[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 133 (Thursday, July 12, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38017-38025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3382]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2007-28694, Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AJ90
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Pressure Monitoring
Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; partial response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds in part to petitions for
reconsideration of our statutorily-mandated rulemaking establishing a
new Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) requiring
installation in new light vehicles of a tire pressure monitoring system
(TPMS) capable of detecting when one or more of a vehicle's tires is
significantly under-inflated. We established the standard in a final
rule published in April 2005. We responded to petitions for
reconsideration of that final rule in a final rule published in
September 2005. This final rule responds to the petition for
reconsideration of our September 2005 final rule submitted by the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which raised a number of
technical issues pertaining to the combined low tire pressure/TPMS
malfunction indicator lamp. (The agency will respond subsequently in a
separate notice to a second petition for reconsideration submitted by
ETV Corporation Pty Limited.) We are granting the Alliance's petition,
and through this document, we are amending the standard accordingly. We
anticipate that today's amendments, which are of a minor technical
nature, will not necessitate redesign of current TPMSs nor appreciably
change the costs of compliance with the safety standard.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this final rule are
effective August 13, 2007. Voluntary compliance is permitted
immediately.
Petitions for Reconsideration: If you wish to submit a petition for
reconsideration for this rule, your petition must be received by August
27, 2007. The agency will not consider redundant petitions.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this document (Section
VI; Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for DOT's Privacy Act Statement
regarding documents submitted to the agency's dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
George Soodoo or Mr. Samuel Daniel, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards
(Telephone: 202-366-2720) (Fax: 202-366-4329).
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Rebecca Schade, Office of Chief
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Decision
II. Background
A. The TREAD Act
B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April 2005 Final Rule
C. The April 2005 Final Rule
D. The September 2005 Final Rule; Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration
III. New Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Discussion and Analysis--TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
Telltale Requirements
V. Benefits and Costs
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Summary of Decision
This document responds to a petition for reconsideration submitted
by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) related to our
rulemaking establishing FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring
Systems, which was adopted in a final rule published in the Federal
Register on April 8, 2005.\1\ The petitioner sought further amendments
to the standard pertaining to matters that it deemed either to be
insufficiently addressed by or newly arising from our September 2005
final rule \2\ responding to petitions for reconsideration of the April
2005 final rule. Specifically, the petitioner requested changes to the
specifications for the TPMS malfunction warning provided by a combined
low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction warning telltale (see section IV of
this document for a complete discussion of issues raised in the
petition and their resolution). We have decided to grant the petition
for the reasons below. (We further note that a second petition for
reconsideration was submitted by ETV Corporation Pty Limited (ETV), in
response to which the agency is currently analyzing additional data. In
order to prevent unnecessary delay in responding to the separate and
distinct requests for amendment set forth in the Alliance's petition,
we have decided to bifurcate our response to this latest round of
petitions for reconsideration of the TPMS rulemaking. Accordingly, we
have decided to respond to the ETV petition subsequently, as part of a
separate document.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005) (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-1).
\2\ 70 FR 53079 (Sept. 7, 2005) (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After careful consideration of the Alliance's request and available
data, the agency has decided to amend FMVSS No. 138 in response to one
technical matter raised in this latest round of petitions for
reconsideration, which involves the standard's requirements and test
procedures related to operation of the combined low tire pressure/TPMS
malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) telltale. Specifically, we have
decided to retain the requirement for the system to detect a system
malfunction and to initiate a 60-90 second flashing sequence by the
combined TPMS telltale (followed by continuous illumination) within 20
minutes of occurrence of that malfunction. However, we are amending the
standard to provide that if the TPMS subsequently encounters
additional, separate malfunctions, the TPMS may (but is not required
to) initiate another flashing sequence for each distinct malfunction
condition.
As a related matter, we are amending the standard's test procedures
to provide that only one malfunction will be simulated during each
malfunction detection test (i.e., one per ignition cycle). Under the
standard, the agency may still test for more than one malfunction,
although each additional malfunction would be simulated in a
[[Page 38018]]
separate test during a different ignition cycle, rather than simulating
multiple TPMS malfunctions simultaneously during the same ignition
cycle.
Effective Date
In light of the fact that the phase-in for FMVSS No. 138 commenced
on October 5, 2005, we find that there is good cause to make these
amendments effective 30 days after publication. The changes resulting
from this final rule responding to the Alliance's petition for
reconsideration generally involve requested technical modifications and
clarifications to the standard. We believe that vehicle manufacturers
and other interested stakeholders would benefit from rapid
implementation of these amendments. We note, however, that vehicle
manufacturers may voluntarily comply with the requirements of this
final rule immediately.
II. Background
A. The TREAD Act
Congress enacted the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000 \3\ on November
1, 2000. Section 13 of that Act \4\ required the Secretary of
Transportation, within one year of the statute's enactment, to complete
a rulemaking ``to require a warning system in new motor vehicles to
indicate to the operator when a tire is significantly under inflated.''
Section 13 also required the regulation to take effect within two years
of the completion of the rulemaking. Responsibility for this rulemaking
was delegated to NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000).
\4\ See 49 U.S.C. 30123 note (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April 2005 Final Rule
Since passage of the TREAD Act, FMVSS No. 138 has had a protracted
regulatory history. In summary, the agency published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) \5\ on July 26, 2001, which was followed by
a final rule \6\ published on June 5, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 66 FR 38982 (July 26, 2001) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-30).
\6\ 67 FR 38704 (June 5, 2002) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-219).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After issuance of the June 2002 final rule, Public Citizen, Inc.,
New York Public Interest Research Group, and the Center for Auto Safety
filed a lawsuit challenging certain aspects of the TPMS regulation. The
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued its
opinion in Public Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta \7\ on August 6, 2003,
holding that the TREAD Act unambiguously mandates TPMSs capable of
monitoring each tire up to a total of four tires. The Court's decision
effectively precluded the one-tire, 30-percent under-inflation
detection option in the June 5, 2002 final rule, or any similar option
for a system that cannot detect under-inflation in any combination of
tires up to four tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note, however, that the Second Circuit was presented with a
final rule that did not specify a requirement for TPMS operability with
a spare tire, but the Court did not find fault with that aspect of the
safety standard. Moreover, the petitioners in Public Citizen, Inc. v.
Mineta did not object to that aspect of the TPMS final rule in their
litigation filings.\8\ Instead, the Court's opinion explicitly
sanctioned the agency's four-tire, 25 percent under-inflation detection
option (without any provision requiring TPMS operability with spare
tires), stating, ``We conclude that the agency's adoption of a one-
tire, 30 percent option was both contrary to law and arbitrary and
capricious, and that the agency's adoption of the phase-in period and
the four-tire, 25 percent option were not.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The only reference to TPMS operability with spare tires was
provided at page 7 of the petitioners' brief, which, in a
description of different types of TPMSs, merely stated, ``Direct
systems can also work with a spare tire.''
\9\ Id. at 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the Court vacated the standard in its entirety and
directed the agency to conduct further rulemaking. NHTSA published a
final rule in the Federal Register on November 20, 2003, vacating FMVSS
No. 138.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 68 FR 65404 (Nov. 20, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA-2003-16524-
1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency commenced rulemaking efforts to re-establish FMVSS No.
138 in a manner consistent with the Court's opinion and responsive to
issues raised in earlier petitions for reconsideration, the majority of
which remained relevant. To this end, the agency published a new NPRM
\11\ on September 16, 2004, obtained and considered public comments,
and published a final rule \12\ in the Federal Register on April 8,
2005. (For a more complete discussion of the regulatory history of the
TPMS rulemaking, readers should consult the June 5, 2002 final rule,
the September 16, 2004 NPRM, and the April 2005 final rule.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 69 FR 55896 (Sept. 16, 2004) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19054-
1).
\12\ 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005) (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-
1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The April 2005 Final Rule
In re-establishing FMVSS No. 138, the April 2005 final rule
required passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and
buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except those
with dual wheels on an axle, to be equipped with a TPMS to alert the
driver when one or more of the vehicle's tires, up to all four of its
tires, is significantly under-inflated.\13\ Subject to the phase-in
schedule and the exceptions below, the final rule mandated compliance
with the requirements of the standard, commencing with covered vehicles
manufactured on or after October 5, 2005 (i.e., model year (MY) 2006).
The standard is intended to be technology-neutral, so as to permit
compliance with any available TPMS technology that meets the standard's
performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ There are two types of TPMSs currently available, direct
TPMSs and indirect TPMSs. Direct TPMSs have a pressure sensor in
each wheel that transmits pressure information to a receiver. In
contrast, indirect TPMSs do not have tire pressure sensors, but
instead rely on the wheel speed sensors, typically a component of an
anti-lock braking system, to detect and compare differences in the
rotational speed of a vehicle's wheels, which correlate to
differences in tire pressure.
We anticipate that new types of TPMS technology may be developed
in the future that will be capable of meeting the standard's
requirements. For example, such systems might incorporate aspects of
both direct and indirect TPMSs (i.e., hybrid systems). In concert
with TPMS suppliers, tire manufacturers might be able to incorporate
TPMS sensors directly into the tires themselves. In issuing a
performance standard, NHTSA is cognizant of and seeks to encourage
technological innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following points highlight the key provisions of the April 2005
final rule.
The TPMS is required to detect and to provide a warning to
the driver within 20 minutes of when the pressure of one or more of the
vehicle's tires, up to a total of four tires, is 25 percent or more
below the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure
for the tires, or a minimum level of pressure specified in the
standard, whichever pressure is higher. These minimum activation
pressures are included in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 138.
The TPMS is not required to monitor the spare tire (if
provided), either when it is stowed or when it is installed on the
vehicle.
The TPMS must include a low tire pressure warning telltale
\14\ (yellow) that must detect (within 20 minutes) and remain
illuminated as long as any of the vehicle's tires remain under-inflated
(i.e., at a level below the standard's detection level for low tire
pressure) and
[[Page 38019]]
the vehicle's ignition locking system is in the ``On'' (``Run'')
position.\15\ The TPMS's low tire pressure warning telltale must
perform a bulb-check at vehicle start-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As part of the final rule, we added two versions of the
TPMS low tire pressure telltale and a TPMS malfunction telltale to
Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays (since changed to
Table 1).
\15\ We note that if a vehicle manufacturer elects to install a
low tire pressure telltale that indicates which tire is under-
inflated, the telltale must correctly identify the under-inflated
tire. (See S4.3.2, as contained in the April 2005 final rule.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TPMS is required to be certified as meeting the
standard's performance requirements with the tires originally installed
on the vehicle at the time of initial vehicle sale. This requirement
reflects a change from the June 2002 final rule, which required vehicle
manufacturers to certify compliance with any optional or replacement
tires of the size(s) recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. This
modification to the standard was because of new information
demonstrating that a small number of aftermarket and replacement tires
have construction characteristics that may prevent the continued proper
functioning of the TPMS when original equipment tires are replaced and
because of the difficulty in identifying those problematic tires.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Available information at the time of the April 2005 final
rule showed that a very small number of replacement tires (estimated
at less than 0.5 percent of production) may have characteristics and
material content that cause the vehicle's TPMS to exhibit functional
problems. Specifically, the Rubber Manufacturers Association
submitted information on the prevalence of tires with
characteristics identified as potentially being incompatible with
proper TPMS functioning, at least in some cases. These problems are
primarily related to the tires' construction (e.g., high carbon
content in low aspect-ratio tires, thicker sidewall, or steel body
ply sidewall). According to the RMA, in 2002, light vehicle tires
having either steel body ply cords (steel casing tires) or run-flat
capability accounted for less than 0.5 percent of tires distributed
in the United States. (See letter from Steven Butcher, Vice
President, Rubber Manufacturers Association, to NHTSA (October 31,
2003) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-282)).
At that time, the agency also noted information showing that
there were over four million TPMS-equipped vehicles. (See letter
from Robert Strassburger, Vice President, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, to NHTSA (October 20, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-
8572-277)). As discussed in the April 2005 final rule, neither the
agency nor vehicle manufacturers had received reports indicating any
significant performance problems with those TPMSs when replacement
tires are installed on the vehicle (see 70 FR 18136, 18159 (April 8,
2005)), and the agency is similarly unaware of any significant
compatibility problems between aftermarket TPMSs and replacement
tires (see 67 FR 38704, 38731 (June 5, 2002)). This information was
generally consistent with the information above suggesting that the
magnitude of the compatibility problem between TPMSs and replacement
tires is likely to be a small one.
However, neither the agency nor the commenters were able to
identify a clear design solution for this problem, one which would
pose an insurmountable certification challenge for vehicle
manufacturers if the agency were to require ongoing TPMS operability
with all replacement tires. However, in light of the agency's
concern that TPMSs should continue to provide safety benefits in the
foreseeable event of replacement tires subsequently being installed
on the vehicle, the agency adopted its present approach requiring a
TPMS malfunction indicator lamp, which can also detect the presence
of replacement tires that are not compatible with the TPMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency acknowledged the practicability concerns associated with
vehicle manufacturers' trying to identify existing and future
replacement tires which could negatively impact the performance of
TPMSs, particularly given that tire production is outside the vehicle
manufacturers' control. Although we agreed that this situation could
pose substantial difficulties in terms of compliance certification, we
also stated our continued belief that a typical vehicle will outlast
its original set of tires and that drivers should continue to have the
opportunity to receive the benefits of the TPMS after the vehicle's
original tires are replaced. Accordingly, the agency decided on a new
approach intended to accommodate both concerns, specifically through a
requirement for a TPMS malfunction indicator (discussed immediately
below) that can detect when tires installed on the vehicle are
incompatible with the TPMS.
The TPMS must also include a TPMS malfunction indicator to
alert the driver when the system is non-operational, and thus unable to
provide the required low tire pressure warning.\17\ The TPMS
malfunction indicator must detect a malfunction within 20 minutes of
occurrence of a system malfunction and provide a warning to the driver.
This final rule provided two options by which vehicle manufacturers may
indicate a TPMS malfunction:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ We note that the TPMS telltale(s) may be incorporated as
part of a reconfigurable display, provided that all requirements of
the standard are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Installation of a separate, dedicated telltale (yellow) that
illuminates upon detection of the malfunction and remains continuously
illuminated as long as the ignition locking system is in the ``On''
(``Run'') position and the situation causing the malfunction remains
uncorrected, or
(2) Designing the low tire pressure telltale so that it flashes for
a period of at least 60 seconds and no longer than 90 seconds when a
malfunction is detected, after which the telltale must remain
continuously illuminated as long as the ignition locking system is in
the ``On'' (``Run'') position. This flashing and illumination sequence
must be repeated upon each subsequent vehicle start-up until the
situation causing the malfunction has been corrected.
If the option for a separate telltale is selected, the TPMS
malfunction telltale must perform a bulb-check at vehicle start-up.
In implementing FMVSS No. 138, NHTSA adopted a two-year phase-in as
part of the April 2005 final rule, with a schedule as follows: 20
percent of a vehicle manufacturer's light vehicles are required to
comply with the standard during the period from October 5, 2005 to
August 31, 2006; 70 percent during the period from September 1, 2006 to
August 31, 2007, and all light vehicles thereafter. The final rule also
included provisions for carry-forward and carry-backward credits at the
manufacturer's option, as well as special timing provisions for small
volume manufacturers, final-stage manufacturers, and alterers.
Vehicle manufacturers are not required to comply with the
requirements related to the TPMS malfunction indicator (including
associated owner's manual requirements) until September 1, 2007;
however, at that point, all covered vehicles must meet all relevant
requirements of the standard (i.e., no additional phase-in for MIL
requirements). The final rule also included phase-in reporting
requirements consistent with the phase-in schedule discussed above.
D. The September 2005 Final Rule; Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration
NHTSA received a total of 17 petitions for reconsideration of the
April 2005 final rule (two of which were subsequently withdrawn prior
to issuance of the agency's decision). All of these petitions may be
found in Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586.
The petitioners requested further amendments to the TPMS standard,
most of which involved technical matters. These issues related to
certain requirements of the April 2005 final rule, including: (1) The
under-inflation detection level; (2) the under-inflation and
malfunction detection times; (3) functioning of the TPMS with spare
tires; (4) tire reserve load; (5) compliance testing conditions and
procedures; (6) system disablement and reprogrammability; (7) telltale
issues; (8) breadth of the malfunction detection requirement; (9)
minimum activation pressure; (10) owner's manual requirements; (11)
sharing of TPMS servicing information, and (12) phase-in calculations.
In response to this first set of petitions, the agency published a
final
[[Page 38020]]
rule in the Federal Register on September 7, 2005 that made a number of
technical amendments to Standard No. 138, of which the following are
relevant to the current petitions:
While retaining the final rule's requirement for the TPMS
malfunction indicator lamp to illuminate whenever there is a
malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of control or
response signals in the vehicle's tire pressure monitoring system, the
agency decided to amend the standard's test procedures to clarify that
telltale lamps will not be disconnected because such malfunctions will
be indicated during the bulb check(s) required under the standard.
The rule amended the regulatory text in FMVSS No. 138 to
clarify that for a combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction
indicator telltale, the same flashing/continuous illumination sequence
is required for one or more malfunctions that may affect the system
simultaneously (i.e., no more than one flashing sequence per ignition
cycle).
III. New Petitions for Reconsideration
NHTSA received two petitions for reconsideration submitted in
response to the September 2005 final rule for TPMS from ETV Corporation
\18\ and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.\19\ These petitions
may be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251. (As explained above, the
agency will respond in a separate rulemaking document to the petition
submitted by ETV Corporation; the amendments requested in the ETV
petition will be discussed and addressed in that document. Accordingly,
the balance of the discussion in this document will focus on the
matters raised in the Alliance's petition for reconsideration.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-2.
\19\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Alliance's petition requested further
amendments to FMVSS No. 138, primarily related to the specifications
for the TPMS malfunction warning provided by a combined low tire
pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. All of the issues raised in the
Alliance's petition for reconsideration presently before us are
addressed in the Discussion and Analysis section immediately below.
IV. Discussion and Analysis
TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp Telltale Requirements
FMVSS No. 138 requires each TPMS to include a low tire pressure
warning telltale that is mounted inside the occupant compartment in
front of and in clear view of the driver and which is identified by one
of the symbols for the ``Low Tire Pressure Telltale'' in Table 1 of
FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays. The low tire pressure warning
telltale is required to illuminate under the conditions specified in
S4.2 of FMVSS No. 138, and it must also perform a check of lamp
function when the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On''
(``Run'') position or a position between ``On'' (``Run'') and ``Start''
that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. (See S4.3,
as contained in the April 2005 final rule.)
Under the final rule, the TPMS-equipped vehicle is also required to
be equipped with a TPMS malfunction indicator (beginning September 1,
2007). This malfunction indicator may be provided either through a
separate, dedicated telltale or through a combined low tire pressure/
TPMS malfunction telltale. For the separate TPMS MIL, the telltale must
be mounted inside the occupant compartment in front of and in clear
view of the driver and be identified by the word ``TPMS,'' as described
under ``TPMS Malfunction Telltale'' in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101. The
dedicated TPMS malfunction telltale is required to illuminate under the
conditions specified in S4.4 of FMVSS No. 138 for as long as the
malfunction exists, and it must also perform a check of lamp function
when the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On'' (``Run'')
position or a position between ``On'' (``Run'') and ``Start'' that is
designated by the manufacturer as a check position. (See S4.4(b), as
contained in the April 2005 final rule.)
If the vehicle manufacturer elects to provide a combination
telltale, it must meet the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3, as discussed
above, and paragraph S4.4(c)(2) of the standard in the April 2005 final
rule, which required a TPMS malfunction to be indicated as follows:
(2) Flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer
than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition specified in S4.4(a)
after the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On''
(``Run'') position. After this period of prescribed flashing, the
telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as the
malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the ``On''
(``Run'') position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be
repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the
``On'' (``Run'') position until the situation causing the
malfunction has been corrected.
As discussed below, the Alliance's initial petition for rulemaking
requested amendments related to the operation of the TPMS related
telltale(s), one of which involved seeking clarification regarding how
a combined TPMS telltale should operate when multiple malfunctions
occur. The Alliance identified the following potential approaches: (1)
Have one flashing sequence cover all TPMS malfunctions; (2) Have each
malfunction trigger a separate warning, or (3) Extend the length of the
flashing sequence to indicate more than one malfunction. The
recommendation of the Alliance was to leave the choice among these
approaches to vehicle manufacturer discretion.
Regarding the issue of multiple malfunctions, we decided, in the
September 2005 final rule, that for vehicles with a combined low tire
pressure/TPMS malfunction warning indicator, the telltale must flash
for a single period of at least 60 seconds, but no longer than 90
seconds and then remain continuously illuminated. In that rule, we
expressed our concern that permitting multiple flashing sequences could
lead to consumer confusion and would undermine the consistency of the
message provided across the vehicle fleet. We further stated that this
flashing sequence is intended to alert the driver to any and all TPMS
malfunctions detected by the system, and we expressed our belief that
once a consumer is warned that a TPMS malfunction exists, that person
would be expected to take the vehicle to a service professional to
diagnose and correct the problem(s). This reaction is not likely to
change depending upon the number of malfunctions, and we further stated
that we anticipate that all conditions impairing operation of the TPMS
would be resolved at that time. Accordingly, we amended the regulatory
text of the standard to specify how multiple malfunctions would be
indicated.
Thus, in the September 2005 final rule, we made minor technical
changes to S4.4(c)(2) of the standard to clarify this matter, which
reads as follows:
(2) When the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On''
(``Run'') position, flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but
no longer than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition(s)
specified in S4.4(a). After this period of prescribed flashing, the
telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a
malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the ``On''
(``Run'') position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be
repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the
``On'' (``Run'') position until the situation(s) causing the
malfunction(s) has (have) been corrected.
[[Page 38021]]
In its second petition for reconsideration,\20\ the Alliance asked
the agency to further clarify S4.4(c)(2). The Alliance asserted that
that provision does not appear, on its face, to preclude initiation of
a second flashing sequence during the same ignition cycle if the system
detects a subsequent TPMS malfunction. However, as the Alliance stated
in its petition, the preamble to the September 2005 final rule made
clear the agency's intention to permit only a single flashing sequence
per ignition cycle for the combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction
telltale. The Alliance's second petition provided new information which
more fully explained the nature of its concerns with S4.4(c)(2) and the
anticipated impact that the agency's current provision would have on
the automobile industry, if NHTSA were to continue to limit the TPMS
malfunction indicator in a combined telltale to a single flashing
sequence in one ignition cycle, even if subsequent TPMS malfunctions
are detected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Alliance raised this issue in an October 24, 2005
letter to the agency, which it alternatively asked to be treated as
a request for a letter of interpretation pertaining to S4.4(c)(2) or
a petition for rulemaking (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251-3). In a
letter dated December 21, 2005, NHTSA responded that the language of
the regulation and the portion of the preamble dealing with
S4.4(c)(2), when read together, left little ambiguity in terms of
how the agency would interpret that provision, so the agency stated
its intention to treat the Alliance's letter as a petition for
reconsideration of the September 2005 final rule (see Docket No.
NHTSA-2005-22251-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Alliance, the agency's current approach is unduly
restrictive and would prevent a number of current system design
architectures from complying with the standard's TPMS malfunction
indicator requirements. The Alliance stated that many current vehicle
architectures utilize ``distributed logic,'' in which the TPMS telltale
can be independently commanded from different parts of the system. In
terms of the system's operation, the Alliance further explained that
the combined TPMS telltale, which is located in the instrument cluster,
may be commanded to flash by the multi-function control module, or, if
it loses communications with the multi-function control module, the
telltale recognizes the loss and initiates a flash sequence.
The Alliance stated that in most cases, a TPMS fault detected by a
multi-function control module will initiate a flash sequence per the
current requirements of S4.4(c)(2), but in extremely rare instances,
communication between the multi-function control module and the
telltale may be lost, which would result in a second flashing sequence
during the same ignition cycle. However, the Alliance acknowledged that
in such situations, subsequent ignition cycles would produce only a
single flashing sequence due to such lost communications. (General
Motors North America (General Motors) submitted supplemental
information in support of the Alliance's petition intended to
illustrate instances in which sequential faults in the TPMS could
trigger the MIL to flash more than once during an ignition cycle.\21\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The General Motors submission explained the fault scenarios
discussed in the Alliance's petition through a series of block
diagrams of a generic TPMS showing a tire pressure sensor, a TPMS
receiver, and a display controller. (See Docket No. NHTSA-2005-
22251-13.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance argued that a requirement that a second flashing
sequence never occur during the same ignition cycle would prohibit the
use of a distributed logic and could, in effect, require all fault
detection and control logic to be located at the telltale location.
According to the Alliance, such system redesigns would not be
practicable prior to the September 1, 2007 mandatory compliance date
for the TPMS malfunction indicator requirements.
In addition, the Alliance argued that no additional safety benefits
would result from requiring system redesigns to ensure that combined
TPMS malfunction indicators are limited to a single flashing sequence
during each ignition cycle. The Alliance stated that the agency did not
provide any data or study to show that multiple telltale flashing
sequences resulting from multiple malfunctions would cause consumer
confusion. Instead, the Alliance countered that current, voluntary TPMS
malfunction systems operating in the manner described above have been
in production for more than two years, and there has been no apparent
consumer confusion.
Furthermore, the Alliance argued that consumer confusion is
unlikely, because multiple TPMS malfunctions during the same ignition
cycle are expected to be highly infrequent events. (We note that Ford
Motor Company (Ford) submitted confidential data showing the frequency
of multiple TPMS malfunctions that would trigger a second MIL flashing
sequence, an occurrence which the data showed to be an extremely rare
event.\22\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon the above reasoning, the Alliance's petition requested
that the agency permit, but not require, subsequent flash sequences
when the initial malfunction is followed by others in the same ignition
cycle, and it urged the agency to amend S4.4(c)(2) to read as follows:
(2) When the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On''
(``Run'') position, flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but
no longer than 90 seconds upon detection of any singular condition
specified in S4.4(a). After this period of prescribed flashing, the
telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a
malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the ``On''
(``Run'') position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be
repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the
``On'' (``Run'') position until the situation(s) causing the
malfunction(s) has (have) been corrected. Subsequent malfunctions
occurring during any key cycle may, but are not required to,
reinitiate the prescribed flashing sequence at any time.
(Emphasis in original)
After carefully considering the new information presented in the
Alliance's second petition and the supporting information provided by
General Motors and Ford, we have decided to amend the standard's
requirements and test procedures related to operation of the combined
low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction indicator telltale. Specifically, we
have decided to retain the requirement for the system to detect a
system malfunction and to initiate a 60-90 second flashing sequence for
the TPMS combined telltale (followed by continuous illumination) within
20 minutes of occurrence of that malfunction. However, we are amending
the standard to provide that if the TPMS subsequently encounters
additional, separate malfunctions, the TPMS may, but is not required
to, initiate another flashing sequence for each distinct malfunction
condition. As a related matter, we are amending the standard's test
procedures to provide that only one malfunction will be simulated
during each malfunction detection test (i.e., one per ignition cycle).
Under the standard, the agency may still test for more than one
malfunction, although this would be in separate tests during different
ignition cycles, rather than simulating multiple TPMS malfunctions
during the same ignition cycle. We are adopting this approach for the
reasons that follow.
Based upon the latest information provided by the Alliance and
certain of its members, the agency now better understands the technical
difficulties associated with requiring TPMSs with a combined telltale
to limit the MIL flashing sequence to once per ignition cycle in the
event of multiple, independent malfunctions. Redesigning affected TPMSs
to overcome this technical limitation may not be
[[Page 38022]]
practicable prior to the September 1, 2007 compliance deadline for the
MIL.
Furthermore, the new information provided by Ford suggests that a
second TPMS malfunction within an ignition cycle is likely to be an
extremely rare event. A third TPMS malfunction within a given ignition
cycle is likely to be a matter of only theoretical concern.
Accordingly, we believe that the occurrence of more than one flashing
sequence would be highly infrequent and, therefore, would not pose a
nuisance to drivers or lead to considerable confusion. Although
operation of the combined telltale may not be entirely uniform across
the vehicle fleet, the message will nonetheless remain highly
consistent, given the expected rarity of multiple TPMS malfunctions.
Thus, in light of the data provided, we do not believe the potential
delay that might accompany a strict limitation to one MIL flashing
sequence for a combined telltale is warranted.
Because we have decided to grant the request in the Alliance's
petition to permit more than one MIL flash sequence during a given
ignition cycle, it is no longer necessary to retain that aspect of
S6(k) which provides for simulation of multiple TPMS malfunctions at
the same time (i.e., to ensure that the combined TPMS telltale is
limited to a single flashing sequence per ignition cycle). The system
is still required to detect any TPMS malfunction, as required under
S4.4(a). Accordingly, we have decided to amend the standard's test
procedures to limit simulation of TPMS malfunctions to one per ignition
cycle, which is consistent with the methodology employed in other
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (e.g., FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic
and Electric Brake Systems (S7.9, Service brake system test--partial
failure), FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems (S7.10, Hydraulic
circuit failure)). This modification will also simplify testing under
the standard. However, the agency reiterates its intention to preserve
its ability to test for more than one type of TPMS malfunction. We
believe that such a provision is necessary to ensure the robustness of
the system, although this objective will now be achieved by simulating
different malfunctions during different ignition cycles, rather than
multiple malfunctions during the same ignition cycle.
V. Benefits and Costs
Section VI of the April 2005 final rule summarized the costs
associated with the TPMS standard, as more fully described in the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA)\23\ accompanying the final rule. The
FRIA addresses the full range of anticipated costs related to TPMSs,
including the cost of different TPMS technologies, overall vehicle
costs, maintenance costs, testing costs, and opportunity costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20586-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the FRIA estimated that the average incremental cost
for all vehicles to meet the standard's requirements would range from
$48.44-$69.89 per vehicle, depending upon the specific technology
chosen for compliance. Since approximately 17 million vehicles are
produced for sale in the U.S. each year, the total annual vehicle cost
is expected to range from approximately $823-$1,188 million per year.
The agency estimated that the net cost per vehicle would be $26.63-
$100.25 (assuming a one-percent TPMS malfunction rate for replacement
tires) and that the total annual net cost would be approximately $453-
$1,704 million.
The agency has determined that the technical amendments resulting
from this final rule responding to the Alliance's petition for
reconsideration will not appreciably change the costs and benefits
reported in the FRIA. Accordingly, the agency has decided that the
estimates in that document remain valid and that additional analysis is
not required.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Vehicle Safety Act
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective
terms.\24\ These motor vehicle safety standards set the minimum level
of performance for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to be
considered safe.\25\ When prescribing such standards, the Secretary
must consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety
information.\26\ The Secretary also must consider whether a proposed
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and
the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of
reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths.\27\ The
responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety
standards has been delegated to NHTSA.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\25\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
\26\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\27\ Id.
\28\ 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, section 13 of the TREAD Act mandated a
regulation to require a tire pressure monitoring system in new
vehicles. In satisfaction of this congressional directive, NHTSA
established FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, in a final
rule published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2005. The agency
received 17 petitions for reconsideration of the final rule (two of
which were subsequently withdrawn), the agency published a final rule
responding to petitions for reconsideration in the Federal Register on
September 7, 2005, and the agency received two additional petitions for
reconsideration in response to this latest TPMS rulemaking (one of
which is addressed here). Most of these petitions requested amendments
involving technical modifications. In this final rule partially
responding to petitions for reconsideration, the agency carefully
considered the statutory requirements of both the TREAD Act and 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301.
First, this final rule reflects the agency's careful consideration
and analysis of all issues raised in the Alliance's petition for
reconsideration. In responding to the issues raised in the petition,
the agency considered all relevant motor vehicle safety information. In
preparing this document, the agency carefully evaluated relevant,
available research, testing results, and other information related to
various TPMS technologies. In sum, this document reflects our
consideration of all relevant, available motor vehicle safety
information.
Second, to ensure that the TPMS requirements remain practicable,
the agency evaluated the potential impacts of the petition's requested
actions in light of the cost, availability, and suitability of various
TPMSs, consistent with our safety objectives and the requirements of
the TREAD Act. As noted above, most of the changes contained in this
final rule involve relatively minor modifications to the April 2005 and
September 2005 final rules for TPMS. In sum, we believe that this final
rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration is
practicable and will maintain the benefits of the TPMS standard,
including prevention of deaths and injuries associated with
significantly under-inflated tires, increased tread life, fuel economy
savings, and savings associated with avoidance of property
[[Page 38023]]
damage and travel delays (i.e., from crashes prevented by the TPMS).
Third, the regulatory text following this preamble is stated in
objective terms in order to specify precisely what performance is
required and how performance will be tested to ensure compliance with
the standard. Specifically, this final rule makes minor modifications
to the performance requirements for operation of the TPMS, in terms of
providing warnings related to system malfunction. The standard's test
procedures continues to carefully delineate how testing will be
conducted, including malfunction testing. The agency continues to
believe that this test procedure is sufficiently objective and would
not result in any uncertainty as to whether a given vehicle satisfies
the requirements of the TPMS standard.
Fourth, we believe that this final rule partially responding to
petitions for reconsideration will meet the need for motor vehicle
safety by making certain modifications that will enhance the ability of
the TPMS standard to provide a warning to the driver when the system
becomes non-operational, thereby permitting the driver to take
corrective action in a timely fashion and potentially averting crash-
related injuries.
Finally, we believe that this final rule partially responding to
petitions for reconsideration is reasonable and appropriate for motor
vehicles subject to the applicable requirements. As discussed elsewhere
in this notice, the modifications to the standard resulting from this
final rule will further the agency's efforts to address Congress'
concern that significantly under-inflated tires could lead to tire
failures resulting in fatalities and serious injuries. Under the TREAD
Act, Congress mandated installation of a system in new vehicles to
alert the driver when a tire is significantly under-inflated, and NHTSA
has determined that TPMSs meeting the requirements of this final rule
offer an effective countermeasure in these situations. Accordingly, we
believe that this final rule is appropriate for covered vehicles that
are or would become subject to these provisions of FMVSS No. 138
because it furthers the agency's objective of preventing deaths and
serious injuries associated with significantly under-inflated tires.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Although the April 2005 final rule was determined to be
economically significant, this final rule partially responding to
petitions for reconsideration involves only relatively minor technical
amendments to FMVSS No. 138. Accordingly, this rulemaking document was
not reviewed under E.O. 12866. Further, this action has been determined
to be ``not significant'' under the Department of Transportation's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The agency has estimated that the
incremental costs associated with the minor modifications to the
standard resulting from this final rule will not appreciably change the
costs of compliance with FMVSS No. 138. Accordingly, the figures
presented in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, docketed along with
the April 2005 final rule, remain apposite without modification.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The rationale for this certification is that the present
final rule partially responding to petitions for reconsideration only
makes minor technical modifications to the safety standard for TPMS. As
discussed in detail in the April 2005 final rule establishing FMVSS No.
138, we do not anticipate that the TPMS standard will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and nothing in this final rule would change either that assessment or
its underlying reasoning.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the rule does not have federalism implications, because the rule
does not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and the responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1). In addition, we note that
the final rule establishing a safety standard for tire pressure
monitoring systems was mandated by Congress, pursuant to section 13 of
the TREAD Act. It is this statutory commands that preempts State law,
not today's
[[Page 38024]]
rulemaking, so consultation would be inappropriate.
In addition to the express pre-emption noted above, the Supreme
Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may
become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and
test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See id. at 883-86.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the pre-emptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The pre-emptive effect
of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in
court.
F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks)
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental,
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
This final rule partially responding to petitions for
reconsideration is not an economically significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, and furthermore, the problems associated
with underinflated tires equally impact all persons riding in a
vehicle, regardless of age. Consequently, this final rule does not
involve decisions based upon health and safety risks that
disproportionately affect children, as would necessitate further
analysis under Executive Order 13045.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. As part of
the April 2005 final rule, each of the estimated 21 affected vehicle
manufacturers is required to provide one phase-in report for each of
two years, beginning in the fall of 2006.
Pursuant to the June 5, 2002 TPMS final rule, the OMB approved the
collection of information ``Phase-In Production Reporting Requirements
for Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,'' assigning it Control No. 2127-
0631 (expiration 6/30/06). NHTSA has been given OMB clearance to
collect a total of 42 hours a year (2 hours per respondent) for the
TPMS phase-in reporting. NHTSA subsequently requested and was granted
an OMB extension of this clearance (expiration 9/30/09).
However, the present final rule partially responding to petitions
for reconsideration does not contain any additional information
collection requirements beyond those contained in the April 2005 final
rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA directs us to provide
Congress (through OMB) with explanations when we decide not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The NTTAA does
not apply to symbols.
There are no voluntary consensus standards related to TPMS
available at this time. However, NHTSA will consider any such standards
as they become available.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995 (so currently about $118 million in 2004 dollars)). Before
promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative other than the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if
the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
As discussed in that notice, the April 2005 final rule establishing
FMVSS No. 138 is not expected to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, of more than $118
million annually, but it is expected to result in an expenditure of
that magnitude by vehicle manufacturers and/or their suppliers. In that
final rule, NHTSA adopted a performance requirement for a system with a
four-tire, 25-percent under-inflation detection capability; we believe
that this approach is consistent with safety and the mandate in the
TREAD Act, and it should provide a number of technological choices,
thereby offering broad flexibility to minimize costs of compliance with
the standard.
[[Page 38025]]
In contrast, the present final rule partially responding to
petitions for reconsideration only makes technical modifications to the
standard. Therefore, we do not believe that this final rule will
appreciably change the costs of compliance with FMVSS No. 138.
Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant
to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
J. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
L. Privacy Act
Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or
you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.138 is amended by revising paragraphs S4.4(c)(2) and
S6(k), and adding paragraph S6(o) to read as follows:
Sec. 571.138 Standard No. 138; Tire pressure monitoring systems.
* * * * *
S4.4 TPMS malfunction.
* * * * *
(c) Combination low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. * * *
* * * * *
(2) Flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer than
90 seconds upon detection of any condition specified in S4.4(a) after
the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On'' (``Run'')
position. After each period of prescribed flashing, the telltale must
remain continuously illuminated as long as a malfunction exists and the
ignition locking system is in the ``On'' (``Run'') position. This
flashing and illumination sequence must be repeated each time the
ignition locking system is placed in the ``On'' (``Run'') position
until the situation causing the malfunction has been corrected.
Multiple malfunctions occurring during any ignition cycle may, but are
not required to, reinitiate the prescribed flashing sequence.
* * * * *
S6 Test procedures.
* * * * *
(k) Simulate one TPMS malfunction by disconnecting the power source
to any TPMS component, disconnecting any electrical connection between
TPMS components, or installing a tire or wheel on the vehicle that is
incompatible with the TPMS. When simulating a TPMS malfunction, the
electrical connections for the telltale lamps are not to be
disconnected.
* * * * *
(o) The test may be repeated using the test procedures in
paragraphs S6(k)-(n), with each such test limited to simulation of a
single malfunction.
* * * * *
Issued: July 5, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-3382 Filed 7-6-07; 4:34 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P