Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53079

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054, [email protected] of the Media ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418– should refer to the docket number above www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission 2120. and be submitted to: Administrator, will send a copy of this Report and SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. Room 5220, National Highway Traffic Order in a report to be sent to Congress 05–17324 published on August 31, 2005 Safety Administration, 400 Seventh and the Government Accountability (70 FR 51658), make the following Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office pursuant to the Congressional correction. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 1. On page 51668, in the third portion of this document (Section VI; Channel 224A at Leesville is currently column, the last sentence of paragraph Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for listed in the FM Table of Allotments, (c)(6) is corrected to read as follows: DOT’s Privacy Act Statement regarding however, that channel was substituted documents submitted to the agency’s A noncommercial television broadcast for Channel 228C3 at Leesville in MM station located in a local market in Alaska or dockets. Docket No. 98–191, and the license of Hawaii must request carriage by October 1, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Station KJAE(FM) was modified For 2005, for carriage of its signal that originates non-legal issues, you may call Mr. accordingly. See Leesville, Louisiana, 64 as an analog signal for carriage commencing FR 31140, published June 10, 1999. on December 8, 2005, and by April 1, 2007, George Soodoo or Mr. Samuel Daniel, for its signal that originates as a digital signal Office of Crash Avoidance Standards List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 for carriage commencing on June 8, 2007 and (Telephone: 202–366–2720) (Fax: 202– Radio, Radio broadcasting. ending on December 31, 2008. 366–4329). Federal Communications Commission. For legal issues, you may call Mr. Eric PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Marlene Dortch, Stas, Office of Chief Counsel SERVICES Secretary. (Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202– 366–3820). [FR Doc. 05–17794 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] I 1. The authority citation for part 73 You may send mail to these officials BILLING CODE 6712–01–P continues to read as follows: at National Highway Traffic Safety Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. § 73.202 [Amended] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM National Highway Traffic Safety Table of Contents Allotments under Louisiana, is Administration amended by removing Channel 252A at I. Summary of Decision Leesville and by adding New Llano, 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 II. Background Channel 252C3. A. The TREAD Act [Docket No. NHTSA 2005–22251] B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April Federal Communications Commission. 2005 Final Rule John A. Karousos, RIN 2127–AJ70 C. The April 8, 2005 Final Rule III. Petitions for Reconsideration Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Bureau. IV. Discussion and Analysis Standards; Tire Pressure Monitoring A. Low Tire Pressure Warning Lamp [FR Doc. 05–17520 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] Systems Activation Requirements BILLING CODE 6712–01–P B. TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp AGENCY: National Highway Traffic (MIL) Activation Requirements Safety Administration, DOT. 1. What Constitutes a TPMS Malfunction? FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 2. MIL Disablement COMMISSION for reconsideration. C. Telltale Requirements D. Tire-Related Issues 47 CFR Part 76 SUMMARY: This document responds to 1. Spare Tires petitions for reconsideration requesting 2. Tire Reserve Load [MB Docket No. 05–181; FCC 05–159] changes in our April 8, 2005 final rule 3. Minimum Activation Pressure establishing a new Federal motor E. Owner’s Manual Requirements Implementation of Section 210 of the 1. Lead Time Satellite Home Viewer Extension and vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) requiring installation in new light 2. Content of Required Statement Reauthorization Act of 2004 To Amend 3. Other Owner’s Manual Issues Section 338 of the Communications vehicles of a tire pressure monitoring F. Test Procedures Act system (TPMS) capable of detecting 1. Test Conditions when one or more of a vehicle’s tires is 2. Vehicle Cool-Down Period AGENCY: Federal Communications significantly under-inflated. The 3. 2-psi Adjustment (Temperature Commission. petitions for reconsideration are granted Correction) ACTION: Final rule; correction. in part and denied in part, and through 4. Calibration Time this document, we are amending the G. TPMS Reprogrammability SUMMARY: The Federal Communications standard and related provisions H. Sharing of TPMS Servicing Information Commission is correcting a Final Rule accordingly. I. Phase-In Calculations summary that was published in the V. Benefits and Costs DATES: Effective Date: The amendments VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Federal Register on August 31, 2005 (70 made in this final rule are effective FR 51658). In this document, the I. Summary of Decision October 7, 2005. Voluntary compliance Commission corrects paragraph (c)(6) of is permitted immediately. This document responds to 15 the 47 CFR 76.66. Petitions for Reconsideration: If you petitions for reconsideration related to DATES: Effective September 30, 2005. wish to submit a petition for our April 8, 2005 final rule 1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For reconsideration for this rule, your additional information on this petition must be received by October 24, 1 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005) (Docket No. proceeding, contact Eloise Gore, 2005. NHTSA–2005–20586–1).

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53080 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

establishing FMVSS No. 138, Tire the TPMS telltale requirements of 2000 2 on November 1, 2000. Section 13 Pressure Monitoring Systems. The FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, of that Act 3 required the Secretary of petitioners raised a variety of issues, have been remedied through an earlier Transportation, within one year of the most of which involved requests for amendment to FMVSS No. 101. statute’s enactment, to complete a technical changes to the standard (see Technical revisions to FMVSS No. 138 rulemaking ‘‘to require a warning section IV of this document for a have also been made in light of recent system in new motor vehicles to complete discussion of issues raised in amendments to FMVSS No. 101 that indicate to the operator when a tire is the petitions and their resolution). We have resulted in a change in location of significantly under inflated.’’ Section 13 have decided to grant the petitions in the TPMS telltale provisions from Table also required the regulation to take part and to deny them in part. 2 to Table 1 of that standard. effect within two years of the The following points highlight the • In this rule, we are amending the completion of the rulemaking. amendments to Standard No. 138 that regulatory text in FMVSS No. 138 to Responsibility for this rulemaking was we are adopting in response to the clarify that for a combined low tire delegated to NHTSA. petitions for reconsideration of the April pressure/TPMS malfunction indicator B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April 8, 2005 final rule (excluding a few telltale, the same flashing/continuous- minor editorial changes). 2005 Final Rule • illumination sequence is required for We have decided to postpone the one or more malfunctions that may Since passage of the TREAD Act, compliance date for the standard’s affect the system simultaneously. FMVSS No. 138 has had a protracted required TPMS-related owner’s manual • regulatory history. In summary, the statement until September 1, 2006 The agency has decided to modify the standard’s test procedures to reduce agency published a notice of proposed (Model Year 2007), thereby granting rulemaking (NPRM) 4 on July 26, 2001, petitions’ request for additional lead the current 2-psi pressure adjustment which was followed by a final rule 5 time to incorporate the required (below the TPMS activation threshold) published on June 5, 2002. language into the vehicle owner’s to 1 psi. The 2-psi adjustment was manual. We do not believe that intended to facilitate testing, but several After issuance of the June 2002 final extending the compliance date in this petitioners expressed concern that a 2- rule, Public Citizen, Inc., New York manner (consistent with a psi adjustment could allow TPMSs to Public Interest Research Group, and the recommendation in one of the petitions) achieve compliance with an under- Center for Auto Safety filed a suit would result in any safety inflation detection capability of 30 challenging certain aspects of the TPMS consequences. Delay of the owner’s percent or more. The agency anticipates regulation. The Court of Appeals for the manual requirements would not impact that a 1-psi adjustment would continue Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued the functioning of the TPMS or the to facilitate testing while maintaining its opinion in Public Citizen, Inc. v. warnings that it provides, and we expect the under-inflation level close to the Mineta 6 on August 6, 2003. The Court that even before that date, TPMS- standard’s 25-percent under-inflation found that the TREAD Act equipped vehicles would have some activation threshold. unambiguously mandates TPMSs owner’s manual statement presenting • In order to more clearly capable of monitoring each tire up to a relevant information to the consumer. differentiate between the TPMS total of four tires, effectively precluding We specifically note that delay in the standard’s two phase-in production the one-tire, 30-percent under-inflation compliance date for the standard’s periods which are of different lengths detection option in the June 5, 2002 owner’s manual requirements does not (i.e., almost 11 months vs. one year), we final rule, or any similar option for a impact vehicle manufacturers’ have decided to modify 49 CFR 585.66, system that cannot detect under- responsibility to provide TPMSs Reporting Requirements, to differentiate inflation in any combination of tires up complying with FMVSS No. 138 on a the reports to be submitted to the agency to four tires. Ultimately, the Court schedule consistent with the phase-in for each of the two phase-in periods. As vacated the standard in its entirety and commencing on October 5, 2005, as set currently drafted, section 585.66(b)(1), directed the agency to issue a new rule forth in the April 8, 2005 final rule. Basis for Statement of Compliance, and consistent with its August 6, 2003 • The agency has decided to retain section 585.66(b)(2), Production, require opinion. NHTSA published a final rule the final rule’s requirement for the manufacturers to report values for the in the Federal Register on November 20, TPMS malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) full production year, without mention of 2003, vacating FMVSS No. 138.7 to illuminate whenever there is a the period corresponding to the first The agency commenced rulemaking malfunction that affects the generation period of the phase-in (i.e., from efforts to re-establish FMVSS No. 138 in of transmission of control or response October 5, 2005 to September 1, 2006), a manner consistent with the Court’s signals in the vehicle’s tire pressure which is the relevant total production opinion and responsive to issues raised monitoring system. However, in value for calculation under S7.1(b) of in earlier petitions for reconsideration, response to petitions, we have decided FMVSS No. 138. Because the reporting the majority of which remained to amend the standard’s test procedures of this information directly relates to relevant. To this end, the agency for malfunction detection to clarify that determining compliance with the published a new NPRM 8 on telltale lamps will not be disconnected requirements of FMVSS No. 138, we September 16, 2004. because such malfunctions will be have decided to revise 49 CFR indicated during the bulb check(s) 585.66(b)(1) and (2) to clearly 2 Public Law 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000). required under the standard. differentiate between the two phase-in 3 See 49 U.S.C. 30123 note (2003). Specifically, we are amending S6(k) by production periods. 4 66 FR 38982 (July 26, 2001) (Docket No. adding the following statement: ‘‘When NHTSA–2000–8572–30). simulating a TPMS malfunction, the II. Background 5 67 FR 38704 (June 5, 2002) (Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572–219). electrical connections for the telltale A. The TREAD Act 6 lamps shall not be disconnected.’’ 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003). • Congress enacted the Transportation 7 68 FR 65404 (Nov. 20, 2003) (Docket No. The lack of synchronization NHTSA–2003–16524–1). between the timing of compliance for Recall Enhancement, Accountability, 8 69 FR 55896 (Sept. 16, 2004) (Docket No. compliance under FMVSS No. 138 and and Documentation (TREAD) Act of NHTSA–2004–19054–1).

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53081

After carefully considering public whichever pressure is higher. These vehicle start-up until the situation comments on the NPRM, the agency minimum activation pressures are causing the malfunction has been published a final rule 9 in the Federal included in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 138. corrected. Register on April 8, 2005, which re- • Vehicle manufacturers must certify If the option for a separate telltale is established FMVSS No. 138, with a vehicle compliance under the standard selected, the TPMS malfunction telltale phase-in set to begin on October 5, 2005. with the tires installed on the vehicle at must perform a bulb-check at vehicle (For a more complete discussion of this the time of initial vehicle sale.11 start-up. earlier period of the regulatory history • The TPMS must include a low tire • The TPMS is not required to of the TPMS rulemaking, readers should pressure warning telltale 12 (yellow) that monitor the spare tire (if provided), consult the June 5, 2002 final rule, the must remain illuminated as long as any either when it is stowed or when it is September 16, 2004 NPRM, and the of the vehicle’s tires remain installed on the vehicle. April 8, 2005 final rule.) significantly under-inflated and the • For vehicles certified under the vehicle’s ignition locking system is in standard, vehicle manufacturers must C. The April 8, 2005 Final Rule the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position.13 The provide in the owner’s manual a As noted above, the April 8, 2005 TPMS’s low tire pressure warning specified statement explaining the final rule for TPMS re-established telltale must perform a bulb-check at purpose of the low tire pressure warning FMVSS No. 138 in a manner consistent vehicle start-up. telltale, the potential consequences of with the Second Circuit’s opinion. • The TPMS must also include a significantly under-inflated tires, the Specifically, it requires passenger cars, TPMS malfunction indicator to alert the meaning of the telltale when it is multi-purpose passenger vehicles, driver when the system is non- illuminated, and what actions drivers trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 operational, and thus unable to provide should take when the telltale is kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except those the required low tire pressure illuminated. Vehicle manufacturers also with dual wheels on an axle, to be warning.14 The TPMS malfunction must provide a specified statement in equipped with a TPMS to alert the indicator must detect a malfunction the owner’s manual regarding: (1) driver when one or more of the vehicle’s within 20 minutes of occurrence of a Potential problems related to tires, up to all four of its tires, is system malfunction and provide a compatibility between the vehicle’s significantly under-inflated.10 Subject to warning to the driver. This final rule TPMS and various replacement or the phase-in schedule and the provided two options by which vehicle alternate tires and wheels, and (2) the exceptions below, the final rule manufacturers may indicate a TPMS presence and operation of the TPMS mandated compliance with the malfunction: malfunction indicator. For vehicles that requirements of the standard, (1) Installation of a separate, do not come with an owner’s manual, commencing with covered vehicles dedicated telltale (yellow) that the required information must be manufactured on or after October 5, illuminates upon detection of the provided in writing to the first 2005 (i.e., MY 2006). The standard is malfunction and remains continuously purchaser at the time of initial vehicle intended to be technology-neutral, so as illuminated as long as the ignition sale. to permit compliance with any available locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) In terms of the timing for compliance, TPMS technology that meets the position and the situation causing the the final rule provided as follows. standard’s performance requirements. malfunction remains uncorrected, or Subject to the vehicle manufacturer The following points highlight the key (2) Designing the low tire pressure option for carry-backward credits provisions of the April 8, 2005 final telltale so that it flashes for a period of discussed below, NHTSA decided to rule. at least 60 seconds and no longer than adopt the following phase-in schedule: • The TPMS is required to detect and 90 seconds when a malfunction is 20 percent of a vehicle manufacturer’s to provide a warning to the driver detected, after which the telltale must light vehicles are required to comply within 20 minutes of when the pressure remain continuously illuminated as with the standard during the period of one or more of the vehicle’s tires, up long as the ignition locking system is in from October 5, 2005 to August 31, to a total of four tires, is 25 percent or the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. This 2006; 70 percent during the period from more below the vehicle manufacturer’s flashing and illumination sequence September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007, recommended cold inflation pressure must be repeated upon each subsequent and all light vehicles thereafter. Vehicle for the tires, or a minimum level of manufacturers are not required to pressure specified in the standard, 11 We note that some vehicle manufacturers comply with the requirements related to authorize their dealers to replace the vehicle’s the TPMS malfunction indicator 9 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005) (Docket No. factory-installed tires with other tires, including (including associated owner’s manual NHTSA–2005–20586–1). ones with a different size and/or recommended cold requirements) until September 1, 2007; 10 tire inflation pressure. The TPMS must perform There are two types of TPMSs currently however, at that point, all covered available, direct TPMSs and indirect TPMSs. Direct properly with any such tires, because the vehicle TPMSs have a pressure sensor in each wheel that could be equipped with those tires at the time of vehicles must meet all relevant transmits pressure information to a receiver. In initial sale. Of course, the manufacturer would not requirements of the standard (i.e., no contrast, indirect TPMSs do not have tire pressure have that responsibility if the dealer installed other additional phase-in for MIL tires without manufacturer authorization. sensors, but instead rely on the wheel speed requirements). The final rule included sensors, typically a component of an anti-lock 12 As part of this final rule, we added two braking system, to detect and compare differences versions of the TPMS low tire pressure telltale and phase-in reporting requirements in the rotational speed of a vehicle’s wheels, which a TPMS malfunction telltale to Table 2 of FMVSS consistent with the phase-in schedule correlate to differences in tire pressure. No. 101, Controls and Displays (since changed to discussed above. We anticipate that new types of TPMS technology Table 1). Small volume manufacturers (i.e., may be developed in the future that will be capable 13 We note that if a vehicle manufacturer elects of meeting the standard’s requirements. For to install a low tire pressure telltale that indicates those manufacturers producing fewer example, such systems might incorporate aspects of which tire is under-inflated, the telltale must than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the U.S. both direct and indirect TPMSs (i.e., hybrid correctly identify the under-inflated tire. (See per year during the phase-in period) are systems). In concert with TPMS suppliers, tire S4.3.2, as contained in the April 8, 2005 final rule.) not subject to the phase-in manufacturers might be able to incorporate TPMS 14 We note that the TPMS telltale(s) may be sensors directly into the tires themselves. In issuing incorporated as part of a reconfigurable display, requirements, but their vehicles must a performance standard, NHTSA is cognizant of and provided that all requirements of the standard are meet the requirements of the standard seeks to encourage technological innovation. met. beginning September 1, 2007.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53082 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Consistent with the policy set forth in Public Citizen withdrew its petition for illuminate as long as the inflation NHTSA’s February 14, 2005 final rule 15 reconsideration in a letter dated June 16, pressure of the tire(s) remains below the on certification requirements for 2005,16 and TIA withdrew its petition activation threshold above and the vehicles built in two or more stages and for reconsideration in a letter dated July ignition locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ altered vehicles, final-stage 28, 2005.17 Consequently, we are not (‘‘Run’’) position, or until the system is manufacturers and alterers must certify discussing these two petitions further in manually reset in accordance with the compliance for all covered vehicles this document.) vehicle manufacturer’s instructions. manufactured on or after September 1, The petitioners raised a variety of (See S4.2, as contained in the April 8, 2008 (no phase-in). However, final-stage issues related to the TPMS standard, 2005 final rule.) manufacturers and alterers may most of which were technical. These Several petitioners requested that the voluntarily certify compliance with the issues included ones involving the final agency modify the time period for the standard prior to this date. rule’s requirements for the under- TPMS to detect and to provide a NHTSA decided to permit vehicle inflation detection level, the under- warning regarding significant under- manufacturers to earn carry-forward inflation and malfunction detection inflation in one or more of a vehicle’s credits for compliant vehicles, produced times, functioning of the TPMS with tires. Some petitioners recommended a in excess of the phase-in requirements spare tires, tire reserve load, compliance reduction in detection time (ETRTO, and manufactured between the effective testing conditions and procedures, SmarTire Systems, ETV); others sought date of this rule and the conclusion of system disablement and an increase in such time period (NIRA the phase-in. These carry-forward reprogrammability, telltale issues, Dynamics, VW/Audi), and still another credits could be used during the phase- breadth of the malfunction detection argued for some combination of the two in, but they could not be used to delay requirement, minimum activation (BMW). compliance certification for vehicles pressure, owner’s manual requirements, ETRTO argued that the decision in the produced after the conclusion of the sharing of TPMS servicing information, final rule to set a 20-minute detection phase-in. Except for vehicles produced and phase-in calculations. time requirement for the TPMS low tire by final-stage manufacturers and alterers All of the issues raised in the pressure warning (an increase from the (who receive an additional year for petitions for reconsideration presently 10-minute detection time proposed in compliance), all covered vehicles must before us are addressed in the the NPRM) may compromise safety, comply with FMVSS No. 138 on Discussion and Analysis section because driving for an additional 10 September 1, 2007, without use of any immediately below. minutes on a significantly under- carry-forward credits. Effective Date. In light of the rapidly inflated tire could cause that tire to To further ease implementation, we approaching October 5, 2005 start of the further deflate, overheat, and fail. decided to also provide carry-backward phase-in for FMVSS No. 138, we find ETRTO cautioned that ‘‘technical credits, whereby vehicle manufacturers that there is good cause to make these neutrality’’ should not be permitted to may defer compliance with a part or all amendments effective 30 days after surpass safety concerns. Accordingly, of the certification requirements for the publication. The changes resulting from the ETRTO petition urged NHTSA to first period of the phase-in, provided this final rule responding to petitions adopt an under-inflation detection time that they certify a correspondingly for reconsideration generally involve of 10 minutes, as proposed in the larger percentage of vehicles under the requested technical modifications and NPRM. ETRTO did not provide standard during the second period of clarifications to the standard. We supporting data to demonstrate the the phase-in. believe that vehicle manufacturers and extent of tire degradation that would III. Petitions for Reconsideration other interested stakeholders would result from the under-inflation detection benefit from rapid implementation of NHTSA received a total of 17 time adopted in the final rule. these amendments. We note, however, petitions for reconsideration of the April In its petition, SmarTire Systems that vehicle manufacturers may 8, 2005 final rule from: (1) The Alliance argued that repeated exposure of a tire voluntarily comply with the of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance); to excessive heat build-up could cause requirements of this final rule (2) the Association of International cumulative deterioration of the tire’s immediately. Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. structural components, which could (AIAM); (3) BMW Group (BMW); (4) IV. Discussion and Analysis ultimately lead to tire failure. SmarTire Continental Teves, Inc.; (5) EnTire Systems provided data intended to A. Low Tire Pressure Warning Lamp Solutions, LLC (EnTire); (6) ETV show that within 12 minutes of city Activation Requirements Corporation Pty Limited (ETV); (7) driving (at approximately 30 mph) at a European Tyre and Rim Technical The April 8, 2005 final rule required low ambient temperature, pressure Organisation (ETRTO); (8) Michelin that each TPMS-equipped vehicle must build-up within a properly inflated tire North America, Inc. (Michelin); (9) M- illuminate a low tire pressure warning is about 3 psi, resulting from Vision, Inc.; (10) NIRA Dynamics AB; telltale not more than 20 minutes after temperature build-up within the tire. (11) Public Citizen; (12) Rubber the inflation pressure in one or more of According to the petitioner, the longer Manufacturers Association (RMA); (13) the vehicle’s tires, up to a total of four detection time interval may exacerbate SmarTire Systems, Inc. (SmarTire); (14) tires, is equal to or less than either the this phenomenon and could actually Specialty Equipment Market pressure 25 percent below the vehicle mask an under-inflation condition. Association (SEMA); (15) Sumitomo manufacturer’s recommended cold SmarTire Systems argued that this Rubber Industries (SRI); (16) Tire inflation pressure, or the pressure situation potentially could have Industry Association (TIA); and (17) specified in the third column of Table unintended consequences for testing, as Volkswagen/Audi (VW/Audi). All of 1 of the standard for the corresponding well as negative safety implications. As these petitions may be found in Docket type of tire, whichever is higher. The a result, SmarTire Systems also No. NHTSA–2005–20586. (We note that low pressure telltale must continue to recommended that the standard be modified to return to a 10-minute 15 70 FR 7414 (Feb. 14, 2005) (Docket No. 16 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–31. under-inflation time requirement, as NHTSA–1999–5673–54). 17 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–35. originally proposed.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53083

ETV argued that in order to maximize in multiple tires, an approach that it a detection time of 20 minutes is not safety, the standard should be amended believes would offer an equivalent or likely to pose a safety risk to the driving to require a TPMS to detect low tire higher level of safety than the approach public. pressure and to provide a warning adopted in the final rule. Alternatively, The agency’s tire research suggests immediately upon vehicle start-up. In BMW suggested that its approach be that even in a 25-percent under-inflated making this argument, ETV analogized adopted as an optional means of condition, the vehicle can be operated to other vehicle safety systems (e.g., air compliance. BMW argued that its safely for this detection period without bags, ABS/brakes, seat belts) that requested change also would make the an appreciable risk of permanent provide a warning while the vehicle is standard more technology-neutral, damage or tire failure. NHTSA stationary or parked (i.e., before the because it stated that there are not any conducted testing on a variety of driver moves the vehicle into traffic). ‘‘production-ready’’ indirect TPMSs that Standard Load P-metric tires at 20 psi An opposing viewpoint was presented can meet the standard’s 20-minute with 100-percent load at 75 mph for 90 in the petition submitted by NIRA detection requirement under all minutes on a dynamometer, and none of Dynamics, which argued that the 20- circumstances. these tires failed.20 This testing led the minute under-inflation detection time NHTSA has carefully considered the agency to conclude that warnings at less for more than one tire is unnecessarily arguments of petitioners seeking severe conditions will give drivers stringent in light of the circumstances modifications to the standard’s low tire sufficient time to check and re-inflate that normally cause multiple-tire under- pressure warning lamp activation their vehicles’ tires before the tires inflation. According to the petitioner, requirements. In general, the petitioners experience appreciable damage. under-inflation in multiple tires usually reiterated arguments raised at previous Furthermore, analysis of public results from slow diffusion over many stages of this rulemaking and did not comments at the NPRM stage months (loss of 1–2 psi per month), so provide any new information to support demonstrated that a detection time 20-minute time requirements for TPMS their positions. Thus, we have decided period shorter than 20 minutes could calibration and under-inflation to retain the low tire pressure activation raise issues of detection accuracy for detection are not necessary. NIRA requirements (including those related to many systems, which could lead to false Dynamics also stated that indirect system calibration) set forth in the April telltale illuminations (‘‘nuisance TPMSs update actual parameter values 8, 2005 final rule. Our reasoning is warnings’’), which in turn could whenever a vehicle is driven (storing largely the same as expressed in that negatively impact consumer acceptance the latest values in memory when the notice, which we summarize below. of TPMSs. engine is turned off). Therefore, the We continue to believe that a 20- Petitioners advocating a shorter time TPMS telltale would be expected to minute time period for under-inflation period did not provide any illuminate, regardless of the length of detection in one to four tires is countervailing data to substantiate their the last driving cycle, as soon as the appropriate, as is a 20-minute time assertions that a 20-minute detection accumulated driving time with an period for TPMS calibration. The low time for a significantly under-inflated under-inflated tire is sufficiently long. tire pressure lamp activation tire would lead to tire damage or tire Accordingly, NIRA Dynamics requirements reflect the agency’s careful failure. Although manufacturers are recommended that NHTSA increase the balancing of safety and practicability encouraged to provide the low tire time period permitted for TPMS concerns viewed through the prism of pressure warning as quickly as possible, calibration and low pressure detection available data. we believe that a 20-minute detection for multiple tires to one hour. The As we noted in the final rule, TPMSs time is unlikely to result in any adverse petitioner stated that such a change were not developed to warn the driver safety consequences. would permit the use of advanced of extremely rapid pressure losses that We also believe that a 20-minute indirect TPMS technologies, while could accompany a vehicle encounter detection time is consistent with our maintaining the safety benefits of the with a road hazard or a tire blowout. intention to articulate a standard that is standard. The petition of VW/Audi According to the tire industry, those practicable and technology-neutral. As made an argument very similar to that types of events account for noted in the final rule, we are aware of of NIRA Dynamics on this point. approximately 15 percent of pressure at least one indirect TPMS that is BMW also expressed its expectation loss cases.18 Presumably, a driver would currently capable of meeting the that a TPMS-equipped vehicle would be well aware of the tire problem in standard’s four-tire, 25-percent under- not need to be driven continuously those situations, and the TPMS would inflation detection requirement within during a single trip in order to detect provide little added benefit. 20 minutes,21 and we expect that with low tire pressure, but instead, Instead, TPMSs’ benefits lie in additional time and development, other cumulative driving time gathered over a warning drivers when the pressure in indirect and hybrid systems also would number of shorter trips should be the vehicle’s tires is approaching a level be able to meet the requirements of the adequate to detect and warn about at which permanent tire damage could standard. significant tire under-inflation. be sustained as a result of heat buildup We are not adopting ETRTO’s and Therefore, BMW reasoned that the and tire failure is possible; this low SmarTire’s recommendations to reduce TPMS would be unlikely to need the level of inflation pressure generally the time period for under-inflation fully allotted detection time in most results from a more measured pressure detection time to 10 minutes because cases. loss cause by a slow leak, defective our tire data suggest that such change is However, BMW recommended a valve, or diffusion. According to the tire not required for safety and because it slightly different solution from that industry, approximately 85 percent of would likely decrease the number of proposed by NIRA Dynamics and VW/ all tire pressure losses are slow air technologies available for complying Audi. Specifically, BMW stated that losses that occur over hours, weeks, or with the standard. The same reasoning NHTSA should revise the standard to months of vehicle use.19 In those cases, applies to our decision to deny ETV’s require a 10-minute cumulative driving suggestion that the TPMS be required to detection time for pressure loss in a 18 67 FR 38704, 38728 (June 5, 2002) (Docket No. single tire and a 60-minute cumulative NHTSA–2000–8572–219). 20 Id. at 38726. driving detection time for pressure loss 19 Id. 21 Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19054–96.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53084 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

provide a low tire pressure warning Dynamics did not provide any data components such as the wheel sensors, upon vehicle start-up (i.e., before the indicating that tires could be operated signal antennae, or the presence of vehicle is in motion). safely for one hour after reaching a level incompatible tires. In its petition, the Furthermore, we have decided not to of inflation that is 25 percent below AIAM argued that an interruption of extend the low tire pressure detection placard pressure. Thus, we are power to the ECM or to the telltale (or time beyond 20 minutes for multiple- concerned that an increase in the to the connection between the ECM and tire under-inflation, as requested by detection time for multiple-tire under- the telltale) would be identifiable by NIRA Dynamics, VW/Audi, and BMW. inflation could decrease the safety failure to illuminate the TPMS MIL As explained in the final rule, we benefits of the rule. The same logic during bulb check. The AIAM also believe that adverse safety consequences applies to BMW’s suggestion that the recommended modifying S6(l) to could result if the low tire under- time for malfunction detection be incorporate these conditions or by inflation detection time were to extend increased to one hour, a request that we having S6(k) exclude these conditions beyond 20 minutes. As discussed in the are also denying, because a from the procedures for creating a final rule, available research suggests malfunctioning TPMS may not be simulated TPMS malfunction. that average commuting times are less available to warn about a concurrent tire The Alliance similarly argued in its than 30 minutes in most cases.22 Many under-inflation problem. petition that NHTSA should clarify that other trips, such as routine errands, may S6(k) of the test procedures, which also involve drive times of less than 30 B. TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp permits ‘‘disconnecting the power minutes. We expressed concerns that by (MIL) Activation Requirements source to any TPMS component,’’ increasing the low tire pressure 1. What Constitutes a TPMS should not include disconnecting the detection time, it would be conceivable Malfunction? power source to the telltale itself. The Alliance stated its belief that the telltale that consumers could be driving on As part of the final rule establishing significantly under-inflated tires for a is an FMVSS No. 101 component (not a FMVSS No. 138, the TPMS-equipped ‘‘TPMS component’’), and that the potentially extended period of time vehicle’s MIL telltale must provide a without receiving a warning from the situation where there is a loss of power warning to the driver not more than 20 to the telltale is already covered by the TPMS. minutes after the occurrence of a We also expressed concern that bulb check requirements in S4.3.3(a) or malfunction that affects the generation extending the low tire pressure S4.4(b)(4)(i), thereby obviating the need or transmission of control or response detection time beyond 20 minutes could for it to be covered under S4.4(a). signals in the vehicle’s TPMS. (See S4.4, be problematic in other situations. For The Alliance also recommended a as contained in the April 8, 2005 final example, where a tire is punctured by minor editorial change in S4.4(b)(3) that rule.) Paragraph S6(k) of the final rule’s a nail or is otherwise damaged, it may would modify that provision to read as test procedures provides for the experience a moderately rapid pressure follows: ‘‘Continues to illuminate the simulation of one or more TPMS loss. As to damaged tires experiencing TPMS malfunction telltale under the malfunction(s) by disconnecting any a relatively less rapid pressure loss, conditions specified in S4.4(a) * * *.’’ electrical connection between TPMS research into the rate of temperature The standard currently references components, or by installing a tire or buildup shows that for constant load, ‘‘S4.4.’’ wheel on the vehicle that is pressure, and speed conditions, tires EnTire Solutions argued that for incompatible with the TPMS. generally warmed up and stabilized TPMSs using Hardwired Vehicle Speed The details as to exactly what their temperatures within 15 minutes; 23 Input to the TPMS receiver, such input constitutes a TPMS malfunction were thus, the tire will rapidly reach a does not directly affect ‘‘the generation among the most extensively discussed or transmission of control or response temperature that places stress on an issues in the petitions for signals’’ in the vehicle’s TPMS, and under-inflated tire. In such cases, we are reconsideration. Many petitioners who disconnecting vehicle speed input concerned about delaying the warning discussed this issue generally sought would not involve an electrical to the driver for too long. Therefore, in clarification regarding whether a connection between ‘‘TPMS the April 8, 2005 final rule, we selected malfunction warning would be required components’’ as called out specifically 20 minutes for the low tire pressure under specific situations. The in S6(k) of the FMVSS No. 138 test detection time, because we believed that malfunction-related issues raised in procedures. According to EnTire it would maintain the utility of the these petitions are addressed below. Solutions, disconnecting vehicle speed TPMS and the safety benefits associated The AIAM recommended amending input is ‘‘impractical’’ to diagnose since with that system. S4.4(a) to narrow the definition of such a disconnect would not prevent We do not believe that the arguments ‘‘TPMS malfunction’’ to limit that term the TPMS from providing under- presented by BMW and NIRA Dynamics to conditions where proper power inflation warnings while driving unless regarding the cumulative nature of data supply is maintained to the TPMS. there are multiple problems with the gathering by the TPMS justifies According to the AIAM petition, the system. Accordingly, EnTire Solutions changing the standard’s low tire standard, as currently written, would requested clarification as to whether pressure detection time to one hour for require installation of another electronic systems using Hardwired Vehicle Speed multiple tires. We believe that a one- control module (ECM) in addition to the Inputs need to illuminate the TPMS MIL hour delay in warning the driver of TPMS ECM in order to solely monitor telltale upon disconnection of those significant tire under-inflation either MIL telltale operations, a largely inputs. when the system is new, reset, or redundant feature that would use up EnTire Solutions also requested a reprogrammed is too long, particularly limited space behind the dashboard. clarification regarding paragraph S6(k) given that other systems can provide a As its recommended solution, the of the TPMS test procedures, which warning more rapidly. BMW and NIRA AIAM recommended that the scope of provides an instruction regarding S4.4(a) be limited to situations where ‘‘disconnecting any electrical 22 70 FR 18136, 18148 (April 8, 2005) (Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–1). the TPMS has power, which would connection between TPMS components 23 See June 5, 2002 comments of the RMA (Docket allow the system to identify ***.’’ Specifically, the petitioner No. NHTSA–2000–8011–64). malfunctions in the TPMS ECM and questioned whether the above language

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53085

refers to connector-level interconnects mount between the sensor assembly and petitions (AIAM, Alliance) and in light or individual wires. the wheel, or separation of parts from of our own prior statements, we have In its petition, EnTire Solutions stated the sensor assembly. According to M- decided to amend the standard’s test that for systems using multiple ground Vision, a typical TPMS sensor weighs procedures for malfunction detection to paths for the receiver, it is ‘‘impractical’’ about 40 grams (1.41 ounces), and if explicitly state that telltale lamps will to diagnose a single ground path such components come loose as a result not be disconnected, because such disconnection. EnTire Solutions of fatigue, they may generate high g- malfunctions would be indicated during recommended that the standard be forces, cause internal damage to the tire, the bulb checks required under S4.3.3(a) amended to clarify that TPMS MIL and ultimately lead to tire failure. The and/or S4.4(b)(4). Consequently, the activation will not be required in such M-Vision petition also argued that a driver would be provided with cases. EnTire Solutions also asked if the loose TPMS device rattling within the information regarding the operability of system could be constructed such that front wheel could lead to sudden wheel the TPMS warning telltale(s) through the low pressure detection lamp could imbalance while the vehicle is in alternative means. be illuminated by an auxiliary power motion, potentially causing the driver to We believe that this clarifying change source when the primary source is steer improperly. In order to prevent is consistent with the final rule. In that disconnected without illuminating the what it deems to be a significant safety notice, we stated that ‘‘the MIL should MIL. This question applies to low tire risk, M-Vision recommended that the not be required to signal a burned out pressure telltales that indicate which definition of a ‘‘TPMS malfunction’’ be bulb as a TPMS malfunction, because tire is under-inflated and telltales that modified to include mechanical failures, that problem would already be do not indicate which tire is under- as described in its petition. identified during the check-of-lamp inflated (i.e., the ISO lamp). Continental Teves’ petition requested function at vehicle start-up.’’ (70 FR NIRA Dynamics’ petition argued that clarification of that portion of S4.4(a), 18136, 18151 (April 8, 2005)) It was not it is not possible for vehicle which requires the TPMS MIL to our intention to require a redundant manufacturers to meet the final rule’s illuminate ‘‘not more than 20 minutes system solely to monitor the TPMS certification requirement for the TPMS after occurrence of a malfunction that telltale(s). Similarly, the check-of-lamp to be able to detect all replacement tires affects the generation of transmission of function would alert the driver of that are not compatible with the system, control or response signals in the malfunctions pertaining to processes because it is not possible to know what vehicle’s tire pressure monitoring directly tied to operation of the TPMS tires will be offered in the future or how system.’’ (Emphasis added.) We telltale(s) that necessitate servicing. such tires will interact with current understand Continental Teves to be When the driver takes the vehicle to the TPMSs. According to NIRA Dynamics, arguing that there are other repair facility, the problem should be to make such a certification, vehicle circumstances or factors that could diagnosed and corrected, even though it manufacturers installing indirect TPMSs ‘‘affect’’ the system (e.g., replacement may not be the one anticipated (e.g., a would be required to test their systems tire construction) without preventing it problem with a wire rather than a with all types of tires available on the from detecting and providing the burned out bulb). Thus, this subset of market, both now and in the future, requisite low tire pressure warning. TPMS-related malfunctions would still something which would not be possible Therefore, Continental Teves be expected to be identified, but through for economic and practical reasons. recommended changing the word a mechanism other than the MIL. Therefore, the petitioner recommended ‘‘affects’’ to ‘‘inhibits’’ in S4.4(a), which Accordingly, we are amending S6(k) to amending the final rule to state that the it argued is consistent with the purpose delimit the types of system TPMS MIL requirements are limited to of the TPMS MIL to alert the driver malfunctions that will be simulated electrical and system transmission when the system is not functional. during testing, consistent with the interruptions or failures that result in no Given that the TPMS MIL above. Specifically, we are adding the sensor signal being sent to the TPMS requirements were a relatively recent following statement to that paragraph: control module. conceptual addition to FMVSS No. 138, ‘‘When simulating a TPMS malfunction, In its petition, SRI argued that there it is not surprising that several the electrical connections for the telltale are other conditions, albeit rare, that petitioners requested clarification of lamps shall not be disconnected.’’ could affect the performance of TPMSs those provisions. As noted above, such Furthermore, in response to EnTire’s even if the control or response signals clarification requests included questions requests for clarification regarding are properly transmitted. For example, of coverage of specific potential specific potential disconnections, we SRI stated that a direct TPMS may not malfunction, some of which the have decided that all electrically- recognize that it is transmitting petitioners asserted could be difficult to powered components and devices that incorrect pressure data due to a sensor detect. Our response, addressing these interface with the TPMS, including failure, or an indirect TPMS may not concerns about the standard’s hardwired vehicle speed inputs, are recognize that the sensitivity of the malfunction requirements, is provided potential candidates for disconnection TPMS is lower due to certain tire below. under S6(k). Similarly, a single ground characteristics. SRI essentially agreed In overview, we have decided to path in a multiple ground path system with the argument of NIRA Dynamics, retain the final rule’s requirement for may be a candidate for disconnection arguing that analyzing the influence of the TPMS MIL to illuminate whenever during TPMS malfunction testing. all replacement tires on the TPMS there is a malfunction that affects the We are denying NIRA Dynamics’ would be just as difficult as requiring generation of transmission of control or request that the standard be amended to that the TPMS be compliant with all response signals in the vehicle’s tire exclude incompatible aftermarket and replacement tires. pressure monitoring system. The agency replacement tires from the malfunctions M-Vision’s petition questioned continues to favor a broad detection that the TPMS malfunction indicator whether the standard’s requirements for requirement for the TPMS MIL and not must be able to detect. As noted in the malfunction detection would include one limited to specific malfunctions, April 8, 2005 final rule, we believe that instances where there is a mechanical because such restrictions would the ability of the TPMS malfunction failure of the TPMS, including ones unnecessarily reduce the safety benefits indicator to detect incompatible tires is resulting from a separation of the joint/ of the TPMS. However, in response to key to the long-term functionality of the

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53086 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

TPMS, and unless such a warning is mechanical malfunction of a wheel consumer may wish to ‘‘upgrade’’ the provided, some drivers may lose the component without dismounting the vehicle’s TPMS in situations where that benefits of the system entirely. It is tire from the wheel, and potentially person encounters incompatible plainly foreseeable that most vehicles damaging the TPMS. Furthermore, we replacement tires. If disablement of the will outlast their original set of tires, so have not been presented with any data MIL were permitted for such this requirement is necessary to ensure to demonstrate that mechanical failures, replacement purpose, SEMA argues that that consumers continue to receive the such as those described in the M-Vision it would alleviate SEMA’s concerns that TPMS’s important information related petition, are likely to arise in actual consumers will choose not to install to low tire pressure. vehicles or the consequences thereof. If aftermarket or replacement rims and The petition of NIRA Dynamics did situations involving mechanical failures tires because they would lose the not provide data to demonstrate the of TPMS wheel components were to benefits of the MIL or have to accept nature or extent of indirect TPMSs’ develop frequently, those types of driving with the MIL illuminated. Thus, alleged problems related to detection of potential TPMS failures may be SEMA recommended that NHTSA incompatible tires. We do not believe determined to be defects, which would clarify that it is permissible to make the that manufacturers would have to test be properly addressed by NHTSA’s TPMS inoperative in order to replace all tires in order to determine which Office of Defects Investigation. the system with another TPMS that is tires are incompatible with a given Regarding Continental Teves’ also compliant with FMVSS No. 138. system, as NIRA Dynamics has recommendation for a wording change We do not believe that it is necessary suggested. Our understanding is that under the standard’s malfunction to amend the TPMS standard in order to indirect TPMSs detect low tire pressure detection requirement (S4.4), permit suppliers and service technicians by comparing the differences in the specifically to state that a malfunction to install aftermarket components and rolling radius of the tires (i.e., speed of ‘‘inhibits’’ rather than ‘‘affects’’ the systems that comply with FMVSS No. the tires) and activating the low tire generation or transmission of control or 138. This principle holds for our safety pressure telltale when the difference response signals in the vehicle’s TPMS, standards generally. We believe this between wheel speeds reaches a certain we have decided to deny that request. approach is appropriate for the pre-determined value. We further Overall, the rationale offered by following reasons. understand that for indirect TPMSs, Continental Teves in support of its By way of background, the incompatible tires are primarily tires recommended change to the definition disablement for repair/replacement with a relationship between rolling of a TPMS malfunction was not cogent concept is addressed in 49 U.S.C. radius and tire pressure that is outside and seemed incomplete. For example, 30122(b), which provides: the range of the system or where the the petition mentioned a hybrid system, geometry of one tire is outside the but it did not explain how it operates. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or tolerances of the system. In such cases, We do not believe that the Continental motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a the TPMS must be able to distinguish Teves petition provides a sufficient device or element of design installed on or between a tire with low pressure and basis to support its recommended in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle one that is incompatible with the TPMS, change to the standard. equipment in compliance with an applicable and to then illuminate the MIL. We have decided to grant the motor vehicle safety standard prescribed In direct TPMSs, tire incompatibility Alliance’s request for a technical change under this chapter [49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.] is primarily associated with tire in S4.4(b)(3) that would modify that unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, construction materials and their provision to read as follows: ‘‘Continues or repair business reasonably believes the potential attenuation of radio frequency to illuminate the TPMS malfunction vehicle or equipment will not be used signals generated by the TPMS unit telltale under the conditions specified (except for testing or a similar purpose (sensor) inside the tire. Based upon all in S4.4(a) * * *.’’ Although we do not during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. available information, we have decided believe that the standard’s current that TPMSs should continue to be reference to S4.4 in that provision is When an automotive service business required to alert the driver of a variety likely to cause any confusion or brings a vehicle into its facility for of system malfunctions, including additional burden, we agree that the repair, replacement, or servicing of installation of incompatible aftermarket Alliance’s recommended specification is vehicle systems or components, it or replacement tires. We believe that more precise. stands to reason that certain operating this approach will ensure continued, components or systems may need to be long-term TPMS functionality, which is 2. MIL Disablement disabled in order to effectuate those consistent with Congress’ intention to The final rule did not contain any changes. Furthermore, while such improve tire and vehicle safety, as provision for MIL disablement, and the changes are pending, we expect that the expressed in the TREAD Act. preamble discussed the agency’s vehicle would not be engaged in on- We have decided not to adopt M- rationale for not permitting system road use. By the time the vehicle is Vision’s recommendation that we disablement (see section IV.C.2(c), as again returned to on-road use, the amend the standard’s malfunction contained in the April 8, 2005 final business must ensure that aspects of the detection requirement to specifically rule). vehicle covered by applicable FMVSSs address mechanical failures of the In its petition, SEMA expressed have been made inoperative. With that system, such as a separation of wheel- support for the agency’s decision in the proviso, upgrades to the vehicle of the mounted TPMS components. We final rule not to permit disablement of type mentioned by SEMA would be believe that severe mechanical failures the TPMS malfunction indicator lamp. permissible, even if the standard does of TPMS wheel components would However, SEMA requested clarification not explicitly state it. trigger the TPMS malfunction indicator as to whether the MIL may be disabled in most cases, because a severe (made inoperative) for the purpose of C. Telltale Requirements mechanical problem with a sensor replacing the TPMS with an equivalent The final rule requires each TPMS to would retard communications between aftermarket TPMS that also meets the include a low tire pressure warning the sensor and the receiver. In addition, requirements of the FMVSS No. 138. For telltale that is mounted inside the it would be difficult to simulate a example, SEMA suggested that a occupant compartment in front of and

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53087

in clear view of the driver and which is operation of the TPMS related telltale(s), illuminated. This sequence will serve to identified by one of the symbols for the as well as the timing for implementing alert the driver to any and all TPMS ‘‘Low Tire Pressure Telltale’’ in Table 2 the telltale requirements. More malfunctions detected by the system. of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and specifically, the Alliance’s petition We believe that once a consumer is Displays. The low tire pressure warning sought clarification regarding how a warned that a TPMS malfunction exists, telltale is required to illuminate under combined TPMS telltale should operate that person would be expected to take the conditions specified in S4.2 of when sequential malfunctions occur. the vehicle to a service professional to FMVSS No. 138, and it must also The Alliance identified the following diagnose and correct the problem. This perform a check of lamp function when potential approaches: (1) Have one reaction is not likely to change the ignition locking system is activated flashing sequence cover all TPMS depending upon the number of to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position or a malfunctions; (2) Have each malfunctions, and at such time, we position between ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) and malfunction trigger a separate warning, anticipate that all conditions impairing ‘‘Start’’ that is designated by the or (3) Extend the length of the flashing operation of the TPMS would be manufacturer as a check position. (See sequence to indicate more than one resolved. Furthermore, we have decided S4.3, as contained in the April 8, 2005 malfunction. The recommendation of to specify how sequential malfunctions final rule.) the Alliance was to leave the choice would be indicated in order to prevent Under the final rule, the TPMS- among these approaches to vehicle confusion on the part of the consumer equipped vehicle is also required to be manufacturer discretion. and to ensure that TPMSs provide a equipped with a TPMS malfunction The Alliance also petitioned to correct consistent message across the fleet. indicator (beginning September 1, what it perceives to be a lack of Accordingly, we have made minor 2007). This malfunction indicator may synchronization between the TPMS technical changes to S4.4(c)(2) of the be provided either through a separate, telltale requirements in FMVSS No. 138 standard to clarify this matter. dedicated telltale or through a combined and in FMVSS No. 101. Specifically, the Regarding the issue of the low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction Alliance stated that vehicle coordination of the compliance dates for telltale. For the separate TPMS MIL, the manufacturers have no compliance the requirement of FMVSS No. 138 and telltale must be mounted inside the requirements vis-a`-vis FMVSS No. 138 Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, we agree occupant compartment in front of and until October 5, 2005, but there is not that it was not the agency’s intention to in clear view of the driver and be any corresponding compliance date require vehicle manufacturers to comply identified by the word ‘‘TPMS,’’ as specified in FMVSS No. 101 regarding with the requirements for the TPMS described under ‘‘TPMS Malfunction the TPMS-related symbols (which telltale(s) in advance of the Telltale’’ in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101. arguably results in a compliance date of requirements for the installation of The dedicated TPMS malfunction April 8, 2005 for those telltale symbols). FMVSS No. 138-compliant TPMSs telltale is required to illuminate under According to the Alliance, failure to themselves. Vehicle manufacturers are the conditions specified in S4.4 of remedy this apparent oversight would not required to install TPMSs until FMVSS No. 138 for as long as the negatively impact the voluntary October 5, 2005, and compliance could malfunction exists, and it must also introduction of TPMSs that are not potentially be postponed if they elect to perform a check of lamp function when certified to FMVSS No. 138, and the use carry-backward credits. During the the ignition locking system is activated Alliance stated that substantial lead phase-in, manufacturers could install to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position or a time is needed to incorporate such other TPMSs that are not necessarily position between ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) and display changes. Therefore, the Alliance compliant with FMVSS No. 138, so we ‘‘Start’’ that is designated by the recommended adding two footnotes to would not expect those vehicles to manufacturer as a check position. (See Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101 that would comply with the TPMS-related S4.4(b), as contained in the April 8, exempt vehicles from compliance with requirements of FMVSS No. 101, 2005 final rule.) the TPMS symbol requirements for although we would expect vehicles If the vehicle manufacturer elects to vehicles whose TPMSs are not certified voluntarily certified to FMVSS No. 138 provide a combination telltale, it must as compliant with FMVSS No. 138 to also meet the requirements of FMVSS meet the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3, during the phase-in period for that No. 101. Furthermore, the TPMS as discussed above, and also indicate a standard.24 malfunction telltale is not required until TPMS malfunction as follows. While the The Alliance also recommended September 1, 2007, a fact reflected in ignition locking system is activated to adding a new Footnote 10 to that table FMVSS No. 138 but not in FMVSS No. the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position, upon as follows: ‘‘Display requirements of the 101. detection of a TPMS malfunction, the low tire pressure telltale are mandatory During our consideration of these combination telltale must flash for a only for vehicles compliant with the petitions for reconsideration, the agency period of at least 60 seconds but no requirements of FMVSS No. 138 at the published a final rule updating FMVSS longer than 90 seconds. After this date of vehicle manufacture.’’ No. 101 (70 FR 48295 (August 17, period of prescribed flashing, the telltale Regarding the issue of sequential 2005)).25 At that time, we were already must remain continuously illuminated (multiple) malfunctions, we have aware of this synchronization issue. as long as the malfunction exists and the decided that for vehicles with a Therefore, in order to clarify the ignition locking system is activated to combined low tire pressure/malfunction relationship between the TPMS-related the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. This warning indicator, the telltale must requirements of FMVSS Nos. 138 and flashing and illumination sequence flash for a single period of at least 60 101, we included an amendment in that must be repeated each time the ignition seconds but no longer than 90 seconds final rule to modify the relevant table in locking system is activated to the ‘‘On’’ and then remain continuously FMVSS No. 101. (‘‘Run’’) position until the situation We note here that the above final rule causing the malfunction has been 24 The Alliance recommended that the following for FMVSS No. 101 reorganized that corrected. (See S4.4(c), as contained in statement be added to Footnote 9 of FMVSS No. 101 standard to some extent, and Table 2: ‘‘Display requirements for Tire Pressure the April 8, 2005 final rule.) Monitoring System Malfunction Telltale are consequently, the TPMS telltale As discussed below, the Alliance effective for vehicles manufactured on or after petition raised issues related to the September 1, 2007.’’ 25 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22113–1.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53088 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

provisions are now contained in Table either entirely or partially inoperable, in arguments and reasoning as to the need 1, rather than Table 2. Accordingly, we contravention of the TREAD Act. for a tire reserve load. Instead, it are revising S4.3.1(b) and S4.4(b)(2) of Furthermore, ETV expressed concern incorporated its earlier submissions by FMVSS No. 138, in order to properly that in such situations, the TPMS MIL reference.26 The RMA’s petition reference the TPMS-related provision of may illuminate, thereby masking other repeated its earlier recommendation that FMVSS No. 101. tire or system faults. Accordingly, ETV NHTSA should establish a reserve load Returning to our discussion of the recommended that the standard be requirement to ensure that the tires can three footnotes for the TPMS-related amended to require the spare tire to be safely carry the vehicle maximum load telltales incorporated into FMVSS No. fitted with a TPMS sensor so that the (i.e., not drop below the minimum 101, these footnotes read as follows. TPMS may continue to function in values presented in the load/pressure Footnote 13, which is applied to the compliance with the standard when a tables of the Tire and Rim Association symbols and words for all three TPMS spare tire is in use. (TRA) Year Book), when the vehicle’s telltales (i.e., the combined telltale We have decided not to adopt ETV’s tires are under-inflated by 25 percent. which does not indicate which tire is recommendation that we modify the ETRTO made essentially the same under-inflated, the combined telltale standard to require the TPMS to operate arguments as the RMA regarding the which does indicate which tire is under- when a spare tire is installed on the need for a tire reserve load requirement, inflated, and the dedicated TPMS MIL), vehicle. We came to this decision for a in order to maximize consumer safety as provides, ‘‘Required only for FMVSS number of reasons, including the compliant vehicles.’’ Thus, if the knowledge on the part of drivers that required under the TREAD Act. We note vehicle is certified to FMVSS No. 138, temporary tires are not intended for that the RMA and ETRTO petitions for the TPMS telltale in question must extended use, the fact that compact reconsideration provided no new data comply with the requirements in Table spare tires pose operational problems on the tire reserve load issue. 2. for both direct and indirect TPMSs, the We have decided to deny RMA’s and Footnote 14, which applies only to disincentive for manufacturers to ETRTO’s request that we establish a tire the dedicated TPMS MIL telltale, makes supply a full-size spare (or any spare reserve load requirement, based upon clear that a separate telltale is not tire) if TPMS compliance were required, the reasoning cited in earlier agency required; it states, ‘‘Alternatively, either and the increased cost of the rule, with pronouncements on this issue, as low tire pressure telltale may be used to little if any safety benefit, if a spare tire summarized below. In a notice indicate a TPMS malfunction. See must be monitored. In fact, as the published in the Federal Register on FMVSS 138.’’ standard is currently written, May 19, 2005, the agency denied the Footnote 15 also applies only to the illumination of the TPMS MIL when a RMA’s petition for rulemaking seeking dedicated TPMS MIL, stating, ‘‘Required spare tire is installed may have the to establish its recommended tire only for vehicles manufactured on or beneficial effect of encouraging the reserve load because neither the RMA’s after September 1, 2007.’’ For vehicle driver to rapidly repair or replace the nor the agency’s data demonstrated a manufacturers that elect to provide a regular tire, thereby permitting the spare safety need for such a requirement.27 separate telltale for the MIL, the telltale tire to be returned to emergency reserve Specifically, the available evidence did would need to display ‘‘TPMS’’ after status. As noted in the final rule, not demonstrate a reliable or conclusive that date. Again, vehicle manufacturers NHTSA will not conduct compliance relationship between tires with little or with vehicles certified to FMVSS No. testing under Standard No. 138 with no pressure reserve and a higher rate of 138 could voluntarily certify that they spare tires installed on the vehicle. tire failures in the field. For a more comply with the MIL requirements 2. Tire Reserve Load complete discussion of the tire reserve before that date, in which case they load issue, please consult the above- The April 8, 2005 final rule would be subject to this TPMS telltale establishing FMVSS No. 138 does not referenced notice responding to the requirement, if they chose to install a include any separate requirements for RMA petition. dedicated MIL telltale. Because the tire reserve load beyond those already We further believe that the tire reserve necessary changes have already been specified under our FMVSSs for tires. load requirement requested by the RMA incorporated into FMVSS No. 101, no Consistent with the position in its and ETRTO is unnecessary in light of additional amendments to the earlier petition for rulemaking and its certain other requirements in our tire regulatory text are required by this final comments on the NPRM, the RMA standards. By way of explanation, rule on this issue. argued that the April 8, 2005 final rule FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and D. Tire-Related Issues for TPMS does not adequately protect Rims, mandates, among other things, motor vehicle operators from the risk of that all passenger cars sold in the 1. Spare Tires driving on significantly under-inflated United States be equipped with tires The April 8, 2005 final rule does not tires, because it does not provide a that are capable of carrying the vehicle’s require the TPMS to monitor the warning when one or more of the maximum loaded vehicle weight at the pressure in a spare tire (either compact vehicle’s tires has insufficient pressure manufacturer’s recommended cold or full-sized), either while stowed or to carry the actual load on the tires. inflation pressure (vehicle placard when installed on the vehicle. According to the RMA, the final rule’s pressure). Multipurpose passenger In its petition, ETV expressed its TPMS activation threshold fails to vehicles, trucks, buses and trailers must opinion that the TREAD Act requires ensure that consumers will receive be fitted with tires that are capable of the TPMS to continuously monitor all adequate warning before the tire’s supporting the vehicle’s gross axle four active tires at all times while the inflation pressure falls below the vehicle is being driven. ETV then minimum level required to support the 26 Specifically, the RMA referenced its argued that because the April 8, 2005 actual load (or if unknown, the submissions to Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572 final rule does not require the spare tire maximum load) on the tire. The RMA (entry numbers 116, 172, 228, 238, 241, 260, 261, 262, 263, and 271) and to Docket No. NHTSA– (whether compact or full-size) to be did not provide any new data on this 2004–19054 (entry number 34). equipped with a TPMS sensor (for direct topic, and for the sake of brevity, it did 27 70 FR 28888 (May 19, 2005) (Docket No. systems), this would render the TPMS not repeat in its petition all of its earlier NHTSA–2005–20967–8).

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53089

weight rating (GAWR).28 In most cases, version of FMVSS No. 110 specifies that variation, and other system variables, vehicle manufacturers meet these the vehicle normal load on each tire while avoiding nuisance warnings. requirements by consulting must not exceed 94 percent of the tire’s Therefore, in order to specify a placard standardized tables for tire size, loading, load rating at the placard pressure for pressure of 35 psi, the TPMS activation and inflation pressure published by the that tire. This change in calculation of threshold would need to be lowered to Tire and Rim Association or other vehicle normal load is intended to more 25 to 28 psi. international tire industry accurately reflect the load based on the As discussed in its earlier petition for organizations.29 vehicle’s placard pressure, which may rulemaking on MAPs,32 the Alliance Vehicle manufacturers may, at their vary from vehicle to vehicle, even when argued that the MAP values in Table 1 discretion, specify a higher placard the same tires are used. We anticipate are likely to prove problematic for pressure for the tires fitted to their that this change may result in a placard certain vehicle applications. The products than that provided by the TRA pressure increase of 1–2 psi.31 Alliance stated that it had previously tables to support the vehicle’s maximum 3. Minimum Activation Pressure submitted certain component and load. This additional tire pressure is vehicle test data in support of its known as ‘‘tire pressure reserve.’’ Under S4.2 of the standard, the TPMS petition, including LT tire test data Within bounds, an increase in tire must illuminate a low tire pressure supplied by General Motors (data from pressure results in an increase in load warning telltale not more than 20 endurance tests, low inflation pressure carrying capacity. The extra load minutes after the inflation pressure in tests, laboratory and on-vehicle bead carrying capacity realized, because of one or more of the vehicle’s tires, up to unseating tests).33 Based upon such the additional tire pressure, is called the a total of four tires, is equal to or less data, the Alliance has concluded that ‘‘tire load reserve.’’ than either the pressure 25 percent there is not a demonstrated safety need As noted in our denial of the RMA’s below the vehicle manufacturer’s for the specific MAP values for LT tires petition, we believe that the existing recommended cold inflation pressure, set forth in Table 1. According to the requirements in our tires standards or the pressure specified in the 3rd Alliance, more stringent requirements, provide an adequate pressure reserve. column of Table 1 of the standard for testing at higher tire deflection levels, FMVSS No. 110 also includes a the corresponding type of tire, are already set by paragraph S6.4, ‘‘Low requirement for a tire pressure reserve whichever is higher. Table 1 is titled Inflation Pressure Performance,’’ of based on vehicle normal load. ‘‘Low Tire Pressure Warning Telltale— FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial ‘‘Vehicle normal load’’ is that load on Minimum Activation Pressure’’ (MAP). Tires for Light Vehicles, so there is an individual tire that is determined by The third column of Table 1 specifies arguably not any need for such a distributing to each axle its share of the the following MAP values: (1) P-metric, requirement under FMVSS No. 138. curb weight, accessory weight, and Standard Load (140 kPa/20 psi); (2) P- Therefore, in its petition, the Alliance occupant weight and dividing the result metric, Extra Load (160 kPa/23 psi); (3) identified three recommended options by two. The number of occupants used Load Range C (200 kPa/29 psi); (4) Load for addressing the MAP issue: (1) to determine the ‘‘normal load’’ is Range D (240 kPa/35 psi); and (5) Load Eliminate the MAP requirement for LT defined in FMVSS No. 110 as two Range E (240 kPa/35 psi). tires; (2) adopt the MAP values persons for a vehicle with four seating The Alliance acknowledged the proposed by the Alliance, or (3) adopt positions, and three persons for a modifications to the MAP values in the 29 psi as the MAP for all LT tires (Load vehicle with five seating positions. The final rule as an improvement over the Range C, D, and E). current standard requires that the values proposed in the NPRM. However, In its petition, the RMA expressed an vehicle normal load on a tire shall not the Alliance nevertheless recommended opposing viewpoint on the MAP issue, be greater than 88 percent of the tire’s that the standard should be modified objecting to the decision in the final rule maximum load rating as marked on the further to permit light truck Load Range to lower the MAP for Load Range D and tire sidewall. D and E tires to be used across the safe E tires to 35 psi. The RMA argued that NHTSA published a final rule operating range of inflation pressures for a MAP of 35 psi for these tires will not upgrading the standards applicable to those tires that are specified in the load/ ensure that consumers receive an tires on June 26, 2003.30 The upgraded pressure tables of the TRA Year Book. adequate warning before the tires According to the Alliance, TPMSs become significantly under-inflated or 28 This requirement was adopted from FMVSS require a 7 to 10 psi differential between over-inflated. The RMA recommended No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles recommended cold inflation pressure Other Than Passenger Cars. Before TREAD Act- that the agency conduct further and the TPMS low tire pressure warning rulemaking related to MAPs, including related upgrades were made (which also threshold in order to allow for consolidated NHTSA’s tire standards), passenger issuance of an NPRM, so that the cars, and non-passenger cars regardless of their environmental effects, manufacturing interested public has an opportunity to gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), were covered provide additional information and to by FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 respectively. Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a 29 Paragraph S4.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 110 permits GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less, fully participate in the resolution of this the use of standard tire pressure/load tables FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor issue. (Michelin’s petition made the contained in publications listed in paragraph Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 same arguments on this issue as the S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 109 that are current at the Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles, RMA petition, and it incorporated the date of manufacture of the tire or any later date. FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Specifically, publications by any of the following Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 RMA’s document by reference.) international industrial organizations may be used: Kilograms (10,000 Pounds), and FMVSS No. 139, After careful consideration of the (1) The Tire and Rim Association, (2) The European New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. See petitions addressing the MAP issue, we Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, (3) Japan 68 FR 38116 (June 23, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA– have decided to confirm and retain the Automobile Tire Manufacturers’ Association, Inc., 2003–15400–1). (4) Tyre & Rim Association of Australia, (5) 31 The agency has conducted a FMVSS No. 110 MAP values for LT tires as presented in Associacao Latino Americana de Pneus e Aros vehicle normal load evaluation and has concluded Brazil), or (6) The South African Bureau of that almost all light vehicles could meet a revised 32 Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572–265 and 266. Standards. criteria for load reserve based on 94 percent of 33 The petition also stated that additional data 30 The June 23, 2003 final rule pertained to placard pressure with only a minor increase (e.g., related to the MAP issue were supplied by the FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Bias Ply and 1 or 2 psi) in inflation pressure to accommodate the Alliance and GM at Docket No. NHTSA–2000– Certain Specialty Tires, FMVSS No. 110, Tire new requirement. Id. at 38141. 8572–268 and Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19054–95.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53090 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Table 1. As noted in the final rule, the function) with the following statement in the owner’s manual about the time TRA Year Book includes load/pressure in English: for the TPMS telltale(s) to extinguish relationships for Load Range D and E Each tire, including the spare (if provided), once the low tire pressure condition or tires from 80 psi (maximum inflation should be checked monthly when cold and the malfunction is corrected. Vehicle pressure) down to 35 psi. This value inflated to the inflation pressure manufacturers may also include provides a benchmark, indicating that a recommended by the vehicle manufacturer information in the owner’s manual Load Range D or E tire could be safely on the vehicle placard or tire inflation about the significance of the low tire operated at an inflation pressure as low pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a pressure warning telltale illumination, a as 35 psi. This approach is analogous to different size than the size indicated on the description of corrective action to be vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure the approach we used in selecting the label, you should determine the proper undertaken, whether the TPMS MAP values for P-metric tires, although inflation pressure for those tires.) functions with the vehicle’s spare tire (if the various tire industry publications As an added safety feature, your vehicle provided), and how to use a reset button exhibited more consistent values for P- has been equipped with a tire pressure (if one is provided). metric tires. monitoring system (TPMS) that illuminates a Petitioners recommended changes to The MAP values in Table 1 provide a low tire pressure telltale when one or more the content of the owner’s manual floor value for activation of the TPMS of your tires is significantly under-inflated. language, and they also requested Accordingly, when the low tire pressure for given classes of tires, and we do not additional lead time for implementing believe that it is consistent with safety telltale illuminates, you should stop and check your tires as soon as possible, and the standard’s owner’s manual to eliminate the MAP for Load Range D inflate them to the proper pressure. Driving provisions. These arguments are and E tires. The MAPs play an on a significantly under-inflated tire causes presented immediately below. important role in the TPMS’s ability to the tire to overheat and can lead to tire provide a timely warning to the driver failure. Under-inflation also reduces fuel 1. Lead Time regarding low tire pressure. We believe efficiency and tire tread life, and may affect The Alliance argued that because the that the minimum operating pressure the vehicle’s handling and stopping ability. owner’s manual requirements of FMVSS recommended for Load Range D and E Please note that the TPMS is not a No. 138 do not provide any additional substitute for proper tire maintenance, and it tires in the TRA Year Book is an lead time for those provisions, they adequate and safe value for the MAP. is the driver’s responsibility to maintain correct tire pressure, even if under-inflation significantly impact the ability of We are aware that a MAP of 35 psi has not reached the level to trigger manufacturers to earn and apply carry- effectively requires that the minimum illumination of the TPMS low tire pressure forward and carry-backward credits. vehicle placard pressure be 40 to 45 psi telltale. The Alliance stated that the text for the to ensure proper TPMS function. [The following paragraph is required for all required owner’s manual language However, we expect that the MAP issue vehicles certified to the standard starting on differs substantially from that raised by the Alliance and GM is only September 1, 2007 and for vehicles incorporated in the June 2002 final rule voluntarily equipped with a compliant TPMS likely to impact a small percentage of (since vacated) or September 2004 vehicles using LT tires (i.e., typically MIL before that time.] Your vehicle has also been equipped with a TPMS malfunction NPRM, and its petition also stated that vehicles with a GVWR of over 8,500 indicator to indicate when the system is not current owner’s manuals of TPMS- 34 pounds). Furthermore, our analysis of operating properly. [For vehicles with a equipped vehicles contain a statement the available data has led us to conclude dedicated MIL telltale, add the following consistent with the language provided that the MAP values currently presented statement: The TPMS malfunction indicator in one or the other of those two notices. in Table 1 should not have a significant is provided by a separate telltale, which The Alliance stated that preparation negative impact upon vehicle handling displays the symbol ‘‘TPMS’’ when of owner’s manuals normally involves a illuminated.] [For vehicles with a combined or the propensity for rollover, so we one-to-two year process, something that believe that the current MAP values low tire pressure/MIL telltale, add the following statement: The TPMS malfunction the Alliance claims that NHTSA has provide a long-term resolution of this indicator is combined with the low tire recognized in other proceedings.36 issue without the need for further pressure telltale. When the system detects a Although at first blush these owner’s rulemaking.35 malfunction, the telltale will flash for manual changes may seem like a simple With regard to the RMA and Michelin approximately one minute and then remain matter, the Alliance argued that the petitions, neither of them provided any continuously illuminated. This sequence will multiplicity of brands and models data or rationale explaining why the continue upon subsequent vehicle start-ups significantly increases the complexity of agency should initiate new, separate as long as the malfunction exists.] When the malfunction indicator is illuminated, the this task. Furthermore, the Alliance’s rulemaking to address the MAP issue for petition stated that, overall, since the Load Range D and E tires. These system may not be able to detect or signal low tire pressure as intended. TPMS time of the June 5, 2002 final rule, ‘‘the petitions merely provided a conclusory malfunctions may occur for a variety of different versions of the [required statement that MAP values of 35 psi will reasons, including the installation of owner’s manual] text differ only in not ensure that consumers will be replacement or alternate tires or wheels on detail, and not in substance or intent.’’ warned before the tires are dangerously the vehicle that prevent the TPMS from As a result, the Alliance argued that overloaded or under-inflated. functioning properly. Always check the TPMS malfunction indicator after replacing E. Owner’s Manual Requirements 36 The Alliance referenced NHTSA’s final rule one or more tires or wheels on your vehicle responding to petitions for reconsideration of the Under S4.5, the owner’s manual of to ensure that the replacement or alternate Tire Safety Information rulemaking (see 68 FR each vehicle certified as complying with tires and wheels allow the TPMS to continue 33655 (June 5, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA–2003– FMVSS No. 138 must provide an image to function properly. 15278–1)). In that rule, the agency decided to extend the final rule’s lead time (of less than one of the Low Tire Pressure Telltale symbol For vehicles that do not come with an year) for an additional year, in part because of the (and an image of the TPMS Malfunction owner’s manual, the required need for vehicle manufacturers to effect changes to Telltale warning (‘‘TPMS’’), if a information must be provided in writing owner’s manuals. The notice stated, ‘‘Additionally, dedicated telltale is utilized for this to the first purchaser of the vehicle for all car lines, manufacturers will be required to make extensive changes to their owner’s manuals (S4.5(c)). and these changes typically require a longer lead 34 Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572–265. As provided under S4.5(b), vehicle time than that provided by the final rule.’’ 68 FR 35 DOT HS 809 701. manufacturers may include information 33655, 33656 (June 5, 2003).

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53091

such differences do not justify hindering requirements until September 1, 2007. required owner’s manual statement manufacturers’ ability to introduce Based upon our analysis, we believe accomplishes its purpose, so it is not TPMSs in an expedited fashion. For the that a September 1, 2006 compliance necessary to require the additional above reasons, the Alliance date is practicable, so we do not see any language recommended by ETRTO and recommended delaying the effective reason to further delay presentation of a SRI. date for all TPMS-related owner’s standardized message to consumers Furthermore, we have decided to manual requirements until September 1, regarding the presence and function of deny ETRTO’s request to make 2006. TPMSs. mandatory the other TPMS-related The AIAM’s petition raised many of 2. Content of Required Statement topics addressed in S4.5(b). Again, the same arguments regarding the need because we believe that the required for lead time for the owner’s manual In its petition, ETRTO argued that the statement under S4.5(a) provides a clear requirements, both for vehicles that provisions in the April 8, 2005 final rule and simple explanation about the TPMS manufacturers intend to earn carry- dealing with the owner’s manual to the consumer, we believe the optional forward credits, as well as for other language may be inadequate to warn topics listed in S4.5(b) may be vehicles. However, the AIAM’s petition consumers regarding potential TPMS beneficial, but are not necessarily differed in that it asked NHTSA to delay shortcomings. Accordingly, ETRTO critical. In addition, some of those the standard’s compliance date for recommended that S4.5 of the standard topics may not apply to all vehicles, TPMS-related owner’s manual be amended to: (1) Clearly explain the depending upon the type of TPMS requirements until September 1, 2007. precautions that the consumer must take technology installed. Because that is the date for mandatory to ensure proper functioning of the compliance with the standard’s TPMS for systems equipped with a 3. Other Owner’s Manual Issues malfunction detection requirements, the manual reset feature (e.g., to prevent The Alliance recommended moving AIAM reasoned that such date would recalibration at an incorrect inflation the requirements currently contained in allow all required owner’s manual level); (2) explicitly state that the TPMS S4.5, Written Instructions, from 49 CFR language related to the TPMS to be may not alert the driver for a 20-minute part 571 (i.e., FMVSS No. 138) to 49 incorporated at the same time. period immediately after a malfunction CFR part 575, Consumer Information, After careful consideration of these occurs, until such time as the TPMS can the locus of other owner’s manual petitions, we have decided to delay the detect the malfunction, and (3) require, requirements involving specific compliance date for the TPMS owner’s rather than permit, vehicle language. According to the Alliance, manual requirement, thereby granting manufacturers to provide the other safety standards under part 571 petitions’ request for additional lead information specified under S4.5(b). with requirements for the owner’s time to incorporate the required SRI recommended amending S4.5(a) manual generally provide manufacturers language into the vehicle owner’s by supplementing the required discretion to include their own manual. We have decided to postpone statement in the vehicle owner’s manual descriptions of certain required compliance with the owner’s manual with the following additional language information or elements (e.g., FMVSS requirement until September 1, 2006, to make consumers aware that other Nos. 108, 202, 205, 208, 210). and we are modifying S4.5(a) of the anomalous situations may exist: standard accordingly. (We note that the The Alliance expressed concern that compliance date for incorporation of the When illuminated, the malfunction retention of the owner’s manual warning light indicates that the TPMS is not requirement in part 571 could required language related to the TPMS receiving a signal from the inflation pressure MIL is has not changed (i.e., September unnecessarily trigger the recall and or wheel sensors. However, even if the remedy provisions under 49 U.S.C. 1, 2007).) We believe that this request malfunction warning light is not illuminated can be granted without negatively there can be conditions that can cause the 30118 and 30120. The Alliance argued impacting vehicle safety. First, delay of system to be less sensitive to the tire pressure that even a typographical error, no the owner’s manual requirements would loss. It is the driver’s responsibility to matter how minor or insignificant, not impact the functioning of the TPMS maintain correct tire pressure even if both would at the very least require the or the warnings that it provides. TPMS and malfunction indicator lamps are manufacturer to notify NHTSA that a Furthermore, we expect that even before not illuminated. noncompliance exists by filing a report that date, TPMS-equipped vehicles SRI argued that its recommended under 49 CFR part 573, Defect and would have some owner’s manual owner’s manual language is necessary Noncompliance Reports, and to petition statement presenting relevant because it is not possible to anticipate for a determination of information to the consumer. This all problems that would cause inconsequentiality. change should facilitate vehicle inaccuracies in a TPMS’s functioning, Furthermore, the Alliance argued that manufacturers’ ability to earn carry- some of which may not be capable of movement of the TPMS-related owner’s forward and carry-backward credits for being detected by the TPMS manual requirements to part 575 would TPMSs that otherwise comply with malfunction indicator. not have any impact upon vehicle FMVSS No. 138 since publication of the After careful review, we have decided manufacturers’ compliance, because April 8, 2005 final rule. that no further modifications to the even with such a change, manufacturers We specifically note that delay in the vehicle owner’s manual requirements would still be subject to the penalty compliance date for the standard’s are required as a result of the ETRTO provisions of part 578, Civil and owner’s manual requirements does not and SRI petitions. We believe that the Criminal Penalties, for violations of the impact vehicle manufacturers’ language set forth in the April 8, 2005 part 575 regulations. In addition, responsibility to provide TPMSs final rule provides a clear message to Alliance stated that there is already complying with FMVSS No. 138 on a the consumer regarding the presence sufficient incentive for manufacturers to schedule consistent with the phase-in and function of the TPMS installed in communicate effectively regarding commencing on October 5, 2005, as set the vehicle, as well as its supporting safety issues, because vehicle forth in the April 8, 2005 final rule. role to the vehicle operator’s ongoing manufacturers have a strong incentive to We are denying the AIAM’s request to responsibility for regular tire satisfy customers, to protect corporate extend the vehicle owner’s manual maintenance. We believe that the reputation, and to avoid litigation.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

The Alliance argued that reassigning topic will be discussed and responded in the final rule allows the test pressure the TPMS-related owner’s manual to as an initial matter. Specifically, in the under-inflated tire to be 30 requirements to part 575 would alleviate ETRTO argued that the final rule’s test percent or more below placard pressure, any carry-forward credit concerns procedures represent a step backward the compliance tests must be conducted associated with text that does not from the NPRM in terms of ensuring at an under-inflation level of 25 percent precisely conform to that adopted in that drivers are warned promptly when or more below placard or at the MAP. FMVSS No. 138. That is because under a vehicle’s tires are 25-percent under- We believe that the test procedures, as S7.4(a) of FMVSS No. 138 and subpart inflated or reach the minimum amended in this final rule, will result in G of part 585 (TPMS Phase-in Reporting activation pressure. ETRTO expressed TPMS testing with an under-inflation Requirements), a manufacturer must concern that ‘‘comparison of an under- level of 25–30 percent below placard for report compliance with all TPMS inflation level checked while tyres are the test tire(s), which we also believe is requirements, except for S4.4 which warm with a placard inflation level sufficiently accurate when variations in deals with the TPMS MIL, in order to relative to cold tyres may be seriously ambient temperature, tire temperature, earn carry-forward credits. misleading.’’ The petitioner provided tire geometry, and test instrumentation The Alliance’s petition also stated data intended to demonstrate the are considered. The example offered by that the required owner’s manual inconsistent results that may be ETRTO in which tire pressure errors at language presented in the agency’s presented, depending upon the tire and service stations are calculated based on TPMS Laboratory Test Procedure (TP– when it is tested under the test a pressure gauge with 90 percent 138–00) does not match that set forth in procedures of FMVSS No. 138. ETRTO accuracy, is not representative of the S4.5(a). The Alliance asked the agency stated that the final rule’s arguments level of accuracy experienced in to reconcile this conflicting language. related to the vehicle cool-down period compliance or certification testing. For Upon consideration, we have decided (discussed at section IV.C.4.d of the these reasons, we believe that the test to deny the Alliance request to move the final rule) are not pertinent because they procedures, as amended in response to requirement under S4.5(a) for the are not supported by experimental the petitions, are appropriate. specific owner’s manual statement to 49 evidence. Furthermore, ETRTO argued CFR part 575. We believe that the that the final rule does not take into 1. Test Conditions required statement describing the TPMS account measurement uncertainties and The final rule included provisions and its role is a fundamental aspect of capabilities of TPMSs, and that under S5, Test Conditions, to specify the the standard, and accordingly, we measurement quality assurance conditions under which the agency believe that it should remain an integral principles have not been met. ETRTO would conduct compliance testing part of FMVSS No. 138. Although it is also asserted that modifications are under S6, Test Procedures. Specifically, true that errors in printing the owner’s necessary because manometers at gas S5 provided that during testing, the manual statement could trigger station air pumps are seriously ambient temperature would be between manufacturer responsibilities under the inaccurate, something which could 0° C (32° F) and 40° C (104° F) (see S5.1, recall and remedy provisions of 49 contribute to the above problems. For as contained in the April 8, 2005 final U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, we believe that these reasons, ETRTO recommended rule). The road test surface will be any such instances would be rare and easily reverting to the test procedures set forth portion of the Southern Loop of the avoidable. Careful proofreading of pre- in S6 of the NPRM, because it believes Treadwear Test Course defined in publication owner’s manual statements that those procedures are more likely to Appendix A and Figure 2 of 49 CFR should ensure that the standard’s result in closer compliance with the 575.104, and the road surface will be required language is faithfully executed, standard’s 25-percent under-inflation dry during testing (see S5.2, as and in rare instances where detection requirement. contained in the April 8, 2005 final typographical errors arise, those In response, we note that the test rule). situations can be readily corrected procedure for low tire pressure through a petition for determination of detection was modified in the final rule The vehicle will be tested at any inconsequential noncompliance. to eliminate the one-hour cool-down weight between its lightly loaded As to the Alliance’s point regarding period after system calibration, because vehicle weight and its gross vehicle the discrepancy between the required that provision required that the tires be weight rating (GVWR) without owner’s manual language in S4.5(a) of cycled from cool to warm during the exceeding any of its gross axle weight the standard and the TPMS Laboratory test. That would have introduced ratings (see S5.3.1, as contained in the Test Procedure (TP–138–00), we have temperature and pressure uncertainties April 8, 2005 final rule). The vehicle’s since corrected the latter document to during the test procedure, and there TPMS will be calibrated and tested at remedy this inadvertent error (see would have been the possibility that tire speeds between 50 km/h (31.1 mph) and http://nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/ pressure would rise to a level above the 100 km/h (62.2 mph) (see S5.3.2, as menuitem.b166d5602714f9a73baf activation threshold for the low tire contained in the April 8, 2005 final 3210dba046a0/). detection telltale. Elimination of the rule). The vehicle’s rims may be one-hour cool-down period allows the positioned at any wheel position, F. Test Procedures low pressure test to be conducted with consistent with any related instructions The test conditions for the TPMS may minimal temperature and pressure or limitations in the vehicle owner’s be found under S5 of the standard, and change. manual (see S5.3.3, as contained in the the corresponding test procedures may We believe that the arguments in the April 8, 2005 final rule). The final rule be found at S6 of the standard. Specific April 8, 2005 final rule related to the also specifies that the vehicle’s tires will aspects of these test conditions and vehicle cool-down period (see section be shaded from direct sun when the procedures are outlined below, along IV.C.6.d) are supported by the data in vehicle is parked (see S5.3.4, as with focused issues raised in petitions the ETRTO petition. That is, the tire contained in the April 8, 2005 final rule) for reconsideration. pressure in the deflated tire remains and that driving time shall not However, the petition submitted by below the TPMS telltale activation level accumulate during application of the ETRTO raised the issue of the adequacy while the vehicle is driven. With regard service brake (see S5.3.5, as contained of the test procedures generally, so that to the argument that the test procedure in the April 8, 2005 final rule).

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53093

The RMA petitioned the agency to have decided that no further performance. Furthermore, it is unlikely amend the test conditions in the TPMS modifications to the test conditions in that design changes yielding greater standard to ensure that the system S5 are necessary. The agency’s intention safety benefits would result because operates under all conditions that in developing the test procedure for vehicle manufacturers are aware of the would represent the real-world driving TPMS-equipped vehicles was not to test temperature, weather, vehicle speed, environment. Although the RMA’s the TPMS at every conceivable vehicle and other conditions that their vehicles petition did not set forth these operating condition, but to instead are exposed to and typically design to recommended changes in detail, it did evaluate the system at operating meet or exceed those conditions. reference the same recommendations conditions that are typically 2. Vehicle Cool-Down Period from the organization’s earlier petition encountered during normal driving. The for rulemaking and its comments on the RMA and ETRTO did not present any Under S6, Test Procedures, the final September 2004 NPRM for TPMS. In new data or arguments regarding the rule states that the vehicle will be those earlier submissions, the RMA adequacy of the final rule’s test driven within five minutes after argued that the temperature range for conditions, nor did they specify any reducing the inflation pressure in the testing should be expanded to include recommendations for test parameters tire(s) as part of the low tire pressure ambient temperatures below freezing that they believe would be more detection phase (see S6(f)(1), as (32° F) and above 104° F. The RMA also reflective of real world driving contained in the April 8, 2005 final advocated testing under slippery road conditions. rule), and, for vehicles in which the conditions, increasing the range for the Consistent with the approach TPMS successfully detected low tire driving speed to include speeds over discussed above, the agency decided to pressure, it also requires the vehicle’s 100 kmh for low tire pressure detection, specify the Southern Loop of the Tread ignition to be turned off for five and testing during braking maneuvers. Wear Test Course, a public roadway, for minutes, after which time the ignition ETRTO made a similar argument in its the compliance test, rather than using a locking system is reactivated to petition, seeking changes to the test facility. We do not agree with the determine whether the system continues standard’s test condition to comport argument in the VW/Audi petition that to detect the under-inflation condition with the organization’s suggestions the Southern Loop of the Tread Wear (see S6(g), as contained in the April 8, presented at an earlier stage of the Test Course is not a reasonable or 2005 final rule). Under S6(h), the next rulemaking. In its earlier submissions, practicable means of evaluating real- sequential step in the test procedure, the ETRTO made comments similar to those world TPMS usage. We believe that a vehicle is to be kept stationary for a provided by the RMA (discussed public roadway is highly representative period of up to one hour with the engine immediately above) on this issue, except of the real world conditions that may be off, after which time the vehicle’s tires that ETRTO also recommended testing encountered by drivers, and we further are re-inflated and the TPMS should at speeds below 31 mph. According to believe that, in light of the fact that this recognize that the low tire pressure ETRTO, unless such modifications are particular course has been used for situation has been resolved. The vehicle made to better reflect actual driving several years for testing under our may be driven in order to allow the environments, the standard will not Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards TPMS to check the tire pressure and to maximize consumer safety, as required (UTQGS), there is not any reason to extinguish the low tire pressure telltale. by the TREAD Act. believe that the course would not In their petitions, ETRTO and The petition of VW/Audi argued that similarly be suitable for TPMS testing. SmarTire objected to the agency’s the Southern Loop of the Tread Wear We are not adopting the suggestion of decision in the April 8, 2005 final rule Test Course may not represent a VW/Audi to specify that portions of the to eliminate the vehicle ‘‘cool down’’ reasonable or practicable means of test be conducted in three ±10 kmh period in S6(e) and S6(f)(1), for the evaluating real-world TPMS usage, as subsets of the overall speed range following reasons. With reference to the would meet the objective of establishing specified in S5.3.2. The VW/Audi calibration/learning phase in S6(d), a standard that would both enhance petition did not provide any data to SmarTire argued that a 20-minute motor vehicle safety and also be demonstrate why these narrower speed driving interval (especially at high practicable for compliance purposes. range categories are necessary, and speeds and high ambient temperatures) For this reason, VW/Audi recommended because vehicle operators are unlikely may increase tire pressure by 5–6 psi that S6(d) and (f) of the standard’s test to observe such strictures during normal over placard pressure. SmarTire procedures should be revised to permit driving, we have decided to retain the expressed concern that this pressure up to 60 minutes of driving time for final rule’s speed range of 50–100 kmh build-up of 5–6 psi would still be certification purposes. Specifically, VW/ (31.1–62.2 mph) without additional present when the pressure in the tire(s) Audi recommended that S6(d), the refinement. Furthermore, we do not is reduced to the test pressure. system calibration/learning phase, believe that VW/Audi’s argument SmarTire provided data indicating should permit a cumulative total of 60 related to extending the time periods for that as presently worded, the FMVSS minutes of driving with a minimum of TPMS calibration and low tire pressure No. 138 test procedure would permit a 10 minutes in at least three vehicle detection is directly related to the TPMS with only a 50-percent under- speed ranges (e.g., 50–70 kmh, 70–85 standard’s test conditions; accordingly, inflation detection capability, rather kmh, and 85–100 kmh (or some other this issue is being addressed elsewhere than the required 25-percent under- sets of speed ranges with limits of ±10 in this notice. inflation detection capability. SmarTire kmh)). VW/Audi also stated that the For these reasons, we continue to asserted that this situation could lead to detection time in S6(f)(2) should be believe that the test conditions specified irreparable structural damage to the tire, increased to a total cumulative time of in the final rule will result in robust which could possibly lead to tire failure, 60 minutes, and that the drive time in TPMSs that will function normally over so the petitioner recommended S6(f)(3) should be the lesser of 60 a wide range of operating conditions. amending the final rule to restore the minutes or the time at which the low Accordingly, we do not believe that one-hour cool down period to the test tire pressure telltale illuminates. additional specifications related to procedure. After considering the petitioners’ temperature, weather, or speed would ETRTO also provided tire pressure comments regarding test conditions, we appreciably change the TPMS’s data obtained by driving a vehicle,

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53094 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

deflating the warm tires, and measuring tire(s) may be somewhat larger without believes would produce consistent and tire pressure at various time intervals the one-hour cool-down, the actual objective results. Specifically, the after tire deflation. The ETRTO data pressure of the under-inflated tire(s) RMA’s petition called for a pressure re- indicated that, under most deflation would not be expected to be check and reset after deflation through conditions, the warm tires that were significantly above the standard’s low the following modified language deflated to 25 percent below placard tire pressure activation threshold. The (bracketed text is deleted text): pressure minus 2 psi maintained a tire SmarTire and ETRTO petitions did not Stop the vehicle and deflate any pressure of 30 percent or more below provide any data to document the tire combination of one to four tires until the placard pressure. damage expected to occur as a result of deflated tire(s) is (are) at [14 kPa (2 psi) For the reasons that follow, we have the final rule’s reduction in the time of below] the inflation pressure at which the decided against reinstating the one-hour the cool-down period, and they did not tire pressure monitoring system is required to cool-down period proposed in the provide any alternative solution to the illuminate the low tire pressure warning NPRM. However, we are also sensitive problem of tire pressure and telltale. After two minutes, re-check the tire to petitioners’ arguments that the temperature rising during vehicle pressure and adjust the pressure as pressure during testing should be kept operation. Accordingly, we have necessary. as close as possible to the standard’s 25- decided to retain the provisions in S6 Michelin reiterated the RMA’s point percent under-inflation activation related to vehicle cool-down as that a ¥14 kPa (¥2 psi) adjustment to threshold. presented in the final rule without the TPMS activation threshold could Our understanding of the relevant change. result in a TPMS being tested at 32 positions on the cool-down period is as percent under-inflation, rather than the follows. Vehicle manufacturers 3. 2-psi Adjustment (Temperature Correction) required level of 25 percent, and it expressed concern that if a vehicle is incorporated the reasoning set forth in permitted to cool down for one hour Under S6(e) of the final rule, any the RMA submission by reference. after the calibration phase of testing, combination of one to four tires is Michelin also provided an attachment to once the vehicle is driven, the tires will deflated to 14 kPa (2 psi) below the its petition intended to demonstrate the warm up, and tire pressure would be inflation pressure at which the TPMS is variability of the pressure increase for expected to rise by several psi. Thus, required to illuminate the low tire warm tires after deflation depending vehicle manufacturers are concerned pressure warning. This provision sets upon tire size and deflation technique. that the tires may warm up to a point the stage for the test procedures’ low SmarTire also objected to the above the TPMS low tire activation pressure test (i.e., the system detection provision in the test procedures that sets threshold (i.e., less than 25 percent phase). This adjustment provides some the tire pressure at 14 kPa (2 psi) below below placard pressure), thereby margin in compliance testing to ensure the 25-percent-below-placard level, causing the low tire pressure telltale to that a warm tire does not cause a tire because it argued that this approach extinguish after illumination or not deflated by 25 percent below placard could result in a TPMS being tested at illuminate at all. Accordingly, the pressure to again rise slightly above the 30-percent under-inflation. SmarTire vehicle manufacturers favor both a short 25-percent TPMS warning threshold. cool-down period (e.g., five minutes or The issue of the 2 psi adjustment in stated that if a 14 kPa (2 psi) tolerance less) and a larger temperature S6(e) of the test procedures was among on test pressure setting is necessary for compensation adjustment (e.g., 2 psi). the most frequently raised issues in the test consistency, then the agency should In contrast, tire manufacturers are petitions for reconsideration (i.e., topic modify the standard to require the concerned that there would be a 30- addressed by the Alliance, Michelin, the TPMS to illuminate the low tire percent or greater difference in pressure RMA, and SmarTire). The RMA stated pressure warning telltale at some point between: (a) A cold tire inflated to that the final rule modified the test above the 25-percent under-inflation placard pressure and then heated up by procedure to include a ¥14 kPa (¥2 threshold, such that 25-percent under- driving and (b) a warm tire that has been psi) adjustment in tire pressure during inflation remains the minimum deflated to 25 percent below placard testing, rather than the ¥7 kPa (¥1 psi) requirement. pressure. Under real world driving adjustment proposed in the NPRM, but The Alliance did not object to the conditions, this would increase the it did not provide any independent level of the pressure adjustment potential for tire damage and failure. testing data or other verification to provided in S6(e), but it did request Accordingly, tire manufacturers favor a support this change. further changes to S6 to account for the longer cool-down period (e.g., one hour) To address this point, a number of fact that environmental factors (e.g., and a smaller temperature RMA member companies conducted ambient temperature, wind), road test compensation adjustment. testing, and these data, provided with surface temperature (i.e., heat transfer In response to public comment from the RMA petition, suggested that this from road to tire), and sun load on the vehicle manufacturers at the NPRM change to the test procedures could tires (during driving and when stage, the agency reduced the cool-down permit testing of the TPMS with tires stationary) can impact tire temperature period in S6(f)(1) from the NPRM’s under-inflated by 32 percent or more and tire pressure. According to the proposed one hour to the final rule’s below placard pressure, rather than the Alliance, unless the standard carefully five minutes, in order to conduct the required 25 percent. Furthermore, the controls for these factors, there is a low pressure test without significant RMA stated that its testing showed that significant risk that a vehicle will be temperature variation. We agree with by controlling the deflation rate, it mistakenly determined to be out of the vehicle manufacturers that would be possible to eliminate any compliance. elimination of the one-hour cool-down increase in tire pressure that occurs after Therefore, the Alliance also period will help maintain the under- rapid tire deflation. recommended additional verification in inflated tire’s pressure and allow it to The RMA offered the following order to provide an objective remain below the TPMS activation recommended solution to this perceived determination of noncompliance, which threshold during testing. Although the problem, which it characterized as a it believes may be accomplished by pressure difference between the fully- minor modification of S6(e) of the modifying S6(f) and (g) of the standard inflated tires and the under-inflated standard’s test procedures, but which it as follows:

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53095

(f) If the low tire pressure telltale did not increase above the detection threshold close to the intended value when illuminate, stop the vehicle. Check the level, once the vehicle is driven again measured. Use of an accurate gauge is inflation pressure of the tire(s) deflated in during the low pressure detection important so as to reduce the number of S6(e). phase. According to the Alliance, the 2- measurements needed to obtain an (i) If the pressure in the deflated tire(s) is below the inflation pressure at which the psi adjustment helps ensure that any accurate reading. That is because each TPMS is required to illuminate the low tire pressure increase as the vehicle is time a pressure measurement is taken pressure telltale, discontinue the test. driven will not result in the pressure from an inflated tire, there is a slight (ii) If the pressure in the deflated tire(s) is rising above the activation level. We loss of inflation pressure, so fewer above the inflation pressure at which the have considered the Alliance’s checks should result in fewer TPMS is required to illuminate the low tire concerns, but we have decided that it is adjustments and less pressure loss. We pressure telltale, repeat procedure from S6(e). not necessary to eliminate the five- do not believe that S6 requires (g) If the low tire pressure telltale minute cool-down period and that it is amendment to incorporate additional illuminated during the procedure in possible to limit the pressure pressure checks during testing to ensure paragraph S6(f), turn the ignition locking system to the ‘‘Off’’ or ‘‘Lock’’ position. After adjustment to 1 psi without triggering that the pressure is at the correct value, a 5-minute period, turn the vehicle’s ignition testing problems. because we believe that the existing locking system to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. Test data submitted by the RMA in procedures are adequate. We are also The telltale must illuminate and remain August 2003 demonstrated that a tire’s denying the RMA’s recommendation to illuminated as long as the ignition locking temperature and inflation pressure do eliminate the pressure adjustment system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. If the not begin to decrease immediately entirely, because we believe that such telltale does not illuminate or turns off following the end of the road wheel test action would unnecessarily complicate during this procedure, check the inflation (conducted under FMVSS No. 139), but our testing. pressure of the tire(s) deflated in S6(e). If the instead, the tire maintains its Furthermore, we believe that deflating pressure in the deflated tire(s) is below the operational temperature and pressure the tire to 1 psi below the 25-percent inflation pressure at which the TPMS is for a few minutes before beginning to under-inflation threshold, as opposed to required to illuminate the low tire pressure telltale, discontinue the test. slowly decrease to its initial test 2 psi, would not change the stringency pressure.37 of the performance requirements After careful consideration of the Data from studies of the relationship specified in S4.2, but it would ensure petitioners’ arguments related to the 2- between tire pressure and time were that the pressure in the under-inflated psi pressure adjustment, we have submitted by the RMA 38 and tire(s) remains closely tied to the low decided to reduce that adjustment to 1 Michelin 39 along with their petitions. tire pressure activation threshold. This psi. However, we have decided that it is These studies, which involved deflating adjustment was included to facilitate not necessary to incorporate the tires at different rates and monitoring the vehicle test, not to relieve additional pressure checks the pressure after deflation, indicated manufacturers’ responsibility to provide recommended by the Alliance and the that tire pressure rose several psi above a TPMS that can detect when a tire is RMA. The following explains our the pressure at which the deflation was 25-percent below placard pressure. rationale. ended when the deflation rate was Given the difficultly involved with In response to public comments rapid. However, for slower deflation allowing an extended tire cool-down submitted by NIRA Dynamics and VW/ rates, the pressure tended to remain period during the low pressure Audi on the NPRM, we added the 2-psi very close to the value attained detection phase, we believe that pressure adjustment to the low tire immediately after the deflation amending the standard to provide a 1- pressure detection test in S6(f). procedure was completed. Therefore, psi pressure adjustment is a reasonable However, given that the vehicle cool- based upon the available information, approach that should prevent actual down period has been significantly we do not believe that it is necessary to under-inflation values that are reduced and that the low tire pressure eliminate the five-minute cool-down significantly below the standard’s 25- test is to be conducted without period or that it is critical to maintain percent activation value. significant tire temperature variation, a 2-psi pressure adjustment in the test 4. Calibration Time we are concerned that a 2-psi pressure procedure. We also do not believe that adjustment may actually represent an additional modifications are necessary Under the April 8, 2005 final rule, the under-inflation level closer to 30 to compensate for the ‘‘environmental standard’s test procedures provide a percent, rather than the standard’s effects’’ mentioned by the Alliance; the cumulative time period of up to 20 stated activation threshold of 25-percent Alliance did not provide data minutes for TPMS calibration. During under-inflation. Assuming that a tire’s demonstrating the extent of these this system ‘‘learning phase,’’ the inflation pressure typically rises 2–3 psi alleged effects, and we believe that the vehicle is driven for up to 15 minutes during normal vehicle operations, we standard accounts for such effects as of cumulative time (not necessarily believe that this is a valid concern. We promulgated. continuously) along any portion of the believe that amending the standard to Instead, we believe that the Alliance’s test course. Direction of travel on the provide a 1-psi adjustment under S6(f) concerns can be accommodated by test course is then reversed, and the would significantly reduce the amount careful, deliberate administration of the vehicle is driven for an additional of under-inflation deviation from the test, as reflected in our more detailed period of time, for a total cumulative threshold level articulated in the Laboratory Test Procedure for TPMS time of 20 minutes. (See S6(d), as standard. (TP–138–00). For example, in the contained in the April 8, 2005 final The Alliance recommended revising Laboratory Test Procedure, we specify rule.) the test procedure in a manner that use of a pressure gauge with an accuracy As noted above, the petitions of NIRA would eliminate the standard’s current of ± 0.5 percent, which we believe Dynamics and VW/Audi asked that the five-minute cool-down period because it would ensure that the tire pressure is standard be amended to provide a one- believes that even a small delay could hour time period for TPMS calibration. allow the tires to cool slightly, thereby 37 Docket No. NHTSA–2003–15400–9. The petitioners argued that effective resulting in a pressure decrease that 38 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–21. calibration of their TPMSs requires up could once again allow the pressure to 39 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–29. to one hour of time over a range of

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53096 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

speeds. In addition, the petitioners requirement.40 We expect that with H. Sharing of TPMS Servicing asserted that in light of the mechanism additional time and development, other Information through which multiple-tire under- systems could satisfy this requirement The April 8, 2005 final rule stated that inflation occurs (i.e., through slow as well. For these reasons, we continue the agency does not believe it necessary diffusion), calibration within 20 to believe that requiring TPMS to mandate vehicle manufacturers to minutes is unnecessary. calibration within 20 minutes is report repair and servicing information After careful consideration, we have appropriate. to the aftermarket sales industry and the decided to deny the petitioners’ requests service industry. As stated in the G. TPMS Reprogrammability to increase calibration time from the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA has current 20 minutes to one hour. Even Under the final rule, vehicle not received any consumer complaints though the agency is committed to regarding the serviceability of existing developing a standard that is as manufacturers are permitted, but not required, to provide a TPMS TPMSs, and the agency expects that the technology-neutral as possible, we marketplace will make sufficient believe that a 60-minutes time period reprogrammability feature. However, the final rule made clear that the agency information available to permit for TPMS calibration is too long. Were convenient sales, maintenance, and we to adopt a calibration time period will conduct compliance testing with the tires installed on the vehicle at the repair of such systems. (See 70 FR consistent with the petitioners’ 18136, 18175 (April 8, 2005)) time of initial sale and will follow any recommendations, the average In its petition, SEMA reiterated the manufacturer instructions in the consumer might require several trips for argument made in its comments on the the TPMS to be properly calibrated. owner’s manual related to resetting the NPRM that the agency should require While calibrating, the TPMS is TPMS. (See 70 FR 18136, 18146 (April vehicle manufacturers to share unavailable to provide its important 8, 2005)) sufficient information to allow third- warning about low tire pressure. According to SEMA, replacement tires party servicing of TPMSs. SEMA stated Furthermore, we note that TPMS for a vehicle may require higher that it has heard complaints that the calibration and under-inflation inflation pressure than the vehicle’s service and repair industry and the detection are sequential events, so those original equipment tires, and unless the aftermarket sales industry have been time periods must be added to properly TPMS is reprogrammed to reflect this denied access to TPMS service reflect the amount of time that may new placard pressure, those information from both sensor elapse before the TPMS may provide a replacement tires may become more manufacturers as well as vehicle warning to the driver. This fact argues than 25 percent under-inflated by the manufacturers. However, SEMA did not against extending calibration time in the provide any information to substantiate manner the petitioners have suggested, time the TPMS low tire pressure warning telltale illuminates. SEMA these anecdotal complaints, nor did it particularly because situations exist provide any facts to ascertain how large where the low pressure condition may argued that this situation would both defeat the purpose of the rule and also a problem there may be regarding access arise for reasons other than slow to service information. To resolve these give drivers a false sense of security, diffusion. concerns, SEMA recommended that the although SEMA acknowledged that it Since there is no indication as to standard be amended to include a does not have specific information to when the TPMS calibration process is requirement that any TPMS servicing complete, most consumers are likely to demonstrate how significant this information must be made available to assume that calibration is complete problem currently is or will be in the the vehicle owner, to the extent that shortly after the system reset button is future. SEMA recommended that the such information is available to other activated, for systems that use a reset standard be amended to require TPMS parties. feature. We believe that such reprogrammability. SEMA further argued that unless this expectation brings about a false sense of We have decided to deny SEMA’s recommendation and the other security to consumers who may believe request that we amend FMVSS No. 138 recommendations contained in its that once the reset button is activated, to require TPMS reprogrammability, petition are followed, the rule may have the system is again ready to detect low because there is no evidence to a significant negative impact upon its inflation pressure in any of the vehicle’s demonstrate an actual problem in this small business members, because they tires. (Because the issue of calibration area. We believe that vehicle may be unable to install their products time is closely linked to the issue of low manufacturers installing TPMSs that if the TPMS MIL cannot be tire pressure warning activation, please extinguished. see section IV.A of this notice for may require reprogramming in certain situations are well aware of this issue We have decided to deny SEMA’s additional explanation regarding the request that we compel vehicle need for the TPMS to provide its and will provide this feature, as necessary. Thus, in the final rule, we manufacturers to share TPMS servicing warnings promptly.) information with the service and repair expressly stated that TPMSs are Depending upon how often there is a industry. SEMA has not provided any permitted to be reprogrammable. Once need to reset the system, there is the evidence to demonstrate that vehicle again, although we are uncertain as to potential for the TPMS to be unavailable manufacturers would not make the exact details of system to provide a low tire pressure warning necessary repair and servicing with some degree of frequency, which reprogrammability, we assume that it information available to the aftermarket would add to our concern about will be fairly easy for the service sales industry and to the service extending the calibration time in S6(d). industry to reprogram TPMSs to industry, and its claims of a significant Furthermore, we note that Sumitomo accommodate different tires and rims. negative impact on its members are also Rubber Industries, a manufacturer of speculative. indirect TPMSs, currently produces a 40 In a June 28, 2005 letter submitted to the As noted in the final rule, we have not system that can calibrate within 20 docket, SRI suggested that additional calibration time would be beneficial in terms of system received any consumer complaints minutes, thereby demonstrating the accuracy, although it is not absolutely necessary. regarding the serviceability of existing practicability of a 20-minute calibration (See Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–37). TPMSs. Vehicles currently include

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53097

many complex systems, and although carry-backward credits, through which a is free to choose whichever of these two dealer involvement may be necessitated vehicle manufacturer is permitted to options it considers to be the most in some cases, the marketplace has reduce its compliance responsibility advantageous. generally made available sufficient during the first period of the phase-in, We do not believe that the difference information to permit convenient provided that it increases compliance by between the shortened initial maintenance and repair of such systems. a corresponding number of vehicles production period and the slightly We do not believe that TPMS during the second period of the phase- lengthened three-year average will have technologies will prove any different in in (see S7.4(c), as contained in the April a significant effect on the number of this regard. 8, 2005 final rule). vehicles that will be required to comply Furthermore, we are not requiring The AIAM argued that the final rule with the standard in MY 2006. Given vehicle manufacturers to share TPMS is inconsistent regarding its articulation our understanding of vehicle servicing information with the vehicle of the compliance requirement for the manufacturers’ production plans as owner. We believe that such a initial period of the phase-in (i.e., from reflected in their responses to the requirement would be unnecessary for October 5, 2005 to September 1, 2006). agency’s September 9, 2003 Special the reasons discussed above and also Its petition stated that the final rule’s Orders, we tentatively decided in the because consumers are likely to find preamble calls for a 20 percent of a NPRM that 50 percent compliance such highly technical information to be vehicle manufacturer’s production to be during the first year of the phase-in confusing and of little direct usefulness. equipped with TPMSs that are would be reasonable; thus, the final compliant with FMVSS No. 138 during I. Phase-In Calculations that roughly eleven-month period. rule’s phase-in requirement of 20 Under S7, Phase-in Schedule, the However, in the regulatory text, one of percent for the initial period should be final rule sets forth the requirements for the options for calculating the number achievable under either method of vehicle manufacturer implementation of of vehicles that must comply during that calculation. Furthermore, carry- the TPMS standard. Specifically, under period is based upon a full year of backward credits are available under S7.1, for vehicles manufactured on or production (i.e., S7.1(a)). According to S7.4(c) of the standard to further ease after October 5, 2005 and before the AIAM, that provision of the final implementation in the event the September 1, 2006, the number of rule effectively requires a compliance difference between the two methods of vehicles complying with the standard rate of approximately 22 percent during calculation under S7.1 somehow proves (other than the TPMS malfunction the initial phase-in period (rather than problematic. provisions of S4.4) must not be less than 20 percent). However, we are granting the AIAM’s 20 percent of either: (a) The To remedy this situation, the AIAM request that we modify 49 CFR 585.66, manufacturer’s average annual recommended revising S7.1(a) to read, Reporting Requirements, to differentiate production of vehicles manufactured on ‘‘The manufacturer’s total production of the reports to be submitted to the agency or after September 1, 2002 and before vehicles manufactured on or after for each of the two phase-in periods. As October 5, 2005, or (b) the September 1, 2002, and before October currently drafted, section 585.66(b)(1), manufacturer’s production on or after 5, 2005, divided by 3.414.’’ Basis for Statement of Compliance, and October 5, 2005 and before September 1, Furthermore, the AIAM urged the section 585.66(b)(2), Production, require 2006. agency to adopt a separate reporting manufacturers to report values for the Under S7.2, vehicles manufactured on requirement under 49 CFR 585.66(b) for full production year,41 without mention or after September 1, 2006 and before the first phase-in period, which would of the period corresponding to the first September 1, 2007 are subject to a 70 require vehicle manufacturers to submit period of the phase-in (i.e., from percent phase-in of either: (a) The the following information: (1) The October 5, 2005 to September 1, 2006), manufacturer’s average annual number of complying vehicles for the which is the relevant total production production of vehicles manufactured on period from October 5, 2005, to August value for calculation under S7.1(b) of or after September 1, 2003 and before 31, 2006, and (2) total light vehicle FMVSS No. 138. Because the reporting September 1, 2006, or (b) the production for that period, or total light of this information directly relates to manufacturer’s production on or after vehicle production for the period from determining compliance with the September 1, 2006 and before September 1, 2002, to October 5, 2005, requirements of FMVSS No. 138, we September 1, 2007. depending upon the compliance option have decided to revise 49 CFR As required by S7.3, all vehicles that is selected. 585.66(b)(1) and (2) to clearly manufactured on or after September 1, After carefully considering AIAM’s differentiate between the two phase-in 2007 must comply with all requirements argument, we have decided to retain the periods. of the standard, including the TPMS phase-in requirement in S7 for the malfunction requirements of S4.4. initial period of the phase-in without V. Benefits and Costs However, S7.7 provides an exception for change. Under S7.1, a vehicle Section VI of the April 8, 2005 final vehicles manufactured by final-stage manufacturer has two options for rule summarized the costs associated manufacturers and alterers, entities that calculating the number of FMVSS No. with the TPMS standard, as more fully are not subject to the phase-in and for 138-compliant vehicles that must be described in the Final Regulatory which the final rule provides an produced during the initial period of the Impact Analysis (FRIA) 42 additional year for compliance (i.e., phase-in from October 5, 2005 to accompanying the final rule. The FRIA until September 1, 2008). September 1, 2006. Consistent with the The final rule provides carry-forward discussion in the preamble of the final addresses the full range of anticipated credits for vehicles that comply with the rule, one of those options is 20 percent costs related to TPMSs, including the requirements of the standard and which of the manufacturer’s actual production cost of different TPMS technologies, are in excess of the compliance during that period. Alternatively, the requirement for the phase-in reporting manufacturer may choose 20 percent of 41 Under 49 CFR 585.64, the term ‘‘production year’’ is defined as ‘‘the 12-month period between period in question (see S7.4(a), as a three-year average as the basis for September 1 of one year and August 31 of the contained in the April 8, 2005 final calculating the required number of following year, inclusive.’’ rule). In addition, the final rule provides complying vehicles. The manufacturer 42 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–2.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

overall vehicle costs, maintenance costs, established FMVSS No. 138, Tire the vehicle under a defined set of test testing costs, and opportunity costs. Pressure Monitoring Systems, in a final conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, In summary, the FRIA estimated that rule published in the Federal Register road test surface, test weight, vehicle the average incremental cost for all on April 8, 2005. The agency received speed, rim position, brake pedal vehicles to meet the standard’s 17 petitions for reconsideration of the application) on a designated road course requirements would range from $48.44– final rule, two of which were in San Angelo, Texas. The test course $69.89 per vehicle, depending upon the subsequently withdrawn. Most of these has been used for several years by specific technology chosen for petitions raised issues involving NHTSA and the tire industry for compliance. Since approximately 17 technical modifications and correction. uniform tire quality grading testing. The million vehicles are produced for sale in In this final rule responding to petitions standard’s test procedures carefully the U.S. each year, the total annual for reconsideration, the agency carefully delineate how testing will be conducted. vehicle cost is expected to range from considered the statutory requirements of The agency continues to believe that approximately $823–$1,188 million per both the TREAD Act and 49 U.S.C. this test procedure is sufficiently year. The agency estimated that the net Chapter 301. objective and would not result in any cost per vehicle would be $26.63– First, this final rule reflects the uncertainty as to whether a given $100.25 (assuming a one-percent TPMS agency’s careful consideration and vehicle satisfies the requirements of the malfunction rate for replacement tires) analysis of all issues raised in the TPMS standard. and that the total annual net cost would petitions for reconsideration. In Fourth, we believe that this final rule be approximately $453–$1,704 million. responding to the issues raised in these responding to petitions for The agency has determined that the petitions, the agency considered all reconsideration will meet the need for technical amendments resulting from relevant motor vehicle safety motor vehicle safety by making certain this final rule responding to petitions information. In preparing this modifications that will enhance the for reconsideration will not appreciably document, the agency carefully ability of the TPMS standard to provide change the costs and benefits reported evaluated available research, testing a warning to the driver when one or in the FRIA. Accordingly, the agency results, and other information related to more tires become significantly under- has decided that the estimates in that various TPMS technologies. In sum, this inflated, thereby permitting the driver to document remain valid and that document reflects our consideration of take corrective action in a timely additional analysis is not required. all relevant, available motor vehicle fashion and potentially averting crash- safety information. related injuries. VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Second, to ensure that the TPMS Finally, we believe that this final rule A. Vehicle Safety Act requirements remain practicable, the responding to petitions for Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor agency evaluated the potential impacts reconsideration is reasonable and Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), of the petitions’ requested actions in appropriate for motor vehicles subject to the Secretary of Transportation is light of the cost, availability, and the applicable requirements. As responsible for prescribing motor suitability of various TPMSs, consistent discussed elsewhere in this notice, the vehicle safety standards that are with our safety objectives and the modifications to the standard resulting practicable, meet the need for motor requirements of the TREAD Act. As from this final rule will further the vehicle safety, and are stated in noted above, most of the changes agency’s efforts to address Congress’ resulting from this final rule involve concern that significantly under-inflated objective terms.43 These motor vehicle relatively minor modifications to the tires could lead to tire failures resulting safety standards set a minimum April 8, 2005 final rule for TPMS. In in fatalities and serious injuries. Under standard for motor vehicle or motor sum, we believe that this final rule the TREAD Act, Congress mandated vehicle equipment performance.44 responding to petitions for installation of a system in new vehicles When prescribing such standards, the reconsideration is practicable and will to alert the driver when a tire is Secretary must consider all relevant, maintain the benefits of the April 8, significantly under-inflated, and available motor vehicle safety 2005 final rule, including prevention of NHTSA has determined that TPMSs information.45 The Secretary also must deaths and injuries associated with meeting the requirements of this final consider whether a proposed standard is significantly under-inflated tires, rule offer an effective countermeasure in reasonable, practicable, and appropriate increased tread life, fuel economy these situations. Accordingly, we for the type of motor vehicle or motor savings, and savings associated with believe that this final rule is appropriate vehicle equipment for which it is avoidance of property damage and for covered vehicles that are or would prescribed and the extent to which the travel delays (i.e., from crashes become subject to these provisions of standard will further the statutory prevented by the TPMS). FMVSS No. 138 because it furthers the purpose of reducing traffic accidents Third, the regulatory text following agency’s objective of preventing deaths and associated deaths.46 The this preamble is stated in objective and serious injuries associated with responsibility for promulgation of terms in order to specify precisely what significantly under-inflated tires. Federal motor vehicle safety standards performance is required and how 47 has been delegated to NHTSA. performance will be tested to ensure B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT As noted previously, section 13 of the compliance with the standard. Regulatory Policies and Procedures TREAD Act mandated a regulation to Specifically, this final rule makes minor Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory require a tire pressure monitoring modifications to the performance Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, system in new vehicles. In satisfaction requirements for operation of the TPMS, October 4, 1993), provides for making of this congressional directive, NHTSA both in terms of detecting and providing determinations whether a regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 43 warnings related to low tire pressure 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). and system malfunction. subject to OMB review and to the 44 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 45 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). The final rule also discusses test requirements of the Executive Order. 46 Id. requirements for TPMS calibration, low The Order defines a ‘‘significant 47 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority tire pressure detection, and TPMS regulatory action’’ as one that is likely at 49 CFR 1.50. malfunction. This test involves driving to result in a rule that may:

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53099

(1) Have an annual effect on the factual basis for certifying that a rule local officials or the preparation of a economy of $100 million or more or will not have a significant economic federalism summary impact statement. adversely affect in a material way the impact on a substantial number of small This final rule is not expected to have economy, a sector of the economy, entities. any substantial effects on the States, or productivity, competition, jobs, the NHTSA has considered the effects of on the current distribution of power and environment, public health or safety, or this final rule under the Regulatory responsibilities among the various local State, local, or Tribal governments or Flexibility Act. I certify that this final officials. communities; rule would not have a significant (2) Create a serious inconsistency or economic impact on a substantial E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice otherwise interfere with an action taken number of small entities. The rationale Reform) or planned by another agency; for this certification is that the present Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, (3) Materially alter the budgetary final rule responding to petitions for ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, reconsideration only makes technical February 7, 1996), the agency has or loan programs or the rights and modifications and corrections to the considered whether this rulemaking obligations of recipients thereof; or safety standard for TPMS. As discussed would have any retroactive effect. This (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues in detail in the April 8, 2005 final rule final rule does not have any retroactive arising out of legal mandates, the establishing FMVSS No. 138, we do not effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever President’s priorities, or the principles anticipate that the TPMS standard will a Federal motor vehicle safety standard set forth in the Executive Order. have a significant economic impact on is in effect, a State may not adopt or Although the April 8, 2005 final rule a substantial number of small entities, maintain a safety standard applicable to was determined to be economically and nothing in this final rule would the same aspect of performance which significant, this final rule responding to change either that assessment or its is not identical to the Federal standard, petitions for reconsideration involves underlying reasoning. except to the extent that the State only relatively minor technical amendments to the FMVSS No. 138. D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to Accordingly, it was determined that this Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49 final rule is not significant under either (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for Executive Order 12866 or the NHTSA to develop an accountable Department of Transportation’s process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and judicial review of final rules Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The timely input by State and local officials establishing, amending, or revoking agency has estimated that the in the development of regulatory Federal motor vehicle safety standards. incremental costs associated with the policies that have federalism That section does not require minor modifications to the standard implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have submission of a petition for resulting from this final rule will not federalism implications’’ are defined in reconsideration or other administrative appreciably change the costs of the Executive Order to include proceedings before parties may file a compliance with FMVSS No. 138. regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct suit in court. Accordingly, the figures presented in effects on the States, on the relationship F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, between the National Government and Children From Environmental Health docketed along with the April 8, 2005 the States, or on the distribution of and Safety Risks) final rule, remain apposite without power and responsibilities among the modification. various levels of government.’’ Under Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Executive Order 13132, the agency may Children from Environmental Health C. Regulatory Flexibility Act not issue a regulation with federalism and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility implications, that imposes substantial 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by direct compliance costs, and that is not Is determined to be ‘‘economically the Small Business Regulatory required by statute, unless the Federal significant’’ as defined under Executive Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of Government provides the funds Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 1996), whenever an agency is required necessary to pay the direct compliance environmental, health, or safety risk that to publish a notice of rulemaking for costs incurred by State and local the agency has reason to believe may any proposed or final rule, it must governments, the agency consults with have a disproportionate effect on prepare and make available for public State and local governments, or the children. If the regulatory action meets comment a regulatory flexibility agency consults with State and local both criteria, the agency must evaluate analysis that describes the effect of the officials early in the process of the environmental health or safety rule on small entities (i.e., small developing the proposed regulation. effects of the planned rule on children, businesses, small organizations, and NHTSA also may not issue a regulation and explain why the planned regulation small governmental jurisdictions). The with federalism implications and that is preferable to other potentially Small Business Administration’s preempts a State law unless the agency effective and reasonably feasible regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a consults with State and local officials alternatives considered by the agency. small business, in part, as a business early in the process of developing the This final rule responding to petitions entity ‘‘which operates primarily within regulation. for reconsideration is not an the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). Although statutorily mandated, this economically significant regulatory No regulatory flexibility analysis is final rule responding to petitions for action under Executive Order 12866, required if the head of an agency reconsideration of the TPMS standard and furthermore, the problems certifies the rule will not have a was analyzed in accordance with the associated with under-inflated tires significant economic impact on a principles and criteria set forth in equally impact all persons riding in a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 13132, and the agency vehicle, regardless of age. Consequently, SBREFA amended the Regulatory determined that the rule would not have this final rule does not involve Flexibility Act to require Federal sufficient Federalism implications to decisions based upon health and safety agencies to provide a statement of the warrant consultations with State and risks that disproportionately affect

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 53100 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

children, as would necessitate further requires federal agencies to prepare a K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) analysis under Executive Order 13045. written assessment of the costs, benefits, The Department of Transportation and other effects of proposed or final G. Paperwork Reduction Act assigns a regulation identifier number rules that include a Federal mandate (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in Under the Paperwork Reduction Act likely to result in the expenditure by the Unified Agenda of Federal of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required State, local, or tribal governments, in the Regulations. The Regulatory Information to respond to a collection of information aggregate, or by the private sector, of Service Center publishes the Unified by a Federal agency unless the more than $100 million annually Agenda in April and October of each collection displays a valid OMB control (adjusted for inflation with base year of year. You may use the RIN contained in number. As part of the April 8, 2005 1995 (so currently about $112 million in the heading at the beginning of this final rule, each of the estimated 21 2001 dollars)). Before promulgating a document to find this action in the affected vehicle manufacturers is NHTSA rule for which a written Unified Agenda. required to provide one phase-in report statement is needed, section 205 of the for each of two years, beginning in the UMRA generally requires the agency to L. Privacy Act fall of 2006. identify and consider a reasonable Please note that anyone is able to Pursuant to the June 5, 2002 TPMS number of regulatory alternatives and search the electronic form of all final rule, the OMB has approved the adopt the least costly, most cost- comments received into any of our collection of information ‘‘Phase-In effective, or least burdensome dockets by the name of the individual Production Reporting Requirements for alternative that achieves the objectives submitting the comment (or signing the Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,’’ of the rule. The provisions of section comment, if submitted on behalf of an assigning it Control No. 2127–0631 205 do not apply when they are association, business, labor union, etc.). (expires 6/30/06). NHTSA has been inconsistent with applicable law. You may review DOT’s complete given OMB clearance to collect a total Moreover, section 205 allows the agency Privacy Act Statement in the Federal of 42 hours a year (2 hours per to adopt an alternative other than the Register published on April 11, 2000 respondent) for the TPMS phase-in least costly, most cost-effective, or least (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477– reporting. At an appropriate point, burdensome alternative if the agency 78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. NHTSA may ask OMB for an extension publishes with the final rule an of this clearance for an additional explanation of why that alternative was List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and period of time. not adopted. 585 However, the present final rule As discussed in that notice, the April Imports, Motor vehicle safety, responding to petitions for 8, 2005 final rule establishing FMVSS Reporting and recordkeeping reconsideration does not contain any No. 138 is not expected to result in the requirements, Tires. additional information collection expenditure by State, local, or tribal I In consideration of the foregoing, requirements beyond those contained in governments, in the aggregate, of more NHTSA is amending 49 CFR parts 571 the April 8, 2005 final rule. than $112 million annually, but it is and 585 as follows: expected to result in an expenditure of H. National Technology Transfer and that magnitude by vehicle Advancement Act PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR manufacturers and/or their suppliers. In VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS Section 12(d) of the National that final rule, NHTSA adopted a Technology Transfer and Advancement performance requirement for a system I 1. The authority citation for part 571 Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– with a four-tire, 25-percent under- of Title 49 continues to read as follows: 113 (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the agency inflation detection capability; we Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, to evaluate and use voluntary consensus believe that this approach is consistent 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at standards in its regulatory activities with safety and the mandate in the 49 CFR 1.50. unless doing so would be inconsistent TREAD Act, and it should provide a I with applicable law or is otherwise number of technological choices, 2. Section 571.138 is amended by impractical. Voluntary consensus thereby offering broad flexibility to revising paragraphs S4.3.1(b), S4.4(b)(2) standards are technical standards (e.g., minimize costs of compliance with the and (3), S4.4(c)(2), S4.5(a), S6(e), and materials specifications, test methods, standard. S6(k) to read as follows: sampling procedures, and business In contrast, the present final rule § 571.138 Standard No. 138; Tire pressure practices) that are developed or adopted responding to petitions for monitoring systems. by voluntary consensus standards reconsideration only makes technical * * * * * bodies, such as the Society of modifications and corrections to the S4.3 Low tire pressure warning Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA standard. Therefore, we do not believe telltale. directs us to provide Congress (through that this final rule will appreciably S4.3.1 * * * OMB) with explanations when we change the costs of compliance with * * * * * decide not to use available and FMVSS No. 138. Therefore, the agency (b) Is identified by one of the symbols applicable voluntary consensus has not prepared an economic shown for the ‘‘Low Tire Pressure’’ standards. The NTTAA does not apply assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Telltale in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 to symbols. Mandates Reform Act. (49 CFR 571.101); and There are no voluntary consensus J. National Environmental Policy Act standards related to TPMS available at * * * * * S4.4 TPMS malfunction. this time. However, NHTSA will NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking consider any such standards as they action for the purposes of the National * * * * * become available. Environmental Policy Act. The agency (b) Dedicated TPMS malfunction has determined that implementation of telltale. *** I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act this action will not have any significant * * * * * Section 202 of the Unfunded impact on the quality of the human (2) Is identified by the word ‘‘TPMS’’ Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) environment. as described under the ‘‘Tire Pressure

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53101

Monitoring System Malfunction’’ PART 585—PHASE-IN REPORTING 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less Telltale in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 REQUIREMENTS that meet Standard No. 138 (49 CFR (49 CFR 571.101); 571.138). I 3. The authority citation for Part 585 (3) Continues to illuminate the TPMS * * * * * of Title 49 continues to read as follows: malfunction telltale under the Issued: August 31, 2005. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, conditions specified in S4.4(a) for as Jeffrey W. Runge, long as the malfunction exists, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Administrator. whenever the ignition locking system is [FR Doc. 05–17661 Filed 9–1–05; 10:32 am] in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position; and I 4. Part 585 is amended by revising BILLING CODE 4910–59–P * * * * * 585.66(b)(1) and (2) of Subpart G as follows: (c) Combination low tire pressure/ TPMS malfunction telltale *** Subpart G—Tire Pressure Monitoring DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE * * * * * System Phase-in Reporting Requirements National Oceanic and Atmospheric (2) When the ignition locking system Administration is activated to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) * * * * * position, flashes for a period of at least 50 CFR Part 679 60 seconds but no longer than 90 § 585.66 Reporting requirements. * * * * * [Docket No. 041126332–5039–02; I.D. seconds upon detection of any 082305C] condition(s) specified in S4.4(a). After (b) Report content. (1) Basis for this period of prescribed flashing, the statement of compliance. Each Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic telltale must remain continuously manufacturer must provide the number Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackerel in the illuminated as long as a malfunction of passenger cars, multipurpose Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands exists and the ignition locking system is passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses Management Area in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. This with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, flashing and illumination sequence AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries except those vehicles with dual wheels must be repeated each time the ignition Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and on an axle, manufactured for sale in the locking system is placed in the ‘‘On’’ Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States for each reporting period (‘‘Run’’) position until the situation(s) Commerce. as follows: causing the malfunction(s) has (have) ACTION: Temporary rule; closures and (i) Period from October 5, 2005 to openings. been corrected. August 31, 2006. The number shall be S4.5 Written instructions. either the manufacturer’s average SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed (a) Beginning on September 1, 2006, annual production of vehicles fishing for Atka mackerel with gears the owner’s manual in each vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, other than jig in the Eastern Aleutian certified as complying with S4 must 2002, and before October 5, 2005, or, at District and the Bering Sea subarea of provide an image of the Low Tire the manufacturer’s option, it shall be the the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pressure Telltale symbol (and an image manufacturer’s production on or after management area (BSAI). This action is of the TPMS Malfunction Telltale October 5, 2005 and before September 1, necessary to prevent exceeding the 2005 warning (‘‘TPMS’’), if a dedicated 2006. A new manufacturer that has not total allowable catch (TAC) of Atka telltale is utilized for this function) with previously manufactured these vehicles mackerel in these areas. NMFS is also the following statement in English: for sale in the United States must report announcing the opening and closure the number of such vehicles *** dates of the first and second directed manufactured during the production fisheries within the harvest limit area * * * * * period on or after October 5, 2005 and (HLA) in Statistical Areas 542 and 543. S6 Test procedures. before September 1, 2006. These actions are necessary to prevent * * * * * (ii) Period from September 1, 2006 to exceeding the HLA limits established August 31, 2007. The number shall be for the Central (area 542) and Western (e) Stop the vehicle and deflate any either the manufacturer’s average (area 543) Aleutian Districts pursuant to combination of one to four tires until annual production of vehicles the 2005 Atka mackerel TAC. the deflated tire(s) is (are) at 7 kPa (1 manufactured on or after September 1, DATES: The effective dates are provided psi) below the inflation pressure at 2003, and before September 1, 2006, or, in Table 1 under the SUPPLEMENTARY which the tire pressure monitoring at the manufacturer’s option, it shall be INFORMATION section of this temporary system is required to illuminate the low the manufacturer’s production on or action. tire pressure warning telltale. after September 1, 2006 and before * * * * * September 1, 2007. A new manufacturer FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh that has not previously manufactured Keaton, 907–586–7228. (k) Simulate one or more TPMS these vehicles for sale in the United SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS malfunction(s) by disconnecting the States must report the number of such manages the groundfish fishery in the power source to any TPMS component, vehicles manufactured during the BSAI exclusive economic zone disconnecting any electrical connection production period on or after September according to the Fishery Management between TPMS components, or 1, 2006 and before September 1, 2007. Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea installing a tire or wheel on the vehicle (2) Production. Each manufacturer and Aleutian Islands Management Area that is incompatible with the TPMS. must report for the production period (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific When simulating a TPMS malfunction, for which the report is filed: the total Fishery Management Council under the electrical connections for the telltale number of passenger cars, multipurpose authority of the Magnuson-Stevens lamps are not to be disconnected. passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses Fishery Conservation and Management * * * * * with a gross vehicle weight rating of Act. Regulations governing fishing by

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:01 Sep 06, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07SER1.SGM 07SER1