You are on page 1of 23

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53079

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054, Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov 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,
Station KJAE(FM) was modified FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
2005, for carriage of its signal that originates
accordingly. See Leesville, Louisiana, 64 non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
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–
[FR Doc. 05–17794 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am]
366–3820).
■ 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:
■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM National Highway Traffic Safety
Allotments under Louisiana, is Table of Contents
Administration
amended by removing Channel 252A at I. Summary of Decision
Leesville and by adding New Llano, II. Background
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 A. The TREAD Act
Channel 252C3.
[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
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media III. Petitions for Reconsideration
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety IV. Discussion and Analysis
Bureau.
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] 3. Minimum Activation Pressure
changes in our April 8, 2005 final rule
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)
2. Content of Required Statement
Reauthorization Act of 2004 To Amend requiring installation in new light
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 I. Phase-In Calculations
accordingly.
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
8, 2005 final rule (excluding a few B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April
telltale, the same flashing/continuous- 2005 Final Rule
minor editorial changes). 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 FMVSS No. 138 has had a protracted
affect the system simultaneously.
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
(below the TPMS activation threshold) which was followed by a final rule 5
time to incorporate the required
to 1 psi. The 2-psi adjustment was published on June 5, 2002.
language into the vehicle owner’s
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 PublicLaw 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000).
required under the standard. differentiate between the two phase-in 3 See49 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 6 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003).
lamps shall not be disconnected.’’ 7 68 FR 65404 (Nov. 20, 2003) (Docket No.
• The lack of synchronization Congress enacted the Transportation
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
10 There are two types of TPMSs currently tire inflation pressure. The TPMS must perform
requirements) until September 1, 2007;
available, direct TPMSs and indirect TPMSs. Direct properly with any such tires, because the vehicle however, at that point, all covered
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
tires without manufacturer authorization.
additional phase-in for MIL
sensors, but instead rely on the wheel speed
sensors, typically a component of an anti-lock 12 As part of this final rule, we added two requirements). The final rule included
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).
13 We note that if a vehicle manufacturer elects
Small volume manufacturers (i.e.,
may be developed in the future that will be capable
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 time adopted in the final rule.
NHTSA received a total of 17
these amendments. We note, however, In its petition, SmarTire Systems
petitions for reconsideration of the April
that vehicle manufacturers may argued that repeated exposure of a tire
8, 2005 final rule from: (1) The Alliance
voluntarily comply with the to excessive heat build-up could cause
of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance);
requirements of this final rule cumulative deterioration of the tire’s
(2) the Association of International
immediately. structural components, which could
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
(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 show that within 12 minutes of city
Solutions, LLC (EnTire); (6) ETV
Activation Requirements driving (at approximately 30 mph) at a
Corporation Pty Limited (ETV); (7)
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
that consumers could be driving on Alliance stated its belief that the telltale
As part of the final rule establishing is an FMVSS No. 101 component (not a
significantly under-inflated tires for a FMVSS No. 138, the TPMS-equipped
potentially extended period of time ‘‘TPMS component’’), and that the
vehicle’s MIL telltale must provide a situation where there is a loss of power
without receiving a warning from the warning to the driver not more than 20
TPMS. to the telltale is already covered by the
minutes after the occurrence of a bulb check requirements in S4.3.3(a) or
We also expressed concern that
malfunction that affects the generation S4.4(b)(4)(i), thereby obviating the need
extending the low tire pressure
or transmission of control or response for it to be covered under S4.4(a).
detection time beyond 20 minutes could
signals in the vehicle’s TPMS. (See S4.4, The Alliance also recommended a
be problematic in other situations. For
as contained in the April 8, 2005 final minor editorial change in S4.4(b)(3) that
example, where a tire is punctured by
rule.) Paragraph S6(k) of the final rule’s would modify that provision to read as
a nail or is otherwise damaged, it may
test procedures provides for the follows: ‘‘Continues to illuminate the
experience a moderately rapid pressure
simulation of one or more TPMS TPMS malfunction telltale under the
loss. As to damaged tires experiencing
malfunction(s) by disconnecting any conditions specified in S4.4(a) * * *.’’
a relatively less rapid pressure loss,
electrical connection between TPMS The standard currently references
research into the rate of temperature
components, or by installing a tire or ‘‘S4.4.’’
buildup shows that for constant load,
wheel on the vehicle that is EnTire Solutions argued that for
pressure, and speed conditions, tires
incompatible with the TPMS. TPMSs using Hardwired Vehicle Speed
generally warmed up and stabilized
The details as to exactly what Input to the TPMS receiver, such input
their temperatures within 15 minutes; 23
constitutes a TPMS malfunction were does not directly affect ‘‘the generation
thus, the tire will rapidly reach a
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 EnTire Solutions also requested a
redundant feature that would use up
reprogrammed is too long, particularly clarification regarding paragraph S6(k)
limited space behind the dashboard.
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
22 70 FR 18136, 18148 (April 8, 2005) (Docket No.
S4.4(a) be limited to situations where ‘‘disconnecting any electrical
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
motor vehicle repair business may not
tolerances of the system. In such cases, We do not believe that the Continental 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 during maintenance or repair) when the
in S4.4(a) * * *.’’ Although we do not
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-à-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
standard to require the TPMS to operate ETRTO made essentially the same
under-inflated, the combined telltale
when a spare tire is installed on the arguments as the RMA regarding the
which does indicate which tire is under-
vehicle. We came to this decision for a need for a tire reserve load requirement,
inflated, and the dedicated TPMS MIL),
number of reasons, including the in order to maximize consumer safety as
provides, ‘‘Required only for FMVSS
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 referenced notice responding to the
establishing FMVSS No. 138 does not
requirement, if they chose to install a RMA petition.
include any separate requirements for
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 that the agency conduct further
Other Than Passenger Cars. Before TREAD Act- and the TPMS low tire pressure warning
related upgrades were made (which also rulemaking related to MAPs, including
consolidated NHTSA’s tire standards), passenger
threshold in order to allow for 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
by FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 respectively.
provide additional information and to
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
vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure
description of corrective action to be
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
for given classes of tires, and we do not Accordingly, when the low tire pressure
telltale illuminates, you should stop and additional lead time for implementing
believe that it is consistent with safety the standard’s owner’s manual
check your tires as soon as possible, and
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
tires in the TRA Year Book is an substitute for proper tire maintenance, and it
is the driver’s responsibility to maintain lead time for those provisions, they
adequate and safe value for the MAP. significantly impact the ability of
correct tire pressure, even if under-inflation
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
likely to impact a small percentage of voluntarily equipped with a compliant TPMS
MIL before that time.] Your vehicle has also (since vacated) or September 2004
vehicles using LT tires (i.e., typically NPRM, and its petition also stated that
been equipped with a TPMS malfunction
vehicles with a GVWR of over 8,500 indicator to indicate when the system is not current owner’s manuals of TPMS-
pounds).34 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
or the propensity for rollover, so we illuminated.] [For vehicles with a combined
low tire pressure/MIL telltale, add the one-to-two year process, something that
believe that the current MAP values the Alliance claims that NHTSA has
following statement: The TPMS malfunction
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 36 The Alliance referenced NHTSA’s final rule
E. Owner’s Manual Requirements 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,
to the first purchaser of the vehicle for all car lines, manufacturers will be required to
dedicated telltale is utilized for this 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 topics addressed in S4.5(b). Again,
the same arguments regarding the need 2. Content of Required Statement
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
and we are modifying S4.5(a) of the Nos. 108, 202, 205, 208, 210).
anomalous situations may exist: The Alliance expressed concern that
standard accordingly. (We note that the
When illuminated, the malfunction retention of the owner’s manual
compliance date for incorporation of the warning light indicates that the TPMS is not
required language related to the TPMS requirement in part 571 could
receiving a signal from the inflation pressure unnecessarily trigger the recall and
MIL is has not changed (i.e., September or wheel sensors. However, even if the
1, 2007).) We believe that this request remedy provisions under 49 U.S.C.
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
not illuminated. noncompliance exists by filing a report
Furthermore, we expect that even before
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
that a warm tire does not cause a tire the 25-percent-below-placard level,
causing the low tire pressure telltale to
deflated by 25 percent below placard because it argued that this approach
extinguish after illumination or not
pressure to again rise slightly above the could result in a TPMS being tested at
illuminate at all. Accordingly, the
25-percent TPMS warning threshold. 30-percent under-inflation. SmarTire
vehicle manufacturers favor both a short
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
required to illuminate the low tire pressure
for a few minutes before beginning to under-inflation threshold, as opposed to
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
we are concerned that a 2-psi pressure 4. Calibration Time
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
to increase calibration time from the G. TPMS Reprogrammability
preamble to the final rule, NHTSA has
current 20 minutes to one hour. Even not received any consumer complaints
Under the final rule, vehicle
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))
recommendations, the average time of initial sale and will follow any
In its petition, SEMA reiterated the
consumer might require several trips for manufacturer instructions in the
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 denied access to TPMS service
TPMS is reprogrammed to reflect this
reflect the amount of time that may information from both sensor
new placard pressure, those
elapse before the TPMS may provide a manufacturers as well as vehicle
replacement tires may become more
warning to the driver. This fact argues manufacturers. However, SEMA did not
against extending calibration time in the than 25 percent under-inflated by the
time the TPMS low tire pressure provide any information to substantiate
manner the petitioners have suggested, these anecdotal complaints, nor did it
particularly because situations exist warning telltale illuminates. SEMA
argued that this situation would both provide any facts to ascertain how large
where the low pressure condition may a problem there may be regarding access
arise for reasons other than slow defeat the purpose of the rule and also
to service information. To resolve these
diffusion. give drivers a false sense of security,
concerns, SEMA recommended that the
Since there is no indication as to although SEMA acknowledged that it
standard be amended to include a
when the TPMS calibration process is does not have specific information to
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 a significant negative impact upon its
because there is no evidence to
inflation pressure in any of the vehicle’s small business members, because they
demonstrate an actual problem in this
tires. (Because the issue of calibration may be unable to install their products
area. We believe that vehicle
time is closely linked to the issue of low if the TPMS MIL cannot be
manufacturers installing TPMSs that
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
Depending upon how often there is a expressly stated that TPMSs are
industry. SEMA has not provided any
need to reset the system, there is the permitted to be reprogrammable. Once
evidence to demonstrate that vehicle
potential for the TPMS to be unavailable again, although we are uncertain as to
manufacturers would not make
to provide a low tire pressure warning the exact details of system
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 rule’s phase-in requirement of 20
that roughly eleven-month period.
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
manufacturer has two options for Section VI of the April 8, 2005 final
vehicles manufactured by final-stage
calculating the number of FMVSS No. rule summarized the costs associated
manufacturers and alterers, entities that
138-compliant vehicles that must be with the TPMS standard, as more fully
are not subject to the phase-in and for
produced during the initial period of the described in the Final Regulatory
which the final rule provides an
phase-in from October 5, 2005 to Impact Analysis (FRIA) 42
additional year for compliance (i.e.,
September 1, 2006. Consistent with the accompanying the final rule. The FRIA
until September 1, 2008).
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
41 Under 49 CFR 585.64, the term ‘‘production
requirement for the phase-in reporting manufacturer may choose 20 percent of
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’
objective terms.43 These motor vehicle resulting from this final rule involve concern that significantly under-inflated
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
has been delegated to NHTSA.47 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
43 49
warnings related to low tire pressure action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
U.S.C. 30111(a).
44 49
and system malfunction. subject to OMB review and to the
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
Accordingly, it was determined that this performance and applies only to
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
final rule is not significant under either vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires
Executive Order 12866 or the U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for
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 and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April
not issue a regulation with federalism
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 assigns a regulation identifier number
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
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
■ 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 ■ 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
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
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking S4.4 TPMS malfunction.
this time. However, NHTSA will
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).
■ 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.
conditions specified in S4.4(a) for as Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at Jeffrey W. Runge,
long as the malfunction exists, 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 ■ 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
§ 585.66 Reporting requirements.
60 seconds but no longer than 90
* * * * * [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, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
flashing and illumination sequence
except those vehicles with dual wheels Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
must be repeated each time the ignition
on an axle, manufactured for sale in the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
locking system is placed in the ‘‘On’’
United States for each reporting period Commerce.
(‘‘Run’’) position until the situation(s)
as follows: ACTION: Temporary rule; closures and
causing the malfunction(s) has (have) (i) Period from October 5, 2005 to
been corrected. openings.
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 manages the groundfish fishery in the
States must report the number of such
power source to any TPMS component, BSAI exclusive economic zone
vehicles manufactured during the
disconnecting any electrical connection according to the Fishery Management
production period on or after September
between TPMS components, or Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea
1, 2006 and before September 1, 2007.
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

You might also like