of the headlamp assembly, need be removed 
when mounting, aiming and adjusting the head- 
lamps. Headlamp beams that illuminate during 
opening and closing of the headlamp conceal- 
ment device may not project to the left of or 
above the position of the beam in the fully 
opened position. Finally, within the tempera- 
ture ranges specified, headlamp concealment de- 
vices must be fully opened in three seconds aft«r 
actuation of the appropriate mechanism, except 
in the event of a power loss. These additional 
performance criteria meet the needs of motor 
vehicle safety by increasing the safe and reliable 
operation of headlamp concealment devices. 

Several comments stated that a requirement 
for fail-safe operation under any combination 
of unforeseeable circumstances is unreasonable. 
The requirements expressed in S4.1 are not in- 
tended to impose responsibility for failures 
caused by abuse, poor maintenance practices or 
other conditions not encompassed by S4.1. 
Whether or not failure of a headlamp conceal- 
ment device to remain in an open position once 
fully opened is a violation of the standard 
would, of course, depend upon whether the device 
failed under the conditions encompassed by the 
standard. Some comments requested that the 
conditions expressed in S4.1 be made test condi- 
tions and one commentator submitted a suggested 
test procedure to demonstrate compliance. Be- 
cause of the wide variety of designs and types of 



PART 571; S 112— PRE 1 



MwMv*: January I, I9«9 



headlamp concealment devices currently in use, 
no single demonstration procedure is appropriate 
for all. Consequently, prescription of a standard 
demonstration procedure is neither practicable 
nor feasible under the circumstances. The Ad- 
ministrator concludes that the needs of motor 
safety require that headlamp concealment devices 
be fail-safe. The Administrator further con- 
cludes that the most appropriate method of 
meeting those needs and of preventing further 
hazard from obstructed headlamps caused by 
headlamp concealment device failures is by the 
prescription of fail-safe operational criteria, as 
specified in S4.1. Accordingly, the requests are 
denied. 

A number of comments stated that the 3-second 
operating time requirement and the aiming re- 
quirements for rotating headlamps would impose 
unreasonable burdens in retooling and redesign- 
ing if the January 1, 1969, effective date is to be 
met. Based upon the data presented, the Ad- 
ministrator agrees with these comments. Ac- 
cordingly, S4.5 and S4.6 are made effective Jan- 
uary 1, 1970. 

Several comments recommended additional 
provisions expressly permitting headlamp con- 
cealment devices that are automatically actuated 
by light sensing mechanisms. This standard is 
not intended to prevent the use of light sensing 
mechanisms. Consequently, language has been 
added to clarify this intention if the light sensing 
mechanism meets the same operational require- 
ments prescribed for switch operated headlamp 
concealmcint devices. 

Several comments requested inclusion of a pro- 
vision in S4.8 permitting an additional separate 
control that actuates only the headlamp conceal- 
ment device. The Administrator considers per- 
mitting this additional control would not be in 
the best interests of motor vehicle safety. The 
requests are, therefore, denied. 



Other comments suggested that rotating head- 
lamps be required to return to the correctly 
aimed position after a specified minimum num- 
ber of opening and closing cycles that power be 
provided for at least one opening cycle after the 
vehicle engine has been stopped for a specified 
length of time; that a warning device be re- 
quired to indicate to the driver that the conceal- 
ment devices are malfunctioning; that require- 
ments for aiming and adjusting of headlamps 
be expanded to insure that vehicle body struc- 
ture and lamp ornaments will not interfere with 
these operations; that the standard prohibit de- 
signs which permit snow and ice to accumulate 
over the sealed beam headlamp units; that re- 
quirements be included to assure capability for 
opening concealment devices that are frozen 
shut; and that a standard be established to pro- 
hi\}it the use of headlamp concealment devices. 
Although some of those suggestions appear to 
have merit, they are all beyond the scope of the 
notice and will, therefore, be considered for future 
rule making action. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371 of the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards is amended by adding Standard No. 
112, Headlamp Concealment Devices — Passenger 
Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 
Buses, and Motorcycles . . . effective January 1, 
1969. 

This rule-making action is taken under the 
authority of sections 108 and 119 of the National 
TraflBc and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(Public Law 89-563, 15 U.S.C. sections 1892 and 
1407) and the delegation of authority of April 
24, 1968. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 24, 1968. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator 
33 F.R. 6469 
April 27, 196t 



PART 671; S 112— PRE 2 



EltacHv*: January 2S, 1969 



PREAAWLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 112 

Haodlamp Concealment Devices — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 

Buses and Motorcycles 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112, pub- 
lished in the Federal Register on April 27, 1968 
(33 F.R. 6469), specifies requirements for head- 
lamp concealment devices for passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, trucks, buses and 
motorcycles manufactured after December 31, 
1968. 

Paragraph S4.1 requires that each fully opened 
headlamp concealment device remain fully opened 
whenever either or both of the following occur — 

a. Any loss of power to or within the head- 
lamp concealment device ; 

b. Any disconnection, restriction, short-circuit, 
circuit time delay, or other similar malfunction 
in any wiring, tubing, hose, solenoid or other 
component that controls or conducts power for 
operating the concealment device. 

The purpose of S4.1 is to prevent a malfunc- 
tioning headlamp concealment device from inad- 
vertently covering an iUuminated headlamp. 
However, the Administrator has concluded that 
this paragraph may be construed to prohibit the 
closing of headlamp concealment devices while 
the headlamps are not illuminated. Consequently, 
paragraph S4.1 is being amended to clarify that 
its requirements apply only while the headlamps 
are illuminated. 



Since this amendment provides clarification 
and imposes no additional burden on any person, 
notice and public procedure hereon are unneces- 
sary. It is therefore found, for good cause 
shown, that an effective date earlier than 180 
days after issuance is in the public interest and 
in the interest of motor vehicle safety. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 
(33 F.R. 6469), paragraph S4.1 is amended ef- 
fective January 25, 1969. . . . 

This amendment is issued under the authority 
of sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392, 1407) and pursuant to the delegation of 
authority from the Secretary of Transportation, 
Part 1 of the regulations of the Office of the 
Secretary (49 CFR 1.4(c)). 

Issued on January 22, 1969. 

John R. Jamieson, Deputy 
Federal Highway Administrator 

34 F.R. 1246 
January 25, 1969 



PART 671; S 112-PRE »-4 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 112 

Headlamp Concealment Devices 
(Docket No. 87-03; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 112, in response to Chrysler 
Corporation's petition for rulemaking. The amend- 
ment deletes the requirement that during the 
opening of a concealed headlamp the headlamp 
beam may not project to the left of or above the 
position of the beam when the concealed headlamp 
device is fully open. 

DATES: Effective date October 23, 1987. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paragraph 
S4.5 of Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp 
Concealment Devices states that "After December 
31, 1969, the headlamp beam of headlamps that 
illuminateduringopeningandclosingof the head- 
lamp concealment device may not project to the left 
of or above the position of the beam when the device 
is fully opened." In the view of Chrysler Corpora- 
tion, this requirement imposes a design restriction 
on those types of rotating headlamp systems "which, 
although they project a beam of light very slightly 
to the left during opening and closing do so at a 
point in their travel that does not produce glare in 
the eyes of oncoming drivers." 

Chrysler specifically references its 1987 Dodge 
Daytona model which is equipped with a retracting 
headlamp system. In order to adapt the system to 
the car's front end sheet metal, it was necessary to 
design the system so that in opening and closing it 
moves through "a laterally outboard 7 mm trun- 
cated arc." As a result, the right headlamp 
momentarily projects a beam of light to the left of 
center, which, however, is not above the position of 
the beam when the device is fully opened. Chrysler 
can meet the requirement through "incorporating 
a complex and costly electronic switching system 
to illuminate the headlamps only when they are 
fully opened and to turn out the light during 
opening and closing." Because it does not believe 
that the low candela of the lamp during its arc are 
sufficient to cause glare. Chrysler petitioned for 
rulemaking to amend paragraph S4.5 to establish 
an exception to the prohibition of beam projection 
to the left. The exception would be "when the 



maximum allowable photometric values at the 
points at or above V = 0.5 (glare test points) are not 
exceeded during any portion of the headlamp's 
travel." That exception, if adopted, would allow 
light intensities permitted by Standard No. 108, 
rather than limit the glare intensity to that achieved 
by the specific lamp under present positional 
constraints. 

In the agency's opinion, however, Chrysler's 
proposed amendment is problematic. Regardless 
of the motion of the beam during movement to the 
final position of the lamp, headlamp beams do not 
uniformly decrease in intensity from their hot 
spots (i.e., brightest part of beam) radially outward. 
Because small higher intensity areas can randomly 
occur in larger areas of lower intensity, any 
concealed headlamp could produce higher in- 
tensities at various test points during its travel 
than when fully open. Therefore, even concealed 
headlamps whose motion complies with Standard 
No. 112 could become noncompliant with a pro- 
cedure that uses performance relative to the 
photometry in Standard No. 108 as the criterion. 

The safety problem that paragraph S4.5 is 
intended to address is the effect of transitory glare 
upon drivers of other motor vehicles. The agency 
believes that such effects are minimal in comparison 
with the incidence of transitory glare that motorists 
already experience, such as created by oncoming 
upper beams, or by lower beams during changes in 
vehicle position (rounding corners) or attitude 
(coming over the brow of a hill). Although undue 
glare in any form is undesirable, and manufacturers 
should design their headlighting systems so that 
glare in any form is reduced, the agency has 
concluded that S4.5 represents a design restriction 
that is not required to serve the interests of motor 
vehicle safety. 

Therefore, on February 27, 1987, the agency 
proposed the deletion of S4.5, and proposed that 
S4.6 be renumbered, and that reference to its 
effective date ("after December 31, 1969") be 
removed. (52 FR 5975) 

Nine comments were received on the proposal. 
Seven of the commenters supported it. The States 
of California and Minnesota did not support deletion 
of the requirement but favored retaining it in a 



PART571;S112-PRE5 



more performance oriented form. In Minnesota's 
opinion, even though the transient effect may be 
minimal, there was nothing to prevent the beam 
from remaining in a left and up position should 
there be a malfunction of the concealment device 
during the transition from closed to open, or vice 
versa. Such a failure could cause significant glare 
to other drivers until the malfunction was corrected. 
The agency considered Minnesota's argument a 
plausible one. However, NHTSA's Office of Defects 
Investigation reported that its files from June 1981 
to date contained no complaints about a malfunction 
in which a device failed in a semi-open position. Of 
the 15 complaints received, 8 reported failure to 
open, and 4 a failure to close from the fully open 
position. Therefore the problem presented by the 
Minnesota comment appeared theoretical rather 
than actual, and NHTSA is amending Standard 
No. 112 as proposed. 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 
571 and 571.112, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, are 
amended as follows: 

Paragraph S4.5 of § 571.112 is removed. 

Paragraph S4.6 of § 571. 1 12 is redesignated S4.5 
and the phrase "after December 31, 1969" is 
removed. 

Issued on: September 17, 1987 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

52 F.R. 35709 
September 23, 1987 



/ 



PART571;S112-PRE6 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 112 



Headlamp Concealment Devices— Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 

Buses and Motorcycles 



51. Scope. This standard specifies require- 
ments for headlamp concealment devices. 

52. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, buses, and motorcycles. 

53. Definitions. "Fully opened" means the 
position of the headlamp concealment device in 
which the headlamp is in the design open operating 
position. 

"Headlamp concealment device" means a 
device, with its operating system and components, 
that provides concealment of the headlamp when it 
is not in use, including a movable headlamp cover 
and a headlamp that displaces for concealment 
purposes. 

"Power" means any source of energy that 
operates the headlamp concealment device. 

54. Requirements. 

54.1 While the headlamp is illuminated, its 
fully opened headlamp concealment device shall 
remain fully opened whenever either or both of 
the following occur— 

(a) Any loss of power to or within the headlamp 
concealment device; 

(b) Any disconnection, restriction, short-circuit, 
circuit time delay, or other similar malfunction in 
any wiring, tubing, hose, solenoid or other compo- 
nent that controls or conducts power for operating 
the concealment device, 

54.2 Whenever any malfunction occurs in a 
component that controls or conducts power for 
the actuation of the concealment device, each 
closed headlamp concealment device shall be 
capable of being fully opened— 



(a) By automatic means; 

(b) By actuation of a switch, lever or other 
similar mechanism; or 

(c) By other means not requiring the use of any 
tools. Thereafter, the headlamp concealment 
device must remain fully opened until intentionally 
closed. 

54.3 Except for cases of malfunction covered 
by S4.2, each headlamp concealment device shall 
be capable of being fully opened and the head- 
lamps illuminated by actuation of a single switch, 
lever, or similar mechanism, including a mech- 
anism that is automatically actuated by a change 
in ambient light conditions. 

54.4 Each headlamp concealment device shall 
be installed so that the headlamp may be mounted, 
aimed, and adjusted without removing any com- 
ponent of the device, other than components of 
the headlamp assembly. 

[S4.51 Except for cases of malfunction covered 
by S4.2, 1969, each headlamp concealment device 
shall, within an ambient temperature range of - 20 
to + 120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened 
in not more than three seconds after actuation of 
the mechanism described in S4.3. (52 FR 35709— 
September 23, 1987.— Effective: October 23, 
1987) 



34 F.R. 1246 
January 25, 1969 



(Rev. 9/23/B7) 



PART 571; S 112-1-2 



f 



Khctlv*: January 1, 1M9 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 113 
Hood Latch Systems — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and 

Buses (Docket No. 1-17) 



A proposal to amend Part 371 by adding Fed- 
eral motor vehicle safety Standard No. 113, Hood 
Latch Systems — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses, was pub- 
lished as an advance notice of proposed rule 
making on October 14, 1967 (32 F.R. 14280), 
and as a notice of proposed rule making on 
December 28, 1967 (32 F.R. 20866). 

Interested persons have been given the oppor- 
tunity to participate in the making of this amend- 
ment, and careful consideration has been given 
to all relevant matter presented. 

This new standard requires that all motor ve- 
hicles to which it is applicable be equipped with 
a hood latch system. Additionally, in those in- 
stances where a vehicle is equipped with a front 
opening hood, which in any open position par- 
tially or completely obstructs a driver's forward 
view through the windshield, a second latch po- 
sition on the hood latch system or a second hood 
latch system must be provided. 

Available data reveals that inadvertent hood 
openings pose a serious hazard to the safe oper- 
ation of motor vehicles, particularly in the case 
of front opening hoods. By requiring a hood 
latch system for all hoods, and under certain 
circumstances, a second position on that system 
or an independent second system, this standard 
will help to reduce incidents of inadvertent hood 
openings. 

All the comments support the need for a hood 
latch system or hood latch systems, as the case 
may be. Several commentators requested inclu- 
sion of a definition of "hood" and "front opening 
hood." The Administrator agrees that "hood" 
should be defined and has defined it as any ex- 
terior movable body panel forward of the wind- 
shield used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, 



or battery compartment. However, the Admin- 
istration concludes that a definition of "front 
opening hood" is unnecessary; that phrase is 
sufGiciently definite and is clearly distinguishable 
from a "side opening" or "rear opening" hood. 

Several commentators conditioned their sup- 
port upon the understanding that the requirement 
for front opening hoods could be met by a single 
latch system with two positions, by two separate 
primary latch systems, or separate primary and 
secondary latches. Language changes have been 
made to S4.2 to clarify that all of these types of 
installations are acceptable. 

Several commentators expressed concern over 
the lack of quantitative performance criteria for 
hood latch systems. The Administrator finds 
that additional research and study are necessary 
before meaningful quantitative performance cri- 
teria can be appropriately specified. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371 of the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards is amended by adding Standard No. 
113, Hood Latch Systems — Passenger Cars, Mul- 
tipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses 
. . . effective January 1, 1969. 

This rule making action is taken under the 
authority of sections 103 and 119 of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
(Public Law 89-563, 15 U.S.C. sections 1392 and 
1407), and the delegation of authority of April 
24, 1968. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 24, 1968. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator 

33 F.B. 6470 
April 27, 1968 



PART 571; S lia— PRE 1-2 



r 



^ 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 113 

Hood Latch Systems— Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 

and Buses 



51. Purpose and scope. This standard estab- 
lishes the requirement for providing a hood 
latch system or hood latch systems. 

52. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks and buses. 

53. Definitions. "Hood" means any exterior 
movable body panel forward of the windshield 
that is used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, 
or battery compartment. 



S4. Requirements. 

54.1 Each hood must be provided with a hood 
latch system. 

54.2 A front opening hood which, in any open 
position, partially or completely obstructs a 
driver's forward view through the windshield 
must be provided with a second latch position 
on the hood latch system or with a second hood 
latch system. 

33 F.R. 6471 
April 27, 1968 



PART 571; S 113-1 



r 



Eff««tlv«: Jonuaiy 1, 1970 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114 
Th«ft Protection — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 1-21) 



A proposal to amend §371.21 of Part 371, 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards by 
adding a new standard, Theft Protection — Pas- 
senger Cars, was published in the Federal Reg- 
ister on December 28, 1967 (32 F.R. 20866). 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
standard. Their comments and other available 
information have been carefully considered. 

Responses to the notice and other information 
have demonstrated that stolen cars constitute n 
major hazard to life and limb on the highways. 
The evidence shows that cars operated by un- 
authorized persons are far more likely to cause 
unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury, 
and death than those which are driven by author- 
ized individuals. Further, the incidence of theft, 
and hence the risk of accidents attributable 
thereto, is increasing. According to a recent 
study by the Department of Justice there were 
an estimated 94,000 stolen cars involved in acci- 
dents in 1966, and more than 18,000 of these 
accidents resulted in injury to one or more people. 
On a proportionate basis, 18.2 percent of the 
stolen cars became involved in accidents, and 
19.6 percent of the stolen-car accidents resulted 
in personal injury. The same study predicted 
that automobile thefts in 1967 total about 
650,000; about 100,000 of these stolen cars could 
be expected to become involved in highway acci- 
dents. Comparing these figures with statistics 
for vehicles which are not stolen, the approxi- 
mate rate for stolen cars would be some 200 
times the normal accident rate for othw vehicles. 
Thus, a reduction in the incidence of auto theft 
would make a substantial contribution to motor 
vehicle safety. It would not only reduce the 
number of injuries and deaths among those who 
st«al cars, it would also protect the many inno- 



cent members of the public who are killed and 
injured by stolen cars each year. 

The President's Commission on Law Enforce- 
ment and Administration of Justice, in its report 
"The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society," 
noted the rising cost in lives and dollars as a 
result of auto theft, highlighted the need for 
measures to reduce auto thefts and suggested 
that "The responsibility could well be assigned 
to the National Highway Safety Agency as part 
of its program to establish safety standards for 
automobiles." (pp. 260-261). » 

The Administrator has concluded that a 
standard that would reduce the incidence of un- 
authorized use of cars meets the needs for motor 
vehicle safety. Consequently, he rejects those 
comments on the proposed standard which ques- 
tioned its validity on the ground that it is not 
related to improving motor vehicle safety. As 
indicated below, amateur car thieves make up 
the majority of those unauthorized drivers who 
become involved in motor vehicle accidents. 
Many of these thieves make use of keys left in 
the ignition locks to start the cars they steal. 
Hence, the standard requires each car to be 
equipped with a device to remind drivers to re- 
move the key when leaving the car. The number 
of car thieves who start cars with so-called 
"master keys" and devices which bypass the lock 
is also large enough to produce a significant 
safety hazard. Therefore, the standard also re- 
quires devices which tend to defeat this category 
of thief : A large number of locking-system com- 
binations and a steering or self-mobility lock. 

Several conunents urged that the warning- 
device requirement be eliminated from the stand- 
ard upon the ground that the removal of the key 
is the driver's responsibility. It was also said 
that, since any locking system, no matter how 



PART 671; S 114^PRE 1 



MacMva: Janwaiy 1, 1970 



it is constructed, can be defeated by persons 
possessing sufficient skill, equipment, and ten- 
acity, provisions for ensuring removal of ignition 
keys would be futile because a thief need not 
make use of a key. 

As the Department of Justice survey men- 
tioned above demonstrates, however, the large 
majority of car thieves are amateurs, almost 
half of whom are engaged in so-called "joy- 
riding." The evidence shows that a high pro- 
portion of these thieves, most of whom are 
juveniles, start the cars' engines simply by using 
the key which has been left in the ignition lock. 
It is, of course, the operator's responsibility ta 
remove the key when the car is left unattended 
and drivers should continue to be exhorted or 
required to take this elementary precaution. 
Nevertheless, many do not, and the interest of 
safety would be promoted by the existence of a 
visible or audible warning device on the car, 
reminding the driver when he has neglected his 
responsibility. This is an instance in which 
engineering of vehicles is more likely to have an 
inunediate beneficial impact than a long-range 
process of mass education. 

The requirement of a warning when the key 
is left in the lock was also the subject of several 
comments which asked that the warning be re- 
quired when the front-seat passenger's door, as 
well as the driver's door, is opened. There is 
considerable validity in the contention that the 
device should operate upon the opening of either 
door, particularly because, in some jurisdictions, 
exiting from a car on the left side is prohibited 
in certain circumstances. However, the notice 
of proposed rule making stated that the standard 
under consideration made the warning-device 
requirement applicable only when the driver's 
door is opened. Information available to the 
Administrator shows that development of such 
warning devices has concentrated on warnings 
that are activated only in the event the driver's 
door is opened while the key remains in the lock. 
To extend this requirement to the opening of 
either door might necessitate both the initiation 
of new rulemaking proceedings and an extension 
of the standard's effective date. For these rea- 
sons, the requirement is, with minor exceptions 
discussed below, in substance unchanged from 
the one which appeared in the notice of proposed 



rulemaking. Extension of the requirement to 
passenger- door warning devices will be kept 
under consideration. 

The January 1, 1970, effective date also re- 
mains unchanged. Most of the comments which 
focused on the proposed effective date stated that 
the standard could be complied with by that 
date. One manufacturer sought a 1-year exten- 
sion on the ground that it could not produce a 
steering or mobility lock in sufficient time to 
equip its automobiles with such a device by 
January 1, 1970. Although this comment al- 
leged that data in the possession of its author 
showed that the cost of purchasing and installing 
a device to comply with the standard would im- 
pose an unreasonable economic burden, neither 
those data nor the basis for the company's con- 
clusion have been supplied to the Administration. 
In short, nothing supported the request except 
the broad generalization that the proposed effec- 
tive date would cause some undefined hardship. 
Balancing this unsubstantiated generalization 
against the increase in deaths and injuries that 
postponing the effective date for a year would 
probably cause, the Administrator has concluded 
that a change in the effective date to January 1, 
1971, would not be in the interest of safety, that 
the January 1, 1970, effective date is a prac- 
ticable one, and that the request to extend it for 
1 year is denied. 

Many persons who responded to the notice 
asked that specific theft protection devices be 
prescribed. These specific devices included brake 
locks and so-called "pop-out" keys which auto- 
matically eject from the locking system, to de- 
vices which purportedly make by-passing the 
ignition switch impossible. The Administrator 
concludes that it would be unwise to establish a 
standard in terms so restrictive as to discourage 
technological innovation in the field of theft in- 
hibition. Consequently, the standard has been 
framed to permit as many specific devices as 
possible to meet its requirements. In addition, 
the standard does not preclude the use of supple- 
mentary theft protection measures, such as the 
"pop-out" key, so long as automobiles comply 
with the standard's minimum requirement. 

In drafting the standard, a number of revi- 
sions were made in the language employed in 
the notice of proposed rulemaking. Many of 



PART 571 ; S 114— PRE 2 



MacHv*: Januoiy 1, 1970 



these revisions clarify definitional problems that 
were raised in responses to the notice. The term 
"key" is defined so as to include methods of 
activating the looking system other than the 
commonly accepted concept of a key. The term 
"combination" was defined to clarify its meaning, 
and the 1,000-combinations requirement has been 
changed to make it clear that, after the stand- 
ard's effective date, each manufacturer must 
produce at least 1,000 different locking system 
combinations, unless he manufactures less than 
1,000 passenger cars. In response to comments 
which pointed out the impossibility of construct- 
ing a system which, upon removal of the key, 
would prevent operation of the powerplant ab- 
solutely and in all events, the provisions of 
paragraph S3 (a) of the notice were revised to 
require only that removal of the key must pre- 
vent normal activation of the powerplant. Para- 
graph S4.2 represents a clarification of the re- 
quirement contained in paragraph S3.3 of the 
notice. It is intended to permit the driver of a 
car to turn off the engine in emergency situations 
while the car is in motion without also activating 
the steering or self-mobility lock. Other minor 
changes were made for amplification or clarifi- 
cation. 

Shortly after the issuance of this standard, 
the Administrator will issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to determine the practicability of 



improving the standard by adding a requirement 
that key locking systems be designed and con- 
structed to preclude accidental or inadvertent 
activation of the deterrent required by S4.1(b) 
while the car is in motion. The notice will pro- 
pose an effective date for the additional require- 
ment identical to that of the present standard: 
January 1, 1970. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 371.21 of 
Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, is amended by adding Standard No. 114, 
. . . , effective January 1, 1970. 

In accordance with section 103(c) of the Na- 
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 
1966, I find that it would be impractical to re- 
quire compliance with this standard within 1 
year and therefore it is in the public interest to 
adopt a later effective date. 

This amendment is made under the authority 
of sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1407) and the delegation of authority of April 
24, 1968. 

Issued in iVashington, D.C., on April 24, 1968. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator 

33 F.R. 6471 
April 27, 1968 



PART 571; S 114^PRE 3-4 



Effadlv*: January I, 1970 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114 

Theft Protection — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 1-21) 



The Administrator is amending Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection— Pas- 
senger Cars, for the purpose of making several 
clarifying changes to it. The standard was issued 
on April 24, 1968 (33 F.R. 6471) and becomes 
effective on January 1, 1970. After the stand- 
ard was issued, the Administrator received a 
number of requests for interpretations or clarify- 
ing amendments. While each of the requests dis- 
cussed below could have been disposed of by 
interpretation of the present standard, the Ad- 
ministrator has chosen to change the text of the 
standard in order to ensure that it is clear on its 
face. 

Paragraph S4.1(b) of the standard, as adopted, 
requires eacli passenger car to have a key lock- 
ing system that, with the key removed, will pre- 
vent "either steering or self -mobility of the car 
or both." Several persons pointed out that a 
literal interpretation of this provision would re- 
quire a manufacturer who seeks to comply with 
the self-mobility requirement to install a system 
that prevents both forward and rearward self- 
mobility. In view of the improbability of a suc- 
cessful theft of a car capable only of rearward 
self-mobility, the Administrator agrees that such 
a literal interpretation would not be consistent 
with the general purpose of the standard. There- 
fore, paragraph S4.1(b) is being clarified by in- 
serting the word "forward'" before the word 
"self-mobility". 

Several persons sought clarification of para- 
graph S4.4, which requires activation of a warn- 
ing to the driver whenever the key has been left 
in the locking system and the driver's door is 
opened. The purjjose of this provision is to pre- 
vent, as far as possible, drivers from inadvertently 
leaving the key in the ignition lock when the car 
is unoccupied. As stated in the preamble to the 



standard when it was adopted, "the standard 
requires each car to be equipped with a device to 
remind drivers to remove the key when leaving 
the car" (emphasis added). 

It was pointed out that a literal reading of the 
phrase "left in the locking system" (emphasis 
added) would require activation of the warning 
regardless of the extent to which the key is in- 
serted in the lock, even if the driver deliberately 
chooses to withdraw it partially from the lock. 
These comments argued that it was practically 
imix)ssible to design a warning system that would 
function if, for example, the key is so far re- 
moved as to be dangling from the locking mecha- 
nism. It was the purpose of this provision to re- 
quire activation of the warning device whenever 
the key is left in the lock in a position from 
which the lock can be turned. Once the driver 
has withdrawn the key beyond the position, he is 
presumably aware of the location of the key, and 
no warning need be given to him. Paragraph 
S4.4 is being amended to clarify this intent. 

Paragraph S4.4 is also being amended to avoid 
the possibility of an interpretation that would 
prohibit use of a type of locking system and steer- 
ing lock that has, in the past, been a successful 
deterrent against theft. In this system, the warn- 
ing to the driver works in conjunction with the 
activation of the steering lock device. The steer- 
ing lock is not activated when the key, after hav- 
ing been withdrawn from the ignition lock, is 
simply reinserted in the locking system. Nor is 
the warning to the driver actuated until the key 
is turned so that the steering lock is deactivated. 
As noted above, the purpose of paragraph S4.4 
is not to guarantee that drivers will remove the 
key upon leaving the car; rather, it seeks to en- 
sure that drivers do not inadvertently leave their 
keys in ignition locks. In all but a very small 



(t«v. «/ 13/69) 



PART 671; S 114— PRE 5 



ItFMtIv*: January 1, 1970 

number of cases, a driver who has withdrawn 
and then reinserted the key cannot be said to have 
inadvertently left it in the locking system when 
he thereafter exits from the car. Therefore, para- 
graph S4.4 is being amended to make it clear that 
the warning device need not operate after the 
key has been removed and reinserted in the lock- 
ing system without turning the key. 

Finally, several persons pointed out that the 
language of paragraph S4.4 would require acti- 
vation of the warning device even if the locking 
system is in the "on" or "start" position. A posi- 
tive physical act is usually required to bring the 
system to the "on" position or the "start" posi- 
tion. Moreover, a forgetful driver would not 
normally leave the key in the "on" position if he 
opened his door with the intent of leaving the 
car unattended. In most cases, it is impossible 
■for him to leave the key in the "start" position 
without physically holding it in that position. 
Hence, no valid purpose would be served by re- 
quiring the warning to be activated when the 
locking system is in either of those positions, and 



the standard is being amended to omit any impli- 
cation that such a requirement is imposed. 

Since these changes are clarifying and inter- 
pretive in nature, and since they impose no addi- 
tional burden on any person, I find that notice 
and public procedure thereon is unnecessary. 

In consideration of the foregoing, section 371.21 
of Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 
(33 F.R. 6741) is amended, effective January 1, 
1970, as set forth below. 

(Sees. 103 and 119, National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) 
and the delegation of authority at 49 C.F.R. 
1.4(c)) 

Issued on June 9, 1969. 

F. C. Turner 

Federal Highway Administrator 

Jun« 13, 1969 
34 F.R. 9342 



k 



< 



ll«v. «/ll/69) 



PART 671; S 114— PRE 6 



Effactiv*: April 1, 1970 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114 

Theft Protection — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 1-21) 



Driver-Warning Requirement — Denial of Petition 
for Amendment ; L'xtensian of Effective Date 
General Motors Corporation lias filed a peti- 
tion for amendment of paragraph S4.4 of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114. That para- 
graph requires each passenger car manufactured 
after December .31, 1969 to have a warning to a 
driver who neglects to remove his key from the 
ignition lock before he leaves the car. As amended 
(34 F.R. 9.342), the standard provides that the 
warning need not operate "after the key has been 
mai.u.ii'y withdrawn to a position from which it 
may net be turned." 

The basis of the i)etition is that, in the current- 
model General Motors system, manufacturing 
tolerances may be such as to j^ermit a driver to 
manipulate the ignition key into a position at 
which the warning buzzer will be deactivated 
while the ignition lock remains operative. Gen- 
eral Motors seeks an amendment to permit the 
warning to be inoperati\e "after the key has been 
manually withdrawn from the normal operating 
position." 

Upon consideration of the petition and other 
evidence, the Administrator has concluded that it 
would not be in the public interest to grant the 
relief General Motors has requested. The pur- 
pose of paragraph S4.4 is to make it virtually 
impossible for a driver inadvertently to leave his 
key in the ignition lock when he exits and thereby 
to reduce car thefts along witli the high potential 
for accidental injury and death that stolen cars 
have. If it were possible for a driv;er to manipu- 
late the key so as to render the warning inopera- 
tive while, at the same time, to continue to 
oi^erate the \ehicle with the key in the lock, the 
salutary purpose of the warning requirement 
would be defeated. Therefore, the petition for 
amendment is denied. 



However, the Administrator recognizes that the 
tolerance problem General Motors has raised is 
a genuine one. It may be related to the fact that 
General Motors attempted, in good faith, to 
manufacture cars that complied with Standard 
No. 114 well before the standard's effective date. 
This is a laudable action for which General 
Motors should not be penalized. Furthermore, 
the Administrator realizes that the General Mo- 
tors system is installed not only on its own pro- 
ductoin but also in passengers car produced by 
other high-volume manufacturers. 

Therefore, the Administrator has concluded 
that the effective date of paragraph S4.4 of 
Standard No. 114 should be extended to allow 
additional time to overcome the tolerance prob- 
lem. According to the best information avail- 
able at this time, it appears that a 90-day 
extension of the January 1, 1970 effective date 
will provide sufficient time for redesigning and 
retooling the General Motors system so that it 
fully conforms to the standard's requirements 
and to put the new system into production. This 
conclusion is based on the expectation that the 
problems involved will be attacked on an urgent, 
high priority basis, as they should be in view 
of the safety need that paragraph S4.4 meets. 
The Administrator may consider a further exten- 
sion at a later date if additional evidence to 
justify such an extension is adduced at that time. 

Because of the shortness of time before the 
effective date of Standard No. 114 and because 
extension of that effective date for compliance 
with paragraph S4.4 of the standard will impose 
no additional burden on any person, notice and 
public procedure hereon are found to be vmneces- 
sary and impracticable. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the effective 
date of paragraph S4.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety 



(R«v. 12/11/69) 



PART 571; S 114— PRE 7 



llhtHv: April 1, 1970 

Standard No. 114, in § 371.21 of Part 371 is ex- Issued on December 3, 1969. 

tended to April 1, 1970. 

(Sees. 103 and 119, National TraflSc and Motor t^' j ' , xt- . . , • • 

Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ^"'^"'"^^ ^^^^^^^ Administrator 

and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 34 F.R. 19547 

1.4(c)). D«c*mb«r 11, 1969 



«.». ij/n/*»» PART 571; S 114^PRE 8 



k 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD N0.114 

Theft Protection 
(Docket No. 1-21; Notice 3) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice extends the performance 
requirements of Standard No. 114, Theft Protec- 
tion, to light trucks and vans. At present, the 
standard only applies to passenger cars. The 
effect of the extension will be to reduce the inci- 
dence of light truck and van thefts and subse- 
quent disproportionate involvement of those 
stolen vehicles in injury-producing accidents. The 
notice also upgrades the performance require- 
ments of the standard to prevent the driver from 
inadvertently locking up the steering wheel of a 
moving vehicle by removing the ignition key or 
shutting off the engine. 

DATES: The effective date for passenger cars is 
September 1, 1982. The final rule is effective for 
multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks hav- 
ing a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds 
or less on September 1, 1983. 

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 (Docket 
hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nelson Erickson, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2720) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 1, 1978, 
the NHTSA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to extend the applicability of Stand- 
ard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), to 
trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 



of 10,000 pounds or less and all multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (43 FR 18577). The standard 
currently only applies to passenger cars. The pro- 
posal would have also upgraded some of the per- 
formance requirements of the standard and 
clarified others. 

Consumers, safety organizations, insurance 
companies, police departments, locksmiths, vehi- 
cle manufacturers, and others submitted com- 
ments on the proposed standard. The final rule is 
based on a thorough evaluation of the data 
obtained in NHTSA research, data and views sub- 
mitted in the comments and data obtained from 
other pertinent documents and reports. The most 
significant comments are discussed below. 

Extending the Applicability 

In recent years, the sale and use of light trucks 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), 
such as passenger vans and on-off road vehicles, 
has substantially increased. The rise in sales and 
use has been accompanied by an increase in the 
number of thefts of those vehicles. To reduce the 
incidence of light truck and MPV thefts and 
subsequent disproportionate involvement of 
those stolen vehicles in injury-producing acci- 
dents, the May 1978 notice proposed extending 
the requirements of Standard No. 114 to light 
trucks and MPV's. The extension was supported 
by such organizations as Allstate Insurance Com- 
pany, American Automobile Association (AAA), 
Center for Auto Safety (CAS) and Chrysler Cor- 
poration. Several other motor vehicle manufac- 
turers and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 
Association did not oppose the extension of the 
standard, but did object to some of the newly- 
proposed performance requirements. GM said 
that while more data were needed to justify the 
extension, it had voluntarily applied some anti- 
theft features to some of its light trucks and was 



PART 571; S114-PRE 9 



considering using theft protection equipment on 
all its light trucks and vans. American Motors 
Corporation (AMC) also argued that a safety 
need had not been established. AMC and others 
also requested that if the extension were 
adopted, then open-body vehicles, such as some 
on-off road vehicles, should be exempt from the 
standard. 

The agency is adopting the extension as pro- 
posed. The data cited by the agency in the May 
1978 notice clearly establish that there is a safety 
need for reducing the number of motor vehicle 
thefts. That data showed that stolen cars are 
from 47 to 200 times more likely than non-stolen 
cars to be involved in accidents. Stolen cars are 
involved in one out of every 350 accidents and ac- 
count for approximately 5,600 disabling injuries 
and 150 fatalities annually. Data available from 
the States and the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 
tion indicate that the theft rate for light trucks 
and MVP's, especially vans, is increasing and is 
similar to the rate for passenger cars. At pres- 
ent, many light trucks and MPV's use the type of 
anti-theft devices that were unsuccessfully used 
on pre-1970 passenger cars, i.e., before adoption 
of Standard No. 114. Because of the dispropor- 
tionate association of stolen vehicles with ac- 
cidents, injuries and fatalities, the agency con- 
cludes the number of light truck and MPV thefts 
should be reduced by requiring those vehicles to 
have certain minimum anti-theft features cur- 
rently found on passenger cars. 

The agency is not adopting the exemption for 
open body-type vehicles sought by some manu- 
facturers. This action by the agency will not pose 
any problems for those manufacturers. The con- 
cerns that they expressed about those vehicles' 
ability to comply with the proposed standard 
dealt with performance requirements that, as ex- 
plained below, the agency has decided not to 
adopt. However, because of the accessibility of 
these vehicles' interiors, it is important to reduce 
their vulnerability to theft by requiring them to 
comply with the rest of the proposed require- 
ments. 

The notice proposed to extend the applicability 
of Standard No. 114 to all MPV's. The agency has 
decided, however, that the rule should apply only 
to MPV's whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less. 
NHTSA has decided not to extend the standard 
to MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 



pounds because these vehicles are generally not 
subject to joyrider theft. 

Inadvertent Locking 

To prevent the accidental locking of the steer- 
ing system while the vehicle is in motion, the 
May 1978 notice proposed that the steering and 
the forward mobility of the vehicle not be imped- 
ed when the key is removed from the ignition or 
when the key is moved from one position to 
another in the steering wheel lock, such as from 
"on" to "off." The proposed requirements would 
have allowed the driver to shut off the engine in 
an emergency situation, such as when the vehicle 
suddenly accelerated due to a stuck throttle 
cable, without activating the vehicle's steering 
lock and losing control of the vehicle's steering or 
forward mobility. The proposal would have also 
prevented the steering lock from activating if the 
driver removed the ignition key from the steer- 
ing lock while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA 
proposed the requirements in response to a peti- 
tion from R.L. Bean. 

Almost all manufacturers supported the intent 
of the proposal to prevent inadvertent actuation 
of the steering lock. The manufacturers argued, 
however, that they currently have steering lock 
systems that would prevent inadvertent actua- 
tion. Many manufacturers have a system which 
requires the driver to stop the vehicle's forward 
motion and take a separate physical action in 
order to turn the key to the "lock" position and 
engage the steering wheel lock. For example, in 
vehicles that have a column-mounted transmis- 
sion shifter and a steering column lock, the 
shifter must be moved into "park" or "reverse" 
before the key can be turned to "lock" and the 
steering lock engaged. The agency agrees that 
such systems effectively prevent a driver from 
activating the steering wheel lock while the 
vehicle is in forward motion. 

The agency is concerned about other current 
systems which allow the driver to activate the 
steering lock while the vehicle is still in forward 
motion. For example, some manufacturers use a 
system which allows a driver to push a key 
release button or lever and move the key to the 
"lock" position, which engages the steering lock, 
while the vehicle is moving forward. The purpose 
of the key release system is to require the driver 
to perform a sequence of acts before locking the 



PART 571; S114-PRE 10 



steering to reduce the possibility of activating 
the lock while the vehicle is in motion. However, 
some of those systems are designed in such a way 
that the driver can push the key release lever or 
button, hold it in place and then simultaneously 
turn the key to the "lock" position with the same 
hand. Thus, rather than requiring the driver to 
perform a sequence of separate and distinct acts 
before the steering wheel lock can be engaged, 
those systems allow the driver to simultaneously 
perform the two actions (pushing the key release 
device and turning the key to the "lock" position) 
necessary to engage the steering wheel lock. 

To prevent the danger of activating the steer- 
ing lock while the vehicle is in motion, the agency 
is prohibiting the use of systems which allow 
drivers to activate the key release device and 
simultaneously turn the key to the "lock" position 
with one hand. Manufacturers will still be per- 
mitted to use key release devices which are posi- 
tioned in such a way that two hands must be used 
to activate the key release and then turn the key 
(e.g., a system where the key release device is on 
one side of the steering column and the ignition 
lock is on the other side) since those systems 
minimize the possibility of locking the steering 
while the vehicle is in motion by requiring a 
distinct sequence of separate acts that must be 
performed by two hands. 

Several commenters, such as Mercedes-Benz 
and the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Asso- 
ciation (JAMA), requested the agency to pattern 
its requirement on inadvertent activation of lock- 
ing systems on the Economic Commission for 
Europe (ECE) regulation. The ECE regulation 
specifies that anti-theft devices which impede the 
steering or forward mobility of the vehicle cannot 
activate until the engine is off and the driver has 
performed another separate action other than 
turning the engine off, such as withdrawing the 
key. The agency has decided not to adopt the 
ECE regulation. The NHTSA believes that this 
rule does not effectively minimize the possibility 
of accidental lock-up, because it does not require 
the driver to perform a sequence of separate and 
distinct acts in order to activate the steering 
wheel lock. 

Stronger Ignition Locking System 

Manufacturers, such as GM, Ford, Mercedes 
and VW, supported a requirement that the 



ignition lock be designed to resist removal. 
However, they criticized the agency's proposal 
that the ignition system become inoperative if 
any part of the lock were removed. For example. 
Ford argued that the proposal would require the 
ignition to be inoperative even if only a small por- 
tion of the lock were removed and the remaining 
portion of the lock still performed satisfactorily. 
The manufacturers argued that the agency needs 
to more specifically define the proposed perform- 
ance requirements and establish an objective test 
procedure before issuing a final rule. 

Requiring stronger ignition and steering lock- 
ing systems is potentially one of the most promis- 
ing ways to effectively reduce vehicle thefts. 
Even if a thief gains entry to a vehicle, the igni- 
tion and steering lock must be circumvented in 
order to drive the vehicle. Although some manu- 
facturers voluntarily have taken steps to 
strengthen their ignition locks, it is too easy to 
remove the ignition lock and start the engine in 
many vehicles. 

To develop an improved ignition lock require- 
ment, NHTSA contracted with the National Bu- 
reau of Standards to do tensile, torque and ex- 
traction testing on current ignition lock systems 
(NHTSA Contract HS-9-02150). The report was 
completed this fall and is presently being 
evaluated by the agency. Upon completion of this 
evaluation, NHTSA will consider new rulemaking 
to propose specific performance requirements for 
ignition lock retention and ignition system opera- 
tion. 

Audible Warning 

Passenger cars are currently equipped with a 
warning device to remind the driver to remove 
the key. The device activates when the key is left 
in the ignition lock and the car door is opened. 
The agency's proposal to require an audible warn- 
ing and to require the warning device to sound for 
so long as the key is not removed after the door 
had been opened met with substantial opposition 
from consumers and vehicle manufacturers. They 
argued that the proposed sound level required for 
the warning device would be too loud and there- 
fore irritating to vehicle occupants. MVMA 
and others also argued that the proposals would 
require a continual warning in many situations, 
such as parking lots, services areas and car 
washes, where keys are legitimately left in the 



PART 575; S114-PRE 11 



ignition after the driver has left the vehicle. In ad- 
dition, they argued that the power necessary to 
continually operate the warning device could 
cause battery failure. 

Based on its evaluation of the comments, the 
agency has decided to retain the current warning 
requirement and not adopt the proposed require- 
ment for a continuous, louder audible warning. 
The current requirement, which has reduced the 
incidence of theft due to keys left in the vehicle, 
will continue to have the beneficial effect of alert- 
ing the driver that he or she has left the key in 
the ignition lock. 

Door Locking Systems 

To make it more difficult for a thief to break in- 
to a vehicle, the May 1978 notice proposed that 
the door lock be shielded so that it cannot be 
released by external manipulative devices. The 
notice also proposed that the door lock buttons be 
tapered or of uniform thickness to prevent them 
from being easily opened by manipulative devices 
and that keys which operate an exterior lock not 
be able to operate the ignition lock. Vehicle 
manufacturers, AAA, locksmiths and others 
criticized these proposals because of the incon- 
venience and expense they would pose to drivers 
who inadvertently locked their keys in their 
vehicles and needed a locksmith to get into their 
vehicles. AAA noted that 340,000 out of the 17.2 
million emergency road calls it responded to in 
1977 involved drivers inadvertently locking their 
keys in their vehicles, argued that the proposed 
requirements would prevent legitimate service 
personnel from entering locked vehicles without 
breaking the windows or otherwise damaging the 
vehicle. 

The Arthritic Society and some consumers 
were particularly critical of the proposal to re- 
quire tapered or uniform size door lock buttons. 
They argued that such buttons would present 
problems to drivers and passengers with im- 
paired movement of their fingers. 

Some consumers and manufacturers also criti- 
cized the agency's two-key proposal, i.e., the one 
that would prevent a key which operates any 
exterior vehicle lock from operating the ignition 
lock. (GM currently uses a two-key system.) The 
commenters argued that using two keys to enter 
and start the vehicle would be inconvenient. In 
addition, manufacturers argued that the require- 



ment was design restrictive and might impede 
the development of other innovative means of 
locking the door and ignition. 

The agency has decided not to adopt these 
rulemaking proposals. As mentioned previously, 
using improved ignition/steering locks rather 
than increasing the amount of time needed to gain 
entry to the vehicle appears to be the best poten- 
tial way to reduce vehicle thefts without incon- 
veniencing vehicle users. Further, even in the 
absence of rulemaking, improvements are an- 
ticipated. Manufacturers are currently develop- 
ing and using new door locking systems to im- 
prove vehicle security. The agency will continue 
to monitor the different door locking systems 
used by manufacturers to determine if rulemak- 
ing is needed. 

Interior Hood Release and Shielded Wires 

To delay the theft of a vehicle, the May 1978 
notice proposed that the hood release be located 
inside the vehicle. Delaying access to the engine 
compartment would potentially make it more dif- 
ficult to "hot wire" the ignition and start the vehi- 
cle. The notice also proposed that the ignition 
wires within the vehicle's interior be shielded so 
that it would be difficult to "hot wire" the ignition 
once the thief got inside the vehicle. 

Manufacturers, such as GM and Volkswagen, 
opposed the interior hood release requirement, 
arguing that since a thief has to gain access to the 
interior of the vehicle to steal the car, the thief 
would then have access to the hood release. 
JAMA, AMC, Chrysler and other manufacturers 
objected to the shielding requirement, arguing it 
would make it more difficult to perform legiti- 
mate repair work on the ignition wires. 

After re-evaluating these proposals, the agency 
has decided not to adopt them. As explained 
previously, the agency plans to concentrate its 
future rulemaking on the more effective route of 
improving ignition steering column locks. So long 
as the steering column lock has not been cir- 
cumvented, a thief cannot steal a vehicle even if 
he or she has gained access to the engine com- 
partment or the interior ignition wires to "hot 
wire" the ignition. 

Clarification of Requirements 

In several of the proposed changes to the text 
of the standard, the May 1978 notice used the 



PART 571; S114-PRE 12 



term "ignition system lock" instead of "key lock- 
ing system" to refer to the system used to ac- 
tivate the engine. Lucas Industries and others 
pointed out that diesel, turbine and electrical 
engines do not have electric ignition systems. The 
agency will continue using the term "key locking 
system." 

Ford recommended that the agency reword the 
performance requirement that the steering or 
forward mobility of the vehicle be impaired when 
the key is removed to make clear that it only ap- 
plies when the vehicle is not in motion. The 
agency has adopted Ford's recommendation and 
has made the necessary clarifying changes to the 
standard. 

Costs and Benefits 

The agency has considered the economic and 
other impacts of this final rule and determined 
that this rule is not significant within the mean- 
ing of Executive Order 12221 and the Department 
of Transportation's policies and procedures im- 
plementing that order. The agency's assessment 
of the benefits and economic consequences of this 
final rule are contained in a final regulatory 
evaluation, which has been placed in the docket. 
Copies of that final regulatory evaluation can be 
obtained by writing NHTSA's docket section at 
the address given in the beginning of this notice. 

As discussed in the evaluation, the agency 
estimates that the final rule will add $1.51 to the 
cost of a passenger car and $2.06 to the cost of a 
truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle. The ag- 
gregate consumer cost of the final rule is $3.26 
million annually for passenger cars and approx- 
imately $6.57 million annually for trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles. 

NHTSA has received complaints from con- 
sumers and businesses about vehicles in which 
the steering system inadvertently locked while 
the vehicle was in motion. Accidents occurred in 
several of these cases. The agency expects that 
the final rule will prevent such inadvertent lock- 
up, and thus will prevent the deaths and injuries 
that can result. 



The provisions of the final rule should also 
deter the joyrider thief who accounts for the ma- 
jority of accidents involving stolen vehicles. 
Stolen vehicles are involved in approximately one 
out of every 350 accidents and account for an 
estimated 5,600 disabling injuries and 150 
fatalities annually. The cost to the public from 
stolen vehicles is enormous, ranging from $1.8 
billion to $2.8 billion annually. The agency 
estimates that the final rule may result in as 
many as 25 lives saved and 1,120 less injuries an- 
nually. 

Leadtime Requirements 

The final rule is effective on September 1, 1982, 
for passenger cars, and on September 1, 1983, for 
light trucks and vans. The agency believes that a 
two-year lead time is adequate for passenger car 
manufacturers because many automobiles al- 
ready comply with the final rule. Other manufac- 
turers have systems that permit activation of the 
steering wheel lock by simultaneously perform- 
ing two actions, and thus these manufacturers 
need only make minor modifications to bring 
these systems into compliance. Manufacturers of 
light trucks and vans are being given three years 
to comply with the standard because moderate 
design changes are involved and such manufac- 
turers have generally not voluntarily complied 
with the rule in the past. 

The principal authors of this notice are Nelson 
Erickson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, and 
Stephen Oesch, Office of Chief Counsel. 

Issued on December 22, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

45 FR 85450 
December 29, 1980 



PART 571; S114-PRE 13-14 



i 



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

Theft Protection 

(Docket No. 1-21; Notice No. 6) 



ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 
for reconsideration. 

SUMIVIARY: This notice responds to ten 
petitions for reconsideration concerning 
Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. In 
response to the petitions, the agency is (1) 
exempting walk-in vans from the requirements 
of the standard; (2) exempting open-body type 
vehicles with readily removable or no doors 
from the key-in-ignition warning requirement; 
(3) clarifying the provision which requires a 
manufacturer to have 1,000 different key 
combinations for each type of vehicle; and (4) 
deleting the provision, adopted in the last 
notice, that is designed to prevent the driver 
from inadvertently locking the steering 
column while his or her vehicle is in motion. 
This notice also makes a technical 
amendment to the standard. 

DATES: The effective date of the 
amendment extending the applicability of 
Standard No. 114 to trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPV's) having a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less 
is September 1, 1983. This is the effective 
date previously established in the final rule 
published on December 29, 1980 (45 F.R. 
85450). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 
December 29, 1980, NHTSA published in the 
Federal Register (45 F.R. 85450) a final rule 
making certain amendments to Safety 
Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 
§571.114). These amendments extended the 



applicability of the standard to trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) 
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
10,000 pounds or less. The amendments also 
upgraded the performance requirements of 
the standard to prevent the driver from 
inadvertently locking the steering wheel 
while his or her vehicle is in motion. 

Petitions for reconsideration were 
subsequently filed within the prescribed time 
limits by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 
Association (MVMA), BMW of North 
America, Inc. (BMW), American Motors 
Corporation (AMC), Alfa Romeo, General 
Motors Corporation (GM), Volkswagen of 
America, Inc. (VW), Fiat Motors of North 
America, Inc. (Fiat), Chrysler Corporation 
(Chrysler), Automobile Importers of 
America, Inc. (AIA), and Mercedes-Benz of 
North America, Inc. (Mercedes). In addition, 
Renault U.S.A., Inc., filed a comment with the 
agency in which it concurred in the petitions 
filed by VW and AIA. After evaluating these 
petitions, the agency has decided to modify, 
as fully detailed below, some of the 
requirements of the standard. The agency is 
also making a technical amendment to the 
standard in this notice. To the extent set 
forth below, the petitions are granted. 
Otherwise, they are denied. 

Exemption for Walk-in Vans and 
Open-Body Type Vehicles 

In general, the reaction of the petitioners 
to the amendments extending the standard to 
light trucks and vans was positive. Chrysler 



PART 571; S 114-PRE 15 



stated that Standard No. 114 has been 
effective in deterring motor vehicle theft by 
amateur thieves and joyriders and thus it 
approves of the extension. However, several 
petitioners asked for an exemption from all or 
parts of the rule for specific types of vehicles. 

GM requested that walk-in vans be exempted 
from all of the standard's requirements. (A 
walk-in van is a "step-van" city delivery type 
of vehicle that permits a driver to enter the 
vehicle without stooping. Such vans are 
typically used to deliver lightweight, bulky 
merchandise such as bakery products or dry 
cleaning. GM describes a walk-in van as a 
forward control chassis which it designates 
as a "P truck.") GM argues that such vehicles 
should be exempted from the standard because 
there are no data to indicate a significant 
theft problem with these vans. Walk-in vans 
are exempted from the requirements of 
Safety Standards Nos. 203, 204, 212, and 219 
because compliance with these standards 
"would not accomplish the safety benefits 
projected for passenger cars" and because 
these vehicles are used for low-speed city 
delivery service and thus are not exposed to 
the risk of high-speed accidents. According to 
GM, the lack of data indicating a theft 
problem provides a similar reason for 
exempting walk-in vans from Standard No. 
114. GM notes that without the exemption, a 
new steering column might have to be 
designed, tested, tooled and manufactured 
for this vehicle. The petitioner suggests that 
the cost of such a column to purchasers could 
be "significant" since a low number of walk-in 
vans are produced. 

The fact that GM might have to redesign 
the steering column used in these vehicles if 
it is forced to comply with the rule is not 
dispositive by itself. Compliance with any 
new standard or amendment to an existing 
rule typically requires a vehicle or equipment 
manufacturer to make design or tooling 
changes. This fact is considered by the agency 
in deciding whether to adopt a proposed rule 
or amendment. 

However, the agency has decided to exempt 
walk-in vans from the requirements of 
Standard No. 114. Walk-in vans are generally 
commercial vehicles that have minimal 



capacity to accelerate and thus are not 
attractive to the youthful joyrider. NHTSA 
expects that as a result the theft rate of these 
vehicles is considerably less than the theft 
rate of other light trucks and vans. The theft 
rate of walk-in vans manufactured by 
Chevrolet and GMC supports this. The 1979 
nationwide theft rate of all registered model 
years 1972-1980 walk-in vans manufactured 
by Chevrolet and GMC was one-third of the 

1979 nationwide theft rate of all registered 
model years 1972-1980 light trucks that were 
built by these companies. NHTSA derived 
this statistic from information supplied by 
R.L. Polk, Inc. and National Automobile 
Theft Bureau. Thus NHTSA has decided to 
grant GM's petition and exempt walk-in vans 
from the requirements of the standard. 
However, the agency will continue to monitor 
the theft and accident rates of these vehicles, 
and will initiate rulemaking should the data 
indicate that application of the standard's 
requirements would yield a significant safety 
benefit. 

AMC and MVMA requested that open- 
body type vehicles which lack a driver's door 
or have one that can be readily removed be 
exempted from the standard's key-warning 
requirements (paragraph S4.7 of the December 

1980 final rule, renumbered S4.5 in today's 
rule). (An open-body type vehicle is a vehicle 
that has no occupant compartment top or one 
that can be installed or removed by the user 
at his or her convenience.) The petitioners 
argued that it is impracticable and 
unreasonable to require a key-warning 
system that is activated when the driver's 
door is open on a vehicle whose driver's door 
has been removed or on a vehicle which was 
produced without a driver's door. NHTSA 
agrees with this argument and so is 
amending the standard to exempt open-body 
type vehicles from the warning requirements. 
Only vehicles without doors or with readily 
removable ones are so exempted. 

The agency notes that a seat sensor could 
be used to signal the presence of the key in 
the ignition after the driver has left the 
vehicle. A requirement for such a system was 
not within the scope of the proposal and thus 
could not be adopted here. NHTSA encourages 



PART 571; S 114 -PRE 16 



manufacturers of open-body type vehicles 
that are exempted from the standard's 
warning requirements to voluntarily employ 
a system such as this. 

Number of Key Combinations 

Paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 114 as 
amended in the December 1980 notice 
(paragraph S4.4 in today's rule) specifies the 
minimum number of different combinations 
of the key-locking systems required of a 
manufacturer for each vehicle type. The 
provision requires that manufacturers have 
1,000 combinations for a type of vehicle or a 
number equal to the number of vehicles of 
that type, whichever is less. The purpose of 
the requirement is to ensure that each 
manufacturer has a sufficiently large number 
of key combinations so that thieves are not 
readily able to unlock and start vehicles 
through the use of master keys. 

VW in its petition requested that this 
provision be modified. Although the petitioner 
does not state its position directly, it appears 
that VW has misinterpreted the 
requirement. VW implies that the provision 
requires a manufacturer to have, for each 
vehicle type, 1,000 key combinations that are 
not only different from each other, but also 
different from the key combinations used for 
other types of vehicles built by that 
manufacturer. This is not the case. Paragraph 
S4.6 of the standard as amended in the last 
notice only requires that a manufacturer who 
builds 1,000 or more vehicles of a particular 
type have at least 1,000 different key 
combinations. If a manufacturer builds more 
than one type of vehicle, it is free to use the 
same key combinations for two or more types 
of vehicles. Thus a manufacturer who builds 
2,000 passenger cars and 1,100 trucks need 
only have 1,000 key combinations, which may 
be used for both the trucks and the passenger 
cars. The standard has been amended to 
clarify this point. 

It is not necessary for a manufacturer to 
have more than 1,000 key combinations in 
order to achieve the objectives of the 
requirement. The agency finds that 1,000 
different key combinations is a sufficiently 



high number to discourage thieves. Speed in 
entering and starting a vehicle is critical to 
successful vehicle theft. The agency finds 
that the key-combinations requirement will 
do much to slow down the efforts of thieves 
using master keys. 

In its petition, VW complains that the 
phrases "for a type of vehicle" and "vehicles 
of that type" as they are used in paragraph 
S4.6 are unclear. "Vehicle type" and similar 
phrases have long been used by the agency 
typically to refer to groups of vehicles such as 
passenger cars and trucks. To ensure that 
there is no confusion in the future as to the 
meaning of "vehicle type," the agency is 
defining this phrase in the definitions 
paragraph (S3) of today's rule. 

Inadvertent Activation 

The amendments regarding inadvertent 
activation of the steering column lock were 
the most controversial of all the amendments 
adopted in the December 1980 final rule. 
These provisions (S4.3 and S4.5 of the 
standard as amended by that rule) were 
intended to prevent the driver from 
accidentally locking the steering system 
while the vehicle is in motion. For example, a 
panicked driver might accidentally lock the 
steering column in an emergency situation in 
which he or she turns off the engine in an 
attempt to stop the vehicle (such as when the 
vehicle suddenly accelerates due to a stuck 
throttle cable). The inadvertent activation 
provisions were intended to prevent the driver 
from locking the steering column in a situation 
such as this by requiring him or her to perform 
a series of separate and distinct acts in order to 
activate the locking system. 

In the preamble to the December 1980 final 
rule, the agency described two currently 
used locking systems that meet the agency's 
objectives. In one system, found in many 
vehicles equipped with an automatic 
transmission and a column-mounted 
transmission shifter, the shifter must be moved 
into "park" or "reverse" before the steering 
lock is engaged. The other system requires 
the driver to push a key release lever or 
button and move the key into the "lock" 



PART 571; S 114-PRE 17 



position in order to activate the lock. This 
system is effective only if the button is 
located in a position such that the driver 
must use both hands to operate the system 
(henceforth referred to as the two-hand 
button system). The system does not comply 
with the agency's intent if the button or lever 
is positioned such that the driver can push 
the key-release mechanism and simultaneously 
turn the key to "lock" using only one hand 
(henceforth referred to as the one-hand 
button system). 

Mercedes, VW and Chrysler agreed that 
there is a need to prevent drivers from 
accidentally locking up the steering column of 
a moving vehicle. However, these and many 
other petitioners objected to the particular 
provisions regarding inadvertent activation 
that were finally adopted by the agency. The 
petitioners saw various problems with the 
amendments. 

One basic problem raised by many 
petitioners was an inconsistency between 
S4.5 and the intent of the agency as 
expressed in the preamble to the December 
1980 final rule. In the preamble, NHTSA 
rejected the Economic Commission for 
Europe (ECE) anti-theft regulation. The 
agency thereby implicitly rejected those 
locking systems which are activated by the 
removal of the key and which permit the key 
to be removed without the driver's first 
having to operate a button or lever 
(henceforth referred to as buttonless 
systems). However, paragraph S4.5 of the 
final rule can be interpreted to permit the use 
of these systems. 

Virtually all the petitioners complained 
that the agency failed to demonstrate a safety 
need for the inadvertent activation 
requirements as described in the December 
1980 preamble. Alfa Romeo, BMW, VW. and 
Mercedes all stated that they have employed 
locking systems that comply with the ECE 
regulation for many years and have never 
received any report of an accident or fatality 
resulting from the inadvertent activation of a 
lock on a moving vehicle. GM similarly stated 
that it knows of only five incidents of 
accidental lock-up among the more than five 
million vehicles sold in the past 10 years that 



are equipped with a one-hand button system. 

Many petitioners argued that even if there 
were a safety need for the new requirements, 
these requirements as proposed in the 
preamble to the final rule may fail to achieve 
the benefits anticipated by the agency. They 
suggested that some people might find a two- 
hand button system (the cheapest available 
alternative that complies with the new 
requirements) so inconvenient that they will 
leave their keys in the vehicle when making 
short stops and thus leave their cars more 
vulnerable to theft. A two-hand button 
system may be difficult, painful, or 
impossible for handicapped or arthritis- 
ridden people to use. These individuals might 
be similarly inclined to leave their keys in the 
ignition. Finally, some drivers might develop 
a reflex action with a two-hand button 
system, just as they have done so with 
buttonless and one-hand button systems. 

Several manufacturers alleged that 
compliance with the inadvertent activation 
requirements as described in the December 
1980 preamble will necessitate major design 
and tooling changes. Mercedes and VW 
stated that they will have to modify not only 
the steering column but also the instrument 
panel if they are forced to comply with the 
new provisions. Three foreign manufacturers 
suggested that the agency's rejection of the 
ECE regulation is not in line with current 
attempts to harmonize Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards with automotive standards 
of other countries. 

AMC and AIA complained of lack of notice. 
They argued that although the general issue 
of inadvertent activation of the steering 
column lock was discussed in the NPRM, the 
notice did not mention the idea of requiring 
drivers to perform an additional mechanical 
action in order to activate the steering 
column lock. 

After careful consideration of all 
arguments raised by the petitioners and 
further study of the consumer complaints 
received about inadvertent activation of the 
steering column lock in moving vehicles, 
NHTSA has decided to delete the amendments 
regarding inadvertent activation that were 
adopted in the December 1980 notice. The 



PART 571; S 114-PRE 18 



agency disagrees with those petitioners who 
contend that inadvertent activation is not a 
safety problem in those vehicles equipped 
with buttonless or one-hand button systems. 
Consumer complaints received by NHTSA 
illustrate that drivers may accidentally lock 
the steering column in attempting to stop the 
vehicle in an emergency situation. These 
complaints have been placed in the public 
docket and are available for public inspection. 
However, upon further study the agency has 
determined that the problem of inadvertent 
activation is not significant enough to require 
vehicles to be equipped with key-locking 
systems that provide better protection 
against inadvertent activation. As a result, 
NHTSA has decided to delete paragraphs 
S4.3 and S4.5 from the final rule as amended 
in the last notice. 

The agency will continue to monitor 
complaints on inadvertent activation of the 
steering column lock while the vehicle is in 
motion and will initiate rulemaking should 
the data so warrant. NHTSA encourages 
manufacturers to voluntarily install key- 
locking systems that provide improved 
protection against inadvertent activation on 
their vehicles. 

All the petitioners who expressed 
dissatisfaction with the new requirements 
regarding inadvertent activation requested 
that the effective date be delayed for one 
year or more. Since the provisions on 
inadvertent activation were the only new 
requirements for passenger cars, this issue is 
now moot. BMW also requested that 
manufacturers of trucks and MPV's be given 
an additional year of leadtime to comply not 
only with the new provisions on inadvertent 
activation but also with the rest of the 
standard's requirements. BMW never stated 
that it could not comply with the earlier 
effective date. More importantly, BMW's 
request was premised on the assumption that 
the agency would not rescind the new 
requirements on inadvertent activation. As 
noted above, NHTSA has decided to delete 
those requirements. Accordingly, BMW's 
request is denied. 



Technical Amendment 

In the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA 
stated that it was limiting the extension of 
Standard No. 114 to MPV's having a GVWR 
of 10,000 pounds or less. MVMA pointed out 
in its petition that the application section, S2, 
of the rule does not make this limitation clear. 
The agency agrees and is modifying the 
section accordingly. 

Costs and Benefits 

NHTSA has considered the economic and 
other impacts of these amendments and has 
determined that the rule is not a major rule 
within the meaning of Executive Order No. 
12291. The agency has further determined 
that the amendments are not significant 
within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation regulatory procedures. In 
issuing the final rule of December 29, 1980, 
NHTSA prepared a Final Regulatory 
Evaluation, which contains the agency's 
assessment of the benefits and economic 
consequences of that rule. Copies of the 
evaluation can be obtained by writing 
NHTSA's Docket Section at the address 
given at the beginning of this notice. 

The agency believes that additional 
analysis of the costs and benefits of today's 
amendments is not necessary in light of the 
estimates made in the December 1980 
Regulatory Evaluation. In that evaluation, 
NHTSA estimated that compliance with 
Standard No. 114 would add $2.06 to the cost 
of a truck or MPV. The aggregate consumer 
cost would be approximately $6.57 million 
each year. These figures assumed that truck 
and MPV manufacturers would use a two- 
hand button system to comply with the new 
provisions on inadvertent activation. The 
agency anticipated that such a system would 
be the cheapest way for manufacturers to 
comply with the standard. The new 
provisions regarding inadvertent activation 
are rescinded in today's amendments. 
However, the agency believes that these 
figures are still a reasonable estimate of the 
cost of extending Standard No. 114 to light 
trucks and vans. This is because NHTSA 
anticipates that some trucks and MPV 



PART 571; S 114-PRE 19 



manufacturers will choose to comply with the 
locking provisions by installing a two- or one- 
hand button system, even though a 
buttonless system would suffice and v/ould 
appear to be cheaper. A manufacturer that 
already uses one- or two-hand button systems 
in its passenger cars and can easily install the 
same systems in its light trucks and vans 
might find this alternative to be the cheapest 
way to comply with Standard No. 114. Thus 
NHTSA estimates that extension of 
Standard No. 114 to light trucks and vans will 
cost the consumer $2.06 per vehicle. The cost 
to the consumer will be less to the extent that 
truck and MPV manufacturers comply with 
the rule's requirements by using buttonless 
systems. 

The agency has also analyzed these 
amendments for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and has determined 



that it will not have a significant effect on the 
human environment. 

Although NHTSA has considered the effects 
of these amendments on small businesses, the 
agency has not prepared a regulatory 
flexibility analysis. Such an analysis is not 
necessary in this case, since the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act applies only to rules for which 
an NPRM is issued on or after January 1, 
1981. The notice proposing the changes in 
Standard No. 114 that culminated in the 
amendments adopted today was issued on 
April 26, 1978 (43 F.R. 18577, May 1, 1978). 

Issued on June 17, 1981. 



Raymond A. Peck, Jr. 
Administrator 
46 F.R. 32251 
June 22, 1981 



# 



i^ 



PART 571; S 114-PRE 20 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114 



Theft Protection— Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 1-21; Notice 5) 



51. Purpose and scope. This standard specifies 
requirements for theft protection to reduce the inci- 
dence of accidents resulting from unauthorized use. 

52. Application. [This standard applies to 
passenger cars and to trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles having a GVWR of 10,000 
pounds or less. (46 F.R. 32251-June 22, 1981. Ef- 
fective: 9/1/83)1 

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

"Key" includes any other device designed and 
constructed to provide a method for operating a 
locking system which is designed and constructed to 
be operated by that device. 

["Vehicle type" refers to "passenger car," 
"truck," or "multipurpose passenger vehicle," as 
those terms are defined in 49 CFR § 571.3. (46 F.R. 
32251-June 22, 1981. Effective: 9/1/83)1 

54. Requirements. 

IS4.1. Each truck and multipurpose passenger 
vehicle having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1983 and 
each passenger car shall meet the requirements of 
S4.2, S4.3, S4.4, and S4.5. However, open-body 
type vehicles that are manufactured for operation 
without doors and that either have no doors or have 
doors that are designed to be easily attached to and 
removed from the vehicle by the vehicle owner are 
not required to comply with S4.5. (46 F.R. 32251; 
June 22, 1981. Effective: 9/1/83)1 

54.1.1. Passenger cars manufactured before 
September 1, 1982, shall meet the requirements of 

54.2, S4.4, S4.6, and S4.7 or the requirements listed 
in S4.1.2. 

54.1 .2. Passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1982, shall meet the requirements of 

54.3, S4.5, S4.6, and S4.7. 



S4.1.3. Trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1983, shall 
meet requirements of S4.3, S4.5, S4.6, and S4.7. 

S4.2 Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system 
that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent— 

(a) Normal activation of the vehicle's engine or 
other main source of motive power; and 

(b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of 
the vehicle, or both. 

S4.3. IThe prime means for deactivating the 
vehicle's engine or other main source of motive 
power shall not activate the deterrent required by 
S4.2(b). 

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

54.5 A warning to the driver shall be activated 
whenever the key required by S4.2 has been left in 
the locking system and the driver's door is opened. 
The warning to the driver need not operate— 

(a) After the key has been manually withdrawn 
to a position from which it may not be turned; 

(b) When the key-locking system is in the "on" 
or "start" position; or 

(c) After the key has been inserted in the locking 
system and before it has been turned on. (46 F.R. 
32251; June 22, 1981. Effective: 6/22/81)1 

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



(Rev. 9/1/83) 



PART 571; S 114-1 



S4.7 A warning to the driver shall be activated (c) After the key has been inserted in the locking 
whenever the key required by S4.2 or S4.3 has system and before it has been turned, 
been left in the locking system and the driver's (Sec. 103, 113, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
door is opened. The warning to the driver need not (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407); delegation of author- 
operate- ity at 49 CFR 1.50) ^ 

Issued on December 22, 1980. ' 

(a) After the key has been manually withdrawn 

to a position from which it may not be turned; Joan Claybrook, 

Administrator 

(b) When the key-locking system is in the "on" 45 F.R. 85450 

or "start" position; or December 29, 1980 



!^' 



(Rev. 9/i;83) PART 571; S 114-2 



cnv^Tivw: ^ttnwtj 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 
Vehicle Identification Number — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 1-22) 



A proposal to amend section 371.21 of Part 
371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 
by adding a new standard, Vehicle Identification 
Number — Passenger Cars, was published in the 
Federal Register on December 28, 1967 (32 F.R. 
20886). 

Interested persons have been afforded an op- 
portunity to participate in the making of the 
standard. Their comments and other available 
information have been carefully considered. 

The Administrator has concluded that preven- 
tion and deterrence of passenger car thefts would 
substantially reduce the number and seriousness 
of motor vehicle accidents. Available evidence 
shows that cars operated by unauthorized persons 
are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of 
accidents, personal injuries and deaths than those 
which are driven by, or with the permission of, 
their owners. The incidence of theft and the 
risk of accidents attributable thereto is increas- 
ing. According to a recent study by the Depart- 
ment of Justice, an estimated 94,000 stolen cai-s 
were involved in accidents in 1966, and more 
than 18,000 of these accidents resulted in injury 
to one or more people. 18.2 percent of the stolen 
cars became involved in accidents, and 19.6 per- 
cent of the stolen-car accidents caused personal 
injury. The same study predicted that automo- 
bile thefts in 1967 would total about 650,000; 
about 100,000 of these stolen cars would be ex- 
pected to become involved in accidents. Com- 
paring these figures with statistics for cars which 
are not stolen, the approximate accident rate for 
stolen cars would be some 200 times the rate for 
other cars. Thus, a reduction in the invidence 
of auto theft would meet the need for motor 
vehicle safety. It would not only reduce the 
number of injuries and deaths among those who 
steal cars, it would also protect the many inno- 



cent members of the public who are killed and 
injured by stolen cars each year. 

In its report, "The Challenge of Crime in a 
Free Society," the President's Commission on 
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 
noted the rising cost of auto thefts in lives and 
dollars, highlighted the need for measures to re- 
duce auto thefts and suggested that "The respon- 
sibility could well be assigned to the National 
Highway Safety Agency as part of its program 
to establish safety standards for automobiles." 
(pp. 260-261). 

The Administrator has decided that the prob- 
lem of reducing the incidence of automobile 
thefts should be attacked on a two-pronged basis. 
On one hand, physical impediments should be 
placed in the path of potential thieves; to ac- 
complish this, a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
on Theft Protection — Passenger Cars has been 
promulgated. That standard prescribes automo- 
bile equipment which tends physically to defeat 
an attempted theft. It is equally important to 
interpose psychological deterrents to automobile 
theft. A unique identification number affixed to 
each car in a uniform location and readable from 
outside the car would serve as such a deterrent. 
The present standard requires manufacturers to 
install such a number in each passenger car. 
When so installed, it will enable law enforcement 
agencies to find stolen cars and apprehend car 
thieves with much greater facility than now 
exists. By confronting a potential thief with 
the promise of swift and sure apprehension, com- 
pliance with the standard will deter him from 
making off with someone else's automobile. All 
law enforcement agencies, as well as many other 
organizations concerned with the rising incidence 
of car thefts, that responded to the Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making endorsed the concept of 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 1 



Ellactiv*: January I, 1969 



a visible identification number embodied in the 
standard. Many of these groups said that the 
standard would promote eflPorts to curb un- 
authorized use of passenger cars. The Admin- 
istrator has therefore concluded that issuance of 
the standard will protect the public against the 
unreasonable risk of accidents stemming from 
widespread automobile theft. 

The Administrator has carefully considered the 
contention, which some manufacturers advanced, 
that the standard might actually increase the 
risk of automobile theft because a thief, armed 
with ready access to the car's identification num- 
ber, might thereby obtain a key for its ignition 
lock. The acquisition of master or identical keys 
procured through knowledge of a vehicle's iden- 
tification number is a lengthy and arduous pro- 
cess. Hence, it is a technique that is rarely, if 
ever, used by amateur thieves whose activities 
create the greatest risk of stolen-car accidents. 
Furthermore, as a practical matter, it is possible 
to utilize this technique only with respect to a 
relatively small number of cars. The Theft Pro- 
tection standard, effective January 1, 1970, will 
result in a larger number of combinations for 
ignition locks, and this should substantially re- 
duce the effectiveness of master keys. In addi- 
tion, improved key-control measures can prevent 
thieves from acquiring duplicate keys simply by 
knowing the vehicle identification number. On 
balance, therefore, the Administrator does not 
agree with those who argue that the standard 
will not result in an overall reduction in the 
number of automobile thefts. 

The Administrator also rejects the contention 
that the standard is unnecessary because of the 
almost universal requirement that all automobiles 
must bear at least one license plate. Experience 
has shown that ordinary license plates, located 
on the outside of a car and installed with screws, 
are often removed and replaced with other plates. 
Knowing only the number of the license plates 
sold to the owner of the stolen car, the police 
have no sure way of identifying the car when 
other plates have been attached to it. The stand- 
ard attempts to overcome this problem by re- 
quiring that the car's identification number be 
affixed with relative permanency. 

In addition to license-plate requirements, the 
laws of many states contain provisions i elating 



to identifying numbers on motor vehicles. The 
primary purpose of these state-law requirements 
is to facilitate the issuance and transfer of titles 
to motor vehicles. So far as the Administrator 
is aware, no state provides for a number which 
is readable from outside a vehicle without open- 
ing a door, hood or other part of the vehicle. 
These state requirements are neither safety 
standards, nor do they relate directly to the pre- 
vention of motor vehicle thefts or the apprehen- 
sion of thieves. Consequently, the Administrator 
has concluded . that the standard will have no 
preemptive effect upon such state laws. 

Several changes have been made in the form 
of the standard as it appeared in the Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making. A number of comments 
objected to the requirement, as stated in the No- 
tice, that the vehicle identification number must 
"provide permanent legibility" on the ground 
that it was unrealistic and unattainable. In re- 
sponse to these comments, the requirement was 
deleted. The term "permanent structure" was 
defined to clarify its meaning, in the light of a 
number of submissions which indicated that 
some manufacturers were confused about the 
parts of the automobile that were included within 
the meaning of the term. 

Some comments questioned the requirement 
that the number must be afiixed in such a manner 
that "removal, replacement, or alteration of the 
number will show evidence of tampering." The 
requirement has been deleted. The standard now 
provides that the number must either be sunk 
into or embossed upon each car's permanent 
structure or upon a separate plate that is perma- 
nently affixed to the permanent structure. The 
term "permanently affixed" is used in section 114 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act, and it was retained in the standard notwith- 
standing contentions that it was not sufficiently 
definitive. 

The portion of the Notice pertaining to read- 
ability of the number (paragraph S4.4) was 
amended to include the conditions under which 
the number must be readable. This provision 
was also redrafted to make it clear that the 
number must be readable from a position outside 
the vehicle without moving any part of the ve- 
hicle. This precludes placing the number in a 
location such that, in order to read it, a door. 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 2 



M«cMv«i January 1, 1»«« 

trunk lid or other portion of the car's body must 1392, 1407) and the delegation of authority of 

be opened. April 24, 1968. 

In consideration of the foregoing, section 371.21 Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 3, 1968. 
of Part 371, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, is amended by adding Standard No. 

115 .. . effective January 1, 1969. Lowell K. Bridwell, 

This amendment is made under the authority Federal Highway Administrator 

of sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic 33 F.t. 10207 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. July 17, 1968 



PART 571 ; S 115— PRE 3-4 



Effective: January 1, 1980 

September 1, 1980 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 
(Docket No. 1-22; Notice 5) 



This notice amends Standard No. 115, Vehicle 
Identification Number (VIN), to extend its ap- 
plicability to additional classes of motor vehicles 
and to specify its content and format. The action 
was undertaken because of the increased use of 
vehicle identification numbers by the safety com- 
munity, and is intended to extend and simplify 
VIN use. 

Effective date: January' 1. 1980. for passenger 
cars; September 1, 1080, for other vehicles. 
For further information contact: 
Mr. Nelson Erickson, OflSce of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202/426-0854). 

Supplementary information : 

On January 16, 1978, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pub- 
lished a notice of proposed nilemaking (43 F.R. 
2189) which proposed extending tlie applicability 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
115 dealing with vehicle identification numbers 
(49 CFR .571.115) to additional classes of vehicles 
and specifying VIN format and content for spe- 
cific classes of vehicles. 

The uses and users of the vehicle identifica- 
tion number were discussed in detail in the 
previous notice. In summary, the VIN is used 
as the key identifier of a vehicle by motor vehicle 
administrators, manufacturers, insurance com- 
panies, law enforcement agencies, and the 
NHTSA, and is the cornerstone of the safety 
defect recall program. Also discussed in the pre- 
vious notice were the long-standing efforts by sev- 
eral groups in the United States and abroad to 
standardize the VIN format and content and the 
two major and incompatible VIN systems pre- 
viously proposed by the International Standards 
Organization and the Vehicle Equipment Safety 
Commission. 



The system developed by the International 
Standards Organization (ISO), with the partici- 
pation of United States representatives from in- 
dustry and government, consists of 17 characters 
and is flexible in tenns of content. A second 
system developed by the Vehicle Equipment 
Safety Commission (VESC), working in con- 
junction with the American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), consists of 
16 characters whose characteristics are rigidly 
defined. "Wliile the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 
Association (MVMA) attempted to establish a 
compromise position between the ISO and VESC- 
AAJVIVA systems by letter to Commissioner C. B. 
Craig of California (a copy of which was sub- 
mitted to the docket), neither party appears to 
have been persuaded to alter their system and 
both continue to urge that the jurisdictions they 
serve ami the NHTSA adopt their system. 

By issuing a proposal which the NHTSA be- 
lieved was a first step in establishing a better- 
engineered, more flexible system serving all users 
to the greatest degree possible, the agency hoped 
to elicit comments which would aid it in this 
endeavor. While some comments merely recited 
their belief that either the ISO or the VESC- 
AAMVA system should be adopted in toto, most 
were helpful in their analysis of the NHTSA 
proposal. All comments were carefully consid- 
ered. 

The NHTSA concludes it should not change 
its previous position that neither the ISO nor the 
VESC-AAMVA systems are sufficient to satisfy 
the broadest group of potential users of the VIN 
in the most efficient fashion. In the case of the 
ISO system, the legitimate needs of the motor 
vehicle administrators for descriptive information 
concerning the vehicle identified were not met. 
It should be pointed out the ISO system was 
never meant to serve this need, but merely to 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 5 



Effective: January 1, 1980 

September 1, 1980 



identify the vehicle. The VESC-AAMVA sys- 
tems, on the other hand, while admirably suited 
to the needs of the States did not take into ac- 
count fully the needs of the manufacturers and 
of NHTSA. The most significant comments 
concerning the NHTSA proposal are discussed 
below. 

Preemption 

A threshold question discussed in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (XPRM), but raised again 
by the comments, related to the preemptive effect 
of the NHTSA standard on non-identical State 
standards relating to the same aspect of perform- 
ance (see § 103(d) of the National Highway 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 
1392(d)). This issue was most comprehensively 
discussed by the Maryland Department of Trans- 
portation, which raised two basic points. 

First, Maryland called the attention of the 
agency to the preamble of the notice, which orig- 
inally established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 115 (33 F.E. 10207). As originally 
established in 1968, the standard did not specify 
requirements regarding either the content or the 
format of the VIN. In that notice, the Adminis- 
trator stated that State laws relating to identify- 
ing numbers used for titling purposes did not 
conflict with the standard as then drafted and 
therefore were not preempted. 

The question, however, is not whether Standard 
No. 115 as originally issued 10 years ago pre- 
empted State standards, but whether the ex- 
panded standard regarding VIN format and 
content being promulgated today preempts the 
States in regulating this aspect of the VIN. As 
stated in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule- 
making (41 F.R. 38189) and the NPRM, and as 
reiterated here, it is the agency's view that Stand- 
ard No. 115 as promulgated by this notice fully 
occupies the area of VIN format and content and 
preempts State and local requiiements relating to 
the same matter. 

The second legal argument i-aised by Maryland 
is that by establishing the format and content of 
the VIN, the NHTSA is "unabashedly violating 
fundamental constitutional principles of federal- 
ism." The gist of Maryland's argument, as we 
understand it, is that establishing the content and 



format of the VIN makes it necessary for the 
States to purchase computers and record keeping 
equipment and thereby makes them "quasi- 
departments and instrumentalities" of the 
NHTSA. In support of their position, they cite 
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 
96 S.Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d. 245 (1976). 

The NHTSA finds no merit in this argument. 
National League of Cities v. JJsei^ concerned the 
direct imposition of Federal minimum wage 
standards by Congress on the States with an 
additional cost of millions of dollars in State 
employee salaries and an effect which curtailed 
the ability of the States to carry on a number of 
their essential functions. The result of the im- 
plementation of Standard No. 115 has no greater 
effect on the States than do any of the other 
Federal safety standards which prescribe mini- 
nuim performance standards for and affect the 
cost of vehicles which the States purchase. Fur- 
ther, there is no indication in the docket that the 
VIN format and content established by this no- 
tice, as compared to that contained in the VESC- 
AAMVA system, will have a substantial effect on 
the States or, as put in Fry v. United /States, 421 
U.S. 542, 95 S.Ct. 1792, 44 L. Ed. 2d 363 (1975), 
impair their "ability to function effectively in a 
federal system." 

A final argument relating to the preemption 
issue which was raised in some conmients is that 
the NHTSA has failed to consult with the VESC, 
as required by § 103(f) (2) of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1392(f)(2)) and therefore the issuance of a re- 
vised Standard No. 115 is invalid. The plain 
words of the statute and the legislative history of 
the Act show clearly that the process contem- 
plated was advising the VESC of NHTSA pro- 
posals by issuing them and receiving the VESC 
comments. In this instance, comments were re- 
ceived from the VESC and carefully considered. 

International Harmonization 

An important issue raised by most foreign 
manufacturei-s, the U.S. Department of Com- 
merce, and the President's Special Representative 
for Trade Negotiations, Ambassador Robert S. 
Strauss, was the incompatibility of the NHTSA 
proposal with the international standard adopted 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 6 



Effective: January 1, 1980 

September 1, 1980 



by the International Standards Organization and, 
subsequently, by the European Economic Com- 
munity. This issue was raised not only in rela- 
tion to the goal of international harmonization of 
national standards, but also to the need to avoid 
the creation of unnecessary international obstacles 
to trade. In this regard, Mr. Strauss noted that a 
proposed Code of Conduct on Preventing Techni- 
cal Barriers to Trade was under negotiation in 
the multilateral trade negotiations. This code 
would encourage adherents to use relevant inter- 
national standards as the basis for national stand- 
ards, except where their use would be inappro- 
priate. 

The NHTSA, as a rule, establishes its motor 
vehicle safety standards outside the channels of 
multilateral negotiations. NHTSA does recog- 
nize, however, the desirability and importance of 
fostering international cooperation wherever fea- 
sible and unfailingly regulates all manufacturers, 
be they domestic or foreign, in the same equitable 
fashion. Indeed, it was in this spirit that the 
NHTSA participated in the meetings which led 
to the creation of a number of ISO standards and 
proposals, including the one for the ISO VIN 
system. 

However, through comments received during 
the rulemaking process, the NHTSA has become 
aware of the significantly greater potential of the 
VIN than is realized under the ISO system, both 
in terms of the amount of information which it 
can contain and its utility to various usei"s. The 
efforts of the parties creating the VESC-AAMVA 
system and the ISO system, as well as their frank 
and forthright comments concerning the NHTSA 
proposals, have established clearly the parameters 
of VIN usefulness and the needs of the users. 

Consequently, in developing a VIN format and 
content which allows it to be used in the most 
efficient fashion — a goal which all parties agree 
to — the agency believes it is establishing a VIN 
system whose merit can and will be recognized 
b}' all. Of key importance to the agency in this 
belief are two facts. First, the VIN format as 
adopted by the ISO. Further, it is in almost all 
ways compatible with the VESC-AAMVA sys- 
tem. 



The first section of the NHTSA VIN which 
serves as a maker identifier is fully compatible 
with the systems proposed by the VESC- 
AAMVA and the ISO. Likewise the third sec- 
tion of the NHTSA VIN which serves as a 
vehicle indicator is fully compatible with the sys- 
tems proposed by the VESC-AAMVA and the 
ISO. The second section of the NHTSA VIN, 
which serves as a vehicle description, is somewhat 
different in structure than that contained in the 
other two systems. However, it meets the infor- 
mational needs of the VESC-AAMVA, while 
allowing the manufacturers the flexibility af- 
forded by the ISO system coupled with the for- 
mat which the ISO adopted. 

Secondly, the ISO system, while adopted in 
Europe, has yet to be implemented by the manu- 
facturers. The NHTSA sincerely liopes that the 
ISO, after considering the slight variations to its 
systems adopted by the agency, will modify its 
system to make it consistent with the NHTSA 
rule. In this way, international harmonization 
can be assured. 

Infarmation Coding and Retrieval Techniques 

A short discussion of information coding and 
retrieval techniques will be helpful in under- 
standing the VIN standard. 

Information may be directly obtained from a 
series of alpha and numeric characters. For 
example, "FORD" indicates the name of an auto- 
mobile manufacturer without further translation. 
The same manufacturer may also be represented 
by a single character, such as "F," but that char- 
acter must be deciphered to determine whether it 
represents Ford, Fiat, or some other manufac- 
turer. This process is called coding and de- 
coding. 

To decode a character, a "'table look up" process 
is used. The dictionary may be either a reference 
document or a computer. In both instances, the 
character "F" will be assigned a meaning in the 
table, such as "F" means Ford, and looking up 
either "F" or Ford will allow its meaning to be 
determined. 

The character "F" may represent more than 
one piece of infonnation, however, even though 
it is a single character. It can represent the 
name of a manufacturer, e.g.. Ford, the model of 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 7 



Effective: January 1, 1980 

September 1, 1980 

a vehicle produceti by Ford, e.g., Pinto, and any 
other characteristics which tlie vehicle coded "F" 
has. This process is similar to a social security 
number which can be used as a key to a consid- 
erable amount of information about the indi- 
vidual to whom that number is assigned. 

As a practical matter, this means that a manu- 
facturer can encode more than five pieces of in- 
formation in a five-character code word. For 
example, if all 1980 Chevrolet Chevelle, Malibu, 
Estate Station Wagons were in the same weight 
class and contained the same restraint system, 
there would be no need to directlj- encode this 
information. 

If a one-character alpha/numeric coding system 
is used, there can only be 35 different unique 
codes (A-Z, 1-9). For example, if the social 
security number consisted of only one character, 
only 35 individuals could be identified. There- 
fore, to increase the number of possible codes, 
more than one-character is used. If two-char- 
acters are used, there are 1225 possible codes; if 
three-characters are used, there are 42,875 pos- 
sible codes; if four-characters are used, there are 
1,500,625 possible codes; and if five-characters 
are used, there are 52,521,875 possible codes. The 
number of possible code increases exponentially 
as the number of characters within the code 
increases. 

Purpose and Scope 

Several comments to the docket questioned 
whether the standard would be helpful in simpli- 
fying vehicle certification, '\^^lile the presence of 
a VIN on the certification label uniquely identi- 
fies the vehicle being certified and avoids the need 
for considerable additional identifying informa- 
tion concerning that vehicle, it is a secondary- 
purpose and has therefore been eliminated as a 
rationale for promulgation of the standard from 
the Purpose and Scope section. 

Application 

The Truck Trailer Manufacturei-s Association 
and a number of individual trailer manufacturers 
strongly opposed the inclusion of truck trailers 
within the requirements of Standard No. 115. 
In support of their position, they pointed to the 
small size of many trailer manufacturers and 
their lack of access to sophisticated computer 



equipment. They also pointed to the lack of data 
relating to a serious safety problem involving 
trailer theft. Finally, they pointed to the overall 
government desire to reduce the regulatory bur- 
den on businesses. 

The XHTSA considered carefully the issues 
raised by the trailer manufacturers. It concluded 
that the need for a unified VIN system out- 
weighed the argument of these manufacturers. 
If States and other users, as well as recall cam- 
paigns, are going to establish computer capacity 
based on a 16-character plus check digit VIN 
system, allowing a different system will create 
substantial confusion and perhaps the loss of 
trailer VINs within the data base because of 
their aberrant format. Further, the use of a 
standardized VIN format will allow for the ef- 
fective tracing of trailers for accident investiga- 
tion purposes and the use of hidden partial VINs 
as a law enforcement tool. 

In order to deal with the real problems facing 
the small manufacturer, however, much of the 
data proposed to he required of the trailer manu- 
facturers has been eliminated. To the extent a 
limited number of models are produced, the nec- 
essary information can be simply represented. 
The first three characters would represent the 
maker identifier. The next five characters indi- 
cates the model in whatever fashion the manu- 
facturer chooses. Thus, four of these characters 
could be standardized and only the fifth would be 
variable if only a limited number of models are 
made. The derivation of the next character, the 
check digit, is easily dealt with by the use of an 
inexpensive, hand-held calculator. The repre- 
sentation of the plant and model year could also 
be standardized. The determination of the trail- 
er's production sequence, particularly with a small 
annual output, should not be difficult. The infor- 
mation which is unique to a vehicle can be added 
to its VIN when the certification label is pre- 
pared. 

A definition of "manufacturer" has been added 
to make clear that the final stage manufacturer 
is responsible for assigning and affixing the VIN. 

Based on the suggestion of the Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Association, the temi "type" has 
been substituted for the term "class," but the defi- 
nition remains the same. 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 8 



Effective: January 1, 1980 

September 1, 1980 



The definition of "model year" is altered to 
limit the actual period of a model year to just 
under two calendar years. The NHTSA con- 
cludes this will deal with the problem of multi- 
year model years raised by tlie AAMVA 
comment; 

Requirements 

Several of the commenters expressed the view 
that affixing a tamperproof label which could not 
be removed intact was a better method of dis- 
playing the VIN than stamping it on a separate 
plate which was affixed to the vehicle. The lan- 
guage of S4.3 is amended to indicate this is per- 
missible. Volvo commented that the phrase 
'"sunk into or embossed" was technically limiting, 
and the language is therefore broadened to read 
"appear clearly and indelibly." The agency also 
wishes to call to the attention of the manufactui'- 
ers selecting tiie option providing for a separate 
plate that whether or not a plate is "permanently 
affixed" is a matter which the agency intends to 
examine carefully. 

Legibility Requirements 

Many manufacturers commented unfavorably 
on the comprehensive legibility and positioning 
requirements of the VIN, stating they were de- 
sign restrictive and unnecessary. In support of 
their position, they also pointed to increased re- 
tooling expenses and an increase in the size of the 
VIN plate if the requirements were adopted. 

Consequently, the NHTSA concludes that it 
will limit its legibility requirements to the mini- 
mum necessary to ensure an accurate reading of 
the VIN. These specify a minimum character 
heiglit of 4 mm and tliat only capital, sans serif 
characters appearing on a contrasting background 
shall be used. If future data indicates these re- 
quirements are not sufficient, they will be 
strengthened. S4.3.1 and S4.5 are therefore sub- 
stantially amended and S4.4.1 is deleted. 

Section I— MAKER IDENTIFIER 

The use of the first three characters of the VIN 
to uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and 
type (previously designated "class") of the motor 
vehicle if the manufacturer produces 500 or more 



vehicles of its class annually is retained as pro- 
posed. The use of the first three characters of the 
VIN and the first three characters of the segment 
of the VIN which indicates the production se- 
quence of the vehicle to identify manufacturers 
of less than 500 vehicles in a class annually is 
also retained. 

The AAMVA comment in relation to the maker 
identifier requirement was that motor vehicle 
administrators register vehicles by make, never 
by manufacturer. Consequently, the requirement 
was said to be "totally redundant." Foreign 
manufacturers, on the other hand, point out that 
a make classification is essentially a United States 
phenomenon, and is therefore not important. 
However, under the NHTSA proposal neither 
manufacturer nor make is directly represented in 
the identifier. If State motor vehicle adminis- 
trator are concerned only with a vehicle make, 
they need only program their data processing 
equipment to derive the make from the three- 
character identifier code. If foreign manufactur- 
ers do not utilize the make designation, tlien they 
need only advise the NHTSA of this fact when 
they submit information to the agency relating 
to the meaning of their identifier. 

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
j)ointed out its work in the area of manufacturer 
identification and volunteered to be tlie repository 
and assignor of maker identifiers. The NHTSA 
nmst accept, of course, the ultimate responsibility 
concerning maker identifiers. The standard pro- 
vides, however, that an agent of a manufacturer 
can submit the maker identifier. The NHTSA 
would welcome the SAE carrying out these re- 
sponsibilities as the agent of manufacturers, thus 
avoiding the potential confusion and initial 
duplication forecasted by many comments. 

Sectian II— VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES 

Section II of the VIN, relating to vehicle at- 
tributes, caused the most confusion among those 
commenting. The AAMVA and VESC strongly 
opposed the NHTSA veliicle attributes section 
proposal, although the differences between the 
VESC-AAMVA system and the NHTSA system 
were minimal. 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 9 



Effective: January 1, 1980 

September 1, 1980 



Under the VESC system, there would be five 
characters in the vehicle attribute section. The 
first four characters would be a "code word" 
from which a vehicle's line, series, and body type 
could be deciphered and the fifth would be a 
second "code word" decipherable into the engine 
type. Under the XHTSA proposal, the vehicle 
attribute section would have consisted of six 
characters representing a "code word" from which 
the information required by the VESC as well as 
additional information the NHTSA believed was 
important could be deciphered. Thus, the differ- 
ence between the VESC and NHTSA resolved 
itself into the amount of information contained 
and the use of two code words versus one code 
word. 

While many commenters recommended the use 
of the VESC system because of its fixed-length, 
fixed-field format, in the second section, both 
systems were of a fixed length and, except for 
a specific position to represent engine type, both 
had the same degree of a fixed field. 

After a review of the comments, the NHTSA 
has determined that all of the infonnation pro- 
posed to be required is not necessary at this time 
as discussed below. Consequently, only five char- 
acters are needed in the vehicle attributes section 
to allow for an adequate number of code words to 
represent the required information. Because of 
this change the designation of tlie plant of manu- 
facture has been moved to the third section as is 
discussed below. Further, the sixth character of 
this section has been replaced by the check digit 
as is also discussed below. 

It would be useful at this time to review the 
NHTSA requirements for the vehicle attribute 
section promulgated in this notice as compared 
with the VESC-AAMVA and ISO systems. 

A typical NHTSA vehicle attribute section for 
a passenger car would appear as follows: 
RX6302 

The first five characters would be a code word 
from which is deciphered the line, series, body 
type, engine type, weight class, and restraint type. 
The sixth character would be the check digit. It 
should be noted that the check digit need not be 
stored in a computer memory bank, as it can be 
regenerated during printout. 



A typical VESC-AAMVA vehicle attribute 
section for a passenger car would appear as fol- 
lows: EX63D 

The first four characters would be a code word 
from which is deciphered the line, series and 
body type. The fifth character would be a code 
word decipherable into the engine type. 

A typical ISO vehicle attribute section for a 
passenger car would appear as follows : RX63D2 

All six characters would be decipherable into a 
series of discretionary vehicle attributes. 

InfonmMional Requirements 

Many commenters indicated that they believed 
much of the information required by the agency 
to be decipherable from the vehicle attribute sec- 
tion was not necessary. After a review of the 
comments, the NHTSA has determined to require 
for passenger cars only that information required 
by the VESC-AAMVA system and information 
relating to weight class and occupant restraint 
type. Information requirements for the other 
type of vehicles are also reduced. 

Several comments pointed out that only the 
final stage manufacturer would be able to assign 
the VIN as the vehicle's characteristics would not 
be known until that time. The comments also 
pointed out this raised a problem when a defect 
campaign was required of a first and second stage 
manufacturer. To ease this problem, the NHTSA 
has concluded that the identity of any previous 
manufacturers should be decipherable from the 
vehicle attribute section. This procedure has 
been developed by the Society of Automotive 
Engineers for their recommended practice for 
motor home vehicle identification numbers. The 
agency also assumes that manufacturers will keep 
sufficient records pursuant to their responsibilities 
under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act to trace incompleted vehicles sold to 
final stage manufacturers. 

Because of the flexibility afforded by the five- 
character vehicle attribute section, further infor- 
mation could be required in the future without 
any change in the VIN format as established by 
this rule. 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 10 



EfFeclive: January 1, 1980 

September 1, 1980 



Section III— VEHICLE IDENTIFIER 

Model Year 

The \PRM proposed tliat either a vehicle's 
model year or the calendar year of manufacture 
be encoded in the first character of the vehicle 
identifier section. Many comments suggested this 
would be confusing, and that only model year 
sliould be encoded as this is the most representa- 
tive category. The NHTSA concurs in this view, 
and S4.5.3.1 is amended accordingly. A\niile one 
comment suggested including a direct two-digit 
code representing the last two numbers of the 
year, the NHTSA concludes that there is not 
sufficient space in the VIX to include two char- 
acters as a year identifier. 

Plant of Manufacture 

Numerous comments were made relating to 
what was perceived as optional identification of 
the plant of manufacture in the \HTSA pro- 
posal. As the proposal stated, however, the plant 
of manufacture was required to be identifiable 
either directly from the last character of the ve- 
hicle attribute section or indirectly from the 
entire VIN. At no time was the inclusion of the 
plant of manufacture made optional. 

After reviewing the comments to the docket 
fiom the manufacturers, however, the XHTSA 
has concluded that the added flexibility of allow- 
ing the plant to be derived from the entire VIX 
rather than a specific character is not necessary, 
and tliat the more traditional approach as em- 
bodied in the VESC-AAMVA and the ISO sys- 
tems should be established. Consequently, plant 
of manufacture is not required to be designated 
in the second character of the third section (ve- 
hicle attribute section). 

Production Sequence Xumber 

The NPRM proposed that the last six char- 
acters represent the sequential number of a ve- 
hicle when the manufacturer produced more than 
500 vehicles annually of that type. The Truck 
Trailer Manufacturers Association stated that 
some of their members might desire to keep secret 
for competitive purposes the nvnnber of vehicles 
they produce annually. Since a manufacturer 
may begin his sequence at any number, however, 



so long as the order thereafter is maintained in 
sequence, the actual number of vehicles produced 
can be kept secret. 

A number of comments pointed out that for 
various reasons a vehicle might be taken from a 
pi'oduction line, thereby having an actual sequen- 
tial number which differs from the production 
sequence number originally assigned by the manu- 
facturer. The proposal is amended to indicate 
that the production sequence number is required. 
Other comments questioned how the system could 
deal with manufacturers who produced less than 
500 vehicles in a class one year and more than 500 
in the next. It should be noted that occasional 
overruns can be accommodated up to a total of 
999 vehicles annually without the assignment of a 
different manufacturer identifier. 

Check Digit 

The requirement for a check digit is retained 
as proposed, but the check digit itself is reposi- 
tioned witiiin the VIX. Many commenters stated 
tiiat the system proposed by the VESC-AAMVA, 
utilizing a computer "edit routine" as well, desig- 
nating many characters as either alpha or nu- 
meric, woidd be more efficient in reducing errors. 

Both the check digit and the edit routine pro- 
cedures are designed to reduce errors. The edit 
routine process analyzes the VIN in two areas. 
First, it considers the basic format utilized by a 
manufacturer, thereby di.scovering format errors. 
Secondl}-, it considers whether characters which 
should be either alpha or numeric meet these re- 
quirements. Thus, the edit routine can pinpoint 
with some accuracy where certain errors occur in 
a VIX. 

The check digit routine, however, is able to 
discover errors missed by the edit routine process, 
such as mistaken characters of the same type 
(alpha or numeric). The check digit when used 
in conjunction with an edit routine can find a 
greater proportion of errors than can be found 
using the basic edit routine proposed by some 
commenters. Further, the check digit, unlike the 
edit routine which needs substantial data process- 
ing capability to be utilized, can be utilized by 
policemen or clerks equipped with an inexpensive 
hand-held calculator. 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 11 



Effective: January 1, 1980 

September 1, 1980 



As a practical matter, the XHTSA expects that 
many users of VIXs will utilize a combination of 
the two routines to minimize VIN error. Thus, 
the format of a VIX will be checked against that 
expected for a particular manufacturer and the 
check digit will be utilized to ensure that VIXs 
which are properly formatted also contain the 
proper alpha and numeric characters. 

Given the fact that both approaches would re- 
duce the error rate, the XHTSA concluded that 
it would utilize the check digit since its use did 
not limit the flexibility of the system. The fixed 
format proposed by VESC-AAMVA did provide 
information they sought. However, other users 
of the VIX, notably the manufactui'ers and the 
research community, were not provided the flexi- 
bility to make use of the potential capacity in the 
VIX to provide additional information. 

Several of the commenters, particularly those 
from the insurance industry, raised the questions 
of whether the check digit would be utilized by 
all users and the inability to determine the cor- 
rectness of the VIX if the check digit was not 
used. "While the authority of the XHTSA ex- 
tends only to motor vehicle manufacturers, the 
agency fully expects all users interested in main- 
taining the integrity of their records to utilize 
the VIN with the check digit. 

Some commenters also stated their fear that 
when the VIX was reported from the field, some 
observers might neglect to include the check digit. 
Consequently, the check digit has been reposi- 
tioned from the end of the VIX to the end of the 
second section to make it an integral part of the 
VIN. 

Several commenters questioned the need for the 
check digit, pointing to the experience of the 
State of North Carolina in reducing its VIX 
transcription error rate to less than 1 per cent 
without the benefit of either a check digit or 
alpha/numeric designation i-equirements. The 



XHTSA would seriously consider any petitions 
for reconsideration which clearly demonstrate 
that neither a check digit nor alpha/numeric des- 
ignation requirements is necessary to substantially 
reduce error in transcribing the VIX. 

Reporting Requirements 

Some commenters questioned the XHTSA pro- 
posal in that it allows manufacturers to displaj' 
information in a unique format and to change 
that format within 60 days notice to XHTSA. 
They felt this would create confusion and the 
added expense of continual reprogramming. 

However, it should be noted that the VESC- 
AAMVA system also allows manufacturers that 
same right, i.e., the right to change the code 
wliich represents various informational elements, 
but makes no provision for advance warning. 
Indeed, the VESC-AAMVA system is silent as to 
how the users of the VIX will be informed of the 
meaning of the characters adopted by manufac- 
turers. Consequently, no change is made to the 
reporting requirements as proposed by the agency. 
It should be noted that the XHTSA does not 
anticipate that manufacturers will have any need 
to change cotles within model years. 

The principal authors of this notice are Xelson 
Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Crash Avoidance Division, and Frederic 
Schwartz, Jr., of the Office of Chief Counsel. 

In consideration of the foi'egoing, Standard 
Xo. 115, 49 CFR 571.115 is amended. . . . 

(Sec. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C, 1392, 1401, 1407); delegation of au- 
thority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on August 11, 1978. 

Joan Claybrook 

Administrator 

43 F.R. 36448-36452 

August 17, 1978 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 12 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 



Vehicle Identification Number 
(Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8) 



Action: Final rule and response to petitions for 
reconsideration. 

Suwma.ry : This notice amends Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle iden- 
tification numher. It establishes a fixed format 
for vehicle identification numbers (VINs) as- 
signed to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 pounds or less and trucks with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. 
This amendment is made to me«t the needs of 
State motor vehicle administrators, insurance 
companies and other users who desire a means 
of discovering certain type^s of transcription er- 
rors in VINs at the earliest possible stage. To 
facilitate manufacturer compliance with this 
amendment, the requirement that gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) be decipherable from 
the VIN of passenger cars is deleted. 

The notice also positions the check digit, a 
means for detecting errors in the VIN, imme- 
diately following the eighth character of the 
VIN. This amendment is made to facilitate 
manufacturers encoding the VIN. 

The date of September 1, 1980, for compliance 
with the standard is retained but specific authori- 
zation of an earlier optional compliance date is 
deleted. 

The requirement that the three sections of the 
VIN be separated by spaces is also deleted in the 
interest of lessening the cost burden to manufac- 
turers and promoting international hannoniza- 
tion. The requirement that VIN characters have 
a minimum height of 4 mm is limited to the VIN 
displayed in the vehicle passenger compartment, 
as only that VIN needs to be read from a 
distance. 



In response to petitions, the responsibility of 
assigning the VIN to motor homes is shifted 
from the final stage manufacturer to the incom- 
plete vehicle manufacturer. 

The standard is also amended to simplify 
GV^VR encodement requirements for vehicles. 
Petitions to delete the requirement that engine 
type and net brake horsepower be encoded in the 
VIN of certain vehicles are denied, but petitions 
are granted to delete engine make and model 
from the information required for vehicles with 
a GVWR of over 10,000 pounds. 

Effective date : September 1, 1980. 

For further information contact : 

Frederic Schwartz, Jr., Office of the Chief 
Counsel. National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202^26-1834). 

Supplementary information : 

On November 9, 1978, the National Highway 
Trafiic Safety Administration published in the 
Federal Register two notices relating to Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle 
identification number (49 CFR 571.115). These 
notices, which were issued in response to petitions 
for reconsideration, amended the standard (43 
FR 52246) and proposed additional amendments 
to the standard (43 FR 52268). Several petitions 
for reconsideration of the amended standard were 
received, as were a number of comments concern- 
ing the proposal. 

The establishment of an acceptable VIN stand- 
ard has been a long and arduous process. As 
was pointed out in the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking published in the Federal Register on 
September 9, 1976 (41 FR 38189), NHTSA activ- 
ity in this area was preceded by the development 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 13 



of a number of competing, incompatible VIN 
schemes. The two major VIN schemes were that 
of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission 
(VESC) (supported by the American Associa- 
tion of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the 
States) and that of the International Standards 
Organization (ISO) (supported by the European 
Economic Community and most domestic and 
foreign vehicle manufacturers). These schemes 
were the ones on which the NHTSA focused as a 
starting point in its effort to establish a standard 
that would meet the need for motor vehicle safety 
and serve the needs of all VIN users. As the 
rulemaking progressed (43 FR 2189, 43 FR 
36448, 43 FR 52246, 43 FR 52268), both the ISO 
and VESC schemes came closer together. How- 
ever, both schemes remain incompatible in a 
number of respects. 

The uses and users of the VIN have been dis- 
cussed in detail in previous notices. In summary, 
the VIN is used as the key vehicle identifier by 
motor vehicle administrators, manufacturers, in- 
surance companies, law enforcement agencies, and 
the NHTSA. It is the cornerstone of the safety 
defect and standard noncompliance recall pro- 
gram, and an important element in manufacturer 
quality control and in vehicle theft recovery. Its 
use as an information tool in the analysis of 
accident reports is of great importance to safety 
research and rulemaking. 

The NHTSA standard adopts the most efficient 
and effective aspects of both the VESC and ISO 
standards, while broadening those standards' in- 
formation function to include matters of specific 
importance to this agency's safety responsibility. 
Further, the NHTSA standard includes features 
which result in more data storage accuracy than 
is possible under the VESC standard, while re- 
maining harmonious with the ISO scheme now 
adopted by the European Economic Community. 

Engine Type Information 

Several manufacturers petitioned to remove the 
requirement that engine net brake horsepower be 
decipherable from the second section of the VIN. 
The basis for this request was that the definition 
of "Engine Type" includes net brake horsepower 
among the characteristics to be considered in 
differentiating one engine type from another. 



These petitions are denied. While net brake 
horsepower is among the characteristics to be 
considered in establishing an engine type, there 
is no requirement that it be encoded in the engine 
type code. In some instances, such as with heavy 
truck engines, encodement would not be prac- 
ticable. However, if net brake horsepower is. 
actually decipherable from the engine type, then 
the requirement that it be decipherable from the 
second section of the VIN is met and it need not 
be encoded a second time. 

Several petitioners requested a clarification of 
the meaning of "make and model" in relation to 
engine type and a definition of "net brake horse- 
power." International Harvester (IH) also pe- 
titioned to eliminate engine make and model 
information encoding requirements for trucks 
sine* they \itilize more makes and models than 
can be represented by one position in the VIN. 
Further, IH stated that in its view this informa- 
tion has no safety relationship. 

To clarify the recjuirements for "make and 
model" information, the phrase "manufacturer 
and make" is substituted in the definition of en- 
gine type. The term "manufacturer" has its cur- 
rent meaning within Part 571, and the term 
"make" as defined in S3 is expanded to include 
engines. Thus, engine "make" is defined as the 
name which the manufacturer applies to a group 
of engines (e.g.. General Motors Oldsmobile 
engine). 

The specific reference to engine make and 
model was added to the definition of engine type 
at the request of the States. They were concerned 
primarily about the problem of engine switching 
between the divisions of passenger car manufac- 
turers. The NHTSA is also concerned that tliis 
information be available to ensure the accuracy 
of its safety and fuel efficiency research, since the 
performance of two different engines classified as 
the same "type" may differ. The NHTSA con- 
cludes it can resolve these concerns while not 
placing an unnecessary burden on truck and other 
heavy duty vehicle manufacturers where engines 
are used interchangeably. Therefore, the require- 
ment that engine make and model be reflected in 
the VIN is amended to require only that engine 
manufacturer and make be reflected for passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 14 



GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, and trucks with 
a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. It is in these 
categories of vehicles that engine types are stand- 
ardized and consumers are less knowledgeable 
about the specifications of the vehicles they 
purchase. 

Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. also asked 
the agency to define the term "net brake horse- 
power" and to indicate whether SAE Standard 
J245 was the intended meaning. Because several 
definitions of net brake horsepower exist, the 
agency has concluded not to specify the precise 
definition to be used, thereby allowing manufac- 
turers to continue using their current method of 
evaluating the net brake horsepower of tiieir ve- 
hicles. In submitting the net brake horsepower 
of these vehicles, however, manufacturers should 
submit the definition of the term they are 
utilizing. 

VIN Legibility 

In the final rule published on August 17. 1978 
(43 FR 36448), S4.5 provided that the three sec- 
tions of the VIN should be grouped, i.e., appear 
as a full section without being split, but inad- 
vertently omitted the provision that had been 
proposed for requiring spacing between the sec- 
tions. This omission was corrected in the 
amendment to the nile published on November 9. 
1978 (43 FR 52246), which specified that the 
space between sections shall be twice that of the 
space between characters. 

A number of manufacturers petitioned for re- 
consideration of this provision, claiming lack of 
notice for it. These manufacturers indicated 
what they considered to be serious lead time 
problems and substantial cost increases if the 
spacing requirement was not deleted. They also 
cited section 5.7 of ISO 3779, whicli provides that 
spaces should not appear in the VIN, although a 
symbol or character may be used between sec- 
tions. While the agency still believes that sepa- 
rating the three sections of the VIN would 
improve the accuracy of its transcription, the 
added cost burden to the manufacturer and the 
interests of international harmonization argue in 
favor of deleting the spacing requirement. The 
requirement is thei-efore eliminated. The agency 
points out, however, that the legibility of the 



VIN is of concern and will be carefully reviewed 
after the standard takes effect. 

Ford Motor Co. points out that S4.3.1 requires 
that all characters in the VIN must have a mini- 
mum height of 4 mm regardless of where the 
VIN appears on a vehicle. The intent of the 
agency, as Ford correctly perceives, was to limit 
the requirement to the VIN as it appears in the 
passenger compartment, since only in that loca- 
tion need the characters be read from a distance. 
The standard is amended to make this limitation 
clear. 

Incomplete Vehicle Attributes 
Table I in the standard categorizes vehicles by 
type and specifies the vehicle attributes that must 
be decipherable from the VIN for each type. In 
the amended standard published on November 9, 
1978, the agency added a type designated "incom- 
plete vehicle." The attributes required to be de- 
cipherable from the VIN for this type were those 
attributes common to both trucks and buses. This 
type was established because incomplete vehicles 
often may be completed as either a truck or a bus, 
and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would 
have little way of knowing the final configura- 
tion. 

American Motors Co. petitioned the agency to 
delete the requirements for incomplete vehicles 
and require instead that the second section of the 
VIN of incomplete vehicles reflect those attributes 
wliich the incomplete vehicle manufacturer an- 
ticipates the vehicle will have when completed. 
As this would place a more onerous burden on 
the manufacturers by requiring additional infor- 
mation to be encoded than the current require- 
ment, as well as call for considerably more 
prescience than the manufacturers have suggested 
they usually possess, the petition is denied. 

In this regard, it should be noted that the 
language of S4.5.2 and the "incomplete vehicle" 
type category in Table I contained in the amend- 
ment to the rule published November 9, 1978, 
were inadvertently omitted from the notice of 
proposed rulemaking issued the same day. The 
amended rule issued today corrects that error. 
The definition of the term "type" is also amended 
to include "incomplete vehicle" as a separate type. 
Assignment of the VIN to Motor Homes 
Manufactured in More Than One Stage 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 15 



The amendment published on November 9, 
1978, provided that in the case of vehicles other 
than motor homes, manufactured in more than 
one stage, the VIN would be assigned by the in- 
complete vehicle manufacturer. In the case of 
motor homes, the final stage manufacturer would 
make the assignment. The rationale of the agency 
for requiring the final stage manufacturer of 
motor homes to assign the VIN rested on two 
grounds. First, the comments to tiie docket sub- 
mitted by the Recreational Vehicle Industry 
Association (RVIA) in response to the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (Docket entrj' 1-22-N04- 
048) appeared to support motor home manufac- 
turers assigning the VIN for their vehicles, and 
the RVIA did not petition to change the require- 
ment after the publication of the final rule on 
August 17, 1978. Secondly, a number of States 
and State organizations pointed out the law en- 
forcement problems inherent in identifying a 
vehicle whose outward appearance was, for 
example, a Winnebago while the manufacturer 
identifier indicated the vehicle was a Ford. 

In response to the November response to peti- 
tions, petitions for reconsideration were received 
from the RVIA, jointly from the VESC and the 
AAMVA (VESC/AAMVA) and from the State 
of Maryland. The RVIA, in its petition, ap- 
pears to have reversed its previous position, and 
cites a number of practical and economic reasons 
why the incomplete vehicle manufacturer should 
assign the VIN to motor homes. These include 
the need for uniform VIN assignment by the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturer, unavailability 
to the final stage motor home manufacturer of 
necessary data concerning the incomplete vehicle, 
the need of incomplete vehicle manufacturers to 
carry out recall campaigns, and the economic 
burden on lower volume motor home manufac- 
turers. The VESC/AAMVA and State of 
Maryland in their petitions appear to believe that 
law enforcement officers will be able to identify 
motor homes by the manufacturers of their 
underlying chassis. Further, it appears that the 
States adopted a procedure on September 14, 
1978, by which the final stage motor home manu- 
facturers would add an additional three character 
identifier to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's 
VIN. The States would then add that identifier 
to their VIN files. 



It is not clear to the agency how the States can 
include this additional information in their data 
storage systems based on their stated capacity in 
other comments to the dockets. Nonetheless, the 
exception to the rule in the case of motor homes 
was created in response to the initial comments 
of the manufacturers and the States. They now 
conclude such a provision will be a hindrance. 
For that reason and because either the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer or the final stage manufac- 
turer is capable of providing a VIN, the agency 
believes it appropriate to remove the exception. 
Therefore, sections S2, S3, and S4 are amended 
accordingly. 

Mack Truck also petitioned to eliminate re- 
quirements for encoding those truck attributes 
which can be easily altered by purchasers. 'While 
it is true that several of the attributes required 
might occasionally be subsequently altered, such 
as altering gross vehicle weight rating by chang- 
ing tires, the agency concludes that this informa- 
tion is still important as a basic classifier of 
vehicle type for safety research and should be 
required. In most instances, the agency believes 
this information will not become invalid. 

Check Digit Highlighting 
The November 1978 notice of proposed rule- 
making requested comments on the effectiveness 
and advisability of highlighting the check digit 
as an aid in locating it on the VIN plate. All 
commenters, whether manufacturer or VIN user, 
recommended that the check digit not be high- 
lighted. The comments suggested that highlight- 
ing the check digit would increase cost to 
manufacturers and confusion among users with- 
out comparable advantages in check digit recog- 
nition. Consequently, the NHTSA has concluded 
that the check digit is sufficiently recognizable 
by its physical position in the VIN without being 
further highlighted. 

Weight Increments For Vehicles With a Gross 

Vehicle Weight Rating Greater Than 

10,000 Pounds 

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued 

November 9, 1978, the Administration proposed 

that the weight rating data for vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 

pounds be delineated in 5,000 pound increments. 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 16 



The Freightliner Corporation supported the 
amendment, stating that gross vehicle weight 
rating was an important statistical consideration. 
The Motor Veliicle Manufacturers Association 
and General Motors recommended that the 
GVIVR not be required for vehicles with a 
GVAVR over 10,000 pounds, as this infonnation 
is contained on the certification label. The 
MVMA also questioned why this information is 
required for trucks with a GVWR of less than 
10,000 pounds, but not for passenger cars. Ford 
Motor Co. commented similarly. 

International Harvester (IH) also opposed the 
amendment because it would restrict IH"s current 
VIN scheme and because the GVWR of incom- 
plete vehicles is easily modified. Freightliner 
reached the opposite conclusion in its comment, 
stating that it is not economically feasible for 
drastic changes to be made in GVWR after ini- 
tial manufacture. Paccar, Inc. did not oppose 
the proposal, but recommended instead that the 
classification system currently teing used in the 
industry, which consists of eight weight rating 
classifications, be substituted. In this way, 
Paccar argues, G\^VR information would be 
more relevant to manufacturers and easier for 
the manufacturer to encode. 

As the agency pointed out in previous notices, 
highway safety research can be carried out utiliz- 
ing the VIN appearing on accident reports even 
though the vehicle itself is not available. Conse- 
quently, the appearance of the GVWR on a ve- 
hicle's certification label is not a substitute for 
encoding the GVWR in the VIN. While GVWR 
does not indicate the actual load lx>ing carried 
by the vehicle, it is extremely useful in classify- 
ing the vehicle itself, particularly its size. After 
reviewing the comments received on this proposal, 
the agency has concluded GVWR information 
for trucks should be retained, since it facilitates 
analyzing differences in performance and acci- 
dent experience of different size vehicles. 

The agency is also persuaded by the argument 
of Paccar that institutionalizing the weight rat- 
ing classification system currently being used in 
the industry would be equally useful and consid- 
erably less disruptive. For example, certain ve- 
hicle models fall within one weight rating class 
although they may fall within two G\^VR cate- 



gories utilizing the proposed system. The stand- 
ard is, therefore, amended accordingly. 

The requirement that G^^VR he supplied for 
passenger cars was deleted because there were not 
enough codes to include that information in a 
fixed format system along with the other pas- 
senger car information considered more impor- 
tant by the agency. Information relating to the 
G^^1VR for light trucks was considered more 
important, as it represents not only a way of 
identifying and monitoring the vans and light 
trucks which are bex-oming an important element 
of the vehicle population as distinguished from 
heavy trucks, but also the weight makeup of that 
class. The NHTSA denies, therefore, petitions 
to eliminate the requirement for encoding the 
GVWR of trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a G^^^R of 10,000 pounds or less. 
However, to take account of the fact that there 
are fewer models of light trucks and to ease the 
burden on manufacturers, the number of G\1VR 
weight categories is reduced to eight for ve- 
hicles with a G^'V^^l of lO.OOO pounds or less. 

Also with respect to light trucks, the agency 
wishes to note that while it has not included a 
requirement that restraint type information be 
supplied for light trucks, it does intend to pro- 
pose this requirement when it proposes passive 
restraint systems for those vehicles. 

VIN Fixed Format 
In the notice of proposed rulemaking published 
on November 9, 1978, the agency proposed fur- 
ther fixing the VIN format by specifying the 
alphabetic or numeric nature of the 4th, .5th, 6th, 
7th, 11th, and 12th characters of the VIN for 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, and 
trucks with a GV^\Tl of 10.000 pounds or less. 
In making the proposal, the agency explored in 
detail the advantages and disadvantages of fixing 
the format. In summary, fixing the format will 
allow some types of VIN errors to be corrected 
when initially transcribed by clerks and others 
who can quickly become familiar with the estab- 
lished format. In addition, forms on which the 
VIN is transcribed can be designed to indicate 
whether a character should be alphabetic or 
numeric. However, fixing the VIN format will 
not eliminate the need for the check digit, will 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 17 



lead to a reduction in the information-carrj-ing 
capacity of the VIN, and will result in alterations 
to the VIN schemes which manufacturers now 
utilize. 

Comments in response to the notice confinned 
the NHTSA analysis of the matter. Specifically 
States supported the conclusions about the effect 
of expanding the fixed format on transcription 
error rate and the manufacturere supported the 
conclusions about the effect of the expansion on 
the information capacity of the VIN. Manufac- 
turers commenting on the proposal were unani- 
mous in their opposition. Chrysler predicted 
more costly and complex decoding. Toyo Kogyo 
concluded that a fixed format would end any 
hopes of continuing tlieir system of specific in- 
formation being encoded in specific positions. 
Volkswagen pointed to a major disniption in 
their current system, and questioned why further 
fixing the format was necessary as German clerks 
have achieved an error rate of approximately 1 
percent without the format fixing. 

Similar objections to those cited above were 
made by other manufacturers commenting. 

In addition, Rolls-Royce Motors requested that 
if a format is to be fixed, all characters should 
be specified as alphabetic. In this way, Rolls- 
Royce, as a low volume manufacturer, could re- 
flect changes in a vehicle without also having to 
change the actual model code. British Leyland 
Motors, Inc. also requested that the first four 
characters of the second section be alphabetic to 
provide for additional informational capacity. 
Toyota proposed that the fourth as well as the 
fifth characters of the second section not be fixed 
for the same reason. 

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. 
Ford Motor Co., and International Harvester 
specifically objected to specifying for cars, light 
trucks, and light multipurpose vehicles that the 
3rd character of the 3rd section (i.e., the 11th 
character of the VIN) of the VIN must be nu- 
meric. Their objections were based on the re- 
sulting substantial reduction in the number of 
unique manufacturer identifiers for manufactur- 
er producing less than .500 vehicles per year 
which would be available in the third section. 
Also, several truck manufacturers pointed out 
that they utilized the 11th character of the VIN 



to represent the assembly line on which the tiiick 
was produced, and that they maintained more 
assembly lines than the number of numerical 
characters available. 

The VESC/AAMVA, the States, and the insur- 
ance industry all supported the fixed format 
scheme, pointing to an anticipated lessening in 
the number of transcription errors as described 
by the agency in the NPRM. 

The petitions requesting a flexible format or 
changes in the character specifications are denied 
except for those requesting that the 3rd character 
of the 3rd section be permitted to be either alpha- 
betic oi- numeric. The agency recognizes that the 
use of a fixed format will result in a substantial 
reduction in the information carrying capacity 
of the VIN. However, the avoidance of tran- 
scription error remains the paramount concern. 
Nothing in the docket suggests that the adminis- 
tration was incorrect in its assumption that 
transcription errors will he reduced by the use of 
the fixed format system. 

Fixing the fonnat of the 3rd character of the 
3rd section presents a more difficult choice. On 
one hand, fixing the format of this character as 
numeric will identify an error if an alphabetic 
character is substituted. However, since the pre- 
ceding character is not specified as either nu- 
meric or alphabetic and the character following 
it is numeric, the opportunity to identify trans- 
positions of these characters is limited. On the 
other hand, it seems possible that the numlier of 
manufacturers producing less than .500 passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks 
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less a year 
over the next 30 years will exceed the capacity 
of the VIN with the third character of the third 
section fixed. This is particularly true as the 
recreational use of these vehicles increases. 

Further, the ability to locate the assembly line 
on which a defective vehicle is manufactured will 
have an important safety benefit. In cases in- 
volving manufacturing defects, this information 
will enable a determination of which of similar 
vehicles produced on different assembly lines need 
to be recalled. Consequently, the agency has de- 
termined not to adopt the proposed requirement 
that the 3rd character of the 3rd section of the 
VIN be numeric. In this way, a sufficient number 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 18 



of manufacturer identifiers can be assured with 
the least disruption to the existing system used 
to identify trucks. 

The VESC/AAMVA and several other com- 
menters suggested that the NHTSA VIN system 
could be further improved by fixing the specific 
information required to be decoded from each 
position of the second section of the VIN. These 
petitions are denied. Fixing the information 
contained in each position of the second section 
of the VIX would have no effect on the accuracy 
of transcription of the VIN, since clerks and 
others could not easily memorize the myriad of 
characters manufacturers use to represent data 
contained in these positions. Wliile the informa- 
tion contained in the second section would be 
more easily decipherable by those using a table 
if each position were specified, the amount of 
information which could be represented wouhl 
be substantially decreased an<l the disruption to 
manufacturers substantially increased. 

These problems were resolved by the VESC. 
after discussions with the manufacturere, by 
specifying the content of only one character of 
the second section in establishing the VESC VIN. 
With the NHTSA requirement for encodement 
of additional information beyond that required 
by tlie VESC, the agencj' concludes that specify- 
ing the informational content of each character 
in the second section is not practicable. 

Although discussed comprehensively in pre- 
vious notices, it should be noted again that the 
adoption of a fixed format only eliminates a 
particular class of VIN errors and in no way 
eliminates the need for the check digit. AVhile 
the fixed format is able to identify those errors 
which result in an alphabetic character being 
substituted for a numeric character or vice versa, 
the check digit process will detect most erroneous 
characters regardless of type. Because vehicle 
owners are notified of recalls through their ve- 
hicle's VIN, it is essential that this infonuation 
be retained in the most accurate fashion possible. 

Check Digit Position 
In the notice of proposed nilemaking issued 
on November 9, 1978, the agency proposed posi- 
tioning the check digit immediately preceding 
the fourth position of the VIN in the interest of 
international harmonization and manufacturer 



ease of compliance. As the agency pointed out 
in the notice, the second section of the VIN sys- 
tem adopted by the ISO contains 6 characters. 
By having the check digit immediately precede 
or follow the second section, the five chai-acters 
of the second section plus the check digit become 
the 6 characters necessary to assure compatibility 
with the ISO standard. If the check digit is 
positioned at either end of the VIN, the second 
section contains only o characters and the VIN 
is incompatible with the ISO system. However, 
specific comments were also requested concerning 
the advantages of placing the check digit at 
either end of the VIN. 

Several States and the VESC/AAMVA sub- 
mitted comments which supported placing the 
check digit at the beginning of the VIN. 

In its comments, Maryland did not object to 
the check digit. It felt that the combination of 
fixed length, impi'oved format, and the check 
digit routine will rcckice transcription errors and 
provide an edit routine to ensure file integrity. 
However, Maryland also anticipated that some 
States would not be able to store a 16 character 
VIN. (For the purposes of comparison, it bears 
emphasis that the NHTSA VIN has 16 characters 
plus a check digit, the VESC VIN has 16 char- 
acters, and the ISO VIN has 17 characters.) 
These states would, in Maryland's view, eliminate 
prior to computer storage the check digit and 
perhaps a second character after producing a 
certificate of title. If the certificate of title were 
subsequently lost, there would be no record in the 
State files of a complete VIN, and the owner 
would have a great deal of trouble when trans- 
ferring title to the vehicle. 

In a similar situation, Maryland believes some 
States will choose to eliminate the check digit and 
a character of the VIN prior to producing the 
certificate of title, thereby creating a defective 
title which another State could refuse to honor. 
Indeed, Maryland considers this problem so se- 
rious that it believes a unifomi system of drop- 
ping characters from the VIN is a certainty if 
additional Federal funds are not available to pay 
for additional State VIN storage capacity. 

From this state of affairs, Maryland concludes 
that placing the check digit to the left or right 
of the VIN would encourage the check digit to 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 19 



be dropped in the inevitable uniform system of 
dropping YIN characters. 

The NHTSA does not concur in this analysis. 
Since the States have supported in their com- 
ments to the docket the 16 character VESC VIX. 
the agency assumes they are willing to store this 
number of characters and that they would have 
developed the capacity necessary for that purpose 
even in the absence of the XHTSA VIX. If a 
State desires to drop the check digit, rather than 
store it, the State can do so irrespective of its 
position in the VIX either by appropriate data 
processing techniques or by simple and proper 
design of the forms on which the VIX is tran- 
scribed. 

As Maryland points out in its comment, and as 
the agency has pointed out in previous notices, 
the XHTSA does not regulate the States in re- 
gard to the VIX. Thus, the XHTSA cannot 
require the State to store or use the check digit. 
The agency is confident, however, that States will 
seek to facilitate their citizens being made aware 
of potential safety defects and noncompliances 
in their vehicles and to simply their task in trans- 
ferring their vehicles. Consequently, the agency 
believes they will utilize the simple data process- 
ing procedure for eliminating the check digit if 
they chose not to store it. The State comments 
to the docket would indicate, however, that all 
six are planning to store the 16 character VIX 
and the check digit. 

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission 
and the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators (VESC/AAMVA) also re- 
sponded jointly on December 11, 1978 to the no- 
tice of proposed rulemaking. In addition, certain 
aspects of their submission were supplemented 
by the VESC on December 29. 1978, as the result 
of NHTSA questions about the basis for their 
submission, and this supplement has also been 
placed in the docket (01-22-XPRM-Xo. 7-41). 

The VESC/AAMVA comment of Decemlxr 11. 
1978, maintained that from 35-37 States are cur- 
rently incapable of "inputting" 17 character 
into their vehicle identification files. In its sup- 
plementary docket submissions, the VESC stated 
that it was unable at that time to submit a list 
identify those States which could not input 17 
characters. The VESC also explained that while 



in most instances State capability could be ex- 
panded by reprogramming and the purchase of 
additional equipment, this would be vei-y expen- 
sive. 

Like Maryland, the VESC/AAMVA concluded 
that those States which are unable to currently 
input 17 characters for lack of equipment and 
appropriate programming will choose to drop at 
a minimum the check digit. This will create, in 
the view of the VESC/AAMVA. lack of uni- 
formity, confusion, and a regenerated check digit 
based on the State's computation which will differ 
from the manufacturer-assigned cheeck digit. 
To place the' check digit anywhere but the be- 
ginning or the end of the VIX", in the view of 
the VESC/AAMVA, would create "unacceptable 
data handling and data regeneration problems." 
Therefore, the VESC/AAMVA concluded that 
the check digit must be dropped entirely or 
moved to the left of the VIN. 

In its supplement, the VESC/AAMVA ex- 
plained that the data handling problems referred 
to were "incorrect inputs" into the computer be- 
cause State personnel would drop by mistake a 
character which was not the check digit while 
transmitting the VIN. Further, problems would 
occur due to the inconsistency between States 
which have a 16 character VIX capacity and 
States which have a 17 character VIX capacity. 

The VESC/AAMVA also maintained that the 
cost burden to the States to comply with the 
XHTSA standard would be substantial. Ver- 
mont, the only State whose cost VESC cited with 
confidence, projected a cost of $250,000 to imple- 
ment the XHTSA VIX system and a 2 to 3 year 
completion date. The VESC/AAMVA reported 
that Vermont has only 380,000 vehicles and lim- 
ited on-line computer time. Consequently, the 
cost for a State with more sophisticated computer 
equipment would Ije considerably higher in the 
VESC/AAMVA view. Vermont also advised 
the VESC/AAMVA that only a negligible 
amount of Federal fimds would be available to 
carry out the changeover. 

The VESC/AAMVA stated that specific cost 
data from the other States was not available, but 
the cost to the States of Illinois, Michigan, and 
Xew York would be materially higher than Ver- 
mont, and that Massachusetts was projecting a 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 20 



YIN changeover cost of from $300,000 to 
$400,000. In the case of Massachusetts, it is not 
clear whether this represents the changeover cost 
to convert to the VESC VIX or NHT8A VI\. 

In its supplement, the VESC/AAMVA was 
unable to provide at that time further data on 
tliese cost figures for the NHTSA VIX. 

The VESC/AAMVA also attacked the ration- 
ale of the agency in placing the check digit 
within the VIX structure. In the view of the 
VESC/AAMVA, the practical effect of that 
placement is mandating the recording and stor- 
age of a 17 character VIX. The VESC/AAMVA 
concludes that the XHTSA must either drop the 
check digit or place it outside the VIX stnacture. 

Of particular concern to the VESC/AAMVA 
is the difficulty they suggest will l>e encoimtered 
in instructing a title clerk or police officer to 
drop the check digit in an internal position 
rather than in the first or last position. In its 
supplement, the VESC/AAMVA agreed with 
the agency that a computer can be programmed 
to drop any character in the VIX or the check 
digit and forms can be designed to indicate tlie 
check digit just as easily as they can be designed 
to show whetlier a character should be alphabetic 
or numeric. However, the VESC/AAMVA still 
lielievcs strongly that a serious prolilem would 
exist if State personnel drop the check digit 
prior to transcription on a form or entry into a 
computer. Further, the VESC/AAMVAbelieves 
it impossible to design a fonn which signified 
the check digit for every intended use of tlie 
VIX. 

The key question raised by the VESC/ 
AAMVA relates to the ability of the States to 
deal with a 16 character VIX with an internal 
check digit. This issue was also of concern to the 
XHTSA. A review of the comments to the docket 
from the six States directly responding suggests 
that the problem is not as severe as the VESC/ 
AAMVA believes, however. 

Unfortunately, only three of these States sub- 
mitted cost data to the docket, and the VESC/ 
AAMVA was unable to submit data relating to 
their conclusions. Further, as noted above, the 
agency has not received information from the 
VESC/AAMVA concerning the additional cost 
of implementing the XHTSA VIX system as 



compared to the cost of implementing the 16 
character VIX system proposed by the VESC. 

Oregon estimated its cost to implement the 
XHTSA VIX system at $17,650 for reprogram- 
ming. Vermont estimated its costs at $250,000, 
of which $180,000 would be for systems analysis 
and progi-amming and $70,000 would be for pub- 
lic relations, training, and redesigning forms. 
"Washington State estimated its costs for imple- 
menting the XHTSA VIX system at $36,000 the 
first year for reprogranuning, equipment, and 
key punching, and $25,000 each subsequent year 
for equipment and key punching. 

The agency does not understand why the 
changeover costs of Vermont are approximately 
10 times higher than the two other States sub- 
mitting cost data. The agency notes, too, that 
the motor vehicle population of Vermont is ap- 
proximately one-eighth that of Washington and 
one-fifth that of Oregon. The cost of adopting 
either the XHTSA VIX system or VESC VIX 
system should be approximately equivalent and 
should consist jirimarily in reprogramming and 
procuring additional computer data storage units. 
and these costs should be in some degree propor- 
tional to the vehicle population. The agency 
does note, however, that \'orinont"s highway 
safety annual work program for this fiscal year 
includes spending $2S0,00() to implement a R. L. 
Polk computer program to check for valid VIX's. 
Since this R. L. Polk program will be outdated 
with the pro!uulgation of the XHTSA standard, 
the agency hopes that Vermont's implementation 
of the XHTSA VIX system can be consolidated 
with the implementation of a revised VIX edit 
routine, thus achieving some savings for Vermont. 

Based on the agency's assessment of implemen- 
tation costs and on the actual cost data submitted 
to the docket, the XHTSA concludes that the 
cost to be incurred by the States to implement 
the XHTSA VIX system will not be so signifi- 
cant as the VESC/AAMVA coimnents suggested. 
As explained previously, the primary costs to the 
States of implementing the XHTSA system 
would be those of reprogramming and of pur- 
chasing additional data storage equipment. 

The agency's conclusion about lack of substan- 
tial cost is further supported when one considers 
that the members of the VESC adopted and the 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 21 



States supported the VESC 16 character VIN 
system. Presumably, the States were prepared 
to adopt it. Thus, the cost burden wliich the 
NHTSA regarded as particularly important to 
the States is the incremental cost of the NHTSA 
VIN system over the VESC VIN scheme. In 
the case of Oregon, the cost diflferential between 
the NHTSA and VESC VIN systems would be 
negligible, as only reprogramming is required 
and the effort needed to reprogram for 17 char- 
acters, either stored or dropped prior to storage 
and then regenerated, would not be substantially 
more than it would be for 16 characters. In the 
case of Washington, the State itself estimates the 
added cost of the NHTSA system over the VESC 
system would be $2,500 annually for keypunching 
the added character. 

The agency remains convinced that the States 
will seek methods of simplifying and standard- 
izing titling and other procedures involving the 
VIN. All parties appear to agree that by proper 
design of forms and relatively simple program- 
ming of computers, the check digit may be elimi- 
nated from any location within the VIN should 
a State choose to do so. It appears all agree, 
also, that the appropriat* check digit may be re- 
generated wlien the VIN is removed from data 
storage and printed. Wliat the VESC/AAMVA 
and Maryland appear to fear, however, is that 
police officers, clerks, and others will attempt to 
locate and eliminate the check digit in the pro- 
cess of transcribing the VIN. "\Miy persons 
would be instructed to drop the check digit has 
not been suggested, however. Further, simple 
instructions should prevent that from occurring. 
Accordingly, premature dropping of the check 
digit is clearly avoidable. The agency is im- 
pressed that none of the States directly submit- 
ting comments to the docket have suggested that 
it does not intend to store the check digit along 
with the VIN. 

The VESC/AAMVA has incorrectly eval- 
uated the practical effect of placing the check 
digit within the VIN. The placement of the 
check digit within the VIN does not necessitate 
the storage of the check digit. Further, as the 
agency expressly explained in the previous notice 
and above, the choice was made to allow the VIN 
mandated by the NHTSA to be compatible with 



the VIN mandated by the ISO. In this way, 
manufacturers could use the same VIN structure 
on vehicles marketed in the United States and 
those marketed outside the country. The inter- 
national harmonization of the NHTSA VIN 
Standard is not only consistent with United 
States policy in this area as articulated by the 
President (14 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 1630), 
but eases substantially the regulatory burden on 
manufacturers producing vehicles for both the 
United States and foreign markets since they 
need not maintain two separate VIN systems. 
If the VESC VIN scheme was adopted, manu- 
facturers would face the added cost of maintain- 
ing one VIN system for the United States and 
another VIN system for the rest of the world. 

Comments were also received on the question 
of the check digit position from a number of 
insurance companies and insurance industry 
groups. Nationwide Insurance stated that the 
location of the check digit within the VIN should 
not present any problem to VIN users since so- 
phisticated procedures were not necessary to 
manage the check digit regardless of its position. 
Further, the use of the check digit caused Nation- 
wide no great concern. The Alliance of Ameri- 
can Insurers believed some users would prefer 
the check digit be placed outside the VIN, but 
stated that "ideally" the check digit should be 
retained as an integral part of the VIN. State 
Farm Insurance Co. stated that it intended to 
store the check digit, but suggested it should be 
positioned at the beginning or end of the VIN in 
the interest of allowing it to be dropped more 
easily by users who did not intend to store it. 
State Farm did not explain how the ease of drop- 
ping the check digit varied with it« position. 
Allstate Insurance Co. supported the use of the 
check digit, and recommended that it be made an 
internal part of the VIN. Finally, the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety strongly supported 
making the check digit an internal part of the 
VIN. 

No manufacturer supported moving the check 
digit to the first or last position of the VIN, but 
there was a difference of opinion among the 
manufacturei-s whether the check digit should 
precede or follow the second section of the VIN. 

Volkswagen and British Leyland supported 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 22 



) 



placing the check digit immediately preceding 
the second section of the VIN, as this would 
make the VIN more compatible with the Euro- 
pean VIX system. General Motoi-s and Ameri- 
can Motors supported the check digit in this 
same position, as this seemed to foster interna- 
tional harmonization. International Harvester 
supported the check digit in this position, as this 
would be least disruptive to its current system. 
AVhile not commenting to this docket on the 
issue, Mercedes-Benz and BMW supported in 
their petitions for reconsideration of the August 
18, 1978 rule placing the check digit immediately 
preceding the second section. Mercedes supported 
this position because it would cause the least 
disruption to its current system. BMW sup- 
ported this position because the check digit would 
then not separate the two flexible sections of the 
VIN, thus allowing the establishment of a VIN 
"management system". 

Harley-Davidson, Toyo-Kogyo, (^hrysler. and 
Peugeot-Renault supported the check digit im- 
mediately following the second section, as this 
separated the fixed section of the VIN from the 
variable section of the VIN. Rolls-Royce sup- 
ported tlie check digit in this position, as it ha.s 
already begun work on a system which would 
position it there. 

Ford and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 
Association t(X)k no position on whethei- the check 
digit should precede or follow the second section 
so long as it was in one of those two positions. 

In its notice of proposed rulemaking published 
on November f), 1978, the agency rel(K'ateil the 
check digit to a position preceding the second 
section of the VIN in the interest of ease of 
compliance for those manufacturers who desired 
to use a different system in Europe than they did 
in the U.S. It seems, however, that the manu- 
factui'ers are unable to agree upon which position 
actually is preferable. The agency must there- 
fore determine which position makes more prac- 
tical sense. 

The agency concludes that the check digit 
should be placed in immediate proximity to char- 
acters which are variable. While only some 
manufacturers may have to change manufacturer 
identifiers if they produce more than one type of 
vehicle, all must change the final eight characters 



of the VIN. Consequently, the agency concludes 
that the check digit should precede these final 
eight characters since it too is variable. Thus, 
many manufacturers will be able to prepare their 
VIN plates with the first part of the VIN pre- 
stamped. This will lower costs and aid in pre- 
venting alterations since these characters can be 
molded as part of the plate. 

Some manufacturers and manufacturer associa- 
tions also petitioned to eliminate the check digit 
entirely. The agency's rationale for the check 
digit and its utility in eliminating eri'or have 
been comprehensively reviewed in previous no- 
tices. In summai-y, the check digit offers the 
most effective way known to the agency to deter- 
mine erroneously recorded VINs prior to storage 
in motor vehicle files. 

Peugeot-Renault raised in their comment a new 
issue of international harmonization. In the 
view of Peugeot-Renault, the ISO standard re- 
(juires that the middle section of the VIN remain 
the same for all vehicles of the same description. 
After a review of the ISO standard, the NIITSA 
cannot agree with this view. ISO Standard 3779 
specifically provides that if not all the characters 
in the second section of the VIN are used for 
de.scriptive purposes, the manufacturer may fill 
the section with another character for wliicli 
there are no restrictions. 

Optional Early Compliance 
The NPRM proposed that compliance with all 
aspects of the amended standard l)e permitted 
beginning September 1, 1979, for passenger cars 
and be recjuired for all vehicles beginning Sep- 
tember 1, 1980. Optional early compliance was 
proposed because the agency concluded that some 
manufacturers could fully implement the 
amended standard before September 1, 1980, and 
l)ecause the agency was concerned that imple- 
mentation of the amended standard might be 
complicated by the State of Maryland's proposal 
to implement an inconsistent VIN system on 
January 1, 1980. Express authorization of early 
compliance would have put the amended standard 
into effect on September 1, 1979, and removed 
any question about the preemption of State 
standards governing VIN format and content. 

The agency has since learned that the State of 
Maryland has formally proposed to change its 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 23 



implementation date to September 1, 1980. If 
that new proposal is adopted, the need for ex- 
press authcirization for early compliance with the 
amended NHTSA standard will be eliminated. 
Based on indications that the proposal will be 
adopted, the agency has decided to delete the 
express provision for early compliance. It should 
be clearly understood, however, that this deletion 
does not preclude early compliance with most 
aspects of the amended standard. Except to the 
extent that it is not possible for a manufacture!' 
to comply simultaneously with an existing and 
future version of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
St>andard, early compliance is always permissible. 

Effective Date 

A number of commenters requested that the 
effective date be postponed to allow for acquiring 
equipment and for system development. Mack 
Truck requested that the effective date be post- 
poned until two years from the issuance of the 
final rule. Volkswagen requested that the effec- 
tive date be 18 months from the publication of 
the final rule. International Harvester opposed 
the September 1, 1980 effectiv-e date as not prac- 
ticable, but did not suggest an alternative effec- 
tive date. BMW recommended an effective date 
3 years after the standard is issued. The VESC/ 
AAMVA suggested an effective date two to three 
years after the standard is finalized. The State 
of Vermont proposes an effective date of Septem- 
ber 1, 1981, or September 1, 1982, because its 
computer programming effort is committed for 
the next li/^ years. 

The agency is unconvinced that the effective 
date of the standard should be changed. While 
the final details of the proposal were not known 
until today, the necessity of implementing a new 
VIN system and most of its essential features 
have been known at least since the August 1978 
final rule. 

With an effective date eighteen months in the 
future, the desires of Volkswagen ha\e been met 
and the stated needs of Mack substantially met. 
While BMW and International Harvester believe 
they need more time to comply, they have pre- 
sented no evidence in their comments that their 
systems development, reprogramming, and mark- 
ing equipment installation cannot be accom- 
plished within the specified time frame. Further, 



BMW must comply prior to September 1, 1980 
with the compatible ISO standard, and presum- 
ably can comply witli the NHTSA standard 
shortly thereafter. IH has stated that its in- 
ability to comply comes from the ne«d to derive 
a new coding system. The agency believes 18 ^ 
months will be sufficient for this pui'pose, as it is 
for the other manufactui'ers. 

From the comments, it appeal's that California, 
Oregon, and Washington can comply with a 
January 1, 1980 effective date, and Maryland 
can prior to tiiat date comply with a 16 character 
VIN requirement. 

Of the States commenting, only Vermont be- 
lieves it can not comply by September 1, 1980. 
Since Vermont's time problem rests with a prior 
114 year programming commitment rather than 
the 6-18 months the State considers necessary to 
implement the NHTSA VIN system, it is hoped 
that Vermont's revision of the now outdated 
R. L. Polk VIN verification program planned 
for this fiscal year can be combined with the re- 
programming necessary to i m p 1 e m e n t the 
NHTSA VIN system. " 

The VESC/AAMVA objected to the effex-tive 
date on behalf of the States. The agency notes, 
however, that a 16 character VIN was adopted 
by the VESC in July 1977. Thus, the States 
were aware on that date that a 16 character VIN 
would be implemented shortly. Further, Mary- m 
land, by requiring passenger cars sold in that 
State after January 1, 1980, to have a 16 char- 
acter VIN made it highly likely that manufac- 
turers would adopt a 16 character VIN system 
by that date. (It should be noted that Maryland 
on February 9, 1979, proposed that its standard 
should take effect on September 1, 1980. This is 
the proposed effective date for the NHTSA 
standard). Manufacturers in all probability 
would not utilize one system for Maryland and 
another for the other States. The intent of 
Maryland to require manufacturers to comply 
with its VIN standard on September 1. 1980, 
whether or not the NHTSA extended the effective 
date of its standard, was confirmed on February 
22, 1979 (Docket 01-22-No. 7-042). Conse- 
quently, any action of NHTSA to extend its 
effective date would not aid the States in view of 
Maryland's position. 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 24 



The NHTSA concludes, therefore, that all 
States should have been prepared to deal with a 
16 character VIN six months prior to the effective 
date of the NHTSA standard. This view is 
further supported by the comments of the States 
throug:hout this rulemaking effort which strong'ly 
supported the adoption of the VESC 16 character 
VIN scheme. Since the elimination of the check 
digit prior to storage is a reasonably simple task, 
the agency concludes the States will be able to 
deal with NHTSA-mandated VINs by the time 
the standard takes effect. The agency is also 
certain that the coordinative efforts of the 
AAMVA will aid the States in dealing with the 
NHTSA VIN system by the time the manufac- 
turers comply with the standard. The agency 
too stands ready to provide technical assistance 
if any should be needed. 

Therefore, petitions to change the effective date 
of the standard are denied. 

Notice of Change in Encoded Data 
The VESC/AAMVA and several States once 
again raised the issue of S6 of the standard which 
requires manufacturers to notify the NHTSA 60 
days before changing the information decipher- 
able from a particular VIN. It is the view of 
the VESC/AAMVA that rexjuiring the manufac- 
turers to submit this infomiation to NHTSA 
will indirectly result in their not submitting it to 
the States. 

This issue was discussed in the amendments to 
the rule published on November 9, 1978. The 
NHTSA is unable to understand why the manu- 
facturers who voluntarily have been submitting 
material to the States since 1901 would suddenly 
cease doing so. The subsequent VESC submis- 
sion to the docket does not explain the basis for 
its concern. In the unlikely event that the manu- 
facturers cease to supply this data to the States, 
the NHTSA will entertain a petition for rule- 
making from the States to institutionalize a 
requirement for the submission of that data to 
the States. Section S6.3 is amended, however, to 
re(iuire that all the infonnation required to be 
submitted to the NHTSA shall be submitted at 
least 60 days before affixing the VIN utilizing 
the encoded information. This amendment is 
made to remedy an ambiguity in the standard as 
presently written. 



Use of a Hand Held Calculator 
In the final rule issued August 17, 1978, (43 
FR 36448) the agency stated its belief that check 
digits could be calculated by using inexpensive, 
hand held calculators. The agency was not re- 
ferring to the type of calculator currently avail- 
able over the counter, but a calculator prepro- 
grammed to carry out the check digit procedure 
when the VIN itself was keyed in. With the 
adoption of the fixed fonnat as an aid in avoid- 
ing transcription errors, however, check digit 
calculations in the field are unlikely. Therefore, 
the availability of a preprogrammed calculator 
is no longer of concern to the agency. 

The VESC/AAMVA also points out that the 
check digit system is not infallible since the same 
numerical value is assigned to three or four char- 
acters. For example, "D", "M", "U", and "4" are 
all assigned the numerical value "4" in the check 
digit procedure. The odds that one of these 
characters will be erroneously substituted for the 
other resulting in the correct check digit is only 
one in eleven, however. Consequently, the check 
digit procedure will reduce the number of incor- 
rect VINs in computer files by more than 90 
percent. 

Manufacturer Identifier for Manufacturers 

iProducing Less Than 500 Vehicles of 

Any One Type Annually 

S4.5.1 of the standard provides a special proce- 
dure for assigning the manufacturer identifier to 
manufacturers who produce less than 500 motor 
vehicles of a type annually. In this procedure, 
the third character of the VIN is the number 9 
and the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth charac- 
ters of the VIN along with the first three char- 
acters represent the manufacturer identifier. The 
VESC/AAMVA objects to this provision as 
complicated to process by computer and suggests 
it should be eliminated. 

This provision was adopted because the agency 
was unable to ascertain with certainty that there 
is a sufficient number of three character identi- 
fiers to uniquely represent all vehicle manufac- 
turers, makes, and types over the next thirty 
years, the cycle of the amended standard. In 
addition, this method of identification is identical 
with the method adopted by the ISO, and its 
inclusion in the NHTSA standard would be a 



PAKT 571; S 115— PHE 25 



further step in the direction of international 
harmonization. 

The agency is unconvinced that the problems 
expressed by the VESC/AAMVA are substan- 
tial. The occurrence of a VIN from a manufac- 
turer of less than 500 vehicles of a type in any 
State's vehicle population will be rare. As the 
VIN format for a manufacturer of less than 500 
vehicles of a type is the same as that for all other 
manufacturers, there should be no impediment to 
entering it into storage. The need to generate 
the name of the manufacturer from the data 
base, the situation where spex;ific programming 
will be called for, will be even rarer. Against 
the arguments of the VESC/AAMVA, the in- 
tegrity of the VIN system over thirty years and 
the interests of reducing compliance costs through 
international harmonization must prevail. 

Reconstructed Vehicle VIN 

The VESC/AAMVA and the State of Ver- 
mont again raise the issue of assigning a VIN to 
reconstructed vehicles. As was pointed out in 
the amendment to the rule published on Novem- 
ber 9, 1978, amended Standard No. 115 only ap- 
plies to reconstructed vehicles if the chassis is 
new. Evidently, the VESC/AAMVA and Ver- 
mont interpreted this to mean that the VIN of 
the original chassis should be assigned to the 
reconstructed vehicle. This is only true if the 
chassis is new, in which case the vehicle would 
be one manufactured in more than one stage and 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would as- 
sign the VIN. 

The VIN for the homemade vehicles which 
Vermont apparently refers to would be assigned 
by Vermont, as it sees fit. Presumably, a recon- 
structed vehicle VIN scheme which was com- 
patible with the NHTSA VIN system could be 
created, but such a scheme would not be within 
the ambit of Standard No. 115. 

Assignment of Manufacturer Identifiers 
Saab-Scania has requested further information 
concerning the assignment of manufacturer iden- 
tifiers. When the final rule was issued, the So- 
ciety of Automotive Engineers (SAE) imme- 
diately submitted on behalf of many domestic 
and foreign manufacturers a list of approxi- 
mately five hundred identifiers. They have been 



registered to the manufacturers to whom they 
were assigned. Because the SAE has progressed 
so far in its assignment process, the agency is 
discussing with the SAE its assigning manufac- 
turer identifiers on behalf of and under the au- 
thority of the NHTSA. A notice will appear in 
the Federal Register when this matter is resolved. 

Public Meeting 

The VESC/AAMVA stated that the agency 
had not followed through on its announcement 
in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
that it anticipated a public meeting for oral sub- 
mission of cortiments concerning VINs. At the 
outset, the agency did contemplate the possibility 
of a public meeting to supplement the oppor- 
tunity for written conmient. Holding a meeting 
proved unnecessary, however. Substantial writ- 
ten public comments have been received in re- 
sponse to the agency's five notices. Comments 
received from the AAMVA and VESC are a 
good example of the comments received and their 
completeness in responding to the involved issues. 
For example, in response to the advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking, the AAMVA submitted not 
only staff comments, but also supplementary ma- 
terial from 50 States and the District of Colum- 
bia. Similarly, extensive comments were also 
submitted in response to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking. 

The agency also notes that a public meeting 
concerning the VIN was held under the aegis of 
NHTSA's National Highway Safety Advisory 
Committee on March 21, 1978, in which the 
VESC and AAMVA participated. This meeting 
resulted in 61 pages of testimony and 110 pages 
of supplementary material. Further, meetings 
were held between the NHTSA and VESC and 
AAMVA personnel on September 21, 1977 
(Docket 01-22-No. 3-92), November 4, 1977 
(Docket 01-22-No. 3-93), and November 18, 
1977 (Docket 01-22-No. 3-94). 

Plant of Manufacture 
BMW petitioned the agency to delete the re- 
quirement for encoding plant of manufacture, 
since it currently utilizes a seven digit production 
sequence number, the first character of which 
would occupy the space required to be occupied 
by the character designating the plant of manii- 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 26 



facture. A system which would have allowed 
BMW to maintain a seven character sequential 
number was proposed in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking published on January 16, 1978 (-13 
FR 2189), but withdrawn in the face of criti- 
cism that it was too complex. BMW suggests 
no reason which would cause the agency to re- 
open the issue, and its petition is denied. The 
agency notes, however, that the rule does not 
restrict a manufacturer from submitting more 
than one character to represent a single plant. 
Consequently, a sophisticated allotment of se- 
quential blocks might be sufficient to allow BMW 
to maintain its seven digit production se<iuence 
numbering system. 

Meaning of Definition of "Chassis" 
In the amendment issued on November 9, 1978 
the agency clarified the meaning of the term 
"chassis" to at least discriminate between a truck 
and a truck-tractor. Ford has reque.sted that this 
chirification be rescinded, as the 2 percent of its 
heavy truck chassis which are not sold as incom- 
plete vehicles are completed at a later date under 
contract to Ford. ^Mien Ford aasigns the VI X. 
it states it does not know the final fonn of the 
vehicle. To the extent Ford does not know the 
final form of the vehicle wiien it assigns the 
VIN, the chassis information need not discrim- 
inate between truck and ti-uck-tractor. 

Trailer VIN's 
The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 
(TTMA) petitioned to delete the re^juirement 
that descriptive information concerning trailers 
be encoded in the second section of the VIN. 
The TTMA believes that this information will 
be of little use in defect and noncompliance re- 
call campaigns. Further, the TTMA asked for 
specific examples of how this information would 
be useful in accident investigation. By deleting 
this requirement, the TTMA argues, the second 
section of a trailer VIN could consist of "0" or 
some other "neutral" character, thus reducing 
paperwork requirements and easing compliance 
for the smaller manufacturers. 

The TTMA petition is denied. Trailers can 

be as different as a five foot, single axle, 500 

. pound GVWR platform trailer and a forty foot. 



multi-axle, I'efrigerated van of 40,000 pounds 
GVWE. The need to discriminate between these 
vehicles in accident investigation and research is 
apparent. 

However, it should also be noted that the 
standard does not require that each character of 
the second section of the VIN reflect information, 
only that the second section as a whole reflect the 
required infonnation. For example, if a small 
manufacturer produces 33 or less models which 
can be differentiated on the basis of the descrip- 
tive characteristics set forth in the standard, only 
one position in the second section of the VIN is 
needed to carry this information and the other 
four positions can be "0". 

VIN Litigation 

On January 8, 1979, the VESC and the State 
of Maryland filed with tlie U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Fourtii Circuit a petition for review of 
Standard No. 115. As required under Section 
10.5 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1394), the agency 
has filed with the Court the record of the rule- 
making proceeding prior to this amendment. To 
facilitate public review of the material which the 
agency included in the record, publicly available 
documents not previously submitted to the docket 
but cited in the rulemaking notices have been 
placed in a general reference section for this 
notice. 

The principal authoi-s of this notice are Nelson 
Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards, Crash Avoidance Division and Frederic 
Schwartz, Jr., of the Office of Chief Counsel. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard 
No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115, is revised .... 

(Sees. 103, 112, 119 Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) ; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 



Issued on March 15. 1979. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 



44 F.R. 17489-17498 
March 22, 1979 



PART 571; S 115— PRE 27-28 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 

Vehicle Identification Number 

(Docket No. 1-22; Notice 10) 



ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsidera- 
tion and rulemaking. 



SUMMARY: This notice responds to a petition for 
reconsideration of the March 22, 1979, notice 
amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number and to 
several petitions for rulemaking to amend the 
standard. The requests in the reconsideration 
petition to eliminate the fixed format required of 
vehicle identification numbers (VINs) for certain 
vehicle types and to place the check digit after the 
3rd character of the VIN are denied. A rulemaking 
petition request to extend the date by which unique 
manufacturer identifiers must be reported to the 
agency is granted. Rulemaking petitions to post- 
pone the standard's effective date for vehicles 
whose model year changeover date is subsequent 
to September 1, 1980, are granted in part. Re- 
quests for an interpretation permitting slight 
variations between actual engine horsepower and 
that encoded in the VIN are also answered. The ef- 
fect of these amendments is to facilitate in various 
minor ways the manufacturer's implementation of 
the revised VIN. 



DATES: The effective date of the standard is 
revised as follows: September 1, 1980, for manu- 
facturers whose 1981 model year changeover date 
falls prior to September 2, 1980, or subsequent to 
January 1, 1981. 

The manufacturer's 1981 model year changeover 
date for manufacturers whose changeover date for 
that year occurs between September 1, 1980, and 
January 2, 1981. 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 22, 
1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 
ministration published a notice amending Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle 
Identification Number (44 FR 17489). One petition 
for reconsideration of the amended rule and 
several petitions for rulemaking to amend the rule 
further were received. 

The vehicle identification number (VIN) is a 
series of 16 letters and numbers which serves as 
the unique identifier for motor vehicles manufac- 
tured in or imported into the United States. Along 
with its ability to uniquely identify a vehicle, the 
VIN can be decoded to provide substantial infor- 
mation about the vehicle such as its manufacturer, 
model, and gross vehicle weight rating. The VIN is 
assigned in conjunction with a check digit, which 
follows its 8th character. The check digit is the 
result of a mathematical process utilizing the 
characters of the VIN, and is used to detect errors 
in the transcription of the VIN from a vehicle to a 
written record or from record to record. 

The many uses and users of the VIN have been 
described in detail in previous notices. In sum- 
mary, the VIN is used as the key vehicle identifier 
by the NHTSA, manufacturers, insurance com- 
panies, and agencies of State governments. It is 
the keystone of vehicle recall campaigns, and is of 
great importance in safety research. It also has 
many other uses such as vehicle titling and 
recovery of stolen vehicles. 

VIN Fixed Format 

Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 of Standard No. 115 
specify the alphabetic or numeric nature of the 
characters occupying six positions in the VIN af- 
fixed to passenger cars and to multipurpose 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 29 



passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 
10,000 pounds or less. The 4th and 5th characters 
are required to be alphabetic and the 6th, 7th, 11th 
and 12th characters are required to be numeric. 
The process of specifying the alphabetic or 
numeric nature of certain characters is called fix- 
ing the format, and is utilized to facilitate the 
recognition by clerks and others of errors in 
transcribed VINs at the earliest possible moment. 
For example, the appearance of an alphabetic 
character in the 7th position of a VIN with a fixed 
format would be a clear indication of a transcrip- 
tion error. 

Volkswagen of America (Volkswagen) submitted 
a petition for reconsideration requesting the 
agency to delete the fixed format requirements for 
the VIN. In support of its position, Volkswagen 
points out, as it has in response to previous notices, 
that a fixed format is only useful when the error in 
transcription involves the substitution of the 
wrong type of character, i.e., alphabetic for 
numeric or vice versa. Substitution of erroneous 
characters of the same type, e.g., a "7" for a "9", 
would not be discovered. Likewise, Volkswagen 
points out that fixing the format for only light- 
weight trucks and lightweight multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles results in confusion unless the 
weight of the vehicle is known. Volkswagen be- 
lieves this occurs because some trucks and multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles will have a fixed for- 
mat (10,000 pounds GVWR or less) and others will 
not have a fixed format (more than 10,000 pounds 
GVWR). Thus, a "4" in the 4th position of a truck 
of 8,000 pounds GVWR would indicate an error, 
but the same number in the same position for a 
truck of 18,000 pounds GVWR might not represent 
an error. Finally, Volkswagen states that placing 
the check digit following the 8th character rather 
than the 3rd character as proposed in Notice 7 (43 
FR 52268) limits the use of the 2nd and 3rd sec- 
tions of the VIN as one informational unit, further 
restricting its utility. Volkswagen requested, 
therefore, that the check digit be placed after the 
3rd character. 

As the NHTSA explained in Notice 7 (43 FR 
52258) and Notice 8 (44 FR 17489), the use of the 
check digit process identifies almost all VIN 
transcription errors. Nonetheless, the use of the 
check digit also requires a mechanical processor of 
some kind; the mathematical steps cannot be car- 



ried out in an individual's head. An important seg- 
ment of VIN users, particularly motor vehicle ad- 
ministrators and the insurance industry, believe it 
important that some process exist which will allow 
clerks and others at the time of entry of the VIN 
into the data processing system to check with the 
individual providing the VIN if an error has been 
made in transcription. Without this ability, a State 
agency receiving an erroneous VIN would be faced 
with having to take the time and trouble to locate 
and contact the individual who provided the VIN 
instead of being able to consult with the individual 
on the spot and correct the error. The Agency 
adopted the fixed format to meet this need, 
although it acknowledges that few errors will be 
discovered which could not be discovered at a later 
stage by utilizing the check digit procedure. 
Volkswagen has presented no information which 
would alter the agency's determination in this 
regard. 

The Agency has concluded that the usefulness of 
the fixed format system will not be compromised 
by mandating its use only for those trucks and 
miltipurpose passenger vehicles whose GVWR is 
10,000 pounds GVWR or less. The number of er- 
roneous transcriptions for trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles of more than 10,000 pounds 
GVWR should be small, as these vehicles do not 
make up a substantial portion of the vehicle popula- 
tion. Should any confusion arise, either the sup- 
plementary information submitted on the form 
along with the VIN or a direct question to the still- 
avaOable transcriber would resolve the matter. 

The NHTSA has also denied Volkswagen's peti- 
tion concerning check digit location. While placing 
the check digit after the 8th character does 
separate the second and third sections of the VIN, 
it is clear that the third section changes with each 
vehicle since this section contains the vehicle's se- 
quential number. The first and second sections, 
however, remain constant among large numbers of 
vehicles since they reflect general characteristics. 
Consequently, the agency reaffirms its conclusions 
that the check digit should follow the 8th character 
to maintain the integrity of the first and second 
sections of the VIN and to allow for the prestamp- 
mg of those sections when appropriate. 

Effective Date 

The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association 
(RVIA) submitted a petition for rulemaking on 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 30 



August 16, 1979, requesting a 3-month extension 
of the date by which manufacturers must submit 
unique identifiers to the agency. The date estab- 
hshed by the March 22, 1979, notice for submission 
of the identifiers was September 1, 1979. RVIA 
based its petition on the reported confusion of 
some of its members concerning the unique iden- 
tifiers and on its then recent learning that NHTSA 
had av/arded a contract to the Society of Automo- 
tive Engineers to act as the agency's agent in 
acknowledging and /or assigning unique identifiers 
to manufacturers. 

To ensure widespread public knowledge and 
understanding of the SAE contract and the SAE's 
role in the assigning of manufacturer identifiers, 
the agency published a notice announcing the con- 
tract in the Federal Register (44 PR 52783; 
September 10, 1979). In particular, the notice 
stated that: 

The SAE is the assigner of World Manufacturer 
Identifiers on behalf of the International Stand- 
ards Organization. As such, it has assigned more 
than 700 three character identifiers to motor vehi- 
cle manufacturers. These identifiers have been 
submitted to the NHTSA pursuant to S4.5.1 and 
S6.1. In assigning these identifiers, the SAE has 
gained considerable experience in the process of 
manufacturer identification. For this reason, the 
agency has determined that it would be more effi- 
cient and effective to contract with the SAE to act 
as its agent in acknowledging and /or assigning 
manufacturer identifiers to the remaining vehicle 
manufacturers. 

All requests for the manufacturer identifiers 
should be forwarded directly to: Society of 
Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth 
Avenue, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096, Atten- 
tion: Leo Ziegler. 

Manufacturer identifiers will be supplied at no 
charge. Manufacturers need not request a par- 
ticular identifier. Requests for the assignment of 
specific identifiers can be forwarded to the SAE, 
however, and these identifiers will be assigned by 
SAE if they do not conflict with an identifier 
already reserved. Identifiers supplied directly to 
the agency by manufacturers have been forwarded 
to the SAE. 

Manufacturer identifiers assigned by the SAE 
need not be submitted to the NHTSA. The 
NHTSA, of course, retains final authority over the 



assignment process, and any questions should be 
referred to the agency. 

The agency has decided to change the deadline 
for submission of the manufacturer identifiers 
from September 1, 1979, to February 24, 1980, to 
ensure that all manufacturers have sufficient time 
to work with the SAE in the selection and submis- 
sion of their identifiers. In making this change, a 
major consideration of ' the agency is that the 
change has no effect on the implementation of the 
revised VIN for the 1981 model year. Since this 
change relieves a restriction and does not ad- 
versely affect parties which will utilize the revised 
VIN, the agency has determined that notice and 
comment are not necessary. 

Fruehauf Corporation (Fruehauf) and Rolls- 
Royce Motors International (Rolls-Royce) have 
submitted petitions for rulemaking to amend 
Standard No. 115 by extending the effective date. 
Rolls-Royce has requested that it not be required 
to affix the VIN mandated by the standard until its 
model year changeover date which will occur prior 
to January 1, 1981, and subsequent to the current 
effective date of September 1, 1980. Fruehauf has 
requested that the effective date be made January 
1, 1981, as that is its model year changeover date. 

Both manufacturers present a number of finan- 
cial and technical arguments in support of their 
petition. Fruehauf faces a particular problem in 
this regard, as the firm is currently installing a 
new computer system. Since orders for heavy 
trucks are now being accepted for delivery after 
Septemb'fer 1, 19^0, the company will be obligated 
to assign to each of these vehicles the current 9 
character VIN and the 16 character plus check 
digit VIN required by Standard No. 115. This will 
also require either programming the new com- 
puter to manipulate both a 9 and 17 character VIN, 
or maintaining the old computer system in parallel 
with the new system for three additional months. 
Regardless of the technical method chosen to solve 
this problem, Fruehauf will also incur the cost of 
training its personnel to deal with the dual system. 
Fruehauf estimates its cost associated with this 
problem to be $231,000. 

Fruehauf also argues that use of two VIN 
systems during the same model year gives rise to a 
number of physical and logistical problems. If two 
systems are to be used, it must determine if a vehi- 
cle when ordered is to be produced prior to 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 31 



) 



September 1, 1980 (in which case it would be 
assigned a 9 character VIN), between September 
1, 1980 and January 1, 1981 (in which case it would 
be assigned both a 9 character VIN and a 17 
character VIN), or after January 1, 1981 (in which 
case it would be assigned a 17 character VIN). 
Delays or alterations in the manufacturing se- 
quence could cause substantial complications. 
Since the VIN is used for a number of purposes 
during the manufacturing process, intracompany 
forms would also have to be redesigned to indicate 
both VINs. Further, customer invoices and 
manufacturing documentations would have to 
utilize the 17 character VIN, but internal cost, ac- 
counting and recordkeeping would have to utilize 
the 9 character VIN. 

The petition of Rolls-Royce articulated similar 
problems. Of particular concern to Rolls-Royce 
were problems involving recordkeeping, service 
reporting, production and general confusion aris- 
ing from the need to alert personnel to the changes 
and use of the two different VIN systems for the 
same model year. 

The agency has concluded that these petitions 
should be granted, to the extent described below. 
The initial effective date of September 1 , 1980, for 
Standard No. 115 was chosen by the agency 
because this is the model year changeover date for 
most vehicles manufactured in the United States. 
The agency considers it extremely important that 
this date not be delayed to avoid the problems in- 
herent in effecting a new VIN system in the midst 
of a model year. 

For this very reason, however, the agency is con- 
cerned that the use of two entirely different VIN 
systems by some manufacturers for the same 
model year will result not only in the problems sug- 
gested in the Fruehauf and Rolls-Royce petitions, 
but also will give rise to confusion in recall cam- 
paigns and other areas. Likewise, the agency is 
concerned about the added costs necessitated by 
VIN users having to maintain two separate VIN 
systems, and the means to decode these systems, 
for the same model year. Further, additional costs 
to implement the standard will result from the in- 
abOity of these manufacturers and others similarly 
situated to coordinate the changes required by the 
standard with other changes normally made to 
their vehicles on the model year changeover date. 



The agency has also concluded that any adverse 
effect on safety of a modified effective date for 
manufacturers whose model year changeover date 
falls between September 1, 1980, and January 1, 
1981, will be negligible, and outweighed by the 
safety benefits. The number of vehicles which will 
be affected is small, and the VIN currently used by 
the manufacturers will be continued in place for 
the several months involved in the amendment. 
For these reasons, the agency has concluded that 
the effective date for Standard No. 115 for 
manufacturers whose model year changeover date 
falls between September 1, 1980 and January 2, 
1981, should be that model year changeover date. 
The effective date for all other manufacturers re- 
mains September 1, 1980. 

Engine Horsepower Rating 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and 
Volkswagen have asked the agency to interpret 
the requirement that engine net horsepower be 
decipherable from the VIN to allow for a slight 
variation in the actual horsepower from that 
reported to the agency. 

Table 1 of S4.5.2 of Standard No. 115 sets forth 
the information for each type of vehicle which must 
be decipherable from the VIN. Except for trailers, 
the VIN for all types of vehicles must encode 
"engine type". "Engine type" is defined in S3 of 
the standard as "a power source with defined 
characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of 
cylinders, displacement, and net brake horse- 
power." In addition, the VIN for motorcycles must 
reflect net brake horsepower. 

Honda and Volkswagen have pointed out to the 
agency that a particular engine's horsepower may 
vary slightly from others of the same manufac- 
turer and model depending upon its method of in- 
stallation. The agency has also been informed in 
comments to the docket that engines which are 
essentially the same, particularly in trucks, may 
have slightly differing horsepower ratings depend- 
ing on the requirements of the ultimate purchaser 
of the vehicle. Further, in the case of Honda, the 
difference may be as great as 20 percent because of 
engine modifications to meet necessary require- 
ments of the State of California. To encode in the 
VIN slight differences in horsepower ratings 
would be an inefficient use of its information carry- 
ing capacity, the manufacturers argue. 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 32 



The NHTSA concurs in this evaluation. The pur- 
pose of the horsepower rating requirement is to ob- 
tain information for accident and fuel economy 
research, and it is not necessary to have precise 
horsepower ratings for these purposes. Conse- 
quently, the agency is amending the standard to 
provide that the value for engine net brake horse- 
power encoded in the VIN may differ, with one ex- 
ception, by 10 percent from the actual net brake 
horsepower. Motorcycles whose horsepower rating 
is 2 brake horsepower or less may not be indicated 
as being above that rating and motorcycles whose 
horsepower rating is above 2 brake horsepower 
must so indicate. The purpose of this exception is 
to preserve the distinction in the VIN between 
motorcycles and mopeds. It should also be noted 
that the permissible deviation margin cited above 
is only authorized for Standard No. 115, and does 
not apply to other standards. 

The agency has considered the economic impact 
of this final rule and determined that it 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 has determined further that the 
impact is so minor as not to require preparation of 
a written evaluation of it. This is because the 
amendments impose no new costs upon manufac- 
turers and seeks to lessen the difficulties of com- 
pliance with the Standard. 

The principal authors of this notice are Frederic 
Schwartz, Jr. of the Office of Chief Counsel and 
Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Standard No. 
115, 49 CFR 571.115, is amended as follows: 



1. Table I in S4.5.2 is amended to read as 
follows: 

Table I — Type of Vehicle and Information 
Decipherable 

Passenger car: Line, series, body type, engine 

type,i and restraint system type. 
Multipurpose passenger vehicle: Line, series, body 

type, engine type.^ and gross vehicle weight 

rating. 
Truck: Model or line, series, chassis, cab type, 

engine type,' brake system and gross vehicle 

weight rating. 
Bus: Model or line, series, body type, engine type,' 

and brake system. 
Trailer: Type of trailer, series, body type, length, 

and axle configuration. 
Motorcycle: Type of motorcycle, line, engine type,' 

and net brake horsepower.' 
Incomplete vehicle: Model or line, series, cab type, 

engine type,' and brake system. 



' Engine net brake horsepower encoded in the vehicle iden- 
tification number shall differ by not more than 10 percent from 
the actual net brake horsepower; shall, in the case of a motorcy- 
cle with an actual net brake horsepower of 2 or less, not be more 
than 2; and shall, in the case of a motorcycle with an actual 
brake horsepower greater than 2, be greater than 2. 

2. S6.1 is revised to read as follows: S6.1 
Manufacturers of motor vehicles subject to this 
standard shall submit, either directly or through an 
agent, the unique identifier for each make and type 
of vehicle it manufactures by February 24, 1980. 
Issued on February 19, 1980. 

Joan Claybrook, 
Administrator 
45 F.R. 12255 
February 25, 1980 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 33-34 



(. 



^ 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 

Vehicle Identification Number 
(Docket No. 1-22; Notice 12) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Iden- 
tification Number, by deleting portions of that 
standard and reissuing those portions as a general 
agency regulation. This is being taken in response 
to a petition from the Motor Vehicle Manufac- 
turers Association (MVMA). It is intended to 
assure that the recall and remedy provisions of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
("the Act") do not apply to certain errors in vehicle 
identification numbers (VIN's) which are minor 
and have no safety consequences. The basic 
substantive requirements of Standard 115 are un- 
changed by this action. 

DATES: This action is effective 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The VIN is 
that unique number assigned each vehicle during 
production by the manufacturer for purposes of 
identification and inventory control. The VIN has 
other users. A variety of other organizations use 
the VIN for such purposes as vehicle registration, 
insurance rating, and theft investigation. NHTSA 
uses the VIN in its safety research and investiga- 
tion activities. 

In 1968, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) 115 was adopted, specifying that each 
passenger car must be assigned a unique VIN. In 
1979, FMVSS 115 was extended to cover motor 
vehicles other than passenger cars. Also, a 
uniform, 17-character format for VIN's was then 
established, specifying coded information such as 
the identity of the manufacturer, vehicle make, 
type of vehicle, various vehicle attributes, model 



year, plant of manufacture, and production se- 
quence. The VIN also contains a check digit which 
aids in the detection of errors in the transcription 
of VIN's by the users of the numbers. 

On June 13, 1980, MVMA petitioned this agency 
to withdraw FMVSS 115 and reissue its provisions 
in the form of a general agency regulation. The 
significance of this change stems from section 152 
of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1412), which provides that 
whenever the Secretary of Transportation deter- 
mines that a vehicle does not comply with a 
FMVSS, the Secretary must require the vehicle's 
manufacturer to notify the owners, purchasers, 
and dealers of the vehicle of that noncompliance 
and to remedy the noncompliance. However, in the 
case of a noncompliance with a regulation other 
than a FMVSS, the notification and remedy 
requirements of the Act do not apply. For those 
noncompliances, more flexible methods of enforce- 
ment are permitted. 

MVMA sought to assure through its requested 
amendment that errors in the assignment of VIN's 
would not trigger the recall and remedy provisions 
of the Act. Requiring that errors in assigned VIN's 
must be physically corrected would be undesirable 
in most cases for two reasons. First, correcting the 
errors would be an expensive and burdensome 
process, whose possible benefits would be greatly 
outweighed by the costs. These burdens and costs 
are discussed in the NPRM. In most cases, simply 
providing information on the nature of the error to 
users of the VIN's would solve any problems 
caused by the incorrect VIN. Second, changing a 
previously assigned VIN could create antitheft 
problems. Law enforcement authorities consider 
the presence of an altered VIN in a vehicle to be an 
indication that the vehicle has been stolen. If VIN's 
were frequently altered lawfully, it would be more 
difficult for the police to detect stolen vehicles. 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 35 



Further, if the equipment necessary to alter VIN's 
were widely available (such as at all auto dealers, 
as might be necessary to conduct a recall and 
remedy campaign), thieves' access to such equip- 
ment would be greatly increased. Law enforce- 
ment authorities have consistently recommended 
to NHTSA that VIN numbers, once assigned, 
should not be altered for any reason, even if the 
original number was incorrect. 

The only exception to the recall requirement is 
contained in section 157 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 
1417) which authorizes exemptions from these re- 
quirements based on a demonstration that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to 
safety. This authority could be used to relieve a 
manufacturer of the necessity of conducting a 
recall and remedy campaign to correct minor VIN 
errors. Minor labeling errors were among the ex- 
amples given in the legislative history of the provi- 
sion for the sorts of errors that are inconsequen- 
tial. While exemptions might well be given under 
section 157 for minor VIN errors, the necessity of 
conducting the exemption proceedings for such er- 
rors imposes an excessive administrative burden. 
The amendments made by this notice eliminate 
that burden. 

MVMA suggested that one possible consequence 
of a change in the status of the VIN provisions 
might be a loss or narrowing of Federal preemp- 
tion. Under section 103(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 
1392(d)), whenever a FMVSS is in effect, no State 
may establish or maintain a requirement applicable 
to the same aspect of performance unless the State 
requirement is identical to the FMVSS. The 
removal of various VIN requirements from 
FMVSS 115 removes them also from the operation 
of section 103(d). Recognizing this and the clear 
undesirability of having differing VIN require- 
ments established by the States, MVMA modified 
its petition on April 18, 1982. In its modified peti- 
tion, MVMA requested that only certain VIN pro- 
visions be shifted from the standard to the regula- 
tion. Requirements establishing the fundamental 
characteristics of the VIN, such as its length, loca- 
tion, and readability, would remain in the stand- 
ard. Under the amended petition, the content of 
the VIN would be specified in the VIN regulation. 
The combined standard /regulation scheme is in- 
tended to remove the threats of potentially costly 
recall campaigns to correct minor VIN errors or of 
inconsequentiality proceedings, while ensuring 
that the preemptive effect of the FMVSS is still 
maintained for the more significant requirements. 



After reviewing the MVMA petition, the agency 
tentatively concluded that MVMA's suggested 
regulatory changes have merit, and proposed to 
adopt those changes. See 47 FR 42004, September 
23, 1982. (The agency believes that general prin- 
ciples of Federal preemption are sufficient to 
assure that the VIN regulation will preempt any in- 
consistent State requirements.) Based on further 
review of that petition and the comments received 
on the September notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM), the agency is herein adopting these 
changes in final form. 

Comments on the NPRM 

Virtually all the comments received on the 
September NPRM supported the proposed 
changes to FMVSS 115. However, several com- 
menters suggested slight changes or clarifications 
to the proposed regulatory language. The most 
controversial aspect of the proposal was the provi- 
sion which would exempt from certain VIN re- 
quirements vehicles imported into the United 
States under bond, which do not meet U.S. stand- 
ards, but which will subsequently be modified to 
meet those standards. As a practical matter, this 
provision applies to individuals or organizations 
which import small numbers of vehicles. Several 
commenters expressed the fear that this provision 
could result in the importation of large numbers of 
vehicles (such as by a foreign manufacturer) with 
nonconforming VIN's. These commenters sug- 
gested that the exemption be limited to a max- 
imum of 5 vehicles per year per individual. WhDe 
the agency agrees that the exemption should not 
be applied to an actual manufacturer, it cannot 
justify selecting any particular arbitrary limit, 
such as five vehicles, to exclude larger commercial 
organizations. However, in response to these com- 
ments, the agency is amending this provision to ex- 
clude actual manufacturers of vehicles and their 
subsidiaries. 

Several commenters also suggested that infor- 
mation on VIN errors should be provided to the 
National Crime Information Center (NCIC, part of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and the Na- 
tional Automobile Theft Bureau (NATB, a private 
organization affiliated with the insurance 
industry). These organizations could enter the in- 
formation in their computer systems, thereby mak- 
ing it avaOable to State motor vehicle administra- 
tions, law enforcement organizations, and other 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 36 



VIN users. The agency agrees that taking this step 
would help assure that VIN users would have com- 
plete and accurate information on the VIN's which 
are actually assigned by the vehicle manufac- 
turers. Accordingly, NHTSA will estabhsh an in- 
ternal procedure for routinely transmitting VIN 
error information to NCIC and NATB. 

Most commenters also suggested that the 
agency define the term "trailer kit" and specify in 
the regulation the agency's previously established 
policy, i.e., that trailer kits are subject to the same 
VIN requirements as trailers. The agency believes 
that making these changes is appropriate, and is 
adopting a definition of trailer kits based on 
language in 49 CFR 567.4(g). "Trailer kits" are 
defined as a trailer which is delivered in complete 
but unassembled form, and which can be as- 
sembled without special machinery or tools. 

MVMA suggested that the "trailer kit" defini- 
tion should be added to the definitions in the begin- 
ning of Part 571. Taking that action would not 
serve any present purpose, since the term is ap- 
parently not used in any other FMVSS. MVMA 
also suggested incorporating all the definitions in 
Part 571 into FMVSS 115. The agency sees no 
need for this change, and making the change could 
have unintended effects, such as where a term's 
definition in one standard is inappropriate for use 
in FMVSS 115. Therefore, these recommendations 
were not adopted. 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police 
and the NATB also suggested that the agency 
define the term "glider kit" and specify that VIN 
requirements are applicable to glider kits. Typi- 
cally, a glider kit is a new truck cab, frame rails, 
and front suspension without drive train (engine, 
transmission, and rear axle). The treatment of 
combinations of new and used components in a 
single vehicle is currently specified in 49 CFR 
571.7. Under that provision, the addition of a new 
cab, frame rail, and front suspension is deemed to 
create a new vehicle subject to all applicable safety 
standards in effect as of the date of remanufac- 
ture, unless the engine, transmission, and drive 
axle (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are 
not new and at least two of those listed com- 
ponents were taken from the same vehicle. Thus, 
in many situations, the use of a new glider kit 
would not require that a new VIN be affixed to the 
assembled vehicle. Further, it would be difficult for 
the glider kit manufacturer to assign a VIN, as 



suggested by the two commenters, since a truck 
VIN must contain coded information regarding the 
engine type, and the glider kit manufacturer would 
not generally know what type of engine would be 
used with a particular kit. Therefore, the agency is 
not adopting the provisions suggested by these two 
commenters, and will instead rely on the existing 
regulations for dealing vidth glider kits. 

The Iowa Department of Transportation ob- 
jected to the practice of some motorcycle manufac- 
turers of stamping a portion of the VIN on motor- 
cycle frames. The Iowa agency points out that this 
practice could cause confusion as to which number 
is the actual VIN. NHTSA has taken the position 
that, so long as the vehicle manufacturer complies 
with all requirements in FMVSS 115 with regard 
to the specified 17 character number, these 
manufacturers may affix other numbers to the 
motorcycles for their own purposes. Currently, 
NHTSA cannot justify altering this policy. 
However, should we become aware of substantial 
numbers of incidents where the use of this sup- 
plementary number has undermined the Federal 
VIN system, we may consider prohibiting these 
supplementary numbers, requiring that sup- 
plementary numbers must be the same 17 
character number as the VIN, or some clarifying 
labeling where other than the VIN is used. The 
NCIC objected to the exemption of farm equip- 
ment from VIN requirements. The VIN re- 
quirements, like all of the FMVSS, apply only to 
"motor vehicles", i.e., vehicles which are manufac- 
tured primarily for use on the public roads, consist- 
ent with the scope of the agency's regulatory 
authority under the Act. See section 102(3) of the 
Act. The agency lacks the authority to regulate 
vehicles which are principally used off the public 
roads, such as the vehicles cited by these two com- 
menters. Should the States decide to apply VIN re- 
quirements to such vehicles as a matter of State 
law, NHTSA would have no objection. 

Ford Motor Company and the MVMA pointed 
out that the requirement that VIN's affixed to 
vehicles must have a letter height of at least 4 
millimeters should only apply to passenger cars 
and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
10,000 pounds or less as the requirement has ever 
since it was established. In the NPRM, this re- 
quirement was inadvertently applied to all motor 
vehicles. The error is corrected in the final rule. 

MVMA also requested that the new VIN regula- 
tion maintain the requirement that, for manufac- 
turers of under 500 vehicles per year, the third 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 37 



character of the VIN must be the number 9. The 
agency deleted this provision, since prior to its 
amendment today, FMVSS 115 gave the erroneous 
impression that vehicle manufacturers selected the 
world manufacturer identifier (WMI) portion of 
their VIN's. In fact, the Society of Automotive 
Engineers assigns those characters for U.S. 
manufacturers. The deletion of the phrase specify- 
ing the third character of the VIN for small 
manufacturers in no way changes the intended 
numbering system— SAE will continue to assign 
WMI's as it has in the past. 

The American Association of Motor Vehicle Ad- 
ministrators has requested that NHTSA re- 
emphasize that vehicle manufacturers must submit 
and update deciphering information on their VIN 
systems. This final rule continues to provide that 
at least 60 days prior to affixing any VIN, or, when 
information is unavaOable at that time, within one 
week after it becomes available, each manufac- 
turer must submit information necessary to 
decipher its VIN system. This requirement, which 
has been in effect since January 1981, applies to 
both the original submission of deciphering infor- 
mation and to updates of that information as new 
products are offered by the manufacturer. It is the 
manufacturer's responsibility to assure that 
deciphering information provided to NHTSA is 
current. 

Ford Motor Company argued that sections 108 
and 152 of the Act, which the agency listed as part 
of the legal authority for the new VIN regulation, 
are not appropriate authority for this action. Sec- 
tion 108 was cited as authority merely to point out 
that, in conjunction with the reference to section 
112 as authority for the action, failure to comply 
with the VIN regulation would be enforceable as a 
violation of section 108(a) (1) (E) of the Act. The 
reference to section 152 is included to point out the 
regulation is issued to facilitate carrying out the 
recall provisions of section 152 of the Act. The 
NPRM should also have included (and this final 
rule includes) a reference to the safety research 
authority of section 106 of the Act, a major use of 
the VIN information. 

This action is being made effective 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. This relatively 
expedited effective date is in the public interest 
since it will quickly remove the potential problem 
of unwarranted VIN-related recalls. 



The principal impact of this action is to remove 
this threat of an unduly burdensome recall require- 
ment to correct VIN errors. The new Part 565 
would not have any requirements not in FMVSS 
115 prior to today. The agency anticipates that the 
manufacturers will continue to assign VIN's in the 
same manner regardless of whether VIN require- 
ments take the form of a safety standard or a 
regulation. Further, the agency anticipates that 
the corrective action required in case of erroneous 
VIN's would not essentially differ as a result of this 
proposed change, since only in extreme cases can 
the agency envision having to order a vehicle 
recall. 

This action should have a small positive impact 
on foreign trade, since it removes the threat to 
foreign manufacturers of a potentially burdensome 
recall campaign to correct minor VIN errors. Also, 
the exemption of vehicles imported under bond will 
have a small positive impact on foreign trade. 

The agency has concluded that the environmen- 
tal consequences of this action will be of such 
limited scope that they clearly will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human en- 
vironment; that this proposal does not qualify as a 
"major rule" within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12291; and that due to its minimal cost im- 
pacts, this rule is not "significant" within the 
meaning of the Department's regulatory pro- 
cedures. Therefore, preparation of neither a 
regulatory analysis nor full regulatory evaluation 
is necessary for this action. The agency notes this 
rulemaking action should have a small, positive im- 
pact on small firms— particularly small manufac- 
turers and small importers. This regulation pro- 
vides relief to small manufacturers from the 
generally applicable 60-day VIN prenottfication re- 
quirements in the case of orders for unique vehicle 
configurations. The agency is also exempting small 
importers (principally individuals importing one 
vehicle for their own use) from certain VIN format 
and content requirements. Given the relatively 
minor economic consequences of these changes, I 
certify that this action will have no significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, including small organizations or govern- 
mental units. These changes should have no impact 
on vehicle prices. For this reason and because 
VIN's will continue to be assigned to new vehicles 
as before, the agency does not anticipate any im- 
pacts on small organizations or governmental 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 38 



) 



units. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Issued May 13, 1983. 

Analysis has been prepared. Raymond A. Peck, Jr., 

For the reasons stated above, the agency is Administrator 

amending Chapter V of Title 49 of the Code of 48 F.R. 22567 

Federal Regulations by adding a new Part 565. May 19, 1983 



) 



PART 571; S 115-PRE 39-40 



^ 



c 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 

Vehicle Identification Number 
[Docket No. 1-22; Notice 13] 



ACTION: Correction. 

SUMMARY: On May 19. 1983. the agency pub- 
lished an amendment to Standard No. 115, Vehicle 
Identification Number. The amendment exempted 
from certain of the vehicle identification number 
(VIN) requirements vehicles imported into the 
United States under bond which do not meet U.S. 
standards at the time of importation, but which 
subsequently will be modified to meet those stan- 
dards. This notice corrects a typographical eror in 
that amendment, in order to clarify the specific 
provisions from which such importers are 
exempted. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30. 1985. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 19, 
1983 (48 FR 22567), NHTSA published a rule 
amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number. 
That amendment, made in response to a petition 
filed by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associa- 
tion, took certain portions of the existing FMVSS 
and placed those provisions in a separate agency 
regulation. This change was intended to remove 
the possibUity that certain minor VIN errors 
regarding the format and content of the number 
would trigger the recall and remedy provisions of 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
(which apply to violations of an FMVSS but not to 
violations of a general regulation). While the May 
amendment left the basic substantive VIN require- 
ments unchanged, one substantive amendment 
was implemented in that notice. That amendment 
exempted from most VIN requirements vehicles 
which do not meet U.S. standards imported into 



the United States under bond (except by the actual 
manufacturer of the vehicle or a subsidiary there- 
of), but which will subsequently be modified to 
meet those standards. (These vehicles will be 
referred to herein as "bonded imports.") Bonded 
imports are still required to have a vehicle iden- 
tification number assigned by the manufacturer 
and affixed to the vehicle in a specified location. 
(Volkswagen has filed a petition for reconsidera- 
tion of the amendment, which is being reviewed by 
the agency.) 

Due to a typog^raphical error involving the omis- 
sion of a clause and section numbering changes 
that occurred in the period between the agency's 
proposal and issuance of the final rule, there has 
been some confusion with regard to the precise 
scope of the bonded-import exemption. This notice 
amends FMVSS 115 to make clear that bonded im- 
ports are exempt only from the standard's require- 
ment that each VIN have 17 characters in a 
specified format and check digit. Bonded imports 
must still have a unique VIN assigned by the 
assembling manufacturer which is permanently af- 
fixed to the vehicle, and is clearly legible. This 
notice also corrects the standard to specify that 
the exemption does not apply to an assembling 
manufacturer or its subsidiary. The preamble to 
the final rule explained that change, but it was not 
incorporated into the text of the standard. 

The corrections to FMVSS 115 made in this 
notice will be effective immediately on publication 
in the Federal Register. The agency finds good 
cause for determining that notice and comment on 
this amendment are not necessary. Likewise, the 
agency finds good cause for an immediate effective 
date within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) and 
finds that such an effective date is in the public 



PART 571; S115-PRE 41 



interest within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1392(e). Vehicles imported into the United States under 19 

The basis for the findings of good cause is that the CFR 12.80(b)(lKiii), other than by a corporation 

amendment corrects an obvious error in the rule which was responsible for the assembly of that 

as originally promulgated and should not ad- vehicle or a subsidiary of such a corporation, are 

versely affect the ability of importers to comply exempt from the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and 

with the standard. S4.7 of this standard. 

For the reasons stated above, the agency is Issued on January 22, 1985. 
amending Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regula- 
tions, by revising Part 571.115, Vehicle Identifica- 
tion number, as follows: 

Standard 115: Vehicle identification number — 

basic requirements. ' Diane K. Steed 

1. Paragraph SI is amended by removing the Administrator 
second sentence of that paragraph, which reads as eg pp 4921 
follows: "Vehicles • * * standard." January 30, 1985 

2. Paragraph S2 is amended by adding a new 
second sentence to read as follows: 



PART 571; S115-PRE 42 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 

Vehicle Identification Number — Basic Requirements 
(Docket No. None Issued) 



ACTION: Final Rule 

SUMMARY: This notice amends the applicability 
section of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 to 
substitute a reference to Part 591 of this title for a 
reference to 19 CFR 12.80. This amendment conforms 
Standard No. 115 with the requirements of amend- 
ments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act by P.L. 100-562. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 1990 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was amended by 
the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 
(P.L. 100-562). Those amendments were enacted on 
October 31, 1988, and will become effective January 31 , 
1990. The amendments revoke the joint authority 
previously provided by 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3) under 
which motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards are admitted into the United 
States pursuant to joint regulations issued by the 
Departments of Treasury and Transportation. Instead, 
the Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, vests the primary 
importation regulatory authority in the Department of 
Transportation. 

The existing joint vehicle importation regulation is 
19 CFR 12.80. The forthcoming importation regulation 
of this agency is 49 CFR Part 591. Paragraph S2, 



Application of 49 CFR Part 571.115 Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification 
Number— Content Requirements exempts from certain 
of its requirements "Vehicles imported into the United 
States under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(iii), other than by a 
corporation which was responsible for assembly of 
that vehicle or a subsidiary of such a corporation. . . ." 
This relates to the importation of vehicles not originally 
manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards. The section of the new importation 
regulation that corresponds to 12.80(b)( 1 )(iii) is 49 CFR 
591.5(f). This notice amends Standard No. 115 to delete 
reference to the old authority and to add reference to 
the new one. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.115 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 is amended to 
read as follows: 

In paragraph S2, the citation "19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(iii)" 
is changed to read "paragraph 591.5(f) of this chapter". 

Issued on: October 5, 1989 



Jeffrey R. Miller 
Acting Administrator 

54 F.R. 41844 
October 12, 1989 



PART 571; S115-PRE 43—44 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 



Vehicle Identification Number; Basic Requirements 

(Docket No. 88-08; Notice 2) 

RIN:2127-AC65 



ACTION: Final Rule. 



SUMMARY: In this final rule. NHTSA changes vehicle 
identification number and certification requirements 
for motor vehicles that were not originally man- 
ufactured for sale in this country, do not comply with 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and are 
imported into the United States by businesses un- 
affiliated with the original manufacturer. This final 
rule would make it clear that the importer of such 
vehicles would be required to use one of the unique 
coding identifiers that the original manufacturer as- 
signed to the vehicle, in lieu of using the 17-character 
U.S. vehicle identification number (VIN) required to be 
placed on vehicles originally manufactured for sale in 
this country. The direct importer must place the 
original manufacturer's identifier on a plate that 
would appear inside the passenger compartment of the 
motor vehicle, so that the number may be observed 
through the glazing, and adjacent to the left windshield 
pillar. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 1989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 
108tbH3) of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle 
not conform with applicable safety standards may 
nonethe less enter the United States under "such 
terms and conditions" as the Secretaries of Transporta- 
tion and Treasury prescribe. Title 19 CFR 12.80 is a 
joint Transportation/Treasury regulation settingforth 
those terms and conidtions. Subparagraph (b)( l){iii)of 
that regulation requires that a person seeking to bring 
a nonconforming import (direct import vehicle) into 
the United States file a declaration that the vehicle 
will be modified so as to conform with applicable 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Among 
those Standards is 1 15. Vehicle Identification Number— Basic 
requirements. 

In order to comply with Standard 1 15 requirements, 
many direct importers have been applying a "home- 
made" VIN plate to their imported vehicles. The VINs 
added by direct importers are so different in appearance 
from VINs on similar vehicles manufactured for sale in 



the United States that law enforcement officials have 
mistaken them for altered VINs. Other concerns 
presented by these "homemade" VIN plates are 
identification problems that have been created for 
insurance investigators and encoding errors that 
compromise the integrity of the VIN system. 

This rulemaking arose when the agency granted a 
petition submitted by the National Automobile Theft 
Bureau (NATB or petitioner) to amend Standard 1 15 to 
address problems arising when direct importers create 
a VIN and a VIN plate using an identification number 
and plate production process other than the ones 
which the original vehicle manufacturer uses. Among 
problems noted by the NATB were an increased 
prospect of encoding errors in a homemade VIN, law 
enforcement officials mistaking homemade VIN plates 
for altered plates, and the resulting risk that individuals 
lawfully possessing direct import vehicles may be 
subjected to criminal charges. 

The petitioner recommended that NHTSA take 
action to prevent the direct importer from creating its 
own VIN. In place of its own VIN, the importer would 
be required to follow one of two alternative means of 
identifying a vehicle. First, if the original manufacturer 
had placed any kind of identification number plate in 
the passenger compartment where Standard 115would 
otherwise require a 17-character VIN plate, the 
importer would retain the original manufacturer's 
plate as the vehicle's VIN plate. Among the original 
manufacturer identification numbers that one might 
use in place of the United States VIN are the European 
vehicle identification number (EuroVIN), the World 
Market vehicle identification number (WorldVIN), the 
chassis number, or the vehicle serial number. 

Second, if the original manufacturer had not affixed 
a plate of the type and in the location described at S4.6 
of Standard 115 (49 CFR 571.115), then the importer 
would be required to affix a plate in that location 
stating that the vehicle is "partially exempt" from 
Standard 1 15. This plate would refer a person to the 
driver's door post, where the importer would be 
required to affix a label with information that cited the 
Joint Transportation/Treasury regulation under which 
a person directly imports a noncomplying vehicle, 
identified the location on the vehicle of the original 



PART571;S115-PRE-45 



manufacturer's number to be used in lieu of the 17 
character VIN, gave the name and address of those 
bringing the vehicle into compliance with Standard 
115, stated the date of importation and of certification, 
and gave the name and address of the person who 
made the certification. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published May 13, 1988 
(53 Federal Register 17088), the agency acknowledged 
the problems with VINs on direct import vehicles and 
proposed to amend Standard 115 so that a direct 
importer need not create a VIN or VIN plate in order to 
comply with United States vehicle identification 
requirements under Standard 115. NHTSA could not 
agree that any extant original manufacturer identifier 
in the S4.6 location would obviate the need for some 
notice that the vehicle is partially exempt from 
Standard 115. 

The agency believed it would be a relatively simple 
matter to affix a plate informing an interested person 
that a vehicle is partially exempt, and refer the person 
to another label on the door post that would specify the 
unique identifying number for the vehicle. The agency 
therefore proposed to require such a plate on any 
vehicle that did not have the 17-character United 
States VIN. Because of this proposed approach, the 
agency believed it was unnecessary to consider N ATB's 
suggestion that a EuroVIN, WorldVIN, chassis, or 
serial number be exempted from the readability and 
location requirements in S4.6. 

A second way in which NHTSA's proposal varied 
from the NATE petition was that the agency did not 
propose to require a lengthy label with a citation to 19 
CFR 12.80, and information about the person per- 
forming work to bring the vehicle into compliance with 
Standard 115. The agency proposed instead to require 
a simplified label that stated where an interested 
person could find the unique manufacturer identifying 
number that would be used in lieu of the United States 
VIN. Further, for consistency, the agency proposed to 
include labeling requirements under Part 567. It was 
proposed that paragraph (k) of section 567.4 be deleted 
and that sections 567.5, 567.6 and 567.7 be redesignated 
as sections 567.6, 567.7, and 567.8, respectively. Under 
a new section 567.5 (for the most part former section 
567. 4(k)), the language regarding labeling requirements 
for high theft lines imported into the United States 
would be retained, with minor changes, as section 
567.5(a). The proposed section 567.5(b) outlined a 
requirement for a label for direct import vehicles that 
would be affixed in one of three locations. This label 
would state: "Original Manufacturer's Identification 
Number Substituting for U.S. VIN is located," and 
direct the reader to the location on the vehicle where 
the original manufacturer's identification number, 
placed by the original manufacturer, could be found. 



NHTSA also sought comment, particularly from law 
enforcement officials, on two issues: 

(1) Whether the proposed changes could, in some 
circumstances, increase the fraudulent use of VINs or 
impede law enforcement actions. As an example, the 
agency noted that in certain circumstances, vehicles 
with the proposed FMVSS 115 exemption label would 
no longer have a VIN visible through the glazing. 
NHTSA requested comment on whether this situation 
would create a law enforcement problem by precluding 
the inspection of VINs on parked and locked vehicles. 

(2) Whether the proposal could lead to improper use 
of VIN exemption plates (e.g., replacing a legitimate 
VIN), since, under certain circumstances, it would 
allow an exemption plate where the VIN would be if it 
had been a passenger car built for the U.S. market. 

The Comments and the Agency Response. The 
agency received eight responses to the NPRM. Four 
commenters addressed the first question presented in 
the NPRM, concerning using an exemption plate in 
lieu of a VIN or other identification number in the S4.6 
location. The Automobile Importers of America, Inc. 
(AIA), Porsche, the International Association of Auto 
Theft Investigators (lAATI), and the National Auto- 
motive Theft Bureau (NATB) recommended that 
NHTSA require each vehicle to have an identification 
number visible from the outside of the vehicle. In 
response to these comments, the agency has adopted a 
requirement for a plate or label containing the original 
manufacturer's identification number in the S4.6 
location, with a reference to Standard 115. 

The agency believes that this solution addresses the 
agency's initial concern about the possibility of 
transcription errors while at the same time main- 
taining an identification number in the place where 
law enforcement officials are accustomed to see it. In 
cases where the original manufacturer's identification 
number is in the S4.6 location and does not conform to 
Part 565, the presence of the identifying notice along- 
side it will serve to inform law enforcement personnel 
that the vehicle is a direct import vehicle that has been 
modified to conform to U.S. safety standards. Any 
transcription errors would be immediately evident, 
since the number on the identifying notice should be 
identical to the original number alongside it. Where 
the original manufacturer's identification is located 
elsewhere, the identifying notice will provide the 
number and also alert an investigating officer that the 
number is a substitute for the number ordinarily 
required by FMVSS 115. 

Further investigation by the agency has not found 
any evidence indicating that direct importers have 
been using a 17-character VIN that they have created 
themselves; conformity bonds are not released if they 
do. However, they do create another plate using the 
original manufacturer's identification number that 



PART571;S115-PRE-46 



they install behind the windshield, in the S4.6 location. 
In the interest of clarity and to the extent direct 
imports have been a problem to theft investigators and 
other interested parties, the requirement is being 
amended. Also, in the NPRM, the notice in the S4.6 
location was proposed to read: "FMVSS 115 EXEMPT 
VEHICLE. SEE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR POST." After 
reevaluation, the agency had determined that the 
wording "FMVSS 115 EXEMPT VEHICLE" may 
imply that direct importers are being exempted from 
all aspects of FMVSS 115. It is more accurate to state 
that the original manufacturer's identification number 
is used as a substitute for a VIN, required by FMVSS 
115. 

. The following language will therefore be required in 
the final rule: 



SUBSTITUTE FOR U.S. VIN: 
SEE FMVSS 115. 

With this alternative, law enforcement officials would 
also know that the passenger car in question does not 
have a U.S. VIN. 

The second question raised in the NPRM, whether 
the proposal would lead to improper use of VIN 
exemption plates, was addressed by one commenter. 
The NATB expressed a belief that it would be very 
important to prevent any VIN exemption plate from 
being overlaid on the original manufacturer's identifier 
in the S4.6 position. NATB commented: "Unless there 
is a specific anti-overlayment provision included in 
FMVSS 115 it is a virtual certainty that organized 
theft perpetrators will take advantage of the situation 
and affix the VIN exemption notice over the location of 
the legitimate VIN plate." NATB suggested that the 
notice be required to be affixed in a location other than 
the location used by the vehicle's original manufacturer 
for affixing VIN plates in the same or similar vehicle 
lines. The agency agrees, and has accordingly adopted 
the following language in the final rule as Paragraph 
S4.9(c) to ensure the original manufacturer's identi- 
fication number will not be covered, obscured, or 
overlaid: 

(c) The plate or label by (b) shall be permanently 
affixed in a location that conforms to S4.6, in such 
manner as not to cover, obscure, or overlay any part of 
any identification number affixed by the original 
manufacturer, and shall conform to S4.7 and S4.8. 

Two commenters expressed concern about the lack 
of a check digit in the original manufacturer's 
identification number. Besides noting that lack of a 
check digit could be a problem, AIA cited errors in 
transcription which are not caught despite a check 
digit system, resulting in vehicles with incorrect VINs. 
AIA suggested that the solution to this problem is to 
ensure that all entries are transcribed correctly, and 
that all other regulations are complied with. 



In noting that original manufacturer's identification 
numbers from various makes would not have the 
benefit of a check digit, Porsche asserted that "[t]his 
lack of a check-digit negates another of the prime 
features of the current VIN — the ability to rapidly 
check for transcription mistakes." Although the agency 
believes that a check-digit is useful in preventing 
transcription errors, it regards the risk of error from 
"homemade" VINs as significantly greater. It has 
therefore concluded that the original manufacturer's 
identification number should be retained by the direct 
importer. 

Besides the comments summarized above, AIA 
pointed out to the agency that there is no concept of 
"model year" in Europe. AIA believed that for this 
reason, "gray market importers cannot possibly discern 
a model year to put on the label." NHTSA has accepted 
this comment from AIA. Accordingly, § 567.4(k)(4)(i) 
has been amended to read: "Model year (if applicable) 
or year of manufacture, and line of the vehicle as 
reported by the manufacturer that produced or as- 
sembled the vehicle." Also included is a statement that 
" 'Model year' is used as defined in § 565.3(h) of this 
chapter." 

lAATI also recommended a separate label that 
would provide information on the person who per- 
formed the work bringing the vehicle into compliance 
with Standard 115. The rationale for this recom- 
mendation is that it would give an investigator a 
starting point to trace the vehicle through the person 
performing the compliance work and back to the 
original manufacturer. The agency believes it is already 
requiring enough information, on as many as three 
labels at the door post or alternate positions, without 
requiring this information also. In the few instances 
where law enforcement officers or other investigators 
need this information, they would obtain information 
about who did the compliance work by contacting the 
direct importer or NHTSA. 

In addition to the comments recommending specific 
changes in the final rule, the agency also received 
several comments from Allstate Insurance Company 
and the Highway Loss Data Institute in general 
support of the rulemaking. The National Automobile 
Dealers Association supported the NHTSA proposal 
and urged NHTSA "to consider the need to readily and 
clearly identify these vehicles as beingdirect imports." 
They believed that the proposed amendments to the 
VIN standards would "serve to establish a nationally 
recognized gray market identifier on each vehicle." 

Volkswagen of America, Inc. encouraged NHTSA to 
"promote enforcement of the safety standards for all 
vehicles regardless of who the manufacturer or im- 
porter may be." They noted that although the proposal 
would eliminate encodingerrors in "homemade" VINs, 
the same result could be had by enforcement of the 
existing regulation requiring display of the correct 
VIN on all vehicles. 



PART 571; S115-PRE-47 



The agency is aware that this rule will be more 
effectual for original manufacturer identifiers utilizing 
Roman letters or Arabic numerals than for man- 
ufacturer identifiers which may be used in countries 
with non-Roman letters. If the use of non-Roman 
letters becomes a source of confusion, the agency may 
undertake further remedial action. 
Other Changes In the Final Rule. 
Redesignation of Sections in Part 567. 
The NPRM proposed that Section 557. 4(k) be dropped, 
that Sections 567.5, 567.6, and 567.7 be redesignated as 
Sections 567.6, 567.7, and 567.8, respectively, and that 
a new Section 567.5 Special requirements for motor 
vehicles admitted under 19 CFR 12.80 be added. Upon 
reevaluation, the agency has decided that rather than 
redesignating existing provisions in Part 567, and 
adding new sections with whole paragraphs that are 
identical to old paragraphs, the same end would be 
accomplished more simply by adding a new 
567.4(1) (that would require identification on the 
vehicle of the original manufacturer's number) after 
§567. 4(k). This new §567.4(1) is the same in sub- 
stance as §567.5(b) in the notice of proposed rule- 
making. 

High Theft Lines. 

49 CFR Part 541 requires that 14 major parts of 
designated passenger motor vehicle lines be marked 
with Vehicle Identification Numbers, even if the vehicle 
was not originally manufactured for the U.S. market. 
FMVSS 115 does not exempt importers of vehicles not 
manufactured for sale in the U.S. from complying with 
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541 for 
the car lines listed in Appendix A to Part 541. As a 
result of the agency's decision to require retention of 
the original manufacturer's VIN, the fourteen desig- 
nated major parts (Section 541.5(a)) must be marked 
with the original VIN assigned to the car by its original 
manufacturer. The subject vehicle must be in com- 
pliance with the theft prevention standard before it is 
imported into the United States. The markings must 
be affixed or inscribed in accordance with the target 
area requirements designated by the manufacturer 
that is the original producer who installs or assembles 
the covered major parts on a line. 

Section 567. 5(k) applies to direct import high theft 
lines. §567.5(1) refers to the direct import vehicles 
without 17-character U.S. VINs. Therefore, if there 
should be high theft lines that are brought to the U.S. 
by direct importers, they would have to have three 
labels in the positions in the passenger car designated 
in §567. 4(c), namely, the certification label required 
by §567. 4(a), the compliance with Federal motor 
vehcile theft prevention standard label required by 
§567. 4(k), and the label designating where the orig- 
inal manufacturer's identification number may be 
found, as required by §567.4(1). 



In consideration of the foregoing. Title 49 CFR 567, 
Certification, and 49 CFR571. 115, Vehicle Identification 
Number— Basic Requirements, are amended as follows: 

1. The authority citation for Part 567 is revised to 
read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1397, 1401, 1403, and 
1407; 15 U.S.C. 1912 and 1915; 15 U.S.C. 2021, 2022, 
and 2026; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 
567.4 [Amended] 

2. Subparagraph (k)(4)(i) of 567.4 is revised to 

read as follows: 

***** 

/i,\ ***** 

{A\ ***** 

(i) Model year (if'applicable) or year of manufacture 
and line of the vehicle, as reported by the manufacturer 
that produced or assembled the vehicle. "Model year" 
is used as defined in 565.3(h) of this chapter. 

"Line" is used as defined in 541.4 of this chapter. 

3. A new paragraph (1) is added to 567.4 as 
follows: 

(1)(1) In the case of a passenger car imported into the 
United States under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(iii) or 49 CFR 
Part 591 which does not have an identification number 
that complies with paragraph S4.2, S4.3, and S4.7of 49 
CFR 571.115 at the time of importation, the importer 
shall permanently affix a label to the vehicle in such a 
manner that, unless the label is riveted, it cannot be 
removed without being destroyed or defaced. The label 
shall be in addition to the label required by subsection 
(a) of this section, and shall be affixed to the vehicle in a 
location specified in subsection (c) of this section. 

(2) The label shall contain the following statement, 
in the English language, lettered in block capitals and 
numerals not less than three thirty-seconds of an inch 
high, with the location on the vehicle of the original 
manufacturer's identification number provided in the 
blank: ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER'S IDENTIF- 
ICATION NUMBER SUBSTITUTING FOR U.S. VIN 

IS LOCATED 

PART 571 [AMENDED] 

4. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue 
to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delega- 
tion of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 
571.115 [AMENDED] 

5. S.2 is revised by adding the words "or 49 CFR 
591" after the words "19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(iii)." 

6. A new paragraph S4.9 is added to 571.115 to 
read as follows: 

S4.9(a) A passenger car imported into the United 
States under 19 CFR 12.80(b)( l)(iii) or 49 CFR Part 591 
shall retain any identification number affixed by the 
original manufacturer. 

(b) A vehicle described in (a) shall have a plate or 
label that contains the following statement in char- 



PART571;S115-PRE-48 



(c) The plate or label required by (b) shall be per- 
manently affixed in a location that conforms to S4.6, in 
such manner as not to cover, obscure, or overlay any 
part of any identification number affixed by the 
original manufacturer, and shall conform to S4.7 and 
S4.8. 
Issued on: October 26, 1989 



Barry Felrice 

Associate Administrator for 
Rulemaking 



54 F.R. 46253 
November 2, 1989. 



PART 571; S115-PRE 49-50 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 115 
Vehicle Identification Number— Basic Requirements 



51. Purpose and Scope. 

This standard specifies general physical 
requirements for a vehicle identification number 
(VIN) and its installation to simplify vehicle infor- 
mation retrieval and to reduce the incidence of 
accidents by increasing the accuracy and efficiency 
of vehicle recall campaigns. 

52. Application. 

This standard applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, 
trailers, (including trailer kits), incomplete vehicles 
and motorcycles. Vehicles imported into the 
United States under 19 CFR 12.80(bXlXiii), [or 49 
CFR 5911 other than by a corporation which was 
responsible for the assembly of that vehicle or a 
subsidiary of such a corporation, are exempt from 
the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.7 of this 
standard. (54 F.R. 46253— November 2, 1989. Effec- 
tive: December 4. 1989)] 

53. Definitions. 

"Check digit" means a single number or the 
letter X used to verify the accuracy of the 
transcription of the vehicle identification number. 

"Incomplete vehicle" means an assemblage con- 
sisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis struc- 
ture, power train, steering system, suspension 
system, and braking system, to the extent that 
those systems are to be part of the completed vehi- 
cle, that requires further manufacturing operations, 
other than the addition of readily attachable com- 
ponents, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, 
or minor finishing operations such as painting, to 
become a completed vehicle. 

"Manufacturer" means the entity responsibility 
for affixing the vehicle's certification label. 

"Trailer kit" means a trailer which is fabricated 
and delivered in completed and delivered in com- 
plete but unassembled form and which is designed 
to be assembled without special machinery or tools. 



"Vehicle identification number" means a series 
of arable numbers and roman letters which is 
assigned to a motor vehicle for identification 
purposes. 

S4. Requirements. 

54.1 Each vehicle manufactured in one stage 
shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufac- 
turer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one 
stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as specified 
in 49 CFR 567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by 
the original manufacturer of the vehicle. 

54.2 Each VIN shall consist of seventeen (17) 
characters. 

54.3 A check digit shall be part of each VIN. 
The check digit shall appear in position nine (9) of 
the VIN on the vehicle and on any transfer 
documents containing the VIN and prepared by 
the manufacturer to be given to the first owner for 
purposes other than resale. 

54.4 The VIN's of any two vehicles manufac- 
tured within a 30-year period shall not be identical. 

54.5 The VIN of each vehicle shall appear 
clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the 
vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed 
to be removed except for repair or upon a separate 
plate or label which is permanently affixed to such 
a part. 

54.6 The VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or 
less GVWR shall be located inside the passenger 
compartment. It shall be readable, without moving 
any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glazing 
under daylight lighting conditions by an observer 
having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye-point is 
located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left 
windshield pillar. Each character in the VIN sub- 
ject to this paragraph shall have a minimum height 
of 4 mm. 



(Rev. 11/2/89) 



PART 571; S 115-1 



54.7 Each character in each VIN shall be one of 
the Arabic or Roman letters set forth in Table 1. 

Table 1 

Numbers: 
1234567890 

Letters: 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPRSTUVWXYZ 

All spaces provided for in the VIN must be 
occupied by a character specified in Table 1. 

54.8 The type face utilized for each VIN shall 
consist of capital, san serif characters. 

(S4.9 (a) A passenger car imported into the 
United States under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(iii) or 49 
CFR Part 591 shall retain any identification 
number affixed by the original manufacturer. 



(b) A vehicle described in (a) shall have a plate or 
label that contains the following statement in 
characters with a minimum height of 4 mm, with 
the identification number assisgned by the original 
manufacturer provided in the blank: SUB- 
STITUTE FOR U.S. VIN: . 

SEE FMSS 115. 

(c) The plate or label required by (b) shall be per- 
manently affixed in a location that conforms to 
S4.6, in such manner as not to cover, obscure, or 
overlay any part of any identification number 
affixed by the original manufacturer, and shall con- 
form to S4.7 and S4.8. (54 F.R. 46253— November 2, 
1989. Effective:December 4, 1989)1 



43 F.R. 36452 
August 17, 1978 



(Rev. 11/2/89) 



PART 571; S 115-2 



EffKNv*: March 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 
(Docket No. 70-23; Notice 3) 



This notice amends § 571.21 of Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 
to establish new performance requirements for 
brake fluid, and to extend its application to all 
motor vehicles equipped with hydraulic brake 
systems, and to all brake fluid for use in hy- 
draulic brake systems of motor vehicles. The 
amendment also establishes requirements for 
brake fluid containers and labeling of containers. 

A notice of proposed amendment to Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 was pub; 
lished on September 30, 1970 (35 F.R. 15229)! 
Interested persons have been afforded an oppor- 
tunity to participate in the rulemaking process 
and their comments have been carefully con- 
sidered. 

The amendment adopts requirements that were 
proposed for grades DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake 
fluid, eliminates SAE Type 70R1 brake fluid, 
specifies more stringent requirements for physical 
and chemical properties, specifies the use of SAE 
SBR wheel cylinder cups in testing, and sets 
forth requirements for brake fluid containers and 
brake fluid container labeling. 

Comments and available data indicated that 
the proposed DOT 2 type brake fluid is not a 
commercially available fluid but is manufactured 
primarily for military use in Arctic regions and 
that there is no current need for this additional 
grade of brake fluid. DOT 2 brake fluid has 
therefore been excluded from the amendment. 

Requirements for DOT 3 and DOT 4 grade 
fluids are adopted as proposed, with a minor 
modification in the wet boiling point of the DOT 
4 grade fluid. The NHTSA has determined that 
there is a need for two grades of brake fluid 
imtil an all-weather fluid is developed with 
viscosity and boiling point characteristics suit- 



able for use in all braking systems. In order to 
provide an added margin of protection against 
vapor locking in severe braking service, some car 
manufacturers may wish to recommend use of 
a DOT 4 fluid for certain severe conditions. 
Such reconmiendations should point out that use 
of the DOT 4 fluid for improved resistance to 
vapor locking may result in poorer system per- 
formance in very cold weather. 

The wet equilibrium reflux boiling point test 
procedure has been adopted as it represents a 
measure of the capability of the fluid in service. 
Tests have been run and data accumulated which 
demonstrate that this test is sufficiently repeat- 
able to justify its inclusion. However, when 
sufficient data become available on methods of 
measuring resistance to vapor lock, this agency 
may consider proposing a new test procedure. 

The proposed low temperature viscosity re- 
quirements for the DOT 3 and DOT 4 grade 
fluids have been adopted unchanged. Adequate 
data exist to support the need for the specified 
kinematic viscosities at low temperatures to as- 
sure adequate brake system performance in cold 
weather. Since high boiling points are sacrificed 
for low viscosities at low temperatures, the dif- 
ferences in kinematic viscosities between DOT 
3 and DOT 4 grade fluids are justifiable- 

The flash point test proposal has not been 
adopted because comments indicated that the 
test is not pertinent to in-use performance char- 
acteristics. The NHTSA, however, may re- 
examine the potential flammability hazard posed 
by motor vehicle brake fluids at a later date, par- 
ticularly in the event that central hydraulic sys- 
tems are introduced. 

Brake fluid containers with a capacity of six 
ounces or more must be provided with a reseal- 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 1 



Effactiv*: March 1, 1972 



able closure to reduce the likelihood of contami- 
nation after the initial opening. 

The labeling requirements as adopted do not 
require, in all instances, that the manufacturer's 
name be placed upon the container. Many com- 
ments indicated that the manufacturer cannot 
be held resposible for the quality of a fluid once 
it has been transferred to a packager who may 
contaminate or alter the fluid, and the NHTSA 
concurs. However, the manufacturer, when he is 
not the packager, will be required to certify com- 
piance to the packager. The packager will be 
required to state the name of the manufacturer 
and the distributor on the container label, either 
directly or in code. He wil be required also to 
affix a number identifying the packaged lot and 
date of packaging. It is expected that pack- 
agers will keep records sufficient to provide the 
NHTSA with all identifying information when 
such is requested. The safety warnings have 
been reworded to avoid misinterpretations. 

Several comments indicated that the proposed 
effective date of October 1, 1971 would place a 
hardship on packagers who deal solely in the 
aftermarket, alleging that lithographed cans 
must be purchased in quantity. Accordingly, 
an effective date of March 1, 1972, has been 
adopted to offer sufficient lead time to insure that 
all motor vehicle brake fluids manufactured on 
and after that date will be packaged in containers 
which meet requirements also effective March 1, 
1972. 

Petroleum-based fluids are no longer exempted 
from meeting the requirement of this standard. 
However, the NHTSA realizes that some manu- 
facturers wish to use these fluids in central power 
systems and is issuing today an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking requesting comments for 
a suitable performance standard for petroleum- 
based fluids (Docket No. 71-13; 36 F.R. 12032). 

Test procedures adopted are, in general, 
similar to current ASTM Methods, with SAE 



Standards Jl702b and Jl703b as reference 
sources. ASTM Methods consulted in develop- 
ing the test procedures include: E 298-68 "As- 
say of Organic Peroxides," D 1120-65 "Boiling 
Point of Engine Antifreezes,"' D 1121-67 "Re- 
serve Alkalinity of Engine Antifreezes and 
Antitfusts," D 2240-68 "Indentation Hardness of 
Rubber and Plastics by Means of a Durometer," 
D 344-39 "Relative Dry Hiding Power of 
Paints," D 97-66 "Pour Point," D 1415-68 "In- 
ternational Hardness of Vulcanized Natural and 
Synthetic Rubbers," E 1-68 "ASTM Thermom- 
eters," E 77-66 "Verification and Calibration of 
Liquid-In-Glass Thermometers," D 2515-66 
"Kinematic Glass Viscometers," E 70-68 "pH 
of Aqueous Solutions with the Glass Electrode," 
E 29-67 "Indicating Which Places of Figures 
are to be Considered Significant in Specified 
Limiting Values," D 1123-59 "Water in Con- 
centrated Engine Antifreezes by the Iodine Rea- 
gent Method." D 445-65 "Viscosity of Trans- 
parent and Opaque Liquids (Kinematic and Dy- 
namic Viscosities)," D 91-61 "Precipitation 
Number of Lubricating Oils," and E 96-66 
"Water Vapor Transmission of Materials in 
Sheet Form." SAE Referee Materials (SAE 
RM) used in testing may be obtained from the 
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Two 
T^ennsylvania Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10001. 

Effective date: March 1, 1972. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.21, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, is amended. 

Issued on June 16, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Acting Administrator 

36 F.R. 11987 
June 24, 1971 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 2 



EffMtiva: March 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 
(Docket No. 70-23; Notice 4) 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, estab- 
lishing requirements for motor vehicle brake 
fluids and containers was amended on June 24, 
1971 (36 F.R. 11987). Corrections were pub- 
lished on August 11, 1971 (36 F.R. 14742) and 
August 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 15534). Pursuant to 
49 CFR 553.35 (35 F.R. 5119) petitions for re- 
consideration of the amendment were filed by 
Automotive Parts and Accessories Association, 
Inc., Citroen S.A., General Motors Cohporation, 
R. M. Hollingshead Corporation, Union Carbide 
Corporation, and Wagner Electric Corporation. 
Subsequently, requests for rulemaking were re- 
ceived from Gold Eagle Products Co., and Union 
Carbide. 

In response to information contained in several 
of the petitions, and to data recently available to 
the Administrator, the standard is being amended. 
The Administrator has declined to grant re- 
qested relief from other requirements of the 
standard. 

1. Deletion of grade DOT 4 puid. Wagner 
Electric petitioned for the deletion of grade 
DOT 4 fluid, and the adoption of a single mini- 
mum standard with the viscosity requirements of 
grade DOT 4 and the boiling point character- 
istics of grade DOT 3. 

As the Administration not«d in the June 24 
amendment to Standard No. 116, "there is a need 
for two grades of brake fluid until an J^ll-weathe^ 
fluid is developed with viscosity and boiling 
point characteristics suitable for use in all brak- 
ing systems." Temperatures of fluids in use in 
Western mountain driving have reached 295°F., 
and the Administration deems it essential to retain 
the DOT 4 fluid, with its minimum wet equi- 
librium reflux boiling point (ERBP) of Sll'F. 
Accordingly, Wagner's petition is denied. 



2. Deletion or modification of wet ERBP re- 
quirements. Wagner, Union Carbide, and Holl- 
ingshead petitioned for the deletion of the wet 
ERBP requirements on the grounds that the test 
procedure is not sufficiently reproducible, and 
that vapor lock temperature is a more appro- 
priate factor to use for determination of opera- 
tional characteristics of a brake fluid. 

The wet ERBP test is based primarily upon 
the SAE test for determination of the as re- 
ceived boiling point of brake fluid, a test that has 
been used by industry for years. The major 
problems in determining water content have been 
resolved. While the wet ERBP test pi-ocedure 
does not measure actual vapor lock temperature, 
which is often substantially below that of the wet 
boiling point, it provides a basis for measuring 
the in-service capacity of the fluid to resist vapor 
lock. The petitions are denied. 

3. Petroleum-hased and silicone-baaed fhiidt. 
Standard No. 116 as in effect until March 1, 1972, 
specifically excludes petroleum-based fluids from 
its applicability. The amendment of June 24, 
however, applies to "all brake fluid for use in 
hydraulic brake systems of motor vehicles," and 
effectively prohibits the manufacture of petro- 
leum-based and silicone-based fluids whose per- 
formance characteristics differ from conventional 
brake fluids. Although we have asked for com- 
ments on appropriate performance requirements 
for non-hygroscopic fluids (Docket No. 71-13, 
Notice 1, 36 F.R. 12032), to be incorporated into 
a standard with a proposed effective date of Jan- 
uary 1, 1973, there will be, at a minimum, a 
10-month period during which manufacture of 
these fluids is effectivey prohibited. General 
Motors and Citreon have asked us to reconsider 
this point, the latter stating that all its vehicles 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 3 



■ffKtiv*! March I, 1972 



use a petroleum-based fluid, and that its sales in 
the U.S. will be effectively curtained during the 
hiatus between the two standards. 

In the absence of a demonstrable safety prob- 
lem concerning the use of petroleum-based and 
silicone-based fluids, the petitions are deemed to 
have merit and Standard No. 116 is being 
amended to exclude these fluids from its ambit. 
We urge manufacturers, however, to take pre- 
cautions to assure that adverse cross-contamina- 
tion with hygroscopic fluids does not occur in 
the absence of appropriate regulations intended 
to eliminate this hazard. 

4. Labeling requirements. Automotive Parts 
and Accessories, General Motors, HoUingshead, 
Union Carbide, and Wagner Electric petitioned 
for reconsideration of various portions of the 
labeling requirements. Gold Eagle also apprised 
us of problems with labeling requirements. 

The petitioners have brought to our attention 
that packagers may use more than one manu- 
facturer as a source for brake fluid packaged 
under a single brand name, and that under the 
present regulation requiring manufacturer iden- 
tification on the can, packagers will either have 
to stock dupicate cans or purchase from one 
source. We initially considered manufacturer 
identification to be necessary in the event of 
brake fluid defect notification campaigns. How- 
ever, it has been determined that the serial num- 
ber identifying the packaged lot and date of 
packaging will be sufficient for the packager to 
identify the manufacturer of any defective fluid, 
and paragraph S5.2.2.2(b) is being amended to 
delete manufacturer identification. In response 
to requests for alternate location of the serial 
number, S5.2.2.2(d) is being amended to allow 
the number to be placed below the information by 
S5.2.2.2(c). An alternate location has also 
been specified for the information required by 
S5.2.2.2(b) if it is in code form. 

Two petitioners voiced the fear that the safety 
warning of paragraph S5.2.2.2(g) (1), to follow 
the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations in 
adding brake fluid, might result in the promotion 
by automobile dealers of specified brand names, 
possibly creating an unfair trade practice. The 
agency views this possibility as unrelated to 
motor vehicle safety since presumably all brake 



fluid will conform to Standard No. 116. In any 
event, a change of wording cannot eliminate this 
possibility, and the petitions are denied. 

Petitions were also received requesting that 
the safety warnings against refilling containers 
(S5.2.2.2(g) (4)) not apply to storage containers 
with a capacity in excess of 5 gallons, since con- 
tainers (30 and 50 gallon sizes, tank cars, etc.) 
differ from retail sale size cans and are reused 
for shipping purposes after cleaning. These 
petitions are granted and S5.2.2.2(g) (4) is being 
amended accordingly. 

5. Applicability to motor vehicles. Union Car- 
bide asked whether brake fluid in a vehicle must 
meet the requirements of Standard No. 116 when 
the vehicle is sold, pointing out that in extreme 
cases as long as a year may pass between its 
manufacture and sale. The NHTSA recognizes 
that original dry boiling points and viscosity of 
brake fluid may degrade due to the permeability 
of the brake system when a vehicle is exposed to 
the atmosphere over a period of time prior to its 
first sale for purposes other than resale, and that 
it is impracticable to require that brake fluid 
meet Standard No. 116 at time of sale when the 
"container" is a motor vehicle. Therefore, the 
standard is being amended so that the main por- 
tion applies only to brake fluid, with an added 
requirement applicable to motor vehicles, ttat 
they be equipped either with brake fluid manu- 
factured and packaged in conformity with Stand- 
ard No. 116, or with petroleum -based or silicone- 
based brake fluid (new paragraph S5.3). 

6. Resistance to oxidation: preparation. An 
amendment to paragraph S6.11.4(b) specifies 
that the oxidation resistance test is to be con- 
ducted not later than 24 hours after the test mix- 
ture has been removed from the oven. 

7. Efect on SBR cups : procedure and calcula- 
tion. The SAE has also proposed a reduction 
of the time that the cups and fluid are exposed 
to oven heat at 70°C. The NHTSA is amending 
S6.12.4 to reduce exposure time to 70±:2 hours, as 
it has been found that virtually all rubber swell 
occurs at this temperature during the first 48 
hours. 

The SAE has also concluded that cups should 
be retested and remeasured when the base diam- 
eters of the tested cups differ by more than 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 4 



MmMv*: March 1, 1972 



0.10 mm. This agency has determined that aver- 
aging four values as the change in base diameter, 
when a spread greater than 0.10 mm occurs, will 
result in a more precise determination of whether 
the requirements of paragraph S5.1. 12(a) have 
been met, and is amending paragraph S6.12.5(a) 
appropriately. 

8. Typographical errors. An erroneous stand- 
ard barometric pressure figure of 750 mm ap- 
peared in the subscript of Table III and is being 
corrected to 760 mm. SAE Standard Jl703a, 
referred to in S7.6, is corrected to read "Jl703b." 

9. Interpretations. Several j^etitions evidenced 
confusion over whether sale of fluids manufac- 
tured prior to March 1, 1972, will be allowed 
after that date. Sale of such fluids is permissible 
on and after March 1, 1972, until supplies are 
exhausted, with the legal requirement that they 
conform at time of sale to Standard No. 116 as in 
effect prior to March 1, 1972. 

The agency was also asked whether name of 
city and zip code is acceptable as the complete 
mailing address of the distributor, required by 
paragraph S5.2.2.2(c). A mailing address is con- 
sidered complete only if it is sufficient for the 
delivery of mail by the U.S. Postal Service, and 
containers must be marked accordingly. 



Several petitioners asked for a delay to July 1, 
1972, of various portions of the labeling require- 
ments of paragraph 85.2.2.2 because of the logis- 
tics involved in modifying, in one instance, as 
many as ninety different labels. A delay in the 
effective date has not been found to be in the 
public interest, and the petitions on this point are 
denied. Gummed labels meeting the require- 
ments of S5.2.2.2, however, may be affixed to 
these cans imtil new cans are available. 

Finally, several petitioners requested clarifica- 
tion of the container sealing terminology in para- 
graph S5.2.1. The "inner seal" is the cap liner. 
Examples of "tamper-proof features" are de- 
vices such as a metal insert in the neck of the 
container, a plastic over-wrap, or a twist-off 
aluminum cap with a breakaway portion. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 116 in 49 CFR 571.21 
is revised. . . . 

Elective date: March 1, 1972. 

Issued on November 8, 1971. 

Charles H. Hartman 
Acting Administrator 

36 F.R. 21594 
Novsmber 11, 1971 



PART 571; S 11&— PRE 5-6 



( 



r 



ElbcHra: Augud 29, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 
(Decksl No. 70-23; NoHca 5) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend 49 CFR 
§571.116, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
116, Hydraulic Brake Fluids, to permit certain 
required information to be placed on any perma- 
nent part of brake fluid containers. 

Paragraphs S5.2.2.2(b) and S5.2.2.2(d) specify 
respectively that the name of the packager of the 
brake fluid, if in code form, and a serial number 
identifying the packaged lot and date of packag- 
ing shall be placed either beneath the distributor's 
name and mailing address, or on the bottom of 
the container. Gold Eagle Products Co. has 
asked if it is permissible to place the information 
required by S5.2.2.2(b) on the top of square 
gallon brake fluid containers. Such location is 
not presently allowed. The Administration, 
however, has concluded that manufacturers 
should not be restricted in their choice of loca- 
tion and that if it is more convenient for them 
to place the required information on the side or 
top of a container they should be allowed to do 
so, provided that the information is on a perma- 
nent part of the container. Accordingly, the 



NHTSA is amending the requirements to allow 
all required certification, marking and labeling 
information to be placed in sny location except 
on a removable part such as a lid. 

In consideration of the foregoing, paragraph 
S5.2.2.2 of 49 CFR §571.116, Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 116, is revised in part .... 

Effective date: August 29, 1972. Because the 
amendment relaxes an existing requirement and 
creates no additional burden, it is found for 
good cause shown that an effective date earlier 
than 180 days after issuance is in public interest. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Act of 1966 
(15 use 1392, 1401, and 1407) and the delega- 
tion of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on August 22, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 17474 
August 29, 1972 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 7-8 



MmHv*: July 1, 197J 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 
(Docket No. 71 .-13; Notico 3) 



This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 
49 CFR § 571.116, to establish container labeling 
requirements for those fluids that are currently 
unregulated by the standard. The requirements 
are effective July 1, 1973. 

The amendment is based upon a notice pub- 
lished March 22, 1972, (37 F.R. 5825). The 
NHTSA proposed labeling requirements for "cen- 
tral hydraulic system oil" and "silicone-based 
brake fluid", similar to requirements already in 
existence for conventional hydraulic brake fluids. 
The packager would be required to place his 
name on the container. His name could appear 
in code form. The packager would also be re- 
quired to provide the complete name and mailing 
address of the distributor, a serial number iden- 
tifying the p8u;kaged lot and date of packaging 
of the fluid, description of the contents, and cer- 
tain safety warnings. 

The comments received generally supported 
the proposal, and Standard No. 116 is being 
amended accordingly. The term "central hy- 
draulic system oil" has not been adopted as some 
central hydraulic systems are designed for use 
of DOT brake fluids. Instead, the term "hy- 
draulic system mineral oil" is adopted. It is 
deflned as "a mineral-oil-based fluid designed 
primarily for use in motor vehicle brake systems 
in which none of the components contacting the 
fluid are SBR, EPDM, Neoprene, or natural 
rubber". Paragraphs S8, S5, S6.1, S5.2.2.1, and 
S5.2.2.2 are being amended in a manner that 
more clearly evidences the NHTSA's intent that 
Standard No. 116 applies to all fluid used as 
brake fluids, but that silicone-based brake fluids 
and hydraulic system mineral oil are currently 



excepted from performance, container, and label- 
ing requirements applicable to DOT fluids. A 
new S5.2.2.3 specifies the labeling requirements 
for packagers of silicone-based brake fluids and 
hydraulic system mineral oil, and these generally 
parallel those required of packagers of DOT 
fluids. Packagers of hydraulic system mineral 
oil must furnish the additional warning that the 
fluid is not compatible with the rubber com- 
ponents of brake systems designed for use with 
DOT brake fluids. 

The amendment also differs from the proposal 
in reflecting the revision of Standard No. 116 of 
August 29, 1972 (37 F.R. 17474) that allows in- 
formation to be placed on a container "in any 
location except on a removable part such as a 
lid." Minor changes have been made in the text 
of the warning on fluid storage so that it is iden- 
tical with the warning required for DOT fluids. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.116, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
116, is amended. . . . 

Effective date: July 1, 1973. Because these 
amendments relate to labeling requirements that 
do not entail product redesign, an effective date 
less than 180 days after the issue date is found 
to be in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegation of au- 
thority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on : January 4, 1978. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 2981 
January 31, 1973 



PART 671; S 116— PRE 9-10 



f 



i' 



Effcctiv* July I, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 
(Docket No. 71-13; Notice 4) 



This notice responds to a petition for recon- 
sideration of brake fluid container labeling re- 
quirements by amending 49 CFR § 571.116 in 
minor respects. 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluids, was amended on January 
31, 1973, (33 F.R. 2981) to establish container 
labeling requirements for those fluids that are 
currently unregulated by the standard. There- 
after, a petition for reconsideration of the amend- 
ment was filed by General Motors Corporation 
pursuant to 49 CFR § 553.35. In response to the 
j)etition minor amendments are made to the 
standard. 

General Motors believes that the NHTSA has 
not clearly indicated which mineral oil used in 
vehicle hydraulic systems must meet Standard 
No. 116. Hydraulic system mineral oil has been 
defined in part as a fluid "designed primarily 
for use in motor vehicle brake systems . . ." GM 
asserts that it is not clear whether a fluid "for 
use in a central hydraulic system composed of 
the power brake boost and the power steering 
systems must be considered primarily as a brake 
system application or primarily as a power steer- 
ing system application." GM believes that since 
the power brake system is an auxiliary system 
whose fluids operate in a different environment 
than those in the primary system the standard 
should not include hydraulic boost system mineral 
oils. 

The NHTSA intends the definition of hy- 
draulic system mineral oil to include fluids used 
in any type of brake system regardless of the 
configuration. This definition must include fluids 
used in any hydraulic brake boost unit whose 
design is such that when a component fails, the 
boost unit fluid enters the master cylinder reser- 



voir, hence contaminating the entire brake system. 
Such fluid must meet the applicable require- 
ments of Standard No. 116. Fluids for use in 
systems where a failure will not introduce them 
into the master cylinder reservoir are not covered 
by Standard No. 116. The word "primarily" 
is being deleted from the definition of hydraulic 
system mineral oil to remove any doubt on this 
IX) int. 

GM points out that the warning a mineral oil 
manufacturer is currently required to provide 
refers to the oil as "brake fluid," in the container 
warning statements specified by the standard. 
Since mineral oil is not compatible with conven- 
tional or silicone-based brake fluid, GM believes 
it essential that it not be referred to as "brake 
fluid". The NHTSA concurs and is granting 
GM"s petition by amending the labeling require- 
ments concerned. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§ 571.116 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 
is amended. . . . 

Effective Date: July 1, 1973. Because these 
amendments relate to labeling requirements that 
do not entail product redesign, an effective date 
less tlian 180 days after the issue date is found 
to be in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat 718, 
15 use 1392, 1401, 1407; Delegation of Authority 
at 38 F.R. 12147). 

Issued on: May 11, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 12922 
May 17, 1973 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 11-12 



Effective: October 1, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 
(Docket No. 71-13; Notice 6) 



This notice amends 49 CFR 571.116, Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle 
Brake Fluids, to specify performance require- 
ments for a low- water- tolerance (DOT 5) grade 
brake fluid, effective October 1, 1974, and to re- 
quire a color coding system for all brake fluids 
and hydraulic system mineral oils, effective 
May 1, 1975, to safeguard against intermixing 
of incompatible fluids. 

A notice of proposed rulemaking on this sub- 
ject was published on November 21, 1973 (.38 
F.R. 32142), and an opportunity afforded for 
comment. The notice proposed performance re- 
quirements for brake fluids of low water toler- 
ance, which would include but not be limited to 
silicone-based brake fluids. The notice also pro- 
posed a minor revision in the test procedures for 
determining cloudiness and lack of clarity in all 
brake fluids. Finally, the NHTSA proposed 
color coding for brake fluids and their containers 
as an appropriate method to prevent any brake 
system contamination. As the amendments 
adopted are substantially similar to those pro- 
posed, interested persons may refer to the notice 
which contains a full discussion of the proposals 
and the NHTSA's rationale for them. 

A substantial number of comments submitted 
in response objected to either the idea of requir- 
ing a color coding system or the actual colors 
proposed for the different grades of fluid. The 
NHTSA considers that a properly implemented 
color coding system of fluids, containers, and 
reservoirs is an appropriate method of prevent- 
ing brake system contamination. However, it 
realizes that sufficient time must be allotted to 
effect an orderly changeover and, therefore, these 
requirements have a delayed effective date. Sev- 
eral commenters requested modifications to spe- 



cific color coding requirements. Citroen asked 
that the color green be permitted as an optional 
alternative to red for identifying mineral oils, 
based on its established use of this color in cen- 
tral hydraulic systems since 1965. This request 
has been denied in the interest of uniformity to 
minimize the possibility of inadvertent mixing 
of incompatible fluids. Several manufacturers 
of conventional glycol-type fluids stated that 
corrosion inhibitors and antioxidants often im- 
part a reddish brown or straw color to the com- 
pleted fluid prohibiting compliance with the 
proposed color ranges. In view of this informa- 
tion, the color range for DOT 3 and DOT 4 
fluids has been broadened to allow variations 
from clear to amber, except for the container 
border which must be yellow. Further, it has 
been determined that visual inspection for color 
compliance is adequate, and the proposed wave- 
length bands have been deleted. 

The other main issue raised was the use of the 
term "low water tolerance" when referring to 
silicone based brake fluids. Many commenters 
felt that the phrase "water intolerant" would 
more accurately describe the silicone fluids in 
light of the fact that the water tolerance test for 
DOT 5 fluids does not demand the absorption or 
retention of a specified percentage of water. 
DOT 5 grade fluid, however, is not limited to 
silicone based brake fluids. The term "low water 
tolerance" is found to be the most satisfactory 
description for a range of fluids potentially 
meeting the DOT 5 requirements and which may 
vary in water tolerance from 0.01% to 3.0%. 

Several commenters pointed out that the chem- 
ical stability test of S6.5.4 is not applicable to 
DOT 5 fluids. The NHTSA concurs, and finds 
that the elimination of a chemical stability re- 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 13 



Effective: October I, 1974 



quirement for DOT 5 fluids will not significantly 
compromise safety. The standard has been 
amended accordingly. 

The U.S. Army Chemical and Coating Lab- 
oratory and Bendix Corporation both submitted 
comments which requested that the low tempera- 
ture viscosity requirement be established at a 
lower temperature, for instance —67° F., or that 
the maximum viscosity at —40° F. be set at 
600 cSt. Both comments were constructive, one 
relating the operational characteristics of silicone 
fluids at temperatures of —67° F. and below and 
the other relating the necessary operational 
properties for the proper functioning of anti- 
lock systems at low temperatures. They are out- 
side the scope of the proposal, however, and the 
NHTSA will consider these matters in future 
rulemaking. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.116, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, 
Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, is amended. . . . 



Elective date: October 1, 1974, with certain 
requirements eff'ective May 1, 1975, as noted 
therein. Brake fluid of the type regulated by 
this standard is presently prohibited by the 
regulations of several States, and evidently is 
not being produced and sold for commercial 
purposes. The effect of this amendment, there- 
fore, is to permit what was previously prohib- 
ited, and an effective date earlier than 180 days 
from the date of issuance is found for good 
cause shown to be in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1427; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on August 16, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 30353 
August 22, 1974 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 14 



EffKllv*: March 2S, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 



Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 
(Docket No. 71-13; NoHc* 8) 



This notice i)artially responds to petitions for 
reconsideration of amendments to 49 CFR 
571.116 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, 
Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, that were published 
in the Federal Register on August 22, 1974 (39 
FR 30353, as corrected at 32759). The standard 
i.s further amended to delete the rciiuirements 
that were to have become effective May 1, 1975 
for brake fluid color and for a color border 
ai-ound safety warnings on brake fluid container 
labels. 

Standard No. 116 requires effective May 1, 
1975, that DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids be clear to 
amber in color, DOT 5 be blue, and hydraulic 
system mineral oil be red. For Motor Company 
petitioned for a reconsideration of the color re- 
q\iirements, asking that DOT 5 be clear or silver. 
Officine Alfieri Maserati, S.A. Automobiles Cit- 
roen, and U.S. Technical Research Corporation 
have asked that the color of hydraulic system 
mineral oil be changed from red to green. Other 
|)etitioners requested a delay in the effective date 
for color coding. Ob\ iously a cliange in the color 
of the fluid would require a corresponding change 
in the color of the borders on container labels. 

Consideration of these and other arguments by 
petitioners have delayed a formal response to the 
amendments of August 22, 1974. If the NHTSA 
determines that a petition for change of fluid 
color has merit, it will propose the change, in 



order to have the benefit of public comment, 
rather than amending the standard without 
notice. In the meantime, to alleviate the prob- 
lems of manufacturers faced with the immediate 
need to order container labels, the NHTSA is 
amending the standard to delete the color re- 
quirements for fluid and container labeling. The 
deletion is only intended to be a temporary one, 
until the response to the petitions for recon- 
sideration of the amendments of August 22, 1974 
is published. A new effective date creating a 
leadtime of not less than 180 days will then be 
proposed. 

In consideration of the foregoing 49 CFR 
.571.116 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 
is amended. . . . 

Effective, date,: March 25, 1975. Because the 
amendment relieves a restriction and creates no 
additional burden, it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date earlier than 180 
days after is,suance is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1427); delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51). 

Issued on March 19, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40F.R. 13219 
March 25, 1975 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 15-16 



Effactiva: May 16, 1975 



(Sec. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. James B. Gregory 

718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) ; delegation of Administrator 

authority at 49 CFR 1.51). 40 p.R. 21474 

Issued on May 12, 1975. May 16, 1975 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 18 



Effective: September 1, 1978 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 



Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 

(Docket No. 71-13; Notice 12) 



This notice amends Standard No. 116, Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluids, to specify color coding 
requirements for hydraulic brake system fluids, 
to alter the warnings required on labels, to in- 
clude a definition for "brake fluid," and to revise 
the definition of "hydraulic system mineral oil.'' 

These amendments are based on a proposal to 
amend Standard No. 116 (49 CFR 571.116) is- 
sued by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) on December 5, 1975 
(40 FR 56928). Interested persons were afi'orded 
an opportunity to submit comments on the pro- 
posal by February 5, 1976. and due consideration 
has been given to the 15 comments received. The 
National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council 
did not take a position on the proposed amend- 
ments. 

As proposed, paragraphs SI and S2 of Stand- 
ard No. 116 are amended to substitute the word 
"fluid" for the term "brake fluid," since the 
standard now includes requirements for hydraulic 
system mineral oils which are not normally called 
"brake fluids." A definition of the term "brake 
fluid" is added to the standard in order to clarify 
the distinction between it and hydraulic system 
mineral oil. 

With regard to the proposed definition of 
hydraulic system mineral oil, Citroen requested 
that polychloroprene rubber (CR) be deleted 
from the list of components designated as incom- 
patible with the mineral oil. The NHTSA has 
determined that Citroen's comments have merit, 
since the type of CR used in brake hoses is com- 
patible with hydraulic system mineral oils, un- 
like the SBR, EPR, and NR materials also 
listed in the proposed definition. This final rule 
reflects revision of the definition accordingly. 

In addition to changes in the labeling require- 
ments, the notice proposed color coding require- 



ments for both fluids and their containers and 
closures. After reviewing the comments sub- 
mitted in response to the proposed amendments, 
the NHTSA has decided not to adopt the pro- 
posed changes in labeling (with one exception) 
or the proposed color coding of containers and 
their closures. The NHTSA has concluded that 
color coding of the fluids, combined with the 
existing warnings on container labels, is a suf- 
ficient safeguard against failures in hydraulic 
braking systems that may result from the use of 
improper or contaminated fluids. 

The proposed color coding of fluids was gen- 
erally supported by the commenters, although 
there were I'equests for colors different than those 
specified in the proposal. Burma-Castrol re- 
quested that the NHTSA defer color coding of 
fluids until the International Standards Organi- 
zation (ISO) establishes standard colors for all 
motor vehicle fluids. This request is denied since 
the ISO is not actively developing a color code, 
and there is no indication that it will issue such 
a code at any time in the near future. The 
NHTSA can act immediately to reduce the po- 
tential safety hazards created by the use of im- 
proper fluids in hydraulic braking systems. 

Alfred Teves GMBH requested that the color 
requirement for DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids 
be blue instead of the proposed "colorless to 
amber," in order to distinguish these fluids from 
motor oil and antifreeze. This request is denied 
since there are many windshield cleaning solu- 
tions and some antifreeze fluids that are blue, 
and because most domestic brake fluids are cur- 
rently "colorless to amber." 

Volkswagen also requested that DOT 3 and 
DOT 4 brake fluids be blue in order to assure 
visibility of the fluids in translucent master 
cylinder reservoirs. The NHTSA does not con- 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 19 



Effective: September 1, 1978 



sider visibility in master cylinders to be a prob- 
lem since clear or amber fluids would be visible 
initially in most cases, or would soon become so, 
because brake fluids generally darken rapidly 
with use. The major purpose of the color coding 
requirements is to permit easy identification of 
fluids before they are placed in the vehicle, in 
order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible 
fluid in a braking system. Volkswagen pointed 
out that if amber or yellow fluids are mixed with 
the blue fluids that are currently in many master 
cylinder reservoirs, the resulting green colored 
fluid might be mistaken for a hydraulic system 
mineral oil (by this amendment, hydraulic sys- 
tem mineral oils are required to be green). The 
NHTSA does not consider this concern justifica- 
tion for a change in tlie proposed color because, 
as stated earlier, most brake fluids tend to become 
darker after they are in use for a short period. 

Volkswagen suggested that hydraulic system 
mineral oils be required to be red in color instead 
of green to avoid any confusion with mixtures of 
existing brake fluids that would be green. The 
NHTSA rejects this suggestion in order to avoid 
confusion with the synthetic red fluids that must 
be used in some older brake systems. The addi- 
tion of the wrong fluid to such vehicles could 
result in substantial damage to the brake system 
and potential brake failure. 

The U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research 
and Development Center requested that hydraulic 
system mineral oils be required to be colored red, 
consistent with the Army color code. The Cen- 
ter's comment cited examples of brake failure 
caused by the inadvertent mixing of incompatible 
fluids in hydromechanical systems. The NHTSA 
has determined, however, that inconsistency be- 
tween the Army color code and the proposed 
color coding requirements for oils sold commer- 
cially should not create a safety problem. Only 
mineral oils procured specifically for use by the 
military would be colored red, because § 571.7(c) 
of NHTSA regulations (49 CFR 571.7(c)) pro- 
vide that no standard applies to a vehicle or item 
of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly 
to, the Armed Forces of the United States in 
conformity with contractual specifications. If a 
situation arose in which it was necessary to buy 
commercial oil for a military vehicle, the oil 



would be purchased according to label informa- 
tion. 

The Brake System Parts Manufacturers Coun- 
cil (BSPMC) reiterated its previous comments 
to Docket No. 71-13, Notice 5, stating that re- 
quirements for color coding of fluids and con- 
tainers would not enhance safety but would only 
increase cost. They commented that the match- 
ing of a fluid in a master cylinder reservoir by 
its color would be impossible after a few months 
since DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids tend to darken 
rapidly and thereafter might not be distinguish- 
able from incompatible green hydraulic system 
mineral oils. They further commented that be- 
cause master cylinder reservoirs are not required 
to be color coded with the appropriate fluid, the 
inadvertent mixing of incompatible fluids would 
still continue to occur. 

The NHTSA agrees that the matching of color 
coded fluids is difficult under certain conditions. 
However, the main purpose of the fluid color 
coding requirements is to enable users to dis- 
tinguish among various unused brake fluids, 
rather than to match fluid in a master cylinder 
with additional fluid. It is particularly im- 
portant to be able to distinguish fluids when they 
are in unmarked drums or pressure dispensing 
containers in garages. 

Volkswagen requested that the NHTSA regu- 
late the marketing of DOT 5 brake fluids to 
prevent their use in vehicles unsuited to DOT 5. 
Volkswagen takes issue with advertisements stat- 
ing that DOT 5 fluids are suitable for all vehicles 
and that they can be mixed with all other types 
of brake fluids. It contended that DOT 5 fluids 
cause severe corrosion when added to brake sys- 
tems containing DOT 3 fluids, and submitted a 
report of laboratory tests to substantiate this 
claim. Volkswagen recommended that DOT 5 
fluids be excluded from regulation by Standard 
No. 116. 

The request by Volkswagen is repetitious of a 
petition for reconsideration submitted by Ford 
Motor Company that was denied by a notice 
published May 16, 1975 (40 FR 21474). Ford 
petitioned to revoke the amendments that added 
DOT 5 brake fluids to the standard, because the 
fluids "may cause hazardous deterioration of 
brake systems or their components." The NHTSA 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 20 



EfFecHve: September 1, 1978 



rejected Ford's petition on the basis that the 
information submitted did not substantiate the 
claim that DOT 5 fluids are deleterious to some 
brake systems. Likewise, the NHTSA does not 
consider the test reports submitted by Volks- 
wagen adequate to simulate actual field use, and 
field testino- in the United States and Panama 
has demonstrated that mixtures of DOT 5 and 
DOT 3 fluids do not accelerate corrosion. 

It should be understood that the NHTSA con- 
siders the question of the compatibility of DOT 
5 fluids with brake systems and other brake 
fluids to be a separate issue from the question 
whether DOT 5 fluids should be regulated by 
Standard Xo. 116. The fact that DOT 5 fluids 
might cause corrosion in certain systems does not 
mean that there should not be specified perform- 
ance requirements for DOT 5 fluids in Standard 
116. By its terms Standard No. 116 applies "to 
all fluid for use in hydraulic brake systems of 
motor vehicles." 

Concerning Volkswagen's alternative request 
that the NHTSA regulate the marketing and 
use of DOT fluids, we assume that Volkswagen 
intended this to be accomplished by the use of 
additional warnings on the labels of DOT .5 brake 
fluid containers. Any such labeling changes will 
have to be dealt with in future rulemaking. 
Interested persons should submit additional data 
concerning the compatibility of DOT 5 with 
various brake systems and other brake fluids, 
along with any recommended label clianges. 

The notice proposing these amendments also 
specified requirements for the color coding of 
brake fluid containers. Bell Chemical Company, 
Brake System Parts Manufacturers Council, 
Gold Eagle and Wagner Corporation opposed 
the proposed color coded border around the 
printed warnings on brake fluid containers, on 
the basis that the color of the border would have 
no significance to the typical consumer. They 
commented that the proposed borders would cost 
approximately one million dollars for printing 
and that no tangible benefit would be realized. 
After considering these comments, the NHTSA 
has decided that the color coded borders should 
not be required on brake fluid containers. Like- 
wise, the color coded cap requirement is not in- 
cluded in paragraph S5.2.2.4 as was proposed, 
although the proposed labeling requirement of 



S5.2.2.5 is made final as S5.2.2.4. It specifies 
that the labeling requirements of the standard 
shall be placed on the protective outer container 
or carton of brake fluids whose inner container 
is not normally visible during use. Since the 
color-coded-border requirement is not adopted, 
the proposed paragraph S5.2.2.6 regarding color 
tolerance requirements is unnecessary and, there- 
fore, is not included in the amendments. 

Eight commenters opposed the proposed color 
coding requirements for container caps and 
closure devices. The commenters pointed out 
that consumers would not be cognizant of the 
significance of the colored caps, and that procure- 
ment of colored caps would result in high costs 
and require long lead times. It was also noted 
that the wrong color of cap could easily be in- 
advertently applied by packagers or switched by 
users of the brake fluids. Further, they stated 
that since service stations and shops often mount 
dispenser pumps on one gallon brake fluid cans 
in place of their original caps, the purpose of 
color coded caps would be thwarted in many 
instances. The NHTSA has concluded that these 
arguments have merit. The proposed require- 
ments for color coded caps and closures are not 
included in the amendments. 

The proposed labeling changes included speci- 
fication of the minimum wet boiling point in 
degrees Celsius as well as Fahrenheit, container 
capacity in liters as well as gallons, and colored 
border width in millimeters as well as inches. 
Classic Chemical supported these proposed label- 
ing changes. Wagner Electric and Bell Chemical 
opposed them on the basis that metric equiv- 
alents do not serve a safety need and should be 
left to the jurisdiction of the Federal agencies 
responsible for the "metrication"' program. 

The agency's authority extends to labeling with 
safety infonnation, and all available methods to 
increase the comprehensibility of labeling, in- 
cluding metric equivalents, is justified. None- 
theless, the NHTSA has concluded that the cost 
of the proposed metric labeling does not justify 
a change at this time. The proposed changes in 
S5.2.2.1(c), S5.2.2.2(f) and S5.2.2.2(g) (4) are 
not adopted. 

Classic Chemical objected to the proposed 
change in the last sentence of paragraph S5.2.1 
I'egarding requirements for container sealing. 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 21 



Effective: September 1, 1978 



The rewording was proposed for the purpose of 
clarifying the requirement that the container 
closure be tamper-proof to the extent that it 
would be obvious to a user that the closure had 
been previously opened. Classic Chemical com- 
mented that the present wording which refers to 
inclusion of a "tamper proof feature" is prefer- 
able to the proposed wording. After reconsid- 
eration, the NHTSA has decided that the 
proposed rewording could result in confusion 
leather than clarification. Therefore, paragraph 
S5.2.1 is not amended as was proposed. 

Dow Corning Corporation, a manufacturer of 
DOT 5, a low-water-tolerance silicone brake 
fluid, earlier suggested that the admonition in 
S5.2.2.2(g) (3) to keep containers "tightly closed 
to prevent absorption of moisture" is unnecessary 
and redundant when applied to water intolerant 
brake fluids such as DOT 5 fluids. Based on this 
suggestion, the notice pi'oposing these amend- 
ments specified the amendment of S5.2.2.2(g) (3) 
to read, ". . . to prevent entry of water and otlier 
contaminants." Wagner Electric commented that 
the S5.2.2.2(g) (3) warning label on DOT 3 and 
DOT 4 containers should not be required to be 
changed simply because the label does not apply, 
as worded, to DOT 5 brake fluids. They noted 
that consumer cost could be greatly reduced if 
only the labels on DOT 5 fluids are changed. 
The NHTSA agrees with this suggestion. Para- 
graph S5.2.2.2(g) (3) is therefore modified to 
add the following parenthetical: "(The last five 
words of the second sentence may be omitted 
from the labeling on DOT 5 containers.)" 

Bowes Seal Fast commented that the third 
warning listed in S5.2.2.2(g) ("Store Brake 
Fluid Only In Its Original Container . . .") is 
contrary to the general garage practice of using 
dispensing containers that are continuously re- 
filled from bulk containers. Bell suggested that 
warning number (3) be eliminated on the basis 
that warning number (2) is adequate. The 
NHTSA considers the dispensing containers to 
be devices for use rather than for storage, so 
warning number (3) is not contrai-y to normal 
garage practices. The NHTSA disagrees with 
Bell since warning number (2) concerns con- 
tamination of fluids in master cylinders, while 
warning number (3) pertains to the storage of 
fluids. 



The notice proposing these amendments speci- 
fied a new consumer warning against accepting 
containers whose "tamper proof" seals have been 
broken. Wagner opposed the proposed warning. 
They noted that metal screw caps on fluid con- 
tainers are often very tightly fastened, and that 
consumers could not remove them without pliers 
to inspect the inner "tamper proof" seal. The 
tendency would be, according to Wagner, to not 
inspect the inner seal at the place of purchase. 
The NHTSA has considered these comments and 
further evaluated the possible problems of the 
sale of brake fluid or hydraulic system mineral 
oil containers refilled with other than approved 
fluid. It has been determined that the potential 
safety problem does not warrant the expense of 
adding another warning of this type to either 
the container or its outer closure. The proposed 
new warning, S5.2.2.2(g) (5), is not adopted. 

The notice preceding these amendments pro- 
posed the amendment of paragraph S6.7.3(a) to 
specify the phrase "suitable solvent" rather than 
the solvents presently listed, to be used to inhibit 
frosting of the exterior sui'faces of specimen con- 
tainers in the test for fluidity and appearance at 
low temperature. After reconsideration, the 
NHTSA has decided that this proposed change 
might only create confusion and should, there- 
fore, not be adopted. This does not mean that 
manufacturers are restricted to the use of ethanol, 
isopropanol, or acetone. The obligation of a 
manufacturer is to ensure that its certification 
of compliance is not false or misleading in a 
material respect, and that it has exercised due 
care in manufacturing to conform to the require- 
ments of Standard No. 116 (15 U.S.C. § 1397 
(b)(2)). A manufacturer is not required to 
follow specifically the test procedures for the 
standards, but only to ascertain, in the exercise 
of due care, that its product will conform to the 
standard's requirements when it is tested by the 
stated methods. 

The NHTSA has determined that these amend- 
ments will have a negligible economic impact. 
It is estimated that the color coding requirements 
will have an annual cost of approximately 
$10,000. Because of residual inventories it should 
take several years before all brake fluids are 
color coded. After this phasing-in period it is 
estimated that the amendments will result in the 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 22 



reducing of aproximately 400 accidents per year, 
with an annual consumer cost savings of $512,000. 
The NHTSA has determined that the amend- 
ments will have a negligible eifect on the en- 
vironment. 

It has been determined that an effective date 
later than the normal statutory limit of one year 
is justified for these amendments in order to give 
manufacturers and packagers sufficient time to 
exhaust existing supplies of brake system fluids 
destined for new motor vehicles. 



Effective: September 1, 1978 

In consideration of the foregoing, Standard 
No. 116 (49 CFR 571.116) is amended. . . . 

Elective date: September 1, 1978. 

(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 6, 1976. 

John W. Snow 
Administrator 

41 F.R. 54942 
December 16, 1976 



PART 571; S 116— PRE 23-24 






PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 



/ 



'=0U: 



/ 



-^^ 



M 



^.9 



? 



IL(A- . 



FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NQ, tie ><.., 






Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids 
(Docket No. 85-02; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final Rule. 



SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to amend 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and FMVSS 
No. 106, Brake Hoses, to revise the referee 
materials and test procedures referenced in por- 
tions of those standards. FMVSS No. 116 and 
FMVSS No. 106 currently reference the referee 
material (RM) identified as RM-1 fluid by the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). However, 
RM-1 fluid is now commercially unavailable, and is 
less representative of brake fluids used in vehicles 
ori the road today. The SAE in its January 1980 
revision of Standard J1703, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," substituted a new referee material, 
RM-66-03, in place of RM-1 for use in the J1703 
compatibility test. This final rule adopts this 
revision and references RM-66-03 for use in the 
compatibility test of Standard No. 106, and the 
compatibility and fluid chemical stability tests of 
Standard No. 116. This notice also references a 
new referee material, TEGME, in the humidifica- 
tion procedure of Standard No. 116, adjusts the 
water content level and test temperature refer- 
enced in the test procedures, and amends the 
number of sets of stroking test materials in the 
stroking test procedures. This notice also makes 
procedural modifications to Standard No. 116's 
humidification procedure adopted from the SAE, 
and corrects the description of test procedures 
used to evaluate brake fluid stroking properties. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Due to the commercial 
unavailability of RM-1 fluid, this rule is effective 
May 6, 1986. However, because the agency is con- 
cerned that manufacturers who might still be using 
RM-1 fluid to test their products should be able to 
use their existing supplies, use of RM-1 fluid may 
continue until November 3, 1986. 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 116, Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluids, and FMVSS No. 106, Brake 
Hoses, specify performance requirements for 
motor vehicle brake fluids and brake hoses. 
Included in the performance requirements of 
Standard No. 106 is a brake fluid compatibility 
test, and included in Standard No. 116 are com- 
patibility, chemical stability, and humidification 
tests. Referee materials are used to test specimens 
of brake hose and brake fluid for compliance with 
the standards' requirements. These materials pro- 
vide a basis of comparison between the results of 
the tests ar i the specifications of the standards. 
The procedures for the compatibility, chemical sta- 
bility, and humidification tests currently reference 
the referee material brake fluid specified by the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the 
April 1968 version of SAE Standard J1703b. Stan- 
dard J1703b, in turn, references a referee material 
(RM) identified as RM-1. (Standard No. 116's 
description of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluid," April 1968, is incorrect in 
that the correct reference should be to J1703b, Ju- 
ly 1970. In 1970, the agency proposed to reference 
test procedures of J1703a, April 1968, in Standard 
No. 116. Subsequently, NHTSA changed reference 
from J1703a to J 1703b. The effort to make this 
change inadvertently resulted in showing April 
1968, the date of J1703a, as the date of J1703b. 
This notice corrects the error by referencing 
J1703b, July 1970.) 

This rule amends FMVSS Nos. 116 and 106 to 
revise the referee materials and test procedures 
referenced in portions of those standards. The 
SAE, in its January 1980 and November 1983 revi- 
sions of Standard J1703, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," substituted a new referee material, 
RM-66-03, in place of RM-1 for use in the J1703 






PART 571; S 116-PRE 25 



compatibility test. This notice adopts this revision 
and references RM-66-03 for use in the compati- 
bility test of Standard No. 106, and the compatibil- 
ity and fluid chemical stability tests of Standard 
No. 116. This notice also references a new referee 
material, TEGME, in the humidification pro- 
cedures of Standard No. 116, adjusts the water 
content level and test temperature referenced in 
the test procedures, and amends the number of 
sets of stroking test materials in the stroking test 
of Standard No. 116. This notice also adopts SAE 
revisions to FMVSS No. 116's humidification test 
which had been inadvertently omitted from the 
amendatory language of the proposed rule, and 
corrects the description of test procedures used to 
evaluate brake fluid stroking properties. 

Testing Brake Hose/ Fluid Characteristics 

Brake fluid compatibOity is an important factor 
in establishing brake hose life and strength 
characterisitcs. The compatibility test of FMVSS 
No. 106 measures hydraulic brake hose com- 
patibility with brake fluid. The brake hose test 
specimen is filled with the SAE Compatibility 
Fluid for a required number of hours at specified 
temperatures, and is then subjected to constriction 
and burst strength tests. Currently, RM-1 fluid is 
referenced in the test procedures for the 
standard's brake fluid compatibility test. 

Under the compatibOity requirements of FMVSS 
No. 116, the compatibiltiy of a brake fluid with an 
RM fluid is determined. The compatibility fluid 
that is used in these tests as a referee material 
should be representative of the fluids found in a 
braking system in service. The tests measure the 
compatibility of fluids of different chemical bases 
by checking whether there are undesirable 
chemical interactions resulting from the mixture of 
fluids. Paragraph S6.10 sets out the procedures for 
evaluating the compatibility of a brake fluid with 
other liquids used in a hydraulic brake system (i.e., 
other brake fluids). This section currently 
references RM-1 fluid as the referee material used 
in that test procedure. 

The humidification tests of FMVSS No. 116 
measure the amount of water absorbed by a brake 
fluid as compared to a reference fluid. The 
presence of water in a brake system degrades 
braking performance and safety by lowering the 
boiling point of brake fluid, increasing the possi- 



bility of vapor lock and the corroding of system 
components, and the depositing of sediment in 
wheel cylinders that could cause a system malfunc- 
tion. 

Standard No. 116 establishes minimum wet 
equilibrium reflux boiling points (ERBP's) for dif- 
ferent grades of brake fluid, and the test pro- 
cedures of S6.2 determine the water content and 
wet ERBP of brake fluid specimens. The current 
test procedure specifies that sample fluids of RM-1 
and the test specimen are to be humidified 
simultaneously under controlled conditions. The 
SAE RM-1 fluid is used as the reference fluid that 
establishes the "endpoint" for humidification. 
When the water content of the RM-1 fluid is 
measured to be 3.50 ± 0.05 percent by weight, the 
test fluid sample is removed from the humidifica- 
tion apparatus. After humidification, the water 
and ERBP of the sample are determined. 

Section 7.2 of FMVSS No. 116 also refers to 
RM-1 fluid as a reference for measuring the water 
content of brake fluids. 

RM-66-03 Fluid 

A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on this 
rulemaking action was published on March 7, 1985 
(50 FR 9294). The NPRM explained that FMVSS 
Nos. 106 and 116 currently reference SAE RM-1 
Compatibility Fluid in their test procedures. In 
that notice, the agency announced its tentative 
finding that the inclusion of RM-1 fluid is no longer 
desirable for the following reasons. 

The agency stated its belief that reference to 
RM-1 fluid should be changed because manufac- 
ture of the fluid has ceased. A new fluid, identified 
as RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, has replaced the 
RM-1 fluid in test procedures described in the 
January 1980 and November 1983 revisions of 
SAE Standard J1703. This new fluid is described 
by the SAE as a blend of four proprietary 
poly glycol brake fluids of fixed composition, in 
equal parts by volume. The four fluids selected 
comprise three factory-fill and one after-market 
fluid as follows: DOW HD50-4, DOW 455, Delco 
Supreme II, and Olin HDS-79. 

While RM-1 fluid is not readily available, 
RM-66-03 fluid is available from the SAE in the 
blend and formulation developed by the SAE for 
J1703. The indiviual manufacturers of the four pro- 
prietary fluids have indicated to the SAE Brake 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 26 



Fluids Subcommittee and Reference Materials 
Subcommittee that the proprietary formulation 
might be changed in the commercial market, but 
that the formulations developed for the RM-66-03 
fluid would be guaranteed to be available for a 
minimum five-year period commencing May 1983, 
i.e., at least until May 1988. 

The updated reference to RM-66-03 fluid by the 
SAE is a result of the termination of the manufac- 
turing of the RM-1 fluid. Several of the ingredients 
contained in the RM-1 fluid are not available to 
fluid manufacturers since the materials are no 
longer used in today's fluids, or have become pro- 
hibitively costly to obtain. As a result, manufac- 
turers are unwilling to produce more RM-1 fluid. 

In addition, RM-1 fluid is not representative of 
fluids in service today. The agency stated its belief 
that revising the referee material used in the com- 
patibility test is warranted since the purposes of 
that test would be better served by a referee 
material more representative of today's fluids. In- 
clusion of RM-1 fluid in FMVSS Nos. 116 and 106 
is also undesirable because RM-1 fluid contains tox- 
ic materials which require elaborate protective 
procedures and special handling and manufactur- 
ing processes. 

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA pro- 
posed an amendment to FMVSS Nos. 106 and 116 
to substitute new referee materials for the com- 
patibility and humidification tests. For Standard 
No. 106's compatibility requirement and test pro- 
cedures (S5.3.9 and S6.7), and Standard No. 116's 
compatibility (6.10), fluid chemical stability (6.5), 
and water content (7.2) tests, the new referee 
material was proposed to be RM-66-03 fluid as 
described in the January 1980 version of SAE 
Standard J1703. 

Seven commenters responded to the NPRM. 
Each commenter agreed with the proposal to 
reference RM-66-03 fluid in FMVSS Nos. 106 and 
116. General Motors Corporation (GM) and 
Chrysler Corporation agreed with the agency's 
tentative conclusion that the new referee material 
would be more available and compatible with cur- 
rent brake fluids than RM-1 fluid. Other com- 
menters believed that the change would be 
practical and reasonable. 

NHTSA has considered the comments to the 
NPRM and has decided to amend FMVSS Nos. 106 
and 116 to reference RM-66-03 compatibility fluid. 



One slight change has been made to the NPRM's 
proposal. The NPRM proposed to reference the 
RM-66-03 fluid as described in the January 1980 
revision of SAE Standard J1703. This rule will 
reference RM-66-03 fluid as described in the 
November 1983 revision of J1703. The two SAE 
revisions of J1703 are identical in their descrip- 
tions of RM-66-03; the agency is making this 
change in order to keep FMVSS Nos. 106 and 116 
current by referencing the more recent SAE 
standard. 

Use of the RM-66-03 fluid in the test procedures 
of Standards Nos. 116 and 106 should have a 
beneficial impact on safety. Since the RM-1 com- 
patibility fluid currently referenced in FMVSS 
Nos. 106 and 116 is not commercially available, 
ascertaining whether hoses and fluids comply with 
certain requirements related to compatibility and 
boiling points is difficult. Amending the standards 
to allow the use of RM-66-03 fluid in place of RM-1 
provides a readily available compatibility fluid for 
the compliance tests which is more representative 
of fluids used in today's vehicles. 

TEGME, Brake Fluid Grade 

In humidification test procedures under FMVSS 
No. 116, the referee material fluid is used as a 
reference to determine when to terminate the 
humidification procedure. Currently, RM-1 fluid is 
used as this referee material. NHTSA proposed to 
amend Standard No. 116 to reference a new 
referee fluid, triethylene glycol monomethyl ether 
(TEGME), brake fluid grade, as the referee 
material noted in Standard No. 116's procedures 
for a brake fluid's wet equilibrium reflux boiling 
point (S6.2). TEGME has been referenced by the 
SAE in J1703, January 1980, and J1703, 
November 1983, as the referee material used in the 
humidification test procedure. 

In addition to referencing the TEGME material, 
the agency also proposed to amend S6.2 of FMVSS 
No. 116 to adjust the final water content of the 
referee material fluid to 3.70% water (instead of 
the current requirement of 3.5%), change the test 
temperature to 50°C. (from 23°C.), and add a cool- 
ing period for the sealed jar sample. As explained 
in the NPRM, those changes (use of TEGME fluid, 
change in water pickup and test temperature, and 
the cool-down to room temperature) were pro- 
posed as part of the overall changes adopted from 
SAE J1703 procedures. 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 27 



All but one of the commenters to the notice sup- 
ported the changes to the TEGME fluid. Com- 
menters believed that the changes would simplify 
the test procedures and make them more cost 
effective. 

In its comment on the NPRM, Union Carbide 
questioned whether there are adequate data to 
show that the new humidification test procedure 
will produce comparable test results when applied 
to DOT-4 and DOT-5 brake fluids. That commenter 
suggested that NHTSA reconsider adopting the 
SAE J1703, January 1980 humidification test 
method or adopt it as an alternative to the current 
method that uses RM-1 fluid until complete com- 
parative testing could be performed. 

The agency does not agree with Union Carbide 
that the humidification test method of SAE J1703, 
January 1980 should not be adopted as the new 
Standard No. 116 test procedure. The TEGME 
fluid is capable of absorbing a measurable amount 
of water in a given time and is only used as a 
reference to determine when to terminate the 
humidification process. Under the humidification 
test procedure, samples of brake fluid and TEGME 
are humidified simultaneously until a measured 
quantity of fluid is picked up in the TEGME. When 
the water content of the TEGME fluid reaches 3.7 
percent, the brake fluid test specimens are re- 
moved from the test apparatus and their water 
contents and ERBP's are measured. TEGME, the 
referee material used in the humidification pro- 
cedure, thus serves only to establish the end point 
of a test procedure. 

The 3.7 percent TEGME water pickup (at 50°C) 
corresponds to the 3.5 percent water pickup (at 
23°C) of the referee fluid (RM-1) used previously to 
determine the end point of the humidification pro- 
cedure. The agency has determined that DOT-3 
fluid picks up the same amount of water when 
humidified under procedures which use TEGME as 
the referee material as it does when humidified 
under procedures using RM-1. Therefore, the 
agency believes that the water pickup of test 
fluids, including DOT-4 and DOT-5 fluids, would 
not be affected by the change to TEGME. Ac- 
cordingly, NHTSA is amending FMVSS No. 116 to 
reference the TEGME referee material. 

The NPRM proposed to reference the TEGME 
fluid as described in the January 1980 revision of 
Standard J 1703. This rule will instead reference 



TEGME as described in the November 1983 
revision of J1703. The two SAE revisions of J1703 
are identical in their descriptions of TEGME; the 
agency is making this change in order to keep 
FMVSS No. 116 current by referencing the more 
recent SAE standard. 

Humidification Test Procedures 

All commenters supported the additional 
changes to the humidification procedure of S6.2 
adopted from SAE Standard J1703. This rule 
adopts the proposed changes to S6.2 and adjusts 
the final water content of the referee material fluid 
to 3.70%, changes the test temperature to 50°C, 
and adds a cooling period for the sealed jar sample. 

Other changes to the humidification procedure 
were suggested in the comments to the NPRM. 
GM and Union Carbide Corporation pointed out 
that while NHTSA proposed to adopt the 
humidification test procedures from SAE J1703, 
the procedural modifications proposed in the 
amendatory language differed slightly from the 
SAE standard. GM suggested changing FMVSS 
No. 116's humidification procedure to agree with 
that of SAE J1703, January 1980 in order to 
facilitate testing. The following changes were sug- 
gested: S6.2.1 should be revised to require 150 ml. 
samples of brake fluid and TEGME instead of the 
proposed 100 ml. samples; S6.2.3 should be revised 
to eliminate ammonium sulfate from the list of 
reagents and materials and to specify distilled 
water and TEGME; S6.2.4 should be revised to 
load the dessicators with 450 ml. of distilled water 
instead of the ammonium sulfate /distilled water 
slurry; and S6.2.5 should be revised to use 150 ml. 
samples of the brake fluid and TEGME instead of 
the proposed 100 ml. samples. 

As evidenced by the GM and Union Carbide com- 
ments, it was clear that the agency intended to 
facilitate testing by adopting the overall changes 
to the humidification test from SAE J1703. 
Therefore, NHTSA agrees that those additional 
changes should be incorporated into this final rule. 
This rule amends S6.2.1, S6.2.3, S6.2.4 and S6.2.5 
to correct the minor omissions noted above. Fur- 
ther, S6.2.2 is revised to clarify that distilled water 
would be substituted for the salt slurry in Figure 3 
of FMVSS No. 116, Humidification Ajyparatus, 
when TEGME is used as the referee material. 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 28 



stroking Test 

The stroking test in FMVSS No. 116 checks the 
lubricity effect of a brake fluid on rubber com- 
ponents. The NPRM explained that the SAE had 
determined, in its revision of J1703, January 1980, 
that three sets of test material are sufficient to 
analyze the adequacy of test results. The notice an- 
nounced that, based on NHTSA's tentative agree- 
ment with that SAE conclusion and its belief that 
compliance testing costs would be reduced by that 
change without an adverse affect on safety, the 
agency was proposing to amend the requirements 
of S5.1.13 and S6.13 to require testing of only 
three sets of test material (consisting of wheel 
cylinders, drums, shoe assemblies, etc.) instead of 
four sets, and eight new brake cups instead of 10. 
Since NHTSA proposed to reduce the number of 
cups tested, a reduction in the number of cups 
checked for unsatisfactory operating condition was 
also proposed. 

All comments supported the agency's proposal 
to revise the stroking test procedures. The com- 
menters believed that the changes proposed in the 
NPRM would simplify the test procedures and 
make them more cost effective. NHTSA agrees, 
and has revised S5.1.13 and S6.13 as proposed in 
the NPRM. 

In addition, this rule makes several changes to 
the stroking test procedures in FMVSS No. 116 
which directly relate to the agency's adoption of 
the SAE stroking test revision. Currently, S6.13.2 
describes the apparatus and equipment used for 
the stroking test and refers to figures in SAE 
Standard J 1703b which depict stroking ap- 
paratuses. Figure 1 of J1703b depicts four sets of 
drum and shoe assemblies. Since NHTSA has 
reduced the number of sets of test materials to 
three, the agency believes that the description of 
the test apparatuses and arrangement of test 
materials should also be revised to reflect this 
change. The description of the apparatuses used in 
the stroking test is changed only to clarify that 
three sets of materials are used, instead of four. 

The following related revisions to the stroking 
test procedure are necessary to facilitate the 
change to three sets of materials. Paragraph 
S6. 13.4(c) describes the preparation and assembly 
of test apparatuses. When a shoe and drum type 
apparatus is used, S6. 13.4(c) specifies a 23 mm. 
stroke length, based on output piston movement of 



four sets of wheel cylinders. Stroke length refers 
to the distance traveled by the master cylinder 
piston to displace a certain volume of fluid in the 
test system which, in turn, forces the wheel 
cylinder pistons to travel a specified distance. 
Since the stroking test is revised to require only 
three sets of materials, the stroke length of the 
master cylinder would no longer be 23 mm. 

This rule deletes reference in S6. 13.4(c) to exact 
piston displacement measurements and a 23 mm. 
stroke length. The agency has determined that it is 
not necessary to specify master cylinder and wheel 
cylinder piston travel since those values are deter- 
mined by the characteristics of the system which 
are specified in the standard (i.e., dimensions of 
the master cylinder and wheel cylinders, and 
pressure). The stroking test apparatus is a closed 
hydraulic system; pressure of 1000 pounds per 
square inch (psi) is generated at the outlet port of 
the master cylinder, and all pistons have the same 
diameters of VI g inch. Given the above, displace- 
ment of the wheel cylinders is directly proportional 
to the displacement of the master cylinder, and in 
the given test apparatus the stroke length of the 
master cylinder is dependent on system pressure. 
Stroke length would therefore be adjusted by the 
characteristics of the system from the former 
value of 23 mm. to a value proportioned for three 
wheel cylinders. 

Since the agency is eliminating exact wheel 
cylinder piston travel measurements and is speci- 
fying that only three sets of test materials are re- 
quired in the stroking test, this rule also deletes 
reference in S6. 13.4(c) to Figure 4 of SAE 
Standard J1703b. That figure illustrated the ap- 
proximate pressure buildup versus the master 
cylinder piston movement, and was based on the 
use of four sets of materials. S6. 13.4(c) would con- 
tinue, however, to specify that the pressure 
buildup is relatively low during the first part of the 
stroke, in order to avoid damage of the master 
cylinder's primary cup by ensuring that the 
primary cup passes the compensating port at a 
relatively low pressure. 

Typographical Errors 

This notice corrects the typographical errors in 
S5.1.9(a), S5.1.9(b) and S5.1.12 of Standard No. 
116, as proposed in the NPRM. 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 29 



Effective Date 

This rule is effective May 6, 1986. As explained 
in the NPRM, the agency finds good cause for this 
expedited effective date because the RM-1 fluid 
used in the testing procedures of FMVSS Nos. 116 
and 106 is commercially unavailable. Use of the 
RM-66-03 fluid will facilitate compliance testing by 
utilizing a referee material that is currently 
available and more representative of fluids in 
service. However, because the agency is concerned 
that manufacturers who might still be using RM-1 
fluid to test their products should be able to use 
their existing supplies, use of RM-1 fluid may con- 
tinue until November 3, 1986, i.e., 180 days after 
publication of this rule. 

In accordance with the above provision permit- 
ting the use of RM-1 during the interim period, this 
rule describes separate test procedures ap- 
propriate for use with RM-1 and for the new 
referee materials (i.e., RM-6603 and TEGME). 
Test procedures for RM-1 usage are specified for 
those manufacturers who choose to use that fluid 
during the 180-day period. 

Economic Effects 

NHTSA has concluded that this final rule does 
not qualify as a "major rule" within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12291, and that it is not "signifi- 
cant" within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory procedures. Prepara- 
tion of a regulatory impact analysis is not 
necessary for this rulemaking. The agency has 
determined further that the effects of this 
rulemaking are minor and that a full regulatory 
evaluation is not warranted. The rule references 
referee materials in Standards Nos. 116 and 106 
that are readily available to manufacturers of 
brake fluids and brake hoses. 

The agency believes that manufacturers will 
benefit by the change to RM-66-03 fluid and 
TEGME fluid in FMVSS No. 116 and RM-66-03 
fluid in FMVSS No. 106. The fluids are readily 
available whereas RM-1 is not, and are more 
representative of fluids in service today. The 
agency knows of no problems resulting from tests 
onducted with the RM-66-03 and TEGME fluids. 

Some cost savings would be realized with this 
amendment. The utilization of RM-66-03 fluid will 
reduce the costs of fluids used in compliance 
testing without sacrificing adequate test results. 
For example, as cited in the NPRM, when last 



available, RM-1 fluid cost approximately $27.00 
per quart. The cost of RM-66-03 fluid is approx- 
imately $8.00 per quart. 

Cost savings will be realized by the use of the 
TEGME fluid in the humidification tests of 
FMVSS No. 116. The TEGME fluid costs approx- 
imately $3.30 per quart. Further, using the 
TEGME fluid in compliance testing would con- 
serve the more expensive supply of RM-66-03 
brake fluid material. 

The change in the stroking test procedures will 
also result in some cost savings. The costs related 
to the quantities of materials tested will be reduced 
about 25 percent. 

Any changes' to Standard Nos. 106 and 116 
referencing the RM-66-03 and TEGME fluids and 
reducing the number of test materials used in the 
stroking test will not significantly affect manufac- 
turers of brake hoses and referee materials. These 
manufacturers may benefit from some cost savings 
resulting from the changes to the standards, but 
will not otherwise be significantly affected by this 
amendment. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.06, Brake Hoses, is amended as follows: 

1. S5.3.9 is revised to read as follows: 

S5.3.9 Brake Fluid Compatibility, Construc- 
tion, and Burst Stength. Except for brake hose 
assemblies designed for use with mineral or 
petroleum-based brake fluids, a hydraulic brake 
hose assembly shall meet the constriction require- 
ment of S5.3.1 after having been subjected to a 
temperature of 200°F for 70 hours while filled with 
SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703, November 
1983, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 
1983 (S6.7). It shall then withstand water pressure 
of 4,000 psi for 2 minutes and thereafter shall not 
rupture at less than 5,000 psi (S6.2). (SAE RM-1 
Compatibility Fluid, as described in Appendix A of 
SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," July 1970, may be used in place of SAE 
RM-66-03 until November 3, 1986. 

2. Paragraph S6.7.1(a) is revised to read as 
follows: 

S6.7.1 Preparation. 

(a) Attach a hose assembly below a 1-pint reser- 
voir filled with 100 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Com- 
patibility Fluid as shown in Figure 2. (SAE RM-1 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 30 



Compatibility Fluid, as described in Appendix A of 
SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," July 1970, may be used in place of SAE 
RM-66-03 until November 3, 1986. 

****** 

§571.116 [Amended] 

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

1. S5.1.9 is revised to read as follows: 
S5.1.9 Water Tolerance. 

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

(1) * * * 

(b) At 60°C (140°F). When brake fluid is tested 
according to S6.9.3(b)— 

(1) * * * 

2. S5.1.12 is revised to read as follows: 

55.1.12 Effects on cups. When brake cups are 
subjected to brake fluid in accordance with S6.12— 

****** 

3. S5.1.13 is revised to read as follows: 

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

****** 

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

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

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

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

****** 

4. S6 is revised to read as follows: 

S6. Test procedures. Until November 3, 1986, 
SAE RM-1 Compatibility Fluid, as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluid," July 1970, may be used in 
place of TEGME and SAE RM-66-03 in the 
humidification (S6.2), chemical stability (S6.5.4), 
and compatibility (S6.10) test procedures, and as a 
referee material in S7.2. 



5. S6.2.1 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.1 Summary of the procedure. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided in 
paragraph S6.2.1(b), a 150 ml sample of the brake 
fluid is humidified under controlled conditions; 150 
ml of SAE triethylene glycol monoethyl ether, brake 
fluid grade, referee material (TEGME) as described 
in Appendix E of SAE Standard J1703, November 
1983, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 1983, 
is used to establish the end point for humidification. 
After humidification the water content and ERBP of 
the brake fluid are determined. 

(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid, as described in Appen- 
dix A of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle 
Brake Fluid," July 1970, may be used with the 
following procedures. See S6. A 100-ml. sample of 
the brake fluid is humidified under controlled con- 
ditions: 100 ml of SAE RM-1 Compatibility Fluid is 
used to establish the end point for humidification. 
After humidification the water content and ERBP 
of the brake fluid are detemined. 

6. S6.2.2 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.2 Apparatus for humidification. (See 
Figure 3. Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer 
may use either TEGME or RM-1 Compatibility 
Fluid. If TEGME is used, substitute 450 ml. of 
distilled water in place of the salt slurry and 
disregard the "45 ± 7mm" dimension.) 

Test apparatus shall consist of— 

****** 

7. S6.2.3 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.3 Reagents and Materials. 

(a) Distilled water, see S7.1. 

(b) Except as provided in S6.2.3(c), SAE 
TEGME referee material. 

(c) Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either TEGME or SAE RM-1 Compatibility 
Fluid. See S6. 

(d) If RM-1 is used, also use ammonium sulfate 
(NH4) 2SO4, Reagent or A.C.S. grade. 

8. S6.2.4 is revised to read as follows: 

56.2.4 Preparation of Apparatus. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided in 
S6.2.4(b), lubricate the ground-glass joint of the 
desiccator. Pour 450 ± 10 ml of distilled water into 
each desiccator and insert perforated porcelain 
desiccator plates. Place the desiccators in an oven 
with temperature controlled at 50±1°C 
(122±1.8°F) throughout the humidification pro- 
cedure. 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 31 



(b) With RM-1: Until November 3,1986, a 
manufacturer may use either TEGME or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid. See S6. Lubricate the 
ground-glass joint of the desiccator. Load each 
desiccator with 450 + 25 grams of the ammonium 
sulfate and add 125 ± 10 ml. of distilled water. The 
surface of the salt slurry shall lie within 45 + 7 mm. 
of the top surface of the desiccator plate. Place the 
desiccators in an area with temperature controlled 
at 23 ±2° C (73.4±3.6°F) throughout the 
humidification procedure. Condition the loaded 
desiccator with the covers on and stoppers in place 
at least 12 hours before use. Use a fresh charge of 
salt slurry for each test. 

9. S6.2.5 is revised to read as follows: 

S6.2.5 Procedure. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided by 
S6.2.5(b), pour 150 ±5 ml of the brake fluid into an 
open corrosion test jar. Place the jar into a desic- 
cator. Prepare in the same manner a duplicate test 
fluid sample and two duplicate specimens of the 
SAE TEGME referee material (150 ±5 ml of 
TEGME in each jar). The water content of the 
SAE TEGME fluid is adjusted to 0.50 ±0.05 per- 
cent by weight at the start of the test in accordance 
with S7.2. Place these samples in the dessicators in 
the 50°C (122°F) controlled oven and replace desic- 
cator covers. At intervals, during oven humidifica- 
tion, remove the rubber stopper in the top of each 
desiccator containing SAE TEGME fluid. Using a 
long needled hypodermic syringe, take a sample of 
not more than 2 ml from each jar and determine its 
water content. Remove no more than 10 ml of fluid 
from each SAE TEGME sample during the 
humidification procedure. When the water content 
of the SAE fluid reaches 3.70 ± 0.05 percent by 
weight (average of the duplicates), remove the two 
test fluid specimens from their desiccators and 
promptly cap each jar tightly. Allow the sealed jars 
to cool for 60-90 minutes at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F). 
Measure the water contents of the test fluid 
specimens in accordance with S7.2 and determine 
their ERBP's in accordance with S6.1. If the two 
ERBP's agree within 4°C (8°F), average them to 
determine the wet ERBP: otherwise repeat and 
average the four individual ERBP's as the wet 
ERBP of the brake fluid. 

(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either TEGME or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid. See S6. Pour 100 + 1 ml 
of the brake fluid into a corrosion test jar. Promptly 
place the jar into a desiccator. Prepare duplicate 



test sample, and two duplicate specimens of the SAE 
RM-1 Compatibililty Fluid. Adjust water content of 
the SAE RM-1 fluid to 0.50 ±0.05 percent by weight 
at the start of the test in accordance with S7.2. At in- 
tervals remove the rubber stopper in the top of each 
desiccator containing SAE RM-1 fluid. Using a long 
needled hypodermic syringe, take a sample of not 
more than, 2 ml from each jar and determine its 
water content. Remove no more than 10 ml of fluid 
from each SAE RM-1 sample during the humidifica- 
tion procedure. When the water content of the RM-1 
fluid reaches 3.50 ±0.05 percent by weight (average 
of the duplicates), remove the two test fluid 
specimens from their desiccators and promptly cap 
each jar tightly. Measure the water contents of the 
test fluid specimens in accordance with S7.2 and 
determine their ERBP's in accordance with S6.1 
through S6.1.5. If the two ERPB's agree within 4°C. 
(8°F.), average them to determine the wet ERBP; 
otherwise repeat and average the four individual 
ERBP's as the wet ERBP of the brake fluid.) 

10. S6.5.4.1 is revised to read as follows: 

56.5.4.1 Materials. 

(a) Except as provided in S6.5.4.1(b), SAE 
RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703, November 
1983, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 
1983. 

(b) Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either SAE RM-66-03, or SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid as described in Appendix A 6f SAE 
Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," 
July 1970. See S6. 

11. Paragraph S6.5.4.2 is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.5.4.2 Procedure. 

(a) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6.5.4.2(b), mix 30 ±1 ml of the brake fluid with 
30±1 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid in a 
boihng point flask (S6. 1.2(a)). Determine the initial 
ERBP of the mixture by applying heat to the flask 
so that the fluid is refluxing in 10 ±2 minutes at a 
rate of excess of 1 drop per second, but not more 
than 5 drops per second. Note the maximum fluid 
temperature observed during the first minute after 
the fluid begins refluxing at a rate in excess of 1 
drop per second. Over the next 15 ±1 minutes, 
adjust and maintain the reflux rate at 1 to 2 drops 
per second. Maintain this rate for an additional 2 
minutes, recording the average value of four 
temperature readings taken at 30-second intervals 
as the final ERBP. 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 32 



(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appendix 
A of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid, " July 1970. See S6. 

(c) Thermometer and barometic corrections are 
not required. 

12. S6.10.1 is revised to read as follows: 

56.10.1 Summary of the procedure. 

(a) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6. 10. 1(b), brake fluid is mixed with an equal 
volume of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, 
then tested in the same way as for water tolerance 
(S6.9) except that the bubble flow time is not 
measured. This test is an indication of the com- 
patibility of the test fluid with other motor vehicle 
brake fluids at both high and low temperatures. 

(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appendix A 
of SAE Standard J1703b,"Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," July 1970. See S6. This test is an indication of 
the compatibility of the test fluid with other motor 
vehicle brake fluids at both high and low 
temperatures. 

13. Paragraph S6. 10..2(e) is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.10.2 Apparatus and materials. 

****** 

(e) Except as provided in S6. 10.2(f), SAE 
RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. As described in Ap- 
pendbc A of SAE Standard J1703, November 1983, 
"Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," November 1983. 

(f) Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either RM-66-03, or SAE RM-1 Compatibility 
Fluid as described in Appendix A of SAE Standard 
J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid," July 1970. See 
S6. 

14. Paragraph S6. 10.3(a) is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.10.3 Procedure. 

(a) At low temperature. 

(1) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6. 10.3(a)(2), mix 50 ±0.5 ml of brake fluid with 
50 ±0.5 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. 
Pour this mixture into a centrifuge tube and stop- 
per with a clean dry cork. Place tube in the cold 
chamber maintained at minus 40±2°C (minus 
40°±3.6°F). After 24 ±2 hours, remove tube, 
quickly wipe with a clean lint-free cloth saturated 
with ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 



fluids) or acetone. Examine the test specimen for 
evidence of sludging, sedimentation, or crystalliza- 
tion. DOT 3 and DOT 4 test fluids shall also be 
examined for stratification. 

(2) With RM-1. Until November 3, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appendix 
A of SAE Standard J1703b, "Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluid," July 1970. See S6. 

****** 

15. S6.13.1 is revised to read as follows: 

56.13.1 Summary of the procedure. Brake fluid 
is stroked under controlled conditions at an 
elevated temperature in a simulated motor vehicle 
hydraulic braking system consisting of three slave 
wheel cylinders and an actuating master cylinder 
connected by steel tubing. Referee standard parts 
are used. All parts are carefully cleaned, 
examined, and certain measurements made im- 
mediately prior to assembly for test. During the 
test, temperature, rate of pressure rise, maximum 
pressure, and rate of stroking are specified and 
controlled. The system is examined periodically 
during stroking to assure that excessive leakage of 
fluid is not occurring. Afterwards, the system is 
torn down. Metal parts and SBR cups are 
examined and remeasured. The brake fluid and any 
resultant sludge and debris are collected, examined, 
and tested. 

16. S6.13.2 is revised to read as follows: 

56.13.2 Apparatus and equipment. 

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

(a) Brake assemblies. With the drum and shoe 
apparatus: three drum and shoe assembly units 
(SAE RM-29a) consisting of three forward brake 
shoes and three reverse brake shoes with linings 
and three front wheel brake drum assemblies with 
assembly component parts. With stroking fixture 
type apparatus: three fixture units including 
appropriate adapter mounting plates to hold brake 
wheel cylinder assemblies. 

****** 

(c) Heated air bath cabinet. An insulated cabinet 
or oven having sufficient capacity to house the 
three mounted brake assemblies or stroking fix- 
ture assemblies, master cylinder, and necessary 
connections. A thermostatically controlled heating 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 33 



system is required to maintain a temperature of 
70°±5°C (158°±9°F) or 120°±5°C (248°±9°F). 
Heaters shall be shielded to prevent direct radia- 
tion to wheel or master cylinder. 

****** 

(f) Wheel cylinder (WC) assemblies (SAE RM- 
Ha). Three unused cast iron housing straight bore 
hydraulic brake WC assemblies having diameters 
of approximately 28 mm (I'/g inch) for each test. 
Pistons shall be made from unanodized SAE AA 
2024 aluminum alloy. 



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

(c) Calculate the increases in base diameters of 
the eight cups (see S5. 1.13(e)). 

20. The first sentence of Paragraph S6. 13.6(d) is 
revised to read as follows: 

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



17. Paragraph S6. 13.3(a) is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.13.3 Materials. 

(a) Standard SBP brake cups. Six standard SAE 
SBR wheel cylinder test cups, one primary test 
cup, and one secondary MC test cup, all as de- 
scribed in S7.6, for each test. 

****** 

18. Paragraph 86. 13.4(c) is revised to read as 
follows: 

56.13.4 Preparation of test apparatus. 

* * * * 4: 4c 

(c) Assembly and adjustrrient of test apparatus. 

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

Adjust the stroking rate to 1,000 ±100 strokes 
per hour. Record the fluid level in the master 
cylinder standpipe. 

19. S6. 13.6(b) and S6. 13.6(c) are revised to read 
as follows: 

S6.13.6 Calculation. 



21. S7.2 is revised to read as follows: 

S7.2 Water content of motor vehicle brake fluids. 
Use analytical methods based on ASTM Dl 123-59, 
"Standard Method of Test for Water in Concen- 
trated Engine Antifreezes by the Iodine Reagent 
Method," for determining the water content of 
brake fluids, or other methods of analysis yielding 
comparable results. To be acceptable for use, such 
other method must measure the weight of water 
added to samples of the SAE RM-66-03 and 
TEGME Compatibility Fluids within ±15 percent 
of the water added for additions up to 0.8 percent 
by weight, and within ± 5 percent of the water added 
for additions greater than 0.8 percent by weight 
The SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid used to 
prepare the samples must have an original ERBP 
of not less than 205°C (401°F) when tested in ac- 
cordance with S6.1. The SAE TEGME fluid used 
to prepare the samples must have an original 
ERBP of not less than 240°C (464°F) when tested 
in accordance with S6.1. 

Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer may use 
either RM-66-03 and TEGME or SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid. See S6. To be acceptable for use, 
such other method must measure the weight of 
water added to samples of the SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid within ±15 percent of the water 
added for additions up to 0.8 percent by weight, and 
within ± 5 percent of the water added for additions 
greater than 0.8 percent by weight. The SAE RM-1 
Compatibility Fluid used to prepare the samples 
must have an original ERBP of not less than 182°C 
(360 °F) when tested in accordance with S6.1. 

Issued on April 29, 1986. 

Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

51 F.R. 16694 
May 6, 1986 



PART 571; S 116-PRE 34 



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

(Docket No. 87-07; Notice 3) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends Standard No. 
116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, to permit the use 
of permanently affixed labels (e.g., paper or plastic 
labels) on containers of brake fluid and hydraulic sys- 
tem mineral oil to satisfy the container information 
requirements of the standard. This rule also estab- 
lishes procedures for testing the methods used to 
mark or label all such containers to ensure that the 
required information remains legible and present on 
the container after being soaked with the fluid or oil. 

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is 
December 27, 1988. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 3, 
1987, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- 
tration (NHTSA) published a notice of proposed rule- 
making (NPRM) relating to Standard No. 1 16's infor- 
mation requirements for containers of brake fluid and 
hydraulic system mineral oil (52 FR 10775). That 
notice proposed to revise those requirements to per- 
mit the use of permanently affixed labels (e.g., paper 
or plastic labels) on such containers and set conditions 
and procedures for testing the labeling or marking 
of all containers with the information required by the 
standard. This action was commenced in response to 
two related petitions for rulemaking submitted sep- 
arately by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers 
Association (CSMA) and the firm of Arent, Fox, Kint- 
ner, Plotkin & Kahn (Arent), on behalf of companies 
engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor vehi- 
cle brake fluid. 

This rule amends FMVSS No. 116 as proposed in 
the NPRM. A new paragraph S6.14 is added to the 
standard setting forth the test conditions and pro- 
cedures under which the permanency and legibility 
of the information is evaluated. Paragraphs 85. 2. 2. 2 
and S5.2.2.3 of the standard are amended to permit 
packagers the option of affixing a label to their con- 
tainers which would be legible and incapable of be- 
ing removed without its destruction after exposure 
to the test conditions of S6.14. 



Background 

Standard No. 116 currently requires certain infor- 
mation to be clearly and indelibly marked on all con- 
tainers of brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral 
oil. Under paragraph S5. 2.2.2 of the standard, persons 
who fill containers with brake fluid that are subse- 
quently distributed for retail sale (whom the standard 
refers to as "packagers" (S4)) must furnish the infor- 
mation "clearly and indelibly marked" on each con- 
tainer. The required information includes a certifica- 
tion that the fluid conforms to Standard No. 116, the 
name of the packager and name and complete mail- 
ing address of the distributor, information (a serial 
number) identifying the packaged lot and date of 
packaging and the type of brake fluid contained in 
the package, the minimum wet boiling point of the 
fluid, and a series of safety warnings. The safety 
warnings concern use and proper storage of the fluid 
and the safety consequences of using contaminated 
fluid. Comparable information requirements are set 
forth in S5.2.2.3 for packagers of hydraulic system 
mineral oil. 

The safety warnings required on brake fluid and 
hydraulic system mineral oil containers warn against 
certain practices in using hydraulic fluid for braking 
systems that might result in the use of improper or 
contaminated fluids. The warnings also help to pre- 
vent improper storage of the brake fluid which could 
contaminate the fluid or cause it to absorb moisture. 
Avoiding the absorption of moisture is extremely im- 
portant since moisture in a brake system degrades 
braking performance and safety by lowering the 
brake fluid's boiling point, increasing the fluid's 
viscosity at low atmospheric temperatures and in- 
creasing the risk of brake system component corro- 
sion. Lower boiling points increase the risk of brake 
system failure and increase the possibilities of vapor 
lock. The safety warnings also alert users of brake 
fluid containers with capacities less than five gallons 
that the containers should not be refilled. 

In April 1984, the agency issued an interpretation 
of Standard No. 116 which stated that the standard 
prohibits the use of labels, whether paper or of some 
other material, to meet the "marked on each . . . con- 



PART 571; S116-PRE 35 



tainer" requirements of S5. 2.2. 2 NHTSA interpreted 
S5.2.2.2 as requiring the relevant information to be 
marked directly on the brake fluid container and as 
not permitting the information to be placed on a la- 
bel and affixed to the container. This interpretation 
was received with concern by some members of the 
brake fluid marketing industry who apparently were 
unaware that their use of permanently affixed labels 
on their products did not meet the requirements of 
S5.2.2.2. The industry's concern gave rise to the peti- 
tions for rulemaking from the CSMA and Arent re- 
questing that NHTSA amend Standard No. 116 to 
permit the affixing of labels as an alternative to direct 
marking, to comply with the information require- 
ments for brake fluid containers. 

The two petitioners submitted virtually identical 
arguments in their rulemaking petitions. Arent, peti- 
tioning the agency on behalf of client companies 
engaged in the marketing of brake fluid products, 
believed that an amendment permitting the attach- 
ment of separate labels on containers would be "pro- 
competitive, pro-consumer and achieve the intended 
purpose (label permanency) of NHTSA," without an 
adverse effect on safety. According to Arent, the re- 
quested amendment would result in consumer bene- 
fits by avoiding the costs associated with directly 
meirking brake fluid containers. (The petitioners also 
raised various legal arguments regarding the use of 
labeling under the Vehicle Safety Act. The agency af- 
firms its response to those arguments in the NPRM 
preceding this rule and will not further discuss them 
here. See, 52 FR at 10777.) 

The CSMA believed that Standard No. 116 should 
permit brake fluid packagers to use permanently af- 
fixed labels because that would reduce costs with no 
negative effect on safety. According to CSMA, permit- 
ting the use of permanently affixed labels would per- 
mit a private brand name brake fluid packager to at- 
tach preprinted, low cost labels on readily available 
containers and avoid the expense of readjusting 
packaging lines each time a different brake fluid 
brand is packaged. CSMA stated that it is not eco- 
nomically feasible for independent packagers, typi- 
cally small businesses, to directly mark the containers 
for each brand of brake fluid and store them in ad- 
vance of packaging. It believed that the requirement 
for directly marking brake fluid containers entails the 
purchase of expensive machinery and increases other 
production costs, and "will serve only to eliminate 
from the marketplace those companies which con- 
tract-package brake fluid under private labels." 

CSMA believed that the labeling requirements 
should refer neither to an "indelibly marked" require- 
ment nor focus on the method of application of the 
required labeling. The petitioner suggested instead 
that the requirements address the performance of the 
label, i.e., its ability to adhere to the container dur- 
ing the life of the product and convey its information. 



The CSMA stated that the state-of-the-art printing 
and labeling technologies are such that adhesive 
labels can be made not to smear, run or become un- 
attached from the container when exposed to brake 
fluid. In support of its argument to permit perman- 
ently affixed labels, the CSMA suggested a test 
method for determining the durability and indelibil- 
ity of labels on brake fluid containers. That method 
included procedures for immersing a container in 
brake fluid and then determining whether an affixed 
label is destroyed or defaced when the attempt is 
made to remove it. 

Since the agency tentatively concluded that an 
amendment perrnitting the use of permanently affixed 
labels would enhance manufacturer flexibility in the 
packaging of brake fluid while ensuring that safety 
needs are met, it issued an NPRM to amend Standard 
No. 116 to provide for the use of such labels on brake 
fluid containers. The NPRM went beyond the petition 
in making the same proposal for hydraulic system 
mineral oil containers, as NHTSA tentatively saw no 
reason not to allow packagers of hydraulic system 
mineral oil the same flexibility in packaging their 
product as proposed for brake fluid packagers. More 
specifically, the agency proposed to amend S5.2.2.2 
and S5.2.2.3 of the standard to permit packagers of 
brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil the op- 
tion of affixing a label to their containers which would 
be legible and incapable of being removed without its 
destruction after exposure to specified test conditions 
set forth in a new paragraph S6.14. The agency pro- ' 
posed that these new requirements for labeling indel- 
ibility and permanency apply to all containers of 
brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil con- 
tainers, whether their information was marked di- 
rectly on them or printed on an affixed label. 

Comments on NPRM 

The agency received six comments on its proposal. All 
but one of these commenters supported an amend- 
ment permitting the use of permanently affixed labels 
to satisfy the labeling requirements of Standard No. 
116. 

The Delco Moraine Division of General Motors (GM) 
supported each of the proposed amendments to the 
standard. The commenter believed the proposed 
amendment to S5.2.2.2 and S5.2.2.3 would, as the 
agency had stated in its proposal, "afford the manu- 
facturers flexibility in the packaging of brake fluid 
and hydraulic system mineral oil while ensuring that 
safety needs are met." GM said that it manufactures, 
distributes and packages brake fluids and currently 
directly marks its containers as required by Standard 
No. 116. According to the commenter, GM has deter- 
mined that the methods it uses for placing the re- / 
quired information on brake fluid containers will * 
meet the performance requirements for legibility, 



PART 571; S116-PRE 36 



permanency and indelibility proposed in the NPRM. 
GM agreed with petitioner CSMA's statement regard- 
ing the feasibility of producing adhesive labels which 
would not smear, run or separate from the container 
when exposed to brake fluid. 

Penray Company and Gold Eagle, two companies 
represented by petitioner Arent and engaged in the 
manufacture and packaging of motor vehicle brake 
fluid, supported the proposed amendments as pro- 
moting competition between packagers without neg- 
atively affecting safety. The CSMA also supported 
each of the proposed amendments to Standard No. 
116, including those for hydraulic system mineral oil 
containers. In its comment, CSMA reiterated the 
point made earlier in its petition for rulemaking that 
current printing and labeling technologies are able 
to produce adhesive labels that are capable of remain- 
ing legible ad affixed to containers after exposure to 
brake fluid. CSMA also said packagers' efforts to meet 
the current requirements for directly marking their 
containers would unnecessarily increase consumer 
costs for brake fluid products by 26 to 32 cents per 
container. 

American Motors Corporation (AMC) supported 
generally the agency's proposal permitting affixed 
labels to meet the marking requirements of Stand- 
ard No. 116. The commenter said that labeling tech- 
nology has progressed tremendously since the issu- 
ance of the current marking requirements and that 
there should be no technological impediments to 
creating "appropriate and durable labels." However, 
AMC emphasized that manufacturers should have 
the option of satisfying Standard No. 116's labeling 
requirements by either using permanently affixed 
labels or continuing current practices for directly 
marking containers. AMC questioned the need for 
and recommended NHTSA not adopt the legibility 
and permanency performance requirements proposed 
in the NPRM since other NHTSA regulations that 
call for permanently affixed labels (e.g., Part 567) 
have no such requirements. 

As explained in the NPRM, the agency believes that 
the test procedures and performance criteria for con- 
tainer information are necessary to ensure that the 
safety warnings and other information required by 
Standard No. 116 will be present on brake fluid and 
hydraulic system mineral oil containers throughout 
the time the fluid container will be used. The NPRM 
explained the importance of the additional test re- 
quirements in the following manner: 

The agency has tentatively concluded that test 
procedures for label indelibility and durabil- 
ity, such as those suggested by [petitioner] 
CSMA, are needed to make labeling require- 
ments more objective and to meet the need for 
motor vehicle safety. NHTSA is therefore pro- 
posing that labels meet the "destroyed or 
defaced" requirement after having been ex- 



posed to the test conditions of S6.14. * * * 
While both Part 567 and Standard No. 116 are 
intended lo ensure that the required labeling 
remains in place and legible, there are several 
specific, identifiable problems, like brake fluid 
spills, against which the brake fluid labels 
should be protected. Thus, the agency believes 
that the general "destroyed or defaced" cri- 
terion in Part 567 is not sufficient for ensur- 
ing that the brake fluid label will be perma- 
nent. To ensure the permanency of brake fluid 
container labeling, additional criteria are ap- 
propriate in Standard No. 116 to address the 
specific hazards likely to interfere with the 
permanency of the labeling. The requirements 
must be directed at ensuring that the required 
labeling remains permanent notwithstanding 
contact with the elements and conditions of a 
garage-type environment. NHTSA believes it 
is appropriate to pattern test conditions for the 
labeling after real-world conditions likely to 
affect the adhesiveness and legibility of the 
labeling and set performance requirements 
ensuring that the information is present 
throughout the time the fluid will be used. 

(52 FR at 10778, 10779) 

The agency continues to believe that the perman- 
ence and legibility of the labeling is of utmost impor- 
tance to ensuring that consumers will be provided the 
information necessary for the proper storage and use 
of the brake fluids. Fluids that are improperly stored 
or used can adversely affect the proper operation of 
brake systems in motor vehicles. Moreover, commen- 
ters on the NPRM indicated that the performance 
criteria proposed by the agency can be met by cur- 
rent methods of container marking and labeling. The 
agency does not know of any reason for excluding the 
performance criteria from the standard that out- 
weighs the safety benefits resulting from require- 
ments ensuring the legibility and availability of the 
requisite safety information. Accordingly, the agency 
declines to adopt AMC's suggestion and includes the 
performance requirements in this final rule. 

The Wagner Division of Cooper Industries 
(Wagner), a manufacturer and packager of DOT 3 
brake fluid, objected to the agency's proposed amend- 
ment of Standard No. 116. Wagner's objections were 
based on three arguments, all of which were safety- 
related, with the third relating indirectly to equitable 
considerations. 

Wagner believed that amending the standard as 
proposed would permit the use of "inferior labeling 
methods" that would adversely affect safety in two 
respects. First, Wagner believed the use of paper 
labels could result in increased brake system failures 
due to the use of mislabeled products. Second, Wag- 



PART 571; S116-PRE 37 



ner felt that Standard No. 116 should require the 
"same level of [label] permanency" as that required 
by Standard No. 105 [(49 CFR §571.105)] for the 
marking of hydraulic system brake fluid reservoirs. 
Standard No. 105 requires a warning statement on 
the reservoir that is "permanently affixed, engraved, 
or embossed." (S5.4.3) Wagner stated that it directly 
marks its brake fluid containers in accordance with 
the current requirements of Standard No. 116. 

Wagner cautioned that one of the dangers involved 
with the misuse of brake fluids is that a brake sys- 
tem's elastomeric seals can develop excessive swell- 
ing when contaminated with non-DOT fluids, which 
could result in catastrophic brake system failure. The 
commenter indicated that a direct marking require- 
ment is the only way to avoid the risk of possible con- 
sumer misuse of unidentified fluids found in con- 
tainers whose labels have become detached. Wagner 
argued that since more motor vehicle brake fluid is 
sold for replacement purposes than is sold as original 
equipment, "It is incumbent on the National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration to encourage every 
brake system repair person, professionals or private 
individuals, to use a safe product in rebuilding the 
brake system." 

NHTSA concurs with Wagner's assertions that 
proper storage and use of brake fluid are very impor- 
tant to motor vehicle safety and that consumer aware- 
ness of the information provided on brake fluid 
containers significantly reduces the likelihood of 
brake system failure due to improper or contaminated 
fluids. However, the agency does not agree that a 
direct marking requirement is the only way of ensur- 
ing that the information on a brake fluid container 
will be present and legible to the consumer until its 
contents are used. The agency has determined that 
the test conditions proposed for container labeling— 
viz., that the container is soaked in brake fluid or 
hydraulic system mineral oil for 15 minutes— are 
representative of the real-world conditions to which 
the container is likely to be exposed. A label that 
remains affixed and legible in the laboratory test will 
therefore remain legible and affixed to the container 
in satisfaction of the need to have the information con- 
veyed by its markings available to the consumer un- 
til the container's contents are used. 

As stated above, commenters have indicated that 
the performance criteria proposed by the agency can 
be met by current methods of container labeling. 
Given the technological advances made in the print- 
ing and labeling fields that now make it possible to 
affix a smear-resistant label that is capable of remain- 
ing attached to a container after exposure to condi- 
tions encountered in a garage-type environment, 
NHTSA believes it is appropriate to amend Standard 
No. 116 to permit the use of the new technology. In 
regard to Wagner's concern that the new labeling re- 
quirements will result in mislabeled products and an 



attendant reduction in safety, NHTSA does not agree 
that these amendments will increase the risk that 
packagers of brake fluid will inadvertently produce 
and market containers that misidentify their con- 
tents. Such misidentification can occur regardless of 
whether the identification is directly marked or on 
an affixed label. The agency believes current safe- 
guards adopted by packagers preventing product mis- 
identification will continue to ensure that brake fluid 
containers are properly identified. 

In any event, the agency will carefully monitor 
compliance with the standard. If it becomes apparent 
that safety needs are not met by labeling practices, 
the agency will take appropriate action which may 
include further amendment to Standard No. 116. 

Wagner argued that it is inconsistent for NHTSA 
to require " 'permanently affixed, engraved or em- 
bossed' labeling on vehicle brake fluid reservoirs and 
not demand the same level of permanency for the 
labeling on replacement brake fluid containers." The 
agency does not believe that the labeling require- 
ments for the two standards are inconsistent. The re- 
quirements made final in this notice are intended to 
ensure the permanency of the information on brake 
fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil containers— 
i.e., that it remain present and legible until the con- 
tainer's contents are used. A packager may meet 
those requirements by affixing a permanent label on 
the container or by marking the container directly. 
In any case, the standard's requirement that the in- 
formation be permanently and indelibly marked or 
labeled on the container is essentially the same as 
Standard No. 105's option for compliance by means 
of permanently affixing the required information. 

Wagner's third objection to the proposed amend- 
ment involved equitable considerations. Wagner 
argued that an amendment that would compromise 
safety "for the convenience of companies not willing 
to invest in safety is an unfair and inconsistent ac- 
tion by NHTSA" to the detriment of brake fluid 
manufacturers who have invested resources to com- 
ply with Standard No. 116. Wagner expressed disap- 
pointment that the NPRM seemed to develop "a ra- 
tionale intended to legitimize an inferior method of 
labeling." 

The agency has carefully considered Wagner's con- 
cerns that this amendment to Standard No. 116 in ef- 
fect penalizes parties who have complied with the stand- 
ard by legitimizing an "inferior method of labeling." 
As NHTSA understands Wagner's equity argument, it 
is premised on that commenter's view that compliance 
by means of a permanently affixed label is inferior from 
the standpoint of vehicle safety to compliance by means 
of direct marking on the containers. The agency's 
response to Wagner's safety concerns has been dis- 
cussed above and will not be repeated here. Because 
the agency has determined that safety will not be 
negatively affected by the proposed amendments to 



PART 571; S116-PRE 38 



Standard No. 116 and that the rule will provide 
packagers increased flexibility in labeling brake fluid 
and hydraulic system mineral oil containers, the 
amendments are hereby adopted by this final rule. 

As described in the NPRM, the first step in the pro- 
cedures for testing container information involves labels 
only. It requires that labels be cut vertically fi^om top 
to bottom. Cutting the label is intended to preclude the 
use of various "slip-on" labels, which typically consist 
of a sleeve of paper or plastic which wraps around the 
container. They do not use any type of adhesive 
material to hold them in place on the container. 
NHTSA has determined that this type of labeling 
should be prohibited due to the ease with which it can 
be removed from the container and to the likelihood 
that containers will become completely unmarked 
before their fluid is used. Since no adhesive is used with 
these labels, the cutting of the label will allow the 
removal of the label, without defacing or destroying the 
label, even before the label is soaked with brake fluid 
or hydraulic system mineral oil. The use of that type 
of label would therefore constitute a noncompliance. 

In its comment to the NPRM, Gold Eagle asked 
whether a paper or "poly" sleeve label that has been 
affixed to the container with adhesive will be deemed 
to comply with the new requirements of Standard No. 
116 if it remains affixed to the container after the ver- 
tical cut has been made. Compliance of such a label 
could be determined only after it and its container 
have been soaked in the container's contents and then 
an attempt is made to remove the label. 

During the next stage of determining compliance, 
the container of brake fluid or hydraulic system 
mineral oil (i.e., the test specimen) is soaked for 15 
minutes at room temperature in the type of fluid 
found in the container. NHTSA believes that the 15 
minute period is adequate to determine the effect of 
the fluid on the container markings. Because it is 
foreseeable that fluid labels moistened by excess fluid 
dripping down the container will be wiped by con- 
sumers, the next step in the compliance procedure is 
to wipe the labeling by hand with a clean dry cloth. 
A container would be determined to be in compliance 
if, after the wiping, the required markings are legi- 
ble to an observer having corrected visual acuity of 
20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance of one foot and, in 
the case of a container with an afilxed label, the label 
cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it. 

Effective date 

No commenter objected to the proposal that com- 
pliance with the proposed amendments be required 
within 180 days after issuance of a final rule. Accord- 
ingly, the effective date of this final rule is December 
27, 1988. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 
571.116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, is amended to 
read as follows: 



§571.116 [Amended] 

2. S5.2.2.2 of §571.116 is amended to read as follows: 

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

destroyed or defaced. 

***** 

3. S5.2.2.3 is amended to read as follows: 

55.2.2.3 Each packager of hydraulic system mineral 
oil shall furnish the information specified in para- 
graphs (a) through (e) of this section by clearly mark- 
ing it on each brake fluid container or on a label 
(labels) permanently affixed to the container, in any 
location except a removable part such as a lid. After 
being subjected to the operations and conditions spe- 
cified in S6.14, the information required by this sec- 
tion shall be legible to an observer having corrected 
visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance of 
one foot, and any label affixed to the container in com- 
pliance with this section shall not be removable with- 
out its being destroyed or defaced. 
***** 

4. A new S6.14 is added after the formula set forth 
in S6. 13.6(d) and before SI, Auxiliary test methods and 
reagent standards, to read as follows: 

S6.14 Container information. Each container with in- 
formation marked directly on the container surface or 
on a label Gabels) affixed to the container pursuant to 
S5.2.2.2 or S5.2.2.3 is subjected to the following 
procedure: 

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

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

(c) Within 5 minutes after removing the container 
fi-om the fluid or oil, remove excess liquid fi-om the sur- 
face of the container by wiping with a clean dry cloth. 

Issued on June 23, 1988 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 



53 F.R. 24272 
June 28, 1988 



PART 571; S116-PRE 39-40 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 116 



Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids— Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, 

Buses, and Motorcycles, and Brake Fluid and Brake Fluid Containers 

(Docket No. 70-23; Notice 3) 

SI. Scope. This standard specifies 
requirements for fluids for use in hydraulic brake 
systems of motor vehicles, containers for these 



fluids, and labeling of the containers. 

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

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

54. Definitions. 

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

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

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

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

"Duplicate samples" means 2 samples of brake 
fluid taken from a single packaged lot and tested 
simultaneously. 



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

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

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

"Sloughing" means degradation of a brake cup 
as evidenced by the presence of carbon black loose- 
ly held on the brake cup surface, such that a visible 
black streak is produced when the cup, with a 
500 ±10 gram dead weight on it, is drawn base 
down over a sheet of white bond paper placed on a 
firm flat surface. 

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



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



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



PART 571; S 116-1 



55.1.1 Equilibrium reflux boiling point (ERBP). 

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

(a) DOT 3: 205°C (401°F) 

(b) DOT 4: 230°C (446°F) 

(c) DOT 5: 260°C (500°F) 

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

(a) DOT 3: 140°C (284°F) 

(b) DOT 4: 155°C (311°F) 

(c) DOT 5: 180°C (356°F) 

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



TABLE 1 



(a) DOT 3 

(b) DOT 4 

(c) DOT 5 



1500 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 

1800 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 

900 cSt at minus 40°C (minus 40° F) 



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

55.1.5 Brake fluid stability. 

55. 1.5.1 High-temperature stability. When 
brake fluid is tested according to S.6.5.3 the ERBP 
shall not change by more than 3.0°C (5.4°F) plus 
0.05 degree for each degree that the ERBP of the 
fluid exceeds 225°C (437°F). 

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

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

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



Test strip material 



Max. permissible 

weight change, 

mg/sq cm of 

surface 



Steel, Tinned Iron, Cast Iron 

Aluminum 

Brass, Copper 



0.2 
0.1 
0.4 



(b) Excluding the area of contact (13 ±1 mm. 
(V2 ± 5^2 inch) measured from the bolt hole end of 
the test strip), the metal test strips shall not show 
pitting or etching to an extent discernible without 
magnification; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S5.1.7 Fluidity and appearance at low 
temperature. When brake fluid is tested according 
to S6.7, at the storage temperature and for the 
storage times given in Table II— 

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

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

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



PART 571; S 116-2 



TABLE II— Fludity and Appearance at Low Temperatures 



Storage temperature 



Storage 

time 
(hours) 



Max. 
bubble flow 

tim£ 
(seconds) 



minus 40±2°C (minus 

40±3.6°F) 144±4.0 10 

minus 50 + 2°C (minus 

58±3.6°F) 6±0.2 35 



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

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

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

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

55.1.9 Water tolerance. 

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

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

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

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

(b) At 60° C. (U0° F.). When brake fluid is 
tested according to [S6. 9.3(b)— J 

(1) The fluid shall show no stratification; and 

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

55.1.10 Compatibility. 

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



(b) At 60° C. (U0° F.). When brake fluid is 
tested according to S6.10.3(b)— 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



(Rev. 5f6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-3 



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

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

(f ) The average lip diameter set of the eight cups 
shall not be greater than 65 percent; (51 F.R. 
16699— May 6, 1986. Effective: May 6. 1986)1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOT 3 and DOT 4-colorless to amber. 

DOT 5-purple. 

Hydraulic system mineral oil— green. 

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

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

55.2.2 Certification, marking, and labeling. 

S5.2.2.1 Each manufacturer of a DOT grade 
brake fluid shall furnish to each packager. 



distributor, or dealer to whom he delivers brake 
fluid, the following information: 

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

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

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

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

55.2.2.2 [Each packager of a brake fluid shall 
furnish the information specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (g) of this section by clearly marking it on 
each brake fluid container or on a label (labels) per- 
manently affixed to the container, in any location 
except a removable part such as a lid. After being 
subjected to the operations and conditions 
specified in S6.14, the information required by this 
section shall be legible to an observer having cor- 
rected visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a 
distance of one foot, and any label affixed to the 
container in compliance with this section shall not 
be removable without its being distroyed or 
defaced.] (53 F.R. 24272— June 28, 1988. Effective: 
December 27, 1988) 

55.2.2.3 (Each packager of hydraulic system 
mineral oil shall furnish the information specified 
in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section by 
clearly marking it on each brake fluid container or 
on a label (labels) permanently affixed to the con- 
tainer, in any location except a removable part 
such as a lid. After being subjected to the opera- 
tions and conditions specified in S6.14, the infor- 
mation required by this section shall be legible to 
an observer having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 
(Snellen ratio) at a distance of one foot, and any 
label affixed to the container in compliance with 
this section shall not be removable without its be- 
ing distroyed or defaced.] (53 F.R. 24272— June 28, 
1988. Effective: December 27, 1988) 

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



(Rev. 6/28/88) 



PART 571; S 116-4 



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

S6. Test procedures. [Until November 3, 1986, 
SAE RM-1 Compatibility Fluid, as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703b, Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluid, July 1970, may be used in 
place of TEGME and SAE RM-66-03 in the 
humidification (S6.2), chemical stability (S6.5.4), 
and compatibility (S6.10) test procedures, and as a 
referee material in S7.2. (51 F.R. 16699— May 6, 
1986. Effective: May 6, 1986)1 




ASTM 
THERMOMETER 



RUBBER SLEEVE 



"I (//////yTm. 



^r^^4^^^ 



-BOILING STONES 
REFRACTORY 



^ L- 32-38 



mm 



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



S6.1.1 Summary of procedure. 

(ml) of brake fluid are boiled 
equilibrium conditions (reflux) 
pressure in a 100-ml flask 



Sixty milliliters 

under specified 

at atmospheric 

The average 



temperature of the boiling fluid at the end of the 
reflux period, corrected for variations in 
barometric pressure if necessary, is the ERBP. 

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

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



•f^JOINT 



no ± 5mm // 




FIRE POLISHED 



^~l4mm O.D. 
BEAD 

8-9mm I.D. 



FIG. I 
BOILING POINT TEST APPARATUS 



-60±2mm O.D. SPHERE 



FIG. 2 
DETAIL OF lOOml SHORT-NECK FLASK 



(Rev. 5/6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-5 



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

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

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

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



S6.1.3 Preparation of apparatus. 

(a) Thoroughly clean and dry all glassware. 

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

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

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



S6.1.4 Procedure for preparation of apparatus. 

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



rate of 1 to 2 drops per second over the next 5 + 2 
minutes. Maintain this rate for an additional 2 
minutes, taking four temperature readings at 
30-second intervals. Record the average of these as 
the observed ERBP. If no reflux is evident when 
the fluid temperature reaches 260°C (500°F), 
discontinue heating and report ERBP as in excess 
of 260°C (500°F). 

S6.1.5 Calculation. 

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

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

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



Table hi.— Correction for Barometric Pressure 

Observed ERBP corrected Correction per 2 mm 

for thermometer inaccuraxyy difference m pressure 



"C. 



CF.) 



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



0.039 
0.04 



(0.07) 
(0.08) 



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



S6.2 Wet ERBP. Determine the wet ERBP of 

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

[S6.2.1 Summary of the procedure. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided in 
paragraph S6.2.1(b), a 150 ml sample of the brake 
fluid is humidified under controlled conditions; 150 
ml of SAE triethylene glycol monoethyl ether, 
brake fluid grade, referee material (TEGME) as 
described in Appendix E of SAE Standard J1703, 
November 1983, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, 



(Rev. 5/6(86) 



PART 571; S 116-6 



November 1983, is used to establish the end point 
for humidification. After humidification the water 
content and ERBP of the brake fluid are determined, 
(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid, as described in Appen- 
dix A of SAE Standard J1703b, Motor Vehicle 
Brake Fluid, July 1970, may be used with the 
following procedures. See S6. A 100-ml sample of 
the brake fluid is humidified under controlled con- 
ditions: 100 ml of SAE RM-1 Coinpatibility Fluid 
is used to establish the end point for humidifica- 
tion. After humidification the water content and 
ERBP of the brake fluid are determined. 

56.2.2 Apparatus for humidification. (See Figure 
3.) Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either TEGME or RM-1 Compatibility Fluid. 
If TEGME is used, substitute 450 ml of distilled 
water in place of the salt slurry and disregard the 
"45 ± 7mm" dimension. (51 F.R. 16699— May 6, 1986. 
Effective: May 6, 1986)1 

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

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

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

56.2.3 Reagents and Materials. 

[(a) Distilled water, see S7.1. 

(b) Except as provided in S6.2.3(c), SAE 
TEGME referee material. 

(c) Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either TEGME or SAE RM-1 Ccmpatibility 
Fluid. See S6. 

(d) If RM-1 is used, also use ammonium sulfate 
(NH4) 2SO4. Reagent or A.C.S. grade. 

56.2.4 Preparation of Apparatus. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided in S6.2.4(b), 
lubricate the ground-glass joint of the desiccator. 
Pour 450 ± 10 ml of distilled water into each desic- 
cator and insert perforated porcelain desiccator 
plates. Place the desiccators in an oven with 
temperature controlled at 50±1°C (122±1.8°F) 
throughout the humidification procedure. 



-250:! 



I.D. 




N0.8 RUBBER STOPPER 



GLASS DESICCATOR WITH 
TUBULATED COVER 



3— LUBRICATED 
GROUND JOINT 



■ GLASS JAR 



PORCELAIN 

DESICCATOR 

PLATE 



2|0ilOmml.D.- 



FIG.3 
HUMIDIFICATION APPARATUS 

(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either TEGME or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid. See S6. Lubricate the 
ground-glass joint of the desiccator. Load each 
desiccator with 450 ± 25 grams of the ammonium 
sulfate and add 125 + 10 ml of distilled water. The 
surface of the salt slurry shall lie within 45 ± 7 mm 
of the top surface of the desiccator plate. Place the 
desiccators in an area with temperature controlled 
at 23±2°C (73.4±3.6°F) throughout the 
humidification procedure. Condition the loaded 
desiccator with the covers on and stoppers in place 
at least 12 hours before use. Use a fresh charge of 
salt slurry for each test. 

S6.2.5 Procedure. 

(a) With TEGME: Except as provided by 
S6.2.5(b), pour 150 ±5 ml of the brake fluid into an 
open corrosion test jar. Place the jar into a desic- 
cator. Prepare in the same manner a duplicate test 
fluid sample and two duplicate specimens of the 
SAE TEGME referee material (150 ±5 ml of 
TEGME in each jar). The water content of the 
SAE TEGME fluid is adjusted to 0.50 ±0.05 per- 
cent by weight at the start of the test in accordance 
with S7.2. Place these samples in the dessicators in 
the 50°C (122°F) controlled oven and replace desic- 
cator covers. At intervals, during oven humidifica- 
tion, remove the rubber stopper in the top of each 
desiccator containing SAE TEGME fluid. Using a 
long-needled hypodermic syringe, take a sample of 
not more than 2 ml from each jar and determine its 



(Rev. 5/6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-7 



water content. Remove no more than 10 ml of fluid 
from each SAE TEGME sample during the 
humidification procedure. When the water content 
of the SAE fluid reaches 3.70 ±0.05 percent by 
weight (average of the duplicates), remove the two 
test fluid specimens from their desiccators and 
promptly cap each jar tightly. Allow the sealed jars 
to cool for 60-90 minutes at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F). 
Measure the water contents of the test fluid 
specimens in accordance with S7.2 and determine 
their ERBP's in accordance with S6.1. If the two 
ERBP's agree within 4°C (8°F), average them to 
determine the wet ERBP; otherwise repeat and 
average the four individual ERBP's as the wet 
ERBP of the brake fluid. 

(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either TEGME or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid. See S6. Pour 100 ±1 ml 
of the brake fluid into a corrosion test jar. Promptly 
place the jar into a desiccator. Prepare duplicate 
test sample, and two duplicate specimens of the 
SAE RM-1 Compatibility Fluid. Adjust water con- 
tent of the SAE RM-1 fluid to 0.50 ±0.05 percent 
by weight at the start of the test in accordance 
with S7.2. At intervals remove the rubber stopper 
in the top of each desiccator containing SAE RM-1 
fluid. Using a long-needled hypodermic sjrringe, 
take a sample of not more than 2 ml from each jar 
and determine its water content. Remove no more 
than 10 ml of fluid from each SAE RM-1 sample 
during the humidification procedure. When the 
water content of the RM-1 fluid reaches 3.50 ±0.05 
percent by weight (average of the duplicates), 
remove the two test fluid specimens from their 
desiccators and promptly cap each jar tightly. 
Measure the water contents of the test fluid 
specimens in accordance with S7.2 and determine 
their ERBP's in accordance with S6.1 through 
S6.1.5. If the two ERPB's agree within 4°C. 
(8°F.), average them to determine the wet ERBP; 
otherwise repeat and average the four individual 
ERBP's as the wet ERBP of the brake fluid.) (51 
F.R. 16699— May 6, 1986. Effective: May 6, 1986)1 

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

S6.3.1 Summary of the procedure. The time is 
measured for a fixed volume of the brake fluid to 
flow through a calibrated glass capillary 



viscometer under an accurately reproducible head 
and at a closely controlled temperature. The 
kinematic viscosity is then calculated from the 
measured flow time and the calibration constant of 
the viscometer. 

56.3.2 Apparatus. 

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

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

(c) Viscometer bath. A transparent liquid bath of 
sufficient depth such that at no time during the 
measurement will any portion of the sample in the 
viscometer be less than 2 cm below the surface or 
less than 2 cm above the bottom. The bath shall be 
cylindrical in shape, with turbulent agitation suffi- 
cient to meet the temperature control re- 
quirements. For measurements within 15 to 100° 
C. (60 to 212°F) the temperature of the bath 
medium shall not vary by more than 0.01 °C 
(0.02°F) over the length of the viscometers, or bet- 
ween the positions of the viscometers, or at the 
locations of the thermometers. Outside this range, 
the variation shall not exceed 0.03°C (0.05°F). 

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

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

56.3.3 Standardization. 

(a) Viscometers. Use viscometers calibrated in 
accordance with Appendix 1 of ASTM D445-65, 
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids 



PART 571; S 116-8 



TABLE IV 
Kinematic Viscosity Thermometers 



Temperature range 




For tests at 


Subdivisions 


Thermometer number 


degC. 


degF. 


degC. 


degF. 


degC. 


degF. 


ASTM 


IP 


minus 55.3 to 
minus 52.5 


minus 67.5 to 
minus 62.5 


minus 55 


minus 67 


0.05 


0.1 


74 F. 


69 F. or C. 


minus 41.4 to 
minus 38.6 


minus 42.5 to 
minus 37.5 


minus 40 


minus 40 


0.05 


0.1 


73 F. 


68 F. or C. 


98.6 to 
101.4 


207.5 to 
212.5 


100 


212 


0.05 


0.1 


30 F. 


32 F. or C. 



(Kinematic and Dynamic Viscosities.) The calibra- 
tion constant, C, is dependent upon the gravita- 
tional acceleration at the place of calibration. This 
must, therefore, be supplied by the standardization 
laboratory together with the instrument 
constant. Where the acceleration of gravity, g, in 
the two locations differs by more than 0.1 percent, 
correct the calibration constant as follows: 

O2 = xCj 

9i 
where the subscripts 1 and 2 indicate respectively 
the standardization laboratory and the testing 
laboratory. 

(b) Thermometers. Check liquid-in-glass ther- 
mometers to the nearest 0.01 °C (0.02°F) by direct 
comparison with a standardized thermometer. 
Kinematic Viscosity Test Thermometers shall be 
standardized at "total immersion." The ice point of 
standardized thermometers shall be determined 
before use and the official corrections shall be ad- 
justed to conform to the changes in ice 
points. (See ASTM E77-66, Verification and 
Calibration of Liquid-in-Glass Thermometers.) 

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



S6.3.4 Procedure. 

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

(b) Select a clean, dry, calibrated viscometer 
giving a flow time not less than its specified 



minimum, or 200 seconds, whichever is the 
greater. 

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

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

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

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

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

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



PART 571; S 116-9 



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

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

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

56.3.5 Cleaning of viscometers. 

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

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

56.3.6 Calculation. 

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

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

56.3.7 Precision (at 95 percent confidence level). 

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

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

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



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

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

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

(a) Distilled water. Distilled water (87. 1) shall 
be boiled for about 15 minutes to remove carbon 
dioxide, and protected with a soda-lime tube or its 
equivalent while cooling and in storage. (Take 
precautions to prevent contamination by the 
materials used for protection against carbon 
dioxide.) The pH of the boiled distilled water shall 
be between 6.2 and 7.2 at 25°C (77°F). 

(b) Standard buffer soutions. Prepare buffer 
solutions for calibrating the pH meter and elec- 
trode pair from salts sold specifically for use, 
either singly or in combination, as pH standards. 
Dry salts for 1 hour at 110°C (230°F) before use 
except for borax which shall be used as the 
decahydrate. Store solutions with pH less than 9.5 
in bottles of chemically resistant glass or 
polyethylene. Store the alkaline phosphate solution 
in a glass bottle coated inside with paraffin. Do not 
use a standard with an age exceeding three 
months. 

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

(2) Neutral phosphate buffer solution (0.025 M 
with respect to each phosphate salt, pH = 6.86 at 
25°C (77°F)). Dissolve 3.40g of potassium 
dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4) and 3.55g of 
anhydrous disodium hydrogen phosphate 
(NA2HPO4) in distilled water. 

(3) Borax buffer solution (0.01 M, pH= 9.18 at 
25°C (77°F)). Dissolve 3.81g of disodium 
tetraborate decahydrate (Na;,B407 10 H2O) in 
distilled water, and dilute to 1 liter. Stopper the 
bottle except when actually in use. 

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



PART 571; S 116-10 



(77°F)). Dissolve 1.42g of anhydrous disodium 

hydrogen phosphate (Na2HP04) in 100 ml of a 0.1 

M carbonate-free solution of sodium hydroxide. 

Dilute to 1 liter with distilled water. 
(5) Potassium chloride electrolyte. Prepare a 

saturated solution of potassium chloride (KCl) in 

distilled water. 

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

56.4.4 Preparation of electrode system. 

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

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

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

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

(b) Allow instrument to warm up, and adjust 
according to the manufacturer's instructions. 
Immerse the tips of the electrodes in a standard 
buffer solution and allow the temperature of the 
buffer solution and the electrodes to equalize. Set 
the temperature knob at the temperature of the 



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

56.5.3 Higfi temperature stability. 
S6.5.3.1 Procedure. 

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



PART 571; S 116-11 



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

S6.5.4 Chemical stability. 

[S6.5.4.1 Materials. 

(a) Except as provided in S6.5.4.1(b), SAE 
RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid, as described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703, November 
1983, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, November 1983. 

(b) Until October 26, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either SAE RM-66-03, or SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid as described in Appendix A of SAE 
Standard J1703b, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, July 
1970. See S6. 

56.5.4.2 Procedure. 

(a) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6.5.4.2(b), mix 30 ±1 ml of the brake fluid with 
30 ± 1 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid in a 
boiling point flask (S6. 1.2(a)). Determine the initial 
ERBP of the mixture by applying heat to the flask 
so that the fluid is refluxing in 10 ± 2 minutes at a 
rate of excess of 1 drop per second, but not more 
than 5 drops per second. Note the maximum fluid 
temperature observed during the first minute after 
the fluid begins refluxing at a rate in excess of 1 
drop per second. Over the next 15 ±1 minutes, 
adjust and maintain the reflux rate at 1 to 2 drops 
per second. Maintain this rate for an additional 2 
minutes, recording the average value of four 
temperature readings taken at 30-second intervals 
as the final ERBP. 

(b) With RM-1: Until October 26, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appen- 
dix A of SAE Standard J1703b, Motor Vehicle 
Brake Fluid, July 1970. See S6. 

(c) Thermometer and barometic corrections are 
not required. (51 F.R. 16699— May 6, 1986. Effective: 
May 6, 1986)1 

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



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

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



S6.6.2 Equipment. 

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

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

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

(d) Micrometer. A machinist's micrometer 25 
to 50 mm (1 to 2 inches) capacity, or an optical com- 
parator, capable of measuring the diameter of the 
SBR wheel cylinder (WC) cups to the nearest 0.02 
mm (0.001 inch). 

S6.6.3 Materials. 

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

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

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



(Rev. 5f6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-12 



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

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

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

(g) Ethanol as specified in S7.3. 

(h) Isopropanol as specified in S7.7. 

S6.6.4 Preparation. 

(a) Corrosion test strips. Except for the tinned 
iron strips, abrade corrosion test strips on all 
surface areas with silicon carbide paper wet with 
ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) 
until aU surface scratches, cuts and pits are removed. 
Use a new piece of paper for each different type of 
metal. Polish the strips with the 00 grade steel 
wool. Wash all strips, including the tinned iron and 
the assembly hardware, with ethanol; dry the 
strips and assembly hardware with a clean lint-free 
cloth or use filtered compressed air and place the 
strips and hardware in a desiccator containing 
silica gel or other suitable desiccant and maintained 
at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F), for at least one hour. 
Handle the strips with forceps after polishing. 
Weigh and record the weight of each strip to the 
nearest 0.1 mg. Assemble the strips on a clean dry 
machine screw, with matching plain nut, in the 
order of tinned iron, steel, aluminum, cast iron, 
brass, and copper. Bend the strips, other than the 
cast iron, so that there is a separation of 3 ± 54 mm 
(%±>%4 inch) between adjacent strips for a distance 
of about 5 cm (2 inches) from the free end of the 
strips. (See Figure 4.) Tighten the screw on each 
test strip assembly so that the strips are in elec- 
trolytic contact, and can be lifted by either of the 
outer strips (tinned iron or copper) without any of 
the strips moving relative to the others when held 
horizontally. Immerse the strip assemblies in 90 
percent ethyl alcohol. Dry with dried filtered com- 
pressed air, then desiccate at least one hour before 
use. 

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



3ii.m (TYPICAL SPACING 
CAST BETWEEN STRIPS) 



6oR 8-32x5/8 UNCOATED 
MILD STEEL RD HD 
MACH SCREW i NUT 



CORROSION 




FIG. 4 

STRIP ASSEMBLY 



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

S6.6.5 Procedure. Rinse the cups in ethanol 
(isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) for not 
more than 30 seconds and wipe dry with a clean 
lint-free cloth. Place one cup with lip edge facing 
up in each jar. Insert a metal strip assembly inside 
each cup with the fastened end down and the free 
end extending upward. (See Figure 5.) When 
testing DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids, mix 760 ml 
of brake fluid with 40 ml of distilled water, or, 
when testing DOT 5 brake fluids, humidify 800 ml 
of brake fluid in accordance with S6.2, eliminating 
determination of the ERBP; using this water-wet 
mixture, cover each strip assembly to a minimum 
depth of 10 mm above the tops of the strips. 
Tighten the lids and place the jars for 120 ± 2 hours 
in an oven maintained at 100±2°C (212±3.6°F). 
Allow the jars to cool at 23 ± 5°C (73.4 ± 9°F) for 60 
to 90 minutes. Impmediately remove the strips 
from the jars using forceps, agitating the strip 
assembly in the fluid to remove adhering sediment. 
Examine the test strips and jars for adhering 
crystalline deposits. Disassemble the metal strips, 
and remove adhering fluid by flushing with water; 
clean each strip by wiping with a clean cloth wetted 
with ethanol. Examine the strips for evidence of 
corrosion and pitting. Disregard staining or 



PART 571; S 116-13 



0.8±0lmm OIA VENT 




-TINNED 
STEEL LID 



.475ml 

GLASS JAR 



75mm MIN DIA 



FIG. 5 
CORROSION TEST 
APPARATUS 

discoloration. Place the strips in a desiccator 
containing silica gel or other suitable desiccant, 
maintained at 23±5°C (73.4 ±9°F), for at least 1 
hour. Weigh each strip to the nearest 0.1 mg. 
Determine the change in weight of each metal 
strip. Average the results for the two strips of each 
type of metal. Immediately following the cooling 
period, remove the cups from the jars with forceps. 
Remove loose adhering sediment by agitation of 
the cups in the mixture. Rinse the cups in ethanol 
and air-dry. Examine the cups for evidence of 
sloughing, blisters, and other forms of disintegra- 
tion. Measure the base diameter and hardness of 
each cup within 15 minutes after removal from the 
mixture. Examine the mixture for gelling. Agitate 
the mixture to suspend and uniformly disperse 
sediment. From each jar, transfer a 100 ml portion 
of the mixture to an ASTM cone-shaped centrifuge 
tube. Determine the percent sediment after cen- 
trifuging as described in S7.5. Measure the pH 
value of the DOT 3 and DOT 4 test mixture 
according to S6.4.6. 

S6.6.6 Calculation. 

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



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

S6.7 Fluidity and appearance at low temperatures. 

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

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

56.7.2 Apparatus. 

(a) Oil sample bottle. Two clear flint glass 
4-ounce bottles made especially for sampling oil 
and other liquids, with a capacity of approximately 
125 ml, an outside diameter of 37.0 ±0.05 mm and 
an overall height of 165 ±2.5 mm. 

(b) Cold chamber. An air bath cold chamber 
capable of maintaining storage temperatures down 
to minus 55°C (minus 67°F) with an accuracy 
of±2°C(3.8°F). 

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

56.7.3 Procedure. 

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

(b) Repeat S6.7.3(a), substituting the lower cold 
chamber temperature specified in Table II, and a 
storage period of 6 hours ± 12 minutes. Note: Test 
specimens from either storage temperature may 
be used for the other only after warming up to 
room temperature. 



PART 571; S 116-14 



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

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

56.8.2 Apparatus. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

S6.9.1 Summary of the procedure. DOT 3 and 

DOT 4 brake fluid is diluted with 3.5 percent 
water, and DOT 5 brake fluid is humidified, then 
stored at minus 40°C (minus 40°F) for 120 hours. 
The cold, water-wet fluid is first examined for 
clarity, stratification, and sedimentation, then 
placed in an oven at 60°C (140°F) for 24 hours. On 
removal, it is again examined for stratification and 
the volume percent of sediment determined by cen- 
trifuging. 

S6.9.2 Apparatus. 

(a) Centrifuge tube. See S 7. 5. 1(a). 

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

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

(d) Oven. Gravity or forced convection oven. 

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

S6.9.3 Procedure. 

(a) At low temperature. Humidify 100 ±1 ml of 
DOT 5 brake fluid in accordance with S6.2 
eUminating determination of the ERBP. When 
testing DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids, mix 
3.5 ±0.1 ml. of distilled water with 100 ± 1 ml of the 
brake fluid; pour into a centrifuge tube. Stopper 
the tube with a clean cork and place in the cold 
chamber maintained at minus 40±2°C (minus 
40±3.6°F). After 120 ±2 hours remove the 



PART 571; S 116-15 



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

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

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



S6.10.1 Summary of the procedure. 

(a) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6. 10. 1(b), brake fluid is mixed with an equal 
volume of SAE RM-66-03 Cmipatibility Fluid, 
then tested in the same way as for water tolerance 
(S6.9) except that the bubble flow time is not 
measured. This test is an indication of the com- 
patibility of the test fluid with other motor vehicle 
brake fluids at both high and low temperatures. 

(b) With RM-1: Until November 3, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appen- 
dix A of SAE Standard J1703b,Moior Vehicle 
Brake Fluid, July 1970. See S6. This test is an in- 
dication of the compatibility of the test fluid with 
other motor vehicle brake fluids at both high and 
low temperatures. 

S6.10.2 Apparatus and materials. 

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

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

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

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

(e) Except as provided in S6. 10.2(f), SAE 
RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. As described in 
Appendix A of SAE Standard J1703, November 
1983, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, November 1983. 



(f) Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either RM-66-03, or SAE RM-1 Compatibility 
Fluid as described in Appendix A of SAE Stan- 
dard J1703b, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, July 
1970. See S6. 

S6.10.3 Procedure. 

1(a) At low temperature. 

(1) With RM-66-03: Except as provided in 
S6. 10.3(a)(2), mix 50 ±0.5 ml of brake fluid with 
50 ±0.5 ml of SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid. 
Pour this mixture into a centrifuge tube and 
stopper with a clean dry cork. Place tube in the 
cold chamber maintained at minus 40±2°C (minus 
40±3.6°F). After 24 ±2 hours, remove tube, quick- 
ly wipe with a clean lint-free cloth saturated with 
ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 
fluids) or acetone. Examine the test specimen for 
evidence of sludging, sedimentation, or crystalliza- 
tion. DOT 3 and DOT 4 test fluids shall also be 
examined for stratification. 

(2) With RM-1. Until November 3, 1986, a 
manufacturer may use either RM-66-03, or SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appen- 
dix A of SAE Standard J1703b, Motor Vehicle 
Brake Fluid, July 1970. See S6. (51 F.R. 
16699— May 6, 1986. Effective: May 6, 1986)] 

(b) At 60°C (UO°F). Place tube and test fluid 
from S6.10.3(a) for 24 ±2 hours in an oven main- 
tained at 60±2°C (140±3.6°F). Remove tube and 
immediately examine the contents of DOT 3 and 
DOT 4 test mixtures for evidence of stratification. 
Determine percent sediment by centrifuging as 
described in S7.5. 

S6.1 1 Resistance to oxidation. The stability of a 
brake fluid under oxidative conditions shall be 
evaluated by running duplicate samples according 
to the following procedure. 

S6.11.1 Summary of the procedure. DOT 3 and 

DOT 4 brake fluids are activated with a mixture of 
approximately 0.2 percent benzoyl peroxide and 5 
percent water. DOT 5 brake fluid is humidified in 
accordance with S6.2 eliminating determination of 
the ERBP, and then approximately 0.2 percent 
benzoyl peroxide is added. A corrosion test strip 
assembly consisting of a cast iron and an aluminum 
strip separated by tinfoil squares at each end is 
then rested on a piece of SBR WC cup positioned 
so that the test strip is half immersed in the fluid, 
and ovenaged at 70°C (158°F) for 168 hours. At 
the end of this period the metal strips are examined 
for pitting, etching, and weight loss. 



(Rev. 5/6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-16 



56.11.2 Equipment. 

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

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

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

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

56.11.3 Reagents and materials. 

(a) Benzoyl peroxide, reagent grade, 96 percent. 
(Benzoyl peroxide that is brownish, or dusty, or 
has less than 90 percent purity, must be discarded.) 
Reagent strength may be evaluated by ASTM 
E 298-68, Standard Methods for Assay of Organic 
Peroxides. 

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

(c) Tinfoil. Four unused pieces of tinfoil ap- 
proximately 12 mm (V2 inch) square and between 
0.02 and 0.06 mm (0.0008 and 0.0024 inch) in 
thickness. The foil shall be at least 99.9 percent tin 
and contain not more than 0.024 percent lead. 

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

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

56.11 .4 Preparation. 

(a) Corrosion test strips. Prepare two sets of 
aluminum and cast iron tests strips according to 
S6.6.4(a) except for assembly. Weigh each strip to 
the nearest 0.1 mg and assemble a strip of each 
metal on a machine screw, separating the strips at 
each end with a piece of tinfoil. Tighten the nut 
enough to hold both pieces of foil firmly in place. 

(b) Test mixture. Place 30 + 1 ml of the brake 
fluid under test in a 22 by 175 mm test tube. For 
DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids, add 0.060 ±.002 gram of 
benzoyl peroxide, and 1.50 + 0.05 ml of distilled 
water. For DOT 5 fluids, use test fluid humidified 
in accordance with S6.2, and add only the benzoyl 
peroxide. Stopper the tube loosely with a clean dry 
cork, shake, and place in an oven for 2 hours at 
70±2°C (158±3.6°F). Shake every 15 minutes to 
effect solution of the peroxide, but do not wet 
work. Remove the tube from the oven and allow to 
cool at 23±5°C (73.4 + 9°F). Begin testing accor- 
ding to paragraph S6.11.5 not later than 24 hours 
after removal of tube from oven. 



56.11.5 Procedure. Place a one-eighth SBR cup 
section in the bottom of each tube. Add 10 ml of 
prepared test mixture to each test tube. Place a 
metal-strip assembly in each, the end of the strip 
without the screw resting on the rubber, and the 
solution covering about one-half the length of the 
strips. Stopper the tubes with clean dry corks and 
store upright for 70 ±2 hours at 23±5°C 
(73.4 ±9°F). Loosen the corks and place the tubes 
for 168 ±2 hours in an oven maintained at 70±2°C 
(158±3.6°F). Afterwards remove and disassemble 
strips. Examine the strips and note any gum 
deposits. Wipe the strips with a clean cloth wet 
with ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 
fluids) and note any pitting, etching or roughening 
of surface, disregarding stain or discoloration. 
Place the strips in a desiccator over silica gel or 
other suitable desiccant, at 23 ± 5°C (73.4 ± 9°F) for 
at least 1 hour. Again weigh each strip to the 
nearest 0.1 mg. 

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

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

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

56.12.2 Equipment and supplies. 

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

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

(c) SBR cups. See S7.6. 



PART 571; S 116-17 



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

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

56.12.5 Calculation. 

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

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

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

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

[S6.1 3.1 Summary of the procedure. Brake fluid is 
stroked under controlled conditions at an elevated 
temperature in a simulated motor vehicle hydraulic 
braking system consisting of three slave wheel 
cylinders and an actuating master cylinder con- 
nected by steel tubing. Referee standard parts are 
used. All parts are carefully cleaned, examined, 
and certain measurements made immediately prior 
to assembly for test. During the test, temperature, 
rate of pressure rise, maximum pressure, and rate 
of stroking are specified and controlled. The 
system is examined periodically during stroking to 



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

S6.13.2 Apparatus and equipment. 

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

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

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

[(c) Heated air bath cabinet. An insulated 
cabinet or oven having sufficient capacity to house 
the three mounted brake assemblies or stroking 
fixture assemblies, master cylinder, and necessary 
connections. A thermostatically controlled heating 
system is required to maintain a temperature of 
70±5°C (158±9°F) or 120±5°C (248±9°F). 
Heaters shall be shielded to prevent direct radia- 
tion to wheel or master cylinder. (51 F.R. 
16699— May 6. 1986. Effective: May 6, 1986)1 



PART 571; S 116-18 



(d) Master cylinder (MC) assembly (SAE 
RM-15a). One cast iron housing hydraulic brake 
system cyHnder having a diameter of approximately 
28 mm (1^ inch) and fitted for a filler cap and 
standpipe (see S 6. 13.2(e)). The MC piston shall be 
made from SAE CA360 copperbase alloy (half 
hard). A new MC assembly is required for each 
test. 

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

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

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

56.13.3 Materials. 

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

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

56.13.4 Preparation of test apparatus. 

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



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

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



(Rev. 5/6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-19 



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

1(c) Assembly and adjustment of test apparatus. 

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

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

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



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



(Rev. 5/6/86) 



PART 571; S 116-20 



S6.13.6 Calculation. 

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

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

(c) Calculate the increases in base diameters of 
the eight cups (see S5. 1.13(e)). 

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

^i~^2 X 100 = percentage Lip Diameter 

^i~^3 Interference Set 

Where: 

Di = Original lip diameter 

D2 = Final lip diameter 

D3 = Original cylinder bore diameter 

IS6.14 Container information. Each container 
with information marked directly on the container 
surface or on a label (labels) affixed to the con- 
tainer persuant to S5.2.2.2 or S5.2.2.3 is subjected 
to the following procedure: 

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

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

(c) Within 5 minutes after removing the con- 
tainer from the fluid or oil, remove excess liquid 
from the surface of the container by wiping with a 
clean dry cloth.] (53 F.R. 24272— July 28, 1988. 
Effective: December 27, 1988) 

S7. Auxiliary test methods and reagent 
standards. 

57.1 Distilled water. Non-referee reagent water 
as specified in ASTM D1193-70, "Standard 
Specifications for Reagent Water," or water of 
equal purity. 

57.2 Water content of motor vehicle brake fluids. 

Use analytical methods based on ASTM Dl 123-59, 
Standard Method of Test for Water in Concentrated 
Engine Antifreezes by the Iodine Reagent Method, 
for determining the water content of brake fluids, 
or other methods of analysis yielding comparable 
results. To be acceptable for use, such other 
method must measure the weight of water added 
to samples of the SAE RM-66-03 and TEGME 
Compatibility Fluids within ± 15 percent of the 
water added for additions up to 0.8 percent by 
weight, and within + 5 percent of the water added 
for additions greater than 0.8 percent by weight. 



The SAE RM-66-03 Compatibility Fluid used to 
prepare the samples must have an original ERBP 
of not less than 205°C (401 °F) when tested in 
accordance with S6.1. The SAE TEGME fluid used 
to prepare the samples must have an original 
ERBP of not less than 240°C (464°F) when tested 
in accordance with S6.1. 

Until November 3, 1986, a manufacturer may 
use either RM-66-03 and TEGME or SAE RM-1 
Compatibility Fluid. See S6. To be acceptable for 
use, such other method must measure the weight 
of water added to samples of the SAE RM-1 Com- 
patibility Fluid within ±15 percent of the water 
added for additions up to 0.8 percent by weight, 
and within ± 5 percent of the water added for addi- 
tions greater than 0.8 percent by weight. The SAE 
RM-1 Compatibility Fluid used to prepare the 
samples must have an original ERBP of not less 
than 182°C. (360°F.) when tested in accordance 
with S6.1. 

57.3 Ethanol. 95 percent (190 proof) ethyl 
alcohol, USP or ACS, or Formula 3-A Specially 
Denatured Alcohol of the same concentration (see 
Part 212 of Title 26, Code of Federal Regula- 
tions— U.S. Treasury Department, I.R.S. 
Publication No. 368). For pre-test washings of 
equipment use approximately 90 percent ethyl 
alcohol, obtained by adding 5 parts of distilled 
water to 95 parts of ethanol. 

57.4 Measuring the hardness of SBR brake cups. 

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

57.4.1 Apparatus. 

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

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

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



(Rev. 7/28/88) 



PART 571; S 116-21 



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

S7.5.1 Apparatus. 

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



V 

e 
e 

CD 






n 



f— 36.00-37.75mm CD. 
-I7±mm I.D. 



- lOOml 



-50 



CONICAL TAPER MUST 
BE STRAIGHT 




FIG. 6 
ASTM 8-in CENTRIFUGE TUBE 



INSIDE SURFACE 
OF CONICAL TIP 



Above 1.0 to 2.0 


0.10 


±0.10 


Above 2.0 to 3.0 


0.20 


±0.10 


Above 3.0 to 5.0 


0.5 


±0.20 


Above 5.0 to 10.0 


1.0 


±0.50 


Above 10. to 25. 


5.0 


-hl.OO 


Above 25. to 100. 


25. 


±1.00 



"7^ 



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

rpm = 265 «W- 

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

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



TABLE VI 

Rotation Speeds for Centrifuges 

of Various Diameters 



TABLE V- 


Calibration Tolerances 


for 8-inch Centrifuge Tube 








Volume 


Range, ml 


Subdivision, 


Tolerance 




ml 


ml 


to 0.1 


0.05 


±0.02 


Above 0.1 to 0.3 


0.05 


±0.03 


Above 0.3 to 0.5 


0.05 


±0.05 


Above 0.5 to 1.0 


0.10 


+ 0.05 



Diameter of swing, 
inches ^ 



19 
20 
21 
22 



Rpm at 600 rcf 



Rpmatroorcf 



1490 
1450 
1420 
1390 



1610 
1570 
1530 
1500 



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



PART 571; S 116-22 



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



NOTE: The ingredients labeled (NBS_ 



_) must have pro- 



perties identical with those supplied by the National 

Bureau of Standards 

=> Philprene 1503 has been found suitable. 

*> Use only within 90 days of manufacture and 

store at temperature below 27''C (80°F). 



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

Formulation of Rubber Compound 



Im^edient 


Parts by 




Weight 


SBR type 1503' 


100 


Oil furnace black (NBS 378) 


40 


Zinc oxide (NBS 370) 


5 


Sulfur (NBS 371) 


0.25 


Stearic Acid (NBS 372) 


1 


n-tertiary butyl-2-benzothiazole 




sulfanamide (NBS 384) 


1 


Symmetrical-dibetanaphthyl - p - 




phenylenediamine 


1.5 


Dicumyl peroxide (40 percent on 




precipitated CaCOa) 


4.5 



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

S7.7 Isopropanol. ACS or reagent grade. 



TOTAL 



153.25 



36 F.R. 11987 
June 24, 1971 



PART 571; S 116-23-24 



f 



Efhctiv*: January 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 117 

Retreaded Pneumatic Tires — Passenger Cars 
(Docket No. 1-8) 



Proposals to amend § 571.21 of Title 49, "Fed- 
eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," to add a 
new standard on retreaded tires for use on pas- 
senger cars, were published October 14, 1967 (32 
F.R. 14280), and March 5, 1970 (35 F.R. 4136). 
Prior to the latter notice, on April 10, 1969, a 
technical conference was held at which a discus- 
sion paper was oflFered for comments. Based 
uix)n this prior rulemaking activity, and after 
considering those comments received, a new motor 
vehicle safety standard is hereby issued that re- 
quires manufacturers of retreaded tires for pas- 
senger cars to comply with specified requirements. 

The standard requires retreaded pneumatic 
tires for passenger cars to meet requirements for 
bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high 
speed performance identical to those specified for 
new pneumatic passenger car tires in Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, and to meet 
physical dimension and labeling requirements 
similar to the requirements of Standard No. 109. 
Many comments received in response to the notice 
of proposed rulemaking raised objections to 
these requirements. One objection was that the 
requirements make the retreader responsible for 
the performance of the casing as well as for his 
own retreading process. The casing is, however, 
one of the raw materials used in the retreading 
process. As such, the responsibility for the 
soundness of the casing can lie only with the 
retreader, as it is he who will determine that the 
casing is suitable for retreading purposes. 

Some comments objected to the requirements 
because they believed them to be inappropriate 
for the retreaded tires. Their position was that 
Standard No. 109, in specifying requirements for 
new tires, took into account that new tires are 
designed to be used for more than one tread life. 



Consequently, it is argued, it is unreasonable to 
subject a retreaded tire, whose casing has al- 
ready undergone use through at least one tread 
life, to the same performance criteria as a new 
tire. The purpose of Standard No. 109, however, 
is to provide the public with passenger car tires 
that will perform safely under modem driving 
conditions. These conditions are the same 
whether a new tire or a retreaded tire is involved, 
and call for the same performance requirements, 
as far as is practicable. In agreement with this 
result is the position of certain parties who rec- 
ommended that requirements for new and re- 
treaded tires be identical. Their position was 
that retreaded tires must meet the same minimum 
performance requirements as new tires in order 
to prevent them from being considered as unsafe,' 
or as less safe, than new tires. 

Many comments particularly objected to the 
proposed requirement that retreaded tires must 
meet the same physical dimension requirements 
as new tires. It is recognized that tires may 
shrink during the retreading process. A dimen- 
sional requirement for retreaded tires is neces- 
sary, however, to ensure that retreaded tires 
labeled a certain size are within a specified maxi- 
mum tolerance of the size. Consequently, as 
there may be difficulty in requiring retreaded 
tires to meet the same physical dimension re- 
quirements as new tires, the standard as issued 
requires that the section width and the overall 
width of retreaded tires not exceed by more than 
10 percent the figure provided as the section 
width in Appendix A of Standard No. 109. This 
is a slight relaxation of the proposed require- 
ment, which specified a 7-percent tolerance. 

Several objections were also raised to the pro- 
posed requirements for tire casings. These pro- 



PART 571; S 117— PRE 1 



Effocirva: January 1, 1972 



posals were that casings used in retreaded tires 
not have bead wire or cord fabric exposed either 
before or during the retreading process, that they 
not have a belt or ply removed during retreading, 
and that casings contain the labels on them by 
the original tire manufacturer pursuant to Stand- 
ard No. 109. Many comments objected to the 
prohibition of retreading on casings having ex- 
posed cord fabric either before or during pro- 
cessing. The argument was presented that cord 
fabric exposed during the bufling part of the 
retreading process can be and often is repaired 
without aflFecting the service life or safety of the 
retreaded tire. As an alternative, some comments 
suggested that this requirement be changed to 
require that cord fabric not be "damaged." Once 
cord fabric has been exposed, however, it is far 
more likely to have been worn, exposed to mois- 
ture, or damaged in some other way. Further- 
more, the suggested language would be nearly 
imix)ssible to enforce, as any determination of 
"damage" would be largely subjective. Requir- 
ing that the fabric not be exposed, however, is a 
far less subjective test, and is consequently less 
subject to error. The proposed requirement has 
accordingly been retained. 

Objections were also raised to the requirement 
that would prohibit the removal of a belt from a 
tire casing during processing. The argument 
presented was that belt removal, and the addition 
or replacement of a belt as well, should be al- 
lowed if the finished tire can meet the specified 
requirements. The agency has concluded, how- 
ever, that belt removal, addition, and replacement 
raise questions concerning compatibility of ma- 
terials and tire performance for which no data 
is presently available. Until such time as infor- 
mation is available on the effects on tire perform- 
ance of belt removal, addition, or replacement, 
these practices will be prohibited in the manu- 
facture of retreaded tires. 

The proposed rule would have required re- 
treaded tires to be labeled with the same informa- 
tion required on new pneumatic tires by Standard 
No. 109. The preamble to the notice indicated 
that this provision, requiring all original labeling 
to be on the casing and to be retained through 
the retreading process, would be accompanied by 



changes in the labeling requirements of Standard 
No. 109 that would require the original label to 
be placed in an area of the new tire sidewall 
where it would not be subject to destruction 
either during use or during retreading. As this 
amendment has not been made to Standard No. 
109, the proposed labeling requirements are being 
modified. They require that each casing be one 
that has been labeled pursuant to S4.3 of Stand- 
ard No. 109, but that the completed retreaded 
tire need only retain enough of the original label 
to display each item of required information in 
at least one location. The labeling requirements 
also provide that the retreaded tire be certified 
by labeling the tire with the symbol DOT, lo- 
cated on the tire as specified in Part 574, "Tire 
Identification and Record Keeping." 

The notice of proposed rule making would 
have required retreaders to submit certain infor- 
mation to the agency, including a statement that 
records would be maintained by the retreader for 
a period of at least 3 years. These record keep- 
ing requirements involved records of materials 
used in the retreading process, records of process 
control, and records of performance tests and 
reported defects and failures. The purpose of 
these proposed requirements would have been to 
provide information to assist retreaders in ascer- 
taining which tires might be suspect in the event 
of a finding of nonconformity or a safety-related 
defect. In consideration of comments received, 
the standard as now issued does not contain 
record keeping requirements, and record keeping 
by retreaders will be on a voluntary basis, con- 
sistently with the other standards. The NHTSA 
strongly recommends, however, that retreaders 
retain information on the materials and processes 
that they use, so that in the event of a defect or 
noncompliance they will be able to determine 
which tires are involved. 

Similarly, the standard does not require re- 
treaders to maintain records of performance tests 
or of reported defects and failures. Retreaders 
should be aware, however, that they are required 
to exercise due care in manufacturing retreaded 
tires to comply with this standard, and that in- 
formation of this type is likely to be an important 
step in proving due care. 



PART 571; S 117— PRE 2 



Effactiva: January I, 1972 

Effective date : January 1, 1972. Issued on April 14, 1971. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.21 of ^ 

Title 49, Code of Federal Kegulations, is amended Douglas A\ . Toms, 

by adding a new motor vehicle safety standard, ^"""^'"^ Admmistrator 

No. 117, "R«treaded Pneumatic Tires: Passenger 36 f.r, 7315 

Cars" as set forth below. j^ ^^^ j^ ^^^^ 



PART 571; S 117— PRE 3-4 



? 



Effactiva: January 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 117 

Retreaded Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 1-8) 



This notice is issued in response to petitions 
for reconsideration received concerning Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreated 
Pneumatic Tires," 49 CFR §571.21, published 
April 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 7315). 

Timely petitions were received from 8 parties; 
Bandag Incorporated, National Tire Dealers and 
Retreaders Association (by the firm of Sellers, 
Conner & Cuneo), The Mississippi Independent 
Tire Dealers Association, Alabama Tire Dealers 
and Retreaders Association, and The Louisiana 
Independent Tire Dealers Association, Owens- 
Corning Fiberglas Corp., American Retreaders 
Association, the Groodyear Tire and Rubber Com- 
pany, the Rubber Manufacturers Association, 
and the B.F. Goodrich Tire Company. Certain 
other petitions were received more than thirty 
days after ptiblication of the standard, and while 
they are petitions for rulemaking imder the 
agency's procedural rules (49 CFR § 553.35) 
they have been considered in the issuance of this 
notice. 

1. Availability of casings. Paragraph S5.2.3 
of the standard requires that each retreaded tire 
be manufactured with a casing that has been 
labeled pursuant to S4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 109. In effect, only casings from 
tires manufactured on or after August 1, 1968, 
have been required to have this information 
l)ermanently labeled on the tire. According to 
many petitions, the period between August 1, 
1968 and January 1, 1972, the standard "s effective 
date, has been too short to allow the accumula- 
tion of a sufficient supply of casings that bear the 
required labeling. Many petitioners therefore 
requested that casings labeled pursuant to Stand- 
ard No. 109 not be required until 1974 or 1975. 
These requests are denied. However, in order to 
make additional casings available the standard 



has been amended to allow, between January 1, 
1972 and January 1, 1974, the use of some casings 
labeled with specific fractional markings that 
were first introduced in 1965. These casings are 
those for use on wheels having diameters of 14 
or 15 inches, marked with the size designations 
6.45, 6.85, 6.95, 7.35, 7.75, 8.15, 8.25, 8.45, 8.55, 
8.85, 8.90, 9.00, or 915, and labeled with certain 
information as a result of the "Tire Advertising 
and Labeling Guides" which were adopted by 
the Federal Trade Commission on July 5, 1966. 
In situations where these casings are used, the 
retreader is required to label them further, in a 
[permanent manner, with a maximum load rating 
and maximum permissible inflation pressure ob- 
tained from a table incorporated into the stand- 
ard. Casings that contain the specified informa- 
tion, together with the maximum load rating and 
maximum permissible inflation pressure added 
by retreaders, will be labeled with most of the 
information required on new tires by Standard 
No. 109, and in accordane with Section 201 of 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act (15 U.S.C. 1421). Manufacturers who use 
these older casings should be aware, however, 
that retreaded tires manuf.ictured with them 
must meet the same perormance requirements as 
tires manufactured with casings that have been 
certified tobe in compliance with Standard No. 
109. 

2. Application of the DOT certification mark. 
Paragraph S6 of the standard requires the man- 
ufacturer to certify each retreaded tire by af- 
fixing to the tire the symbol DOT, as pro\'ided 
in section 574.5 of the Tire Identification and 
Recordkeeping regulations. The Administration 
takes the position that affixing the DOT before 
the effective date of the standard is inconsistent 
with the intent of the National Traffic and Motor 



PART 571 ; S 117— PRE 5 



EffKtIv*: January I, 1972 



Veliicle Safety Act, as it is only with respect to 
tires manufactured after the effective date that 
certification has legal significance. At the same 
time, under the Act all retreaded tires manu- 
factured on or after January 1, 1972, must con- 
tain the DOT mark. Certain petitioners have in- 
dicated that it would be impossible, without a 
substantial disruption of business, for no tire to 
have a permanently affixed DOT symbol on or 
before December 31, 1971, and for all tires manu- 
factured on January 1, 1972, and thereafter to 
have such a symbol. To remedy this problem the 
standard is being amended to allow the use of 
a paper label containing prescribed language to 
serve as a valid certification from January 1, 
1972, through February 29, 1972. 

3. Retention of labeling. Certain petitions re- 
quested that paragraph S6.2, which requires cer- 
tain labeling on the casing to be retained, be 
amended because the labeling information some- 
times appears in an area on the tire that is sub- 
ject to buffing. Consequently, it is argiied, it is 
imossible to retain the information through the 
retreading process. These requests are denied. 
The required labeling is essential to the appro- 
priate use of the tire and varies from casing to 
casing. It has been determined that the most 
satisfactory way to ensure that correct informa- 
tion of this type apjiears on the completed tire 
is for the casing manufacturer's labeling to be 
retained. Casings that cannot be retreaded with- 
out destruction of the labeling will consequently 
be unsatisfactory for use. 

4. Casing with exponed cord. Many peti- 
tioners objected to the requirements of paragraph 
S5.2.1 that prohibit the retreading of casings 
that have cord fabric exposed before or during 
l)rocessing. The argument preented is that such 
tires can be retreaded as effectively and will 
provide the same level of i:)erformance as tires 
manufactured from casings on which cord fabric 
is not exiwsed, as long as cords that are exposed 
are not damaged. These requests are denied. 

The NHTSA recognizes that under optimiun 
conditions, careful buffing that barely exposes, 
but does not touch, the tire cords can produce 
satisfactory results. In practice, however, tirfe 
buffing is often not done by precision methods or 
highly trained personnel, especially in the case 



of smaller tire retraders. Any buffing that dam- 
ages or remo\es part of the tire cords reduces 
thfc strength of the carcass at that point. Thus, 
buffing to the cord materially increases the pos- 
sibility of producing unsafe tires. 

Furthermore, exposing tire cords in the re- 
treading process can cause the retreaded tire to 
be unsafe even if the cord is not damaged. In 
the manufacture of new tires, the cords that 
eventually make up the carcass are passed 
through complex adhesive solutions of resin and 
latex, before being dried and coated with rubber. 
Exposed cords in buffed retread carcasses gen- 
erally do not receive comparable treatment to 
bond them to the overlaid rubber. Also, ex- 
posed carcass cords that are not promptly cov- 
ered can absorb moisture from the air, which 
substantially weakens them. 

Since the exposure of belts in belted tires does 
not carry with it the danger of impairment of 
carcass strength as does the exposure of ply 
cords, the standard is amended to make it clear 
that exposure of belt material during processing 
is allowed. Belt material may not, however, as 
specified in S5.2.1, be removed, added, or replaced. 
The i>etitions in this regard are denied for the 
reasons sj^ecified in the preamble to the standard 
IMiblished April 17, 1971. 

5. Physical dimension tolerances. Several pe- 
titions noted that although retreaded tires may 
shrink during the retreading process, the physical 
dimension requirements of S5.1.2 allow only for 
a 10% tolerance over the maximum width to 
allow for service growth. An amendment to 
allow some shrinkage was requested. It has been 
determined tiiat a minus 3% deviation from the 
sjjecified section width is justified, and the stand- 
ard is amended accordingly. 

Effective date: January 1, 1972. 

In the light of the above, Federal Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 117 in § 571.21 of Title 
49, Code of Federal Regulations, is hereby 
amended. . . . 

Issued on October 22, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

36 F.R. 20877 
Octobar 30, 1971 



PART 571; S 117— PRE 6 



E«FmHv*: January 1, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 117 

Retreaded Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket 1-8: Notice 5) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded 
Pneumatic Tires" to increase the number of al- 
lowable casings that may be retreaded, to allow 
ply cord to be exposed in a limited, sjjecified 
manner during the retreading process, and to 
modify the labeling requirements. Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 117 was issued 
April 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 7315), and amended, in 
response to petitions for reconsideration, on 
October 30, 1971 (36 F.R. 20877). Since that 
time certain segments of the industry have re- 
quested additional changes to the standard. This 
amendment is based on those requests. 

1. One major objection that was raised con- 
cerns the prohibition against exposing cord in the 
ply area of the tire during processing. The 
issuance of April 17, 1971, prohibited any tire 
from being retreaded on which cord had been 
exposed either before or during the retreading 
process. The standard was further amended in 
the issuance of October 30, to allow belt material, 
but not ply cords, to be exposed during the re- 
treading process. 

The prohibition against retreading a casing 
that has exposed cord is based primarily on the 
fact that cord that has been exposed may have 
been damaged, thereby weakening the casing and 
increasing the chance that the completed tire will 
be imsafe. This is especiall)' true where cord is 
exposed during the life of the original tire, as 
exposure of cord in this case will generally have 
been caused by excessive wear. However, cord 
has heretofore been exposed during the buffing 
part of many retreading processes, as a method 
of determining whether a sufficient amount of 
old tread rubber has been removed before the 
application of the new tread. The NHTSA 
recognizes the importance of removing a sufficient 



amount of old tread, and that, as stated in the 
October 30 notice, "careful buffing that barely 
exposes, but does not touch, the tire cords can 
produce satisfactory results." The Administra- 
tion retained the prohibition against buffing to 
the cord, except for belt material, on the basis 
of the finding that it could result in damage to 
the cord and create unsafe tires. 

After reviewing additional information and 
arguments that have been presented by interested 
parties, the NHTSA has now determined that 
buffing to the ply cord in very limited circum- 
stances can be allowed without incurring the 
risk that cords will be damaged during buffing. 
The amendment issued herewith allows buffing 
during the retreading process only at a splice, 
that is, where two segments of the same ply over- 
lap. Exposure of cord at this point will not 
materially affect casing strength, as there still 
will be one layer of unexposed cord at the splice 
due to the ply overlap. Exposure of ply cord 
at a location other than a splice remains 
prohibited. 

2. The standard as issued April 17, 1971, al- 
lowed only casings that had been labeled pursu- 
ant to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 
(49 CFR § 571.109) to be used in the manufacture 
of retreaded tires. The categories of casings that 
could be retreaded under the standard were ex- 
panded in the amendment of October 30, 1971. 
Certain other additions, namely, the inclusion 
of certain 13-inch and 15-inch tire sizes and 
series 70 tires, each of which must contain certain 
labeling, are incorporated by this amendment. 

3. In the preamble to the amendment of 
October 30, 1971, the NHTSA denied requests to 
amend the requirement that the original labeling 
on casings be retained on the completed re- 
treaded tire, and that casings without retainable 



PART 571; S 117— PRE 7 



Efftcliva: January I, 1972 



labeling be discarded. The NHTSA's position 
was tltat retention of tlie orijjinal labeling was 
the most satisfactory way to ensure tliat each 
retreaded tire would be labeled with tlie appro- 
priate safety information, and it was recognized 
that some casings would have to be rejected be- 
cause of this requirement. Information which 
the agency has recently received, however, in- 
dicates that tliis requirement may reduce the 
number of retreadable casings to a degree not 
anticipated. The shortage of casings will re- 
sult because the labeling on many casings lies in 
an area where it would be removed during the 
retreading process. Although the problem had 
been described in comments at previous stages 
of rulemaking, specific data as to the number 
of available casings was presented to the agency 
after the October 30 amendment. 

The agency has concluded after review of this 
data that to require the discarding of casings 
without retainable labeling could substantially 
impair the industry due to a shortage of casings. 
The NHTSA has accordingly decided to revoke 
these requirements of the standard and to pro- 
pose an alternate labeling scheme. A notice of 
proposed rulemaking to that effect is published 
in this issue of the Federal Register. Much of 
the difficulty experienced by ret readers in finding 
casings that bear labeling not subject to destruc- 
tion results from the fact that many new tires 
carry their required information in locations 
such that it is removed during the retreading 
process. The NHTSA is therefore issuing an 



additional notice of proposed rulemaking which 
v.ould amend Standard No. 109 to require the 
labeling in question to be placed in an area where 
it will not be subject to destruction during the 
retreading process. 

This amendment to Standard No. 117 does not 
change the requirement that only certain casings 
containing original labeling information be used 
in the manufacture of retreaded tires, but 
specifies that, at present, this labeling need not 
be retained on the completed tire. 

In light of the above, section 571.117 of Title 
49, Code of Federal Regulations (Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 117) is hereby amended. . . . 

Effective date: January 1, 1972. The amend- 
ments . issued herein relieve restrictions and im- 
pose no additional burdens on any person. Ac- 
cordingly, it is found, for good cause shown, 
that an effective date less than 180 days, and less 
than 30 days, from the day of issuance is in the 
public interest. 

This notice is issued pursuant to sections 103, 
112, 113. lU, 119, and 201 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1401, 1402, 1403, 1407, 1421) and the delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on December 21, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

36 F.R. 24814 
December 23, 1971 



PART 571; S 117— PRE 



Effcctlva: January 1, 1972 
R«ltiu*d: March 23, 1972 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 117 

Retreaded Pneumatic Tires 
(Docket No. 1-8; Notice 7) 



The purpose of this notice is to reissue, with 
certain amendments, Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires." 
Standard No. 117 was published April 17, 1971 
(36 F.R. 7315). In response to petitions for re- 
consideration, the standard was amended October 
30, 1971 (36 F.R. 20877). As a result of addi- 
tional evidence which was presented to the 
agency regarding the requirements for labeling 
of retreaded tires and other issues, the standard 
was amended again on December 23, 1971 (36 
F.R. 24814). On the same day a notice of pro- 
posed rulemaking was also published proposing 
new labeling requirements (36 F.R. 24825). 
This notice is issued both in response to two 
petitions for reconsideration concerning the 
amendment of December 23, and to incorporate 
amendments based on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking of December 23. 

The issues raised by the two petitions, one 
from the National Tire Dealers and Ret readers 
Association and the other from the Rubber 
Manufacturers Association, concern the avail- 
ability of casings, casing labeling, and the physi- 
cal dimension requirements of the standard. 
Requirements for labeling retreaded tires, which 
are related to the requirements for casing label- 
ing, are dealt with below in the discussion of the 
amendments that are based on the notice of pro- 
posed rulemaking. 

Availability of Casings. The petitions re- 
quested that additional casing sizes, namely 5.20, 
6.40, 7.50, 8.00, 8.20, 8.50, 8.85, 9.50, 145, 155, 165, 
175, 185, 195, and 205 be added to the list of 
usable casings. The request that sizes 5.20, 6.40, 
7.50, 8.00, 8.20, 8.50, and 9.50 be added is denied. 
One purpose of Standard No. 117 is to limit 
usable casings to those manufactured within a 
limited period before the effective date of the 



standard. While these sizes were in fact manu- 
factured during the period 1965-1967, unlike 
sizes presently allowed they were also manufac- 
tured in large numbers well before this period. 
It has not been demonstrated that these par- 
ticular casing sizes are needed in order to ensure 
an adequate casing supply, and consequently 
they are not added to the list of usable casings. 
However, the remaining requested casing sizes, 
8.85, 145, 155, 165, 175, 185, 195, and 205 are 
permitted to be used by this amendment as it 
api)ears that they were not in widespread use 
before the other sizes permitted to be used under 
the standard. In addition, the NHTSA has de- 
termined that some additional sizes, mostly 
radial sizes, may also be retreaded, and the pro- 
posed Table I has been amended accordingly and 
made part of the standard. 

Casing labeling. As amended December 23, 
1971, paragraph S5.2.4 of the standard required 
retreaded tires to be manufactured using casings 
that were either labeled in accordance with S4.3 
of Standard No. 109, or until January 1, 1974, 
of certain enumerated sizes manufactured before 
the effective date of Standard 109, They were 
to be labeled with : ( 1 ) the generic name of the 
cord material used in the plies of the tire, (2) 
the actual number of plies, (3) the size of the 
tire, and (4) whether the tire is tubeless or tube 
type. The petitions have requested that casings 
not be required to contain this information. 

The reason for requiring the casing, whether 
manufactured before or after the effective date 
of Standard 109, to contain the specified infor- 
mation is to provide information that retreaders 
can retain or carry over for the purpose of label- 
ing retreaded tires. The only reliable source for 
much of this information is the casing. 



PART 571 ; S 117— PRE 9 



Effcctiv*: January I, 1973 
Rtltsuad: March 23, 1972 



The petitions have indicated, however, that 
not all of the information appears on many of 
the pre-Standard No. 109 casings, or appears in 
such a way that it cannot practicably be used 
for purposes of relabeling. The NHTSA has 
accordingly decided to modify the labeling re- 
quirements for pre-Standard No. 109 casings, 
and to make requirements for "DOT" casings 
consistent with them. As amended in this issu- 
ance, casings need only be labeled with (a) the 
tire's size designation, and (b) its actual number 
of plies or ply rating. Information obtained by 
NHTSA has indicated that almost all casing 
sizes allowed to be used by the standard had this 
information permanently labeled onto the tire 
sidewall. 

The standard requires the casing to contain 
its original size marking. It also requires that 
the designated size of the retreaded tire be no 
larger (although it may be smaller) than the 
size of the original casing. Size is the chief 
criterion for consumers in the purchase of tires. 
The NHTSA has concluded that retreaded tires' 
sizes must be related to original casing markings 
in order to provide assurance that the correct 
size is placed on the retreaded tire, and that 
retreaders should not be allowed to determine 
casing size or the size of retreaded tires by any 
other means. Both petitions for reconsideration 
requested that this item of information not be 
required, and in this regard they are denied. 

Casings are also required by this amendment 
to be labeled with either the tire's actual number 
of plies, or its ply rating. This modifies the 
proposed requirement that the "actual number 
of plies" appear. This information is also being 
required by today's amendment to appear on the 
retreaded tire. Ply rating is the basic criterion 
for determining the tire's maximum permissible 
inflation pressure and its maximum load. It is 
required to be on the casing because it cannot be 
determined with assurance except from the 
original tire marking. Some tires manufactured 
before the effective date of Standard No. 109 
were not labeled with the actual number of plies, 
but of those that were not, almost all contained 
the ply rating. Consequently, requiring either 
actual number of plies or ply rating to be on 
casings will not reduce significantly the number 
of otherwise retreadable casings, and insofar as 



the petitions requested complete deletion of this 
requirement, they are denied. 

The standard is amended as requested by the 
petitions to eliminate the requirement that the 
generic name of the cord material, and whether 
the tire is tubeless or tube-type, appear on the 
casing. It appears that industry practice before 
the effective date of Standard No. 109 varied in 
the manner that information of this type was 
labeled on new tires, and that requiring the in- 
formation to be. on the casing would unnecessar- 
ily restrict the types of usable casings. 

Mention was made in the petitions of the pos- 
sibility of information appearing on new tires 
being rubbed off in service, making casing label- 
ing requirements difficult to meet. The NHTSA 
is of the opinion that, while this is a possible 
occurrence, complete obliteration of the labeling 
is unlikely. More important, however, is the 
fact that casings where the labeling does not 
appear should not, from a safety standpoint, be 
retreaded. The NHTSA has concluded that 
despite any consequent reduction in the number 
of casings, retreaders should not be left to their 
own devices in determining casing size and ply 
rating on completed tires, but that such infor- 
mation, for the safety of consumers, must be 
based on the casing's original markings. 

Physical dimension requirements. The peti- 
tions have asked that the physical dimension 
requirements be amended to allow for a 3 per- 
cent minus deviation from the minimum size 
factor specified for the tire's size designation 
and type. The standard presently allows a plus 
10 percent, and minus 3 percent deviation from 
the maximum section width only. The requests 
are based on the tendency of certain retreaded 
tires to shrink temporarily as a result of the 
retreading process. 

These icquests are denied. Data obtained 
from NHTSA tests indicate that the present 
requirements are being met, and that further 
relief is unnecessary. However, as a result of 
a comment received, paragraph S5.1.2 is being 
rewritten for purposes of clarity. 

Labeling. The notice of proposed rulemaking 
published December 23, 1971 (36 F.R. 24825), 
specified a system by which retreaded tires would 
be required to be labeled with certain safety 



PART 571; S 117— PRE 10 



EffKHv*: January 1, 1972 
UImumI: March 23, 1972 



information. The use of an affixed label would 
be allowed for a li nited period followinj; the 
standard's effective date, but after that period 
the information would be required to be perma- 
nently molded into or onto the tire sidewall. 
The final rule issued today adopts this system, 
with certain modifications in the information to 
be provided, resulting from the amendments to 
paragraph S5.2.4. The information is the same 
for both affixed and molded labeling, and con- 
sists of (a) the tire's size designation, (b) its 
maximum permissible), inflation pressure, (c) its 
maximum load, (d) the actual number of plies, 
ply rating, or both, (e) the words "tubeless" or 
"tube type" as applicable, (f) the words "bias/ 
belted" if the tire is of bias-belted construction, 
and (g) the word "radial" if the tire is of radial 
construction. 

Size, maximum load, and maximum permis- 
sible inflation pressure are required because each 
is necessary for proper selection and use of pas- 
senger car tires. While the standard requires 
the size to be based on the original casing size, 
the values for maximum load and inflation pres- 
sure may, where necessary, be based on a table 
incorporated into the standard. The values in 
the table are based on the values for the tire's 
size designation and type as they appear in 
Standard No. 109 (§ 571.109), and are determined 
according to the tire's size and ply rating, both 
of which are required to be on the casing. 

The words "bias/belted" and "radial" are re- 
quired, where appropriate, in order to identify 
tires of different types of construction. There 
is presently a large body of opinion, supported 
by NHTSA, that mixing tires of differing con- 
struction types on the same vehicle or same axle 
of a vehicle is not in the best interests of safety. 
In the case of the requirement that the words 
"bias/belted" appear, while not proposed in the 
notice of December 23, the information would 
have been available if the proposed language, 
"actual number of plies in the sidewall and the 
actual number of plies in the tread area, if dif- 
ferent," had been retained. The NHTSA does 
not believe labeling the words "bias/belted" will 
present significant problems for retreaders as 
most belted tires were manufactured after the 
effective date of Standard No. 109, and are con- 
sequently identified as such. Those that were 



not usually contained some similar identification. 
Moreover, it apj^ears that after proper buffing, 
belted tires exhibit visible differences from pure 
bias construction. 

The word "radial" is also being required, de- 
spite the fact that as proposed it would not have 
been required until permanent markings were 
required. At the time of the proposal, however, 
NHTSA was not aware that radial tires were 
being retreaded. It appears now that they are, 
and in the interests of safety the term "radial" 
is required to be added to all retreaded radial 
tires. 

The words "tubeless" or "tube type" are also 
required to be labeled onto completed retreaded 
tires. Almost all of the comments considered 
this information to be safety related. Even 
though nnt required to appear on the casing, the 
information will be available to retreaders, as 
( 1 ) most tubeless casings were in fact so marked, 
and (2) a tube-type tire, in most cases, can be 
identified by the lack of inner lining that is 
present on tubeless tires. In those cases where 
identification is not possible, the casing should 
not be retreaded, as this information would like- 
wise be unknown at time of sale. 

The proposed requirement that the tire be 
labeled with the generic name of its cord ma- 
terial is not retained. The comments have 
argued, and NHTSA agrees, that in the case of 
retreaded tires this information is not substan- 
tially related to safety. This, combined with 
the fact that it appears only on certain casings, 
where it must if it is to be relabeled, has con- 
vinced the NHTSA that at present the require- 
ment should not be included in the standard. 

ilany comments opposed the requirement that 
labeling be molded into or onto the tire sidewall 
until such a time as new tire labeling w