Fmvss 138

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138

Friday,
April 8, 2005

Part III

Department of
Transportation
National Highway and Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems;
Controls and Displays; Final Rule

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18136

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

petition must be received by May 23,
2005.

National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration

Petitions for reconsideration
should refer to the docket number above
and be submitted to: Administrator,
Room 5220, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
portion of this document (Section VIII;
Rulemaking Analyses and Notice) for
DOT’s Privacy Act Statement regarding
documents submitted to the agency’s
dockets.
ADDRESSES:

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–20586]
RIN 2127–AJ23

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Tire Pressure Monitoring
Systems; Controls and Displays
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

This final rule establishes a
new Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) requiring installation
of a tire pressure monitoring system
(TPMS) capable of detecting when one
or more of a vehicle’s tires is
significantly under-inflated. This final
rule responds to a mandate in the
Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act. This final rule requires
installation in all new light vehicles of
a TPMS capable of detecting when one
or more of the vehicle’s tires, up to all
four tires, is 25 percent or more below
the manufacturer’s recommended
inflation pressure (placard pressure) or
a minimum activation pressure
specified in the standard, whichever is
higher.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective April 8, 2005, except for
subpart G of 49 CFR part 585, which is
effective September 1, 2005.
Compliance Date: Consistent with the
phase-in commencing October 5, 2005,
all new light vehicles must be equipped
with a TPMS that meets the
requirements of the standard by
September 1, 2007, with the following
exceptions. Vehicle manufacturers need
not meet the standard’s requirements for
the TPMS malfunction indicator and
related owner’s manual language until
September 1, 2007 (i.e., at the end of the
phase-in), and vehicles produced by
final-stage manufacturers and alterers
must be equipped with a compliant
TPMS (including a malfunction
indicator) by September 1, 2008.
However, manufacturers may
voluntarily certify vehicles to FMVSS
No. 138 and earn carry-forward credits
for compliant vehicles, produced in
excess of the phase-in requirements,
that are manufactured between April 8,
2005, and the conclusion of the phasein.
Petitions for Reconsideration: If you
wish to submit a petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your
SUMMARY:

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

For
non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
George Soodoo or Mr. Samuel Daniel,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards
(Telephone: 202–366–2720) (Fax: 202–
366–4329).
For legal issues, you may call Mr. Eric
Stas, Office of the Chief Counsel
(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–
366–3820).
You may send mail to these officials
at National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Requirements of the Final Rule
B. Lead Time and Phase-In
C. Differences Between the Final Rule
and the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
D. Impacts of the Final Rule
II. Background
A. The TREAD Act
B. Rulemaking History Prior to the
September 2004 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
III. September 2004 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) and Public
Comments
A. The NPRM
B. Summary of Public Comments on
the NPRM
IV. The Final Rule and Response to
Public Comments
A. Summary of the Requirements
B. Lead Time and Phase-In
C. Response to Public Comments by
Issue
1. Low Tire Pressure Warning Lamp
Activation Requirement
(a) Under-Inflation Detection Level
(b) Time Period for Low Pressure
Detection
2. TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
(MIL) Activation Requirements
(a) Time Period for Malfunction
Detection
(b) What Constitutes a TPMS
Malfunction?
(c) MIL Disablement
3. Telltale Requirements

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(a) Function and Format of the
Combined Low Pressure Warning/
Malfunction Indicator Lamp
(b) Telltale Symbols for Low Pressure
Warning and Malfunction
Indication
(c) Telltale Color
(i) Low Pressure Warning Telltale
(ii) Malfunction Indicator Telltale
(d) Telltale Extinguishment
Requirements
(e) Telltale Illumination Priority
(f) Supplemental Telltale
4. Tire-Related Issues
(a) Replacement Tires and Spare Tires
(b) Tire Reserve Load
(c) Changes to Tire Publications
(d) Minimum Activation Pressure
5. Owner’s Manual Requirements
6. Test Procedures
(a) Calibration Time
(b) Driving Conditions
(c) MIL Activation
(d) Vehicle Cool-Down Period
(e) Testing with Pressures Other Than
Placard Pressure
(f) System Reset
7. Lead Time and Phase-In
(a) Lead Time
(b) Phase-In Schedule
8. Small Business Impacts
9. Environmental Impacts
10. Maintenance Issues
(a) TPMS Maintenance
(b) Tire Maintenance
11. Markings for Vehicles with Direct
TPMSs
12. Definitions
(a) ‘‘Tires’’
(b) ‘‘Manual Reset’’
13. Educational Efforts
14. Alternative Systems
15. Over-Inflation Detection
16. Temperature and Altitude
Compensation
17. System Longevity
18. Harmonization
V. Benefits
VI. Costs
VII. Regulatory Alternatives
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
This final rule re-establishes FMVSS
No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring
Systems, which requires installation of
a tire pressure monitoring system in
light vehicles, thereby implementing a
mandate in the TREAD Act. In accord
with the Act, the objective of this
standard is to supplement regular tire
maintenance on the part of drivers by
providing a warning system to alert
them when one or more of a vehicle’s
tires become significantly underinflated. Under-inflation of tires
increases the likelihood of many
different types of crashes, including
those involving: (1) Skidding and/or

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
loss of control of the vehicle; (2)
hydroplaning; (3) increases in stopping
distance; (4) flat tires and blowouts, and
(5) overloading of the vehicle. We
anticipate that 90 percent of drivers will
respond to a TPMS low tire pressure
warning by re-inflating their tires to the
recommended placard pressure. Once
all new light vehicles are equipped with
compliant TPMSs, we expect that a
resulting 119–121 fatalities would be
prevented each year.
As background, we note that Standard
No. 138 was promulgated previously
through a final rule published in the
Federal Register on June 5, 2002 (67 FR
38704). It included two compliance
options (i.e., a TPMS with a four-tire,
25-percent under-inflation detection
capability or a TPMS with a one-tire, 30percent under-inflation detection
capability). However, on August 6,
2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued
its opinion in Public Citizen v. Mineta,1
which held that the TREAD Act requires
a TPMS capable of detecting when any
combination of tires, up to all four tires,
is significantly under-inflated. It vacated
FMVSS No. 138 and directed the agency
to conduct further rulemaking. This
final rule sets requirements for the
TPMS standard in a manner consistent
with the Second Circuit’s opinion. It
also responds to numerous public
comments submitted in response to the
agency’s September 16, 2004 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (69 FR
55896).
A. Requirements of the Final Rule
After careful consideration of all
available information, including public
comments, the agency has decided to
retain in the final rule most of the
elements of the proposed rule, with the
primary changes involving the detection
times for providing the low tire pressure
warning and TPMS malfunction
warning, modification of the minimum
activation pressure values for certain
light truck tires, and modifications to
the standard’s phase-in schedule.
Although public comments on the
NPRM discussed a wide variety of
issues, the majority of comments
focused on the topics of the TPMS
malfunction indicator and the proposed
schedule for lead time and phase-in, the
two major aspects of the NPRM not
raised at earlier stages of the TPMS
rulemaking.
As reflected in the final rule, FMVSS
No. 138 is a performance standard. The
agency has sought to establish the
standard in a fashion that both meets
the need for motor vehicle safety and is
1 340

F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003).

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

also technology-neutral. Particularly in
light of the rapid advances in TPMS
technology in the past few years, we
expect that vehicle manufacturers will
have a number of technologies available
for compliance purposes. Although the
details of the standard, public
comments, and the agency’s response
thereto, are discussed at length in the
balance of this document, the following
points summarize the key requirements
of the standard.
Consistent with the Second Circuit’s
opinion, FMVSS No. 138 requires new
passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536
kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except those
with dual wheels on an axle, to be
equipped with a TPMS to alert the
driver when one or more of the vehicle’s
tires, up to a total of all four tires, is
significantly under-inflated.
Specifically, the TPMS must warn the
driver when the pressure in one or more
of the vehicle’s tires is 25 percent or
more below the vehicle manufacturer’s
recommended cold inflation pressure,
or a minimum level of pressure
specified in the standard, whichever
pressure is higher. (We note that in
response to a petition for rulemaking by
the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance) and that
organization’s subsequent, related
comments on the NPRM, we have
decided, as an interim measure, to
modify our minimum activation
pressure (MAP) values for some light
truck tires under the standard. Once the
agency conducts further safety research,
we will either confirm or propose to
modify these MAP requirements in
response to that petition.)
If any tire drops below the standard’s
activation threshold, the TPMS is
required to provide the low tire pressure
warning by illuminating a yellow
telltale within 20 minutes of additional
travel within a speed range of 50–100
km/hr. This telltale must remain
illuminated (and re-illuminate upon
subsequent vehicle start-ups) until the
under-inflation condition has been
corrected. The agency has determined
that the specified under-inflation
threshold and the detection time will
allow the TPMS to provide a timely
warning that permits the driver to take
corrective action before adverse
consequences ensue. Thus, we believe
that the low inflation pressure detection
requirement of the standard both fulfills
the mandate of the TREAD Act and
meets the need for motor vehicle safety.
Because a small number of
aftermarket and replacement tires have
construction characteristics that may
prevent the continued proper

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18137

functioning of the TPMS when the
original equipment tires are replaced
and because of the difficulty in
identifying those problematic tires,
NHTSA has decided to require the
vehicle to be certified with the tires
originally installed on the vehicle at the
time of initial vehicle sale. (This reflects
a change from the June 2002 final rule,
which required vehicle manufacturer to
certify continued compliance with any
optional or replacement tires of the
size(s) recommended by the vehicle
manufacturer.)
Nevertheless, we expect that a typical
vehicle will outlast its original set of
tires, and we continue to believe that it
is important that drivers continue to
receive the benefits of the TPMS after
the vehicle’s tires are replaced.
Therefore, we have decided upon a
different approach than that contained
in the June 2002 final rule for
addressing the issue of maintaining
proper TPMS functionality when a
vehicle’s original tires are replaced.
Specifically, the final rule requires the
TPMS to include a malfunction
indicator (provided either by a separate
telltale or a combined low tire pressure/
malfunction indicator telltale) that
would alert the driver in situations in
which the TPMS is unable to detect low
tire pressure.
This malfunction indicator is required
to detect incompatible replacement
tires, as well as other system faults.
Similar to the low tire pressure warning,
the system is required to trigger a TPMS
malfunction warning telltale within 20
minutes of additional travel within a
speed range of 50–100 km/hr after such
a malfunction occurs. Consistent with
the specific requirements of the
standard, this telltale must remain
illuminated (and re-illuminate upon
subsequent vehicle start-ups) until the
TPMS malfunction has been corrected.
We believe that the TPMS malfunction
indicator will provide useful
information to the driver regarding the
long-term operability of the TPMS,
thereby increasing the overall benefits of
the system.
The final rule also specifies required
language to be included in the vehicle
owner’s manual (or in writing to the
first purchaser if there is no owner’s
manual) that describes the purpose of
the low tire pressure warning telltale,
the consequences of significantly underinflated tires, the meaning of the low
tire pressure telltale when it is
illuminated, and corrective action to be
taken. The owner’s manual must also
explain the presence and operation of
the TPMS malfunction indicator and the
potential problems associated with
aftermarket and replacement tires and

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18138

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

rims that may prevent continued TPMS
functionality. These provisions are
designed to ensure that consumers are
aware of the importance of regular tire
maintenance and of the supporting role
played by their vehicle’s TPMS.
The final rule provides that
compliance testing for FMVSS No. 138
will be conducted on a specific test
course, namely the Southern Loop of the
Treadwear Course in and around San
Angelo, Texas. We believe that this
approach offers several advantages.
First, testing can be conducted in a
timely fashion without the need to
design or build a new test track. Further,
this course has already been used for
several years by NHTSA and the tire
industry for uniform tire quality grading
(UTQG) purposes. We believe that the
specified test course provides an
objective test that is representative of a
variety of roadways and real world
conditions.
B. Lead Time and Phase-In
In order to provide the public with
the safety benefits of TPMSs as rapidly
as possible, compliance with this final
rule is set to commence on October 5,
2005, which marks the start of a twopart phase-in period. Subject to the
special provisions discussed below, the
phase-in schedule for FMVSS No. 138 is
as follows: 20 percent of a vehicle
manufacturer’s light vehicles are
required to comply with the standard
during the period from October 5, 2005,
to August 31, 2006; 70 percent during
the period from September 1, 2006 to
August 31, 2007, and all light vehicles
thereafter.
For the reasons discussed in detail in
section IV.B of this notice, we believe
that it is practicable for vehicle
manufacturers to meet the requirements
of the phase-in discussed above, with
the following exceptions. We have
decided to defer vehicle manufacturers’
compliance with the standard’s
malfunction indicator requirements and
associated owner’s manual language
requirements until September 1, 2007.
(There is no separate phase-in for the
malfunction indicator requirements.)
After consideration of the many public
comments from vehicle manufacturers
on this issue, we understand that adding
the TPMS malfunction indicator will
involve substantial design and
production changes and that additional
lead time will be required to effect those
changes. In addition, our analysis
demonstrates that the safety benefits
associated with the early introduction of
TPMSs, even without malfunction
indicators, far outweigh the benefits of
delaying the standard until all systems
also can meet the malfunction indicator

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

requirements. We note that
manufacturers may voluntarily install a
TPMS malfunction indicator prior to the
mandatory compliance date.
Because our statute generally requires
that a standard may not compel
compliance less than 180 days after the
standard is prescribed,2 we have
decided to postpone the starting
compliance date from the NPRM’s
proposed date of September 1, 2005 to
a date that corresponding to 180 days
after publication of this final rule.
However, we have decided to have the
balance of the standard’s phase-in
coincide with traditional model year
production schedules, in order to
mitigate production and cost impacts.
We have decided not to delay the start
of compliance until Model Year 2007, as
several commenters suggested. If the
agency were to forego the first year of
the phase-in, we would expect to lose
24 lives and to have 1,675 more injuries
than would have occurred if TPMSs had
been provided in vehicles, as called for
in the final rule’s phase-in.
Moreover, vehicle manufacturers have
been well aware of the key requirements
of the final rule (other then the
malfunction indicator requirement), at
least since the time of the Second
Circuit’s decision in August 2003 (if not
earlier), and the September 2004 NPRM
clearly conveyed the agency’s intention
to begin a phase-in that would coincide
with Model Year (MY) 2006. Further,
they did not provide any data to
demonstrate that compliance with a Fall
2005 start of the phase-in would be
impracticable. In addition, we believe
that concerns related to lead time are
either rendered moot or significantly
mitigated by the final rule’s allowance
of both carry-forward and carrybackward credits.
As a means of maintaining a
mandatory compliance date in Fall
2005, we have decided to ease
implementation further by permitting
carry-forward and carry-back credits.
Vehicle manufacturers can earn carryforward credits for compliant vehicles,
produced in excess of the phase-in
requirements, that are manufactured
between the effective date of this rule
and the conclusion of the phase-in.3 In
order to maximize the time available to
earn such credits, we are making this
final rule effective upon publication,
although vehicle manufacturers have no
certification responsibilities until the
official start of the phase-in.
U.S.C. 30111(d).
note that carry-forward credits may not be
used to defer the mandatory compliance date of
September 1, 2007 for all covered vehicles.

PO 00000

2 49

3 We

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

With carry-backward credits,
manufacturers may defer compliance
with a part or all of the certification
requirements under the standard for the
first period of the phase-in, provided
they certify a correspondingly increased
number of vehicles during the second
period of the phase-in. We believe that
permitting carry-backward credits
would not impact the overall safety
benefits of the final rule because the
same number of vehicles would be
subject to compliance certification,
although the distribution may vary over
the model years of the phase-in.
On other topics related to the phasein, NHTSA has decided to exclude
multi-stage manufacturers and alterers
from the requirements of the phase-in
and to extend by one year the time for
compliance by those manufacturers (i.e.,
until September 1, 2008). The final rule
also excludes small volume
manufacturers (i.e., manufacturers
producing less than 5,000 vehicles for
sale in the U.S. market in one year) from
the phase-in, requiring vehicles
produced by such manufacturers to
comply with the standard on September
1, 2007.
C. Differences Between the Final Rule
and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
As noted above, NHTSA has decided
to adopt most of the provisions
contained in the NPRM as part of this
final rule. The main differences between
the NPRM and the final rule involve the
phase-in schedule for the standard, the
requirements for low tire pressure and
TPMS malfunction detection time,
changes to the minimum activation
pressure for certain light truck tires, and
modifications to the vehicle owner’s
manual requirements. A number of
minor technical modifications also were
incorporated in the final rule in
response to public comments on the
NPRM. All of these changes and their
rationale are discussed fully in the
balance of this document. However, the
following points briefly describe the
main differences between the NPRM
and this final rule.
• In the final rule, we have decided
to increase the time period for the TPMS
to detect low tire pressure to 20
minutes. The NPRM had proposed a
time period of 10 minutes for the TPMS
to detect low tire pressure and
illuminate the warning telltale.
• The final rule specifies a time
period for the TPMS to detect a system
malfunction and to illuminate the TPMS
malfunction indicator (20 minutes) and
acknowledged that many systems may
require vehicle motion to detect a
malfunction. The NPRM had been silent
on these matters.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
• The agency has decided to require
the words (‘‘TPMS’’) for the dedicated
TPMS malfunction telltale, rather than
the symbol proposed in the NPRM. We
have also lengthened the time period for
flashing of the combined low tire
pressure/malfunction indicator telltale
from the proposed one minute to a
period of 60–90 seconds.
• The final rule has adopted
minimum activation pressures for light
truck Load Range ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires of
35 psi (240 kPa), which is different from
the values in the NPRM. (However, the
agency has stated that it is conducting
further research in this area and that it
may revisit this issue.)
• The final rule’s requirements for the
specified statement in the owner’s
manual regarding the TPMS have
changed from the NPRM. Specifically,
these changes include clarification that
both aftermarket tires and rims may
affect the TPMS’s continued
functionality, tailoring of the language
to reflect the two options for the TPMS
malfunction indicator, stressing of the
driver’s ongoing responsibility for
regular tire maintenance, and alerting
consumers that some replacement tires
may call for an inflation pressure
different than what is reflected on the
vehicle placard.
• In the final rule’s test procedures,
we have deleted the NPRM’s test
requirements related to system reset. We
have decided that this provision is
impracticable, based upon how most
resets operate, and unnecessary, because
vehicles equipped with a TPMS reset
normally include instructions for the
proper use of the reset feature as part of
the owner’s manual.
The final rule’s phase-in schedule has
changed from the NPRM’s 50–90–100%
requirement to a 20–70–100%
requirement. In another change from the
NPRM, vehicle manufacturers are not
required to meet the standard’s
requirements for the TPMS malfunction
indicator (and associated owner’s
manual requirements) until the end of
the phase-in (i.e., September 1, 2007).
• The final rule permits vehicle
manufacturers to elect to use carrybackward credits in meeting the phasein requirements under the standard.
That provision was not present in the
NPRM.
• The final rule extends the
compliance date for final-stage
manufacturers and alterers by one year
(i.e., to September 1, 2008). The NPRM
had proposed to require compliance for
these manufacturers’ production by
September 1, 2007.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

D. Impacts of the Final Rule
Depending upon the technology
chosen for compliance, the agency
estimates that the total quantified safety
benefits from reductions in crashes due
to skidding/loss of control, stopping
distance, flat tires, and blowouts, will be
119–121 fatalities prevented and 8,373–
8,568 injuries prevented or reduced in
severity each year, once all light
vehicles meet the TPMS requirement.
Additional benefits are expected to
accrue from the final rule as a result of
improved fuel economy ($19.07–$23.08
per vehicle over its lifetime), longer
tread life ($3.42–$4.24 per vehicle), and
property damage savings and travel
delay savings from avoided crashes
($7.70–$7.79 per vehicle) (assuming a
three-percent discount rate).
The agency estimates that the average
cost per vehicle to meet the standard’s
requirements to be $48.44–$69.89,
depending upon the technology chosen
for compliance. Since approximately 17
million light vehicles are produced for
sale in the U.S. each year, the total
annual vehicle cost is expected to range
from approximately $823–$1,188
million per year.
II. Background
A. The TREAD Act
Congress enacted the TREAD Act 4 on
November 1, 2000. Section 13 of that
Act 5 required the Secretary of
Transportation, within one year of the
statute’s enactment, to complete a
rulemaking ‘‘to require a warning
system in new motor vehicles to
indicate to the operator when a tire is
significantly under inflated.’’ Section 13
also required the regulation to take
effect within two years of the
completion of the rulemaking.
Responsibility for this rulemaking was
delegated to NHTSA.
B. Rulemaking History Prior to the
September 2004 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems, has had a
protracted regulatory history. The
following discussion briefly summarizes
the key milestones in the TPMS
rulemaking process.
Today’s final rule was preceded by an
initial NPRM on July 26, 2001 (66 FR
38982). After considering public
comments received on that NPRM,
NHTSA prepared a final rule, which
was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. After reviewing the draft final

PO 00000

4 Pub.
5 See

L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000).
49 U.S.C. 30123 note (2003).

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18139

rule, OMB returned it to NHTSA for
further consideration, with a letter
explaining the reasons for doing so, on
February 12, 2002.
On June 5, 2002, NHTSA published a
final rule for TPMS (67 FR 38704).
Consistent with the OMB return letter,
the agency divided the TPMS final rule
into two parts, because it decided to
defer its decision as to which long-term
performance requirements for TPMS
would best satisfy the mandate of the
TREAD Act. This deferral was intended
to allow the agency time to consider
additional data on the effect and
performance of TPMSs currently in use.
The June 5, 2002 final rule provided
two compliance options during the
interim period (i.e., between November
1, 2003 and October 31, 2006). Under
the first compliance option, vehicle
manufacturers would have been
required to equip their light vehicles
(i.e., those with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 pounds) or less) with TPMSs to
warn the driver when the pressure in
any single tire or in each tire in any
combination of tires, up to a total of four
tires, is 25 percent or more below the
vehicle manufacturer’s recommended
cold inflation pressure for the tires, or
a minimum level of pressure specified
in the standard, whichever pressure is
higher. Under the second compliance
option, the vehicle’s TPMS would have
been required to warn the driver when
the pressure in any single tire is 30
percent or more below the vehicle
manufacturer’s recommended cold
inflation pressure for the tires, or a
minimum level of pressure specified in
the standard, whichever pressure is
higher.6
The two compliance options were
outgrowths of the alternative sets of
requirements proposed in the initial
NPRM. In response to comments
indicating that current indirect TPMSs
could not meet the NPRM’s proposed
detection requirements, the agency
adopted a one-tire, 30-percent option
that would have permitted indirect
TPMSs to be used during the phase-in
period.7 NHTSA received 13 petitions
6 The minimum levels of pressure were the same
for both compliance options.
7 There are two types of TPMSs currently
available, direct TPMSs and indirect TPMSs. Direct
TPMSs have a pressure sensor in each wheel that
transmits pressure information to a receiver. In
contrast, indirect TPMSs do not have tire pressure
sensors, but instead rely on the wheel speed
sensors, typically a component of an anti-lock
braking system, to detect and compare differences
in the rotational speed of a vehicle’s wheels, which
correlate to differences in tire pressure.
We anticipate that new types of TPMS technology
may be developed in the future that will be capable
of meeting the standard’s requirements. For
example, such systems might incorporate aspects of

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

Continued

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18140

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

for reconsideration of the June 2002
final rule, raising a variety of issues.
However, after issuance of the June
2002 final rule, Public Citizen, Inc.,
New York Public Interest Research
Group, and the Center for Auto Safety
filed a suit challenging certain aspects
of the TPMS regulation. The Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit issued
its opinion in Public Citizen, Inc. v.
Mineta on August 6, 2003, which held
that the agency’s adoption in the
standard of a one-tire, 30-percent
compliance option was ‘‘contrary to the
intent of the TREAD Act and, in light of
the relative shortcomings of indirect
systems, arbitrary and capricious.’’ 8 The
Court found that the TREAD Act
unambiguously mandates TPMSs
capable of monitoring each tire, up to a
total of four tires, effectively precluding
the one-tire, 30-percent option, or any
similar option that cannot detect underinflation in any combination of tires up
to four tires.
Ultimately, the Court vacated the
standard (FMVSS No. 138) in its
entirety and directed the agency to issue
a new rule consistent with its August 6,
2003 opinion. NHTSA published a final
rule in the Federal Register on
November 20, 2003, vacating FMVSS
No. 138 (68 FR 65404). With the
standard vacated, that notice clarified
that, at that point in time, vehicle
manufacturers had no certification or
reporting responsibilities.
In light of the foregoing, NHTSA
commenced rulemaking efforts to
reestablish FMVSS No. 138 in a manner
consistent with the Court’s opinion and
responsive to the issues raised in earlier
petitions for reconsideration, the
majority of which remained relevant. To
this end, the agency issued a second
NPRM on September 16, 2004 (69 FR
55896) (discussed immediately below)
and obtained and considered public
comments on that NPRM, actions
leading to this latest final rule for
TPMS.
For a more complete discussion of
this earlier period of the regulatory
history of the TPMS rulemaking, readers
should consult the June 5, 2002 final
rule and the September 16, 2004 NPRM.

both direct and indirect TPMSs (i.e., hybrid
systems). In concert with TPMS suppliers, tire
manufacturers might be able to incorporate TPMS
sensors directly into the tires themselves. In issuing
a performance standard, NHTSA is cognizant of and
seeks to encourage technological innovation.
8 340 F.3d 39, 54 (2d Cir. 2003).

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

III. September 2004 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) and Public
Comments
A. The NPRM
As noted above, NHTSA published an
NPRM on September 16, 2004 that
proposed to re-establish FMVSS No.
138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,
in a manner consistent with the Court’s
opinion. Specifically, it proposed to
require passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) or less, except those with dual
wheels on an axle, to be equipped with
a TPMS to alert the driver when one or
more of the vehicle’s tires, up to all four
of its tires, are significantly underinflated. The NPRM was drafted so as to
be technology-neutral, so as to permit
compliance with any available TPMS
technology that meets the performance
requirements.
The NPRM included the following
points, which highlighted the key
provisions of the proposed
requirements.
• The TPMS would be required to
warn the driver when the pressure in
one or more of the vehicle’s tires, up to
a total of four tires, is 25 percent or
more below the vehicle manufacturer’s
recommended cold inflation pressure
for the tires, or a minimum level of
pressure specified in the standard,
whichever pressure is higher.
• Vehicle manufacturers would be
required to certify vehicle compliance
under the standard with the tires
installed on the vehicle at the time of
initial vehicle sale.9
• The TPMS would be required to
include a low pressure telltale (yellow)
that must remain illuminated as long as
any of the vehicle’s tires remains underinflated and the vehicle’s ignition
locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position. The telltale would be required
to extinguish when all of the vehicle’s
tires cease to be significantly underinflated. The TPMS’s low tire pressure
warning telltale would be required to
perform a bulb-check at vehicle start-up.
• The TPMS also would be required
to include a malfunction indicator to
9 The NPRM noted that some vehicle
manufacturers authorize their dealers to replace the
vehicle’s factory-installed tires with other tires,
including ones with a different size and/or
recommended cold tire inflation pressure. The
NPRM stated that the TPMS would have to perform
properly with any such tires, because the vehicle
could be equipped with those tires at the time of
initial sale. Of course, the manufacturer would not
have that responsibility if the dealer installed other
tires without manufacturer authorization. However,
the dealer would violate the Motor Vehicle Safety
Act if it installed tires on a new vehicle that
prevented the TPMS from functioning properly. See
49 U.S.C. 30112(a).

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

alert the driver when the system is nonoperational and, thus, unable to provide
the required low tire pressure warning.
The NPRM proposed that TPMS
malfunction could be indicated by
either:
(1) Installing a separate, dedicated
telltale (yellow) that illuminates upon
detection of the malfunction and
remains continuously illuminated as
long as the ignition locking system is in
the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position and the
situation causing the malfunction
remains uncorrected, or
(2) Designing the low tire pressure
telltale so that it flashes for one minute
when a malfunction is detected, after
which the telltale would remain
illuminated as long as the ignition
locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (’’Run’’)
position. This flashing and illumination
sequence would be repeated upon each
subsequent vehicle start-up until the
situation causing the malfunction has
been corrected.
If the option for a separate telltale is
selected, the TPMS malfunction telltale
would be required to perform a bulbcheck at vehicle start-up.
• The TPMS would not be required to
monitor the spare tire (if provided)
either when it is stowed or when it is
installed on the vehicle.
• For vehicles certified under the
standard, vehicle manufacturers would
be required to provide in the owner’s
manual an explanation of the purpose of
the low tire pressure warning telltale,
the potential consequences of
significantly under-inflated tires, the
meaning of the telltale when it is
illuminated, and what actions drivers
should take when the telltale is
illuminated. Vehicle manufacturers also
would be required to provide a specified
statement in the owner’s manual
regarding: (1) Potential problems related
to compatibility between the vehicle’s
TPMS and various replacement tires,
and (2) the presence and operation of
the TPMS malfunction indicator.
The NPRM proposed requirements for
covered vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2005 (i.e., MY 2006),
subject to the following phase-in
schedule: 50 percent of a vehicle
manufacturer’s light vehicles would be
required to comply with the standard
during the first year (September 1, 2005
to August 31, 2006); 90 percent during
the second year (September 1, 2006 to
August 31, 2007); and all vehicles
thereafter.
The NPRM stated that in order to
encourage early compliance, the agency
was proposing to permit carry-forward
credits for vehicles that are certified as
complying with the standard and that
are manufactured on or after the

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
effective date of the final rule. However,
under the proposal, beginning
September 1, 2007, all covered vehicles
would be required to comply with the
standard, without regard to any earlier
carry-forward credits.
We proposed to exclude from the
phase-in requirements final stage
manufacturers, alterers, and small
volume manufacturers (SVMs). The
NPRM also proposed phase-in reporting
requirements consistent with the
proposed phase-in schedule.
B. Summary of Public Comments on the
NPRM
NHTSA received comments on the
September 16, 2004 NPRM from a
variety of interested parties including 10
TPMS manufacturers,10 13 automobile
manufacturers and their trade
associations,11 seven tire manufacturers
and their trade associations,12 two
public interest groups,13 and six other
interested organizations.14 Comments
were also received from 24 individuals.
All of these comments may be found in
Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19054.
The commenters raised a variety of
issues with the proposed requirements,
including ones related to the low tire
pressure warning lamp activation, the
TPMS malfunction indicator lamp, the
TPMS low pressure and MIL telltales,
10 Comments were received from the following
TPMS manufacturers: (1) ALPS Automotive, Inc.;
(2) Aviation Upgrade Technologies; (3) BERU
Corporation; (4) Continental Teves, Inc.; (5) Emtop
Ltd.; (6) EnTire Solutions, LLC; (7) ETV Corporation
Pty Limited; (8) MLHO, Inc.; (9) NIRA Dynamics
AB, and (10) Schrader Electronics Ltd.
11 Comments were received from the following
automobile manufacturers and related trade
associations: (1) Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers; (2) American Suzuki Motor
Corporation; (3) Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.; (4) BMW of North
America, LLC; (5) DaimlerChrysler Corporation; (6)
DaimlerChrysler and Mercedes-Benz U.S.A.; (7) Fuji
Heavy Industries USA, Inc. (makers of Subaru
vehicles); (8) General Motors North America; (9)
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and American Honda Motor
Co., Inc.; (10) Hyundai American Technical Center,
Inc./Kia Motors Corporation; (11) Mitsubishi Motors
R&D of America, Inc.; (12) Nissan North America,
Inc.; (13) Porsche Cars North America, Inc., and (14)
Volkswagen/Audi.
12 Comments were received from the following
tire manufacturers and related trade associations:
(1) European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation;
(2) Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers
Association, Inc.; (3) Rubber Manufacturers
Association; (4) Sumitomo Rubber Industries; (5)
The Tire Rack; (6) Tire and Rim Association, Inc.,
and (7) Tire Industry Association.
13 Comments were received from the following
public interest groups: (1) Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety, and (2) Public Citizen.
14 Comments were received from the following
other interested manufacturers, trade associations,
and groups: (1) American Automobile Association;
(2) the European Communities; (3) Fairfax County
Public Schools; (4) GE Infrastructure Sensing; (5)
National Automobile Dealers Association, and (6)
Specialty Equipment Market Association.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

test procedures, minimum activation
pressure requirements, the need for a
tire reserve load, owner’s manual
requirements, TPMS operation with
replacement tires/spare tires, lead time
and phase-in, and other topics. The
following discussion summarizes the
main issues raised by these public
comments and the positions expressed
on these topics. A more complete
discussion of the public comments is
provided under Section IV.C, which
provides an explanation of the agency
rationale for the requirements of the
final rule and addresses related public
comments by issue.
Low Tire Pressure Warning Lamp
Activation Requirements
Regarding the activation requirements
for the low tire pressure warning lamp,
commenters raised concerns related to
the NPRM’s proposed under-inflation
detection level, as well as the proposed
10-minute time period for underinflation detection. Public interest
groups and certain other commenters
urged NHTSA to adopt a more stringent
threshold for under-inflation detection
(ranging from 15–20 percent below
placard pressure). These commenters
argued that existing technologies (i.e.,
direct TPMSs) can detect and warn the
driver at lesser levels of under-inflation,
thereby permitting drivers more time to
take corrective action and maximizing
the benefits provided by the system.
The tire industry also urged NHTSA
to adopt a more stringent underinflation detection threshold, with a
trigger point tied to the vehicle placard
pressure and the Gross Axle Weight
Rating (GAWR). Specifically, the
comment of TIA stated that the underinflation detection warning should be
triggered at 1–2 psi below the vehicle’s
recommended cold tire inflation
pressure or at an inflation level where
the tires can no longer carry the vehicle
weight, whichever is higher. Other
commenters suggested that the underinflation detection threshold should
take into account various vehicle
loading conditions.
Vehicle manufacturers did not
comment on the under-inflation
detection level, which suggests that they
do not object to that aspect of the
NPRM.
Regarding the NPRM’s proposed 10minute time period for low tire pressure
detection, vehicle manufacturers
generally recommended extending that
time period, arguing that even direct
systems would require additional time
to detect, confirm, and relay a warning
about a significantly under-inflated tire.
Comments from vehicle manufacturers
also suggested that in order to be

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18141

technology-neutral and to permit
vehicle certification with indirect
systems, the under-inflation detection
time should be extended in situations
where the vehicle has two, three, or four
significantly under-inflated tires; those
comments argued that there is not a
safety need for rapid detection in such
cases, where under-inflation is likely to
result from diffusion over a considerable
period of time.
Public interest groups, the European
Communities (EC), and certain other
industry commenters argued that the
proposed 10-minute detection time
period is too long and that it would
allow vehicles to continue to travel in
a potentially unsafe condition without a
warning. These comments suggested
that such situations are unnecessary
because technology currently exists that
would permit a shorter detection time.
TPMS MIL Activation Requirements
Regarding the time period for
malfunction detection, vehicle
manufacturers stated their concern
regarding the absence in the NPRM of
an expressed time period for the TPMS
to detect a malfunction and to
illuminate the TPMS MIL. Commenters
stated that immediate detection, as
implied by the NPRM, is not technically
possible and that in most cases, the
vehicle must be driven in order to detect
a malfunction. Several commenters
stated that TPMSs cannot detect
malfunctions any faster than the system
can detect low tire pressure (because the
same subsystems are involved) and that
the same durational parameters should
be set for both functions (with
suggestions ranging from 20–30
minutes).
A number of manufacturers
commented that the proposed TPMS
malfunction requirements are overly
broad and are in need of modification.
Specific commenters asserted that
TPMSs would have difficulties
detecting or reporting various types of
malfunctions.
One commenter raised the issue of
MIL disablement (or suppression) in
situations where the TPMS sending
units have been removed as a result of
the replacement of the original
equipment tires and rims with
aftermarket components that are not
compatible with the direct-sensing
TPMS. (The NPRM made no provision
for MIL disablement.)
Telltale Requirements
A number of commenters discussed
the issue of how the TPMS MIL would
operate, particularly when it is
combined with the low tire pressure
warning telltale. Some commenters,

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18142

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

primarily representing vehicle
manufacturers, argued that the MIL
requirements are design-restrictive and
may impose unnecessary costs. Those
commenters requested flexibility in
providing the malfunction warning
through a variety of means (e.g., text
messaging and audible warnings),
provided that the warning is explained
in the vehicle owner’s manual.
Several commenters expressed
concern about how the malfunction
warning would be provided to the
driver in a combined telltale. Some
commenters argued that flashing should
be used to indicate low tire pressure;
some argued that flashing should be
used to indicate malfunction; some
argued that the flashing sequence
should be longer, and still others argued
that any sort of flashing may be
confusing to drivers.
Public interest groups generally
favored requiring a separate telltale to
indicate TPMS malfunction, in order to
provide a clear message to drivers.
However, manufacturers commented
that separate telltales are unnecessary,
add cost, and consume valuable space
on the instrument panel that could be
used to provide other safety messages.
Commenters overwhelmingly
recommended that NHTSA reconsider
its proposed symbol to indicate a TPMS
malfunction, which was considered to
be confusing, and a variety of
alternatives were suggested. Some
commenters expressed support for only
permitting a low tire pressure telltale
that indicates which tire is underinflated, because such symbol is both
more recognizable and offers enhanced
information to the driver.
Regarding telltale color, some
manufacturers recommended permitting
the low tire pressure telltale to change
color (e.g., from yellow to red) to
indicate when under-inflation has
progressed to a dangerously low level,
as determined by the vehicle
manufacturer. Commenters also raised
the issue of the color of the TPMS MIL,
with some recommending yellow and
others recommending red.
In their comments, manufacturers also
raised issues related to extinguishment
of the TPMS telltales. For example,
concerns were raised regarding the
possibility of a TPMS reset button
extinguishing the telltale before the
underlying problem (i.e., low tire
pressure or system malfunction) has
been corrected. Others suggested that
the final rule should specify that tires
must be re-inflated to a level at least 10
percent above the warning threshold
before the TPMS low pressure telltale
would extinguish.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

Another topic raised by commenters
related to the TPMS combined telltale
involved requests for the final rule to set
an illumination priority for the low tire
pressure and TPMS malfunction
warnings. Commenters did not agree as
to which warning should take
precedence.
Tire-Related Issues
Another major area of comment
involved tire issues. Regarding the issue
of the NPRM’s proposed approach for
TPMS operation with replacement and
spare tires, public interest groups
generally objected to the agency’s
tentative decision to require compliance
certification with the tires originally
installed on the vehicle, but to require
a malfunction indicator to indicate to
the driver when replacement tires have
been installed on the vehicle which
prevent the continued proper
functioning of the TPMS. Those
commenters suggested that the TPMS
should either be required to function
with all replacement tires and original
equipment (OE) full-sized spare tires (so
as to provide continuing operational
benefits to consumers) or that there
should be ongoing efforts to make the
public aware of those tires which have
been found to prevent proper TPMS
functioning.
Comments from the tire industry also
supported a requirement for the TPMS
to operate with replacement tires,
particularly in light of those tires’
prevalence in the marketplace. Those
commenters further argued that vehicle
manufacturers should be required to
provide affordable access to TPMS
service information to all tire dealers
and service providers. Other
commenters expressed concern
regarding the impact the proposed rule
would have on small businesses.
The tire industry recommended that
the final rule should include a tire
pressure reserve requirement in order to
ensure that the vehicle can safely carry
the vehicle maximum load, even if the
tires are under-inflated by 25 percent
below placard pressure. Otherwise,
commenters argued that the vehicle’s
tires may fall below the level designated
in the tire industry’s load/pressure
tables but still not trigger a low pressure
warning from the TPMS. These
commenters were especially concerned
that this situation could lead to
increased instances of tire failure,
particularly if drivers come to rely on
the TPMS as a substitute for regular tire
maintenance. Moreover, the Tire and
Rim Association (TRA) stated its
intention to modify its 2005 Year Book
to provide additional instruction for

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

manufacturers of TPMS-equipped
vehicles.
The Alliance commented that the
NPRM’s proposed Table 1, which
specifies minimum activation pressures
for different tires, should be modified
for Load Range ‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’ and ‘‘E’’ light
truck (LT) tires. According to the
Alliance, the MAPs currently contained
in Table 1 do not allow such tires to be
used across the safe operating ranges of
inflation pressures for which loads are
specified in the TRA Yearbooks. The
Alliance argued that unless corrective
action is taken, vehicle manufacturers
could face costly vehicle redesigns or be
forced to substitute less capable tires in
certain vehicle applications.
Owner’s Manual Requirements
Several commenters suggested
modifications to the NPRM’s proposed
language related to TPMSs for the
vehicle owner’s manual. One comment
involved allowing vehicle
manufacturers discretion to tailor the
owner’s manual statement to the system
installed on the vehicle, provided that
certain basic topics were addressed.
Other comments included clarifying the
discussion of permissible telltale
formats, of proper pressures for
replacement wheel/tire combinations,
and of ongoing driver responsibility for
maintaining proper tire inflation
pressure.
Test Procedures
Commenters raised a number of issues
related to the NPRM’s proposed test
conditions and procedures. The issue of
calibration time was raised, with at least
one manufacturer commenter suggesting
that no calibration period is necessary,
and other manufacturer commenters
arguing that the NPRM’s proposed 20minute calibration time should be
extended to 30 minutes or one hour.
Comments from the tire industry
recommended that the test conditions
and performance parameters in the final
rule should be expanded to capture a
fuller range of real world driving
conditions. Specifically, these
comments recommended expanding the
proposed ambient temperature range to
include colder and warmer
temperatures, testing under slippery
road conditions, and expanding the
vehicle speed range to include both
slower and faster speeds.
Commenters also offered suggestions
pertaining to the test procedures for
TPMS MIL activation, which would
implement their recommendations
regarding the types of malfunctions the
system should be required to detect and
how quickly they should be detected.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Manufacturers also commented on the
proposed cool-down period of up to one
hour, as contained in S6(e) of the
proposed test procedures. The Alliance
recommended reducing the cool-down
period to five minutes or less, arguing
that in certain cases, tires deflated
during testing when cold may warm up
to a point above the warning threshold
before the TPMS has time to detect a
significantly under-inflated tire. Other
commenters made similar arguments
and recommended adding additional
pressure checks to the test procedures to
ensure that the pressure level has been
set accurately during testing.
Other commenters urged NHTSA to
modify the test procedures to recognize
that testing may need to be conducted
with a pressure other than placard
pressure in order to properly match the
load on the tires. These comments
suggested that the owner’s manual
should be consulted in order to select
the proper pressure under certain
situations.
Several commenters also raised issues
regarding use of a system reset feature
during testing, including use in
situations where the driver switches
between summer and winter tires.
Lead Time and Phase-In
In general, most of the vehicle
manufacturers that commented on the
NPRM requested additional lead time
and a modified phase-in schedule,
arguing that more time is necessary to
incorporate TPMS technologies into
their new vehicle production processes.
Most vehicle manufacturer commenters
recommended a two-year phase-in, with
an initial compliance date beginning on
September 1, 2006. Furthermore,
vehicle manufacturers universally
commented that it would not be
possible to incorporate the TPMS MIL
until September 1, 2007.
In contrast, public interest groups
expressed support for the NPRM’s
compliance schedule, as proposed.
Other Issues
Commenters also raised a variety of
other issues in response to the NPRM.
These included small business impacts,
environmental impacts, maintenance
issues, markings on vehicles equipped
with direct TPMSs, definitions,
educational efforts, alternative systems,
over-inflation detection, temperature
and altitude compensation, system
longevity, and harmonization.
Comments on each of these issues will
be described and addressed in section
IV.C of this notice.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

IV. The Final Rule and Response to
Public Comments
A. Summary of the Requirements
After careful consideration of public
comments on the NPRM, this final rule
re-establishes FMVSS No. 138, Tire
Pressure Monitoring Systems, in a
manner consistent with the Second
Circuit’s opinion. Specifically, it
requires passenger cars, multi-purpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) or less, except those with dual
wheels on an axle, to be equipped with
a TPMS to alert the driver when one or
more of the vehicle’s tires, up to all four
of its tires, is significantly underinflated. Subject to the phase-in
schedule and the exceptions below,
compliance with the requirements of the
final rule commences for covered
vehicles manufactured on or after
October 5, 2005 (i.e., MY 2006). The
standard is intended to be technologyneutral, so as to permit compliance with
any available TPMS technology that
meets the standard’s performance
requirements.
The following points highlight the key
provisions of the final rule.
• The TPMS is required to detect and
to provide a warning to the driver
within 20 minutes of when the pressure
of one or more of the vehicle’s tires, up
to a total of four tires, is 25 percent or
more below the vehicle manufacturer’s
recommended cold inflation pressure
for the tires, or a minimum level of
pressure specified in the standard,
whichever pressure is higher. These
minimum activation pressures are
included in Table 1 of FMVSS No.
138.15
• Vehicle manufacturers must certify
vehicle compliance under the standard
with the tires installed on the vehicle at
the time of initial vehicle sale.16
note that the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers submitted a Petition for Rulemaking
on April 29, 2003 that asks NHTSA to make certain
changes to the MAPs in Table 1 (see Docket No.
NHTSA–2000–8572–265). For a more complete
discussion of the MAP issue raised by the Alliance,
see section IV.C.4.d of this document. NHTSA is in
the process of evaluating the issues raised in the
Alliance petition. However, we have decided to
modify the values in Table 1 pertaining to Load
Range ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires, pending completion of our
analysis.
16 We note that some vehicle manufacturers
authorize their dealers to replace the vehicle’s
factory-installed tires with other tires, including
ones with a different size and/or recommended cold
tire inflation pressure. The TPMS must perform
properly with any such tires, because the vehicle
could be equipped with those tires at the time of
initial sale. Of course, the manufacturer would not
have that responsibility if the dealer installed other
tires without manufacturer authorization.

PO 00000

15 We

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18143

• The TPMS must include a low tire
pressure warning telltale 17 (yellow) that
must remain illuminated as long as any
of the vehicle’s tires remain
significantly under-inflated and the
vehicle’s ignition locking system is in
the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position.18 The
TPMS’s low tire pressure warning
telltale must perform a bulb-check at
vehicle start-up.
• The TPMS must also include a
TPMS malfunction indicator to alert the
driver when the system is nonoperational, and thus unable to provide
the required low tire pressure
warning.19 The TPMS malfunction
indicator must detect a malfunction
within 20 minutes of occurrence and
provide a warning to the driver. This
final rule provides two options by
which vehicle manufacturers may
indicate a TPMS malfunction:
(1) Installation of a separate,
dedicated telltale (yellow) that
illuminates upon detection of the
malfunction and remains continuously
illuminated as long as the ignition
locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position and the situation causing the
malfunction remains uncorrected, or
(2) Designing the low tire pressure
telltale so that it flashes for a period of
at least 60 seconds and no longer than
90 seconds when a malfunction is
detected, after which the telltale must
remain continuously illuminated as
long as the ignition locking system is in
the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. This
flashing and illumination sequence
must be repeated upon each subsequent
vehicle start-up until the situation
causing the malfunction has been
corrected.
If the option for a separate telltale is
selected, the TPMS malfunction telltale
must perform a bulb-check at vehicle
start-up.
• The TPMS is not required to
monitor the spare tire (if provided),
17 As part of this final rule, we are adding two
versions of the TPMS low tire pressure telltale and
a TPMS malfunction telltale to Table 2 of FMVSS
No. 101, Controls and Displays. The regulatory text
in this final rule incorporates the TPMS telltales in
Table 2, as that table currently exists in the Code
of Federal Regulations. However, we note that
NHTSA published an NPRM in the Federal Register
on September 23, 2003 that proposes to update and
to expand FMVSS No. 101 (68 FR 55217).
Publication of the present version of Table 2 here
is not intended to suggest a change in approach to
the ongoing FMVSS No. 101 rulemaking. We
anticipate incorporating the TPMS telltales in a
revised Table 2, once a final decision is reached on
updating Standard No. 101.
18 We note that if a vehicle manufacturer elects
to install a low tire pressure telltale that indicates
which tire is under-inflated, the telltale must
correctly identify the under-inflated tire. See S4.3.2.
19 We note that the TPMS telltale(s) may be
incorporated as part of a reconfigurable display,
provided all requirements of the standard are met.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18144

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

either when it is stowed or when it is
installed on the vehicle.
• For vehicles certified under the
standard, vehicle manufacturers must
provide in the owner’s manual a
specified statement explaining the
purpose of the low tire pressure warning
telltale, the potential consequences of
significantly under-inflated tires, the
meaning of the telltale when it is
illuminated, and what actions drivers
should take when the telltale is
illuminated. Vehicle manufacturers also
must provide a specified statement in
the owner’s manual regarding: (1)
potential problems related to
compatibility between the vehicle’s
TPMS and various replacement or
alternate tires and wheels, and (2) the
presence and operation of the TPMS
malfunction indicator. For vehicles that
do not come with an owner’s manual,
the required information must be
provided in writing to the first
purchaser at the time of initial vehicle
sale.
B. Lead Time and Phase-In
As discussed in the NPRM, the
Second Circuit’s decision vacating
FMVSS No. 138 necessitated a change
in the standard’s phase-in schedule in
order to ensure the practicability of the
standard’s implementation, particularly
for those manufacturers that had
intended to certify to the June 5, 2002
final rule’s one-tire, 30-percent option.
Responses to the agency’s September 9,
2003 Special Orders to 14 vehicle
manufacturer and 13 TPMS suppliers
demonstrated that in anticipation of the
start of the phase-in under the June 2002
final rule, most vehicle manufacturers
were moving aggressively toward
installation of TPMSs capable of
meeting the four-tire, 25-percent
detection requirement, although some
were not. The information provided by
TPMS suppliers indicated sufficient
capacity to supply TPMSs with a fourtire, 25-percent detection capability in
quantities that would easily meet the
phase-in requirements. Accordingly, in
the NPRM, the agency proposed that 50
percent of a vehicle manufacturer’s light
vehicles would be required to comply
with the standard during the first year
(September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006);
90 percent during the second year
(September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007);
and all vehicles thereafter.
In public comments on the NPRM,
vehicle manufacturers argued that they
would not be able to meet the standard’s
requirements given the proposed lead
time and phase-in schedule. Most of
their concerns involved the TPMS
malfunction indicator, a newly
proposed requirements which

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

manufacturers uniformly agreed would
necessitate significant engineering and
vehicle design efforts and corresponding
production changes. Vehicle
manufacturers stated that they could
meet the TPMS MIL requirements (and
associated owner’s manual
requirements) by September 1, 2007.
More generally, vehicle manufacturers
commented that, setting aside the issue
of the MIL requirements, the phase-in
schedule nevertheless may be too
aggressive.
We acknowledge that the TPMS MIL
represents a new requirement impacting
TPMS design and functionality and that
vehicle manufacturers may require
additional time to incorporate the MIL
into their production processes.
However, we do not believe that
implementation of the entire standard
should be delayed until technical
changes related to the TPMS MIL can be
fully resolved, because that would deny
the public the safety benefits of TPMSs
in the meantime. Accordingly, we
believe that it is preferable to move
rapidly to implement the standard, but
to delay the compliance date only for
the TPMS MIL requirements and
associated requirements in the owner’s
manual.
In light of the above and subject to the
vehicle manufacturer option for carrybackward credits discussed below,
NHTSA has decided to adopt the
following phase-in schedule: 20 percent
of a vehicle manufacturer’s light
vehicles are required to comply with the
standard during the period from October
5, 2005, to August 31, 2006; 70 percent
during the period from September 1,
2006 to August 31, 2007, and all light
vehicles thereafter. However, vehicle
manufacturers are not required to
comply with the requirements related to
the TPMS malfunction indicator
(including associated owner’s manual
requirements) until September 1, 2007;
however, at that point, all covered
vehicles must meet all relevant
requirements of the standard (i.e., no
additional phase-in for MIL
requirements). The final rule includes
phase-in reporting requirements
consistent with the phase-in schedule
discussed above.
Small volume manufacturers (i.e.,
those manufacturers producing fewer
than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the U.S.
per year during the phase-in period) are
not subject to the phase-in
requirements, but their vehicles must
meet the requirements of the standard
beginning September 1, 2007.
Consistent with the policy set forth in
NHTSA’s February 14, 2005 final rule
on certification requirements for
vehicles built in two or more stages and

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

altered vehicles (70 FR 7414), final-stage
manufacturers and alterers must certify
compliance for covered vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2008. However, final-stage
manufacturers and alterers may
voluntarily certify compliance with the
standard prior to this date.
NHTSA has decided to permit vehicle
manufacturers to earn carry-forward
credits for compliant vehicles, produced
in excess of the phase-in requirements,
that are manufactured between the
effective date of this rule and the
conclusion of the phase-in. These carryforward credits could be used during
the phase-in, but they could not be used
to delay compliance certification for
vehicles produced after the conclusion
of the phase-in. Except for vehicles
produced by final-stage manufacturers
and alterers (who receive an additional
year for compliance), all covered
vehicles must comply with FMVSS No.
138 on September 1, 2007, without use
of any carry-forward credits.
Furthermore, we have determined
that there is good cause to make this
final rule effective upon publication so
that vehicle manufacturers would have
a standard in effect to which they may
certify vehicles for purposes of early,
voluntary compliance and to maximize
the time for earning carry-forward
credits. We explicitly note that vehicle
manufacturers have no mandatory
compliance responsibilities under the
standard until the start of the phase-in.
To further ease implementation, we
have decided to also provide carrybackward credits, whereby vehicle
manufacturers may defer compliance
with a part or all of the certification
requirements for the first period of the
phase-in, provided that they certify a
correspondingly larger percentage of
vehicles under the standard during the
second period of the phase-in. We
believe that permitting carry-backward
credits would not impact the overall
safety benefits of the final rule, because
the same number of vehicles would be
subject to compliance certification,
although the distribution may vary over
the model years of the phase-in.
Corresponding changes have been
added to the regulatory text of both
FMVSS No. 138, as well as the TPMS
phase-in requirements contained in 49
CFR Part 585.
C. Response to Public Comments by
Issue
As noted previously, public
comments on the September 2004
NPRM for TPMS raised a variety of
issues with the NPRM’s proposed
requirements. Each of these topics will
be discussed in turn, in order to explain

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
how these comments impacted the
agency’s determinations in terms of
setting requirements for this final rule.
1. Low Tire Pressure Warning Lamp
Activation Requirement
(a) Under-Inflation Detection Level.
The NPRM proposed to require the
TPMS to illuminate a low tire pressure
warning telltale not more than 10
minutes after the inflation pressure in
one or more of the vehicle’s tires, up to
a total of four tires, is equal to or less
than the pressure 25 percent below the
vehicle manufacturer’s recommended
cold inflation pressure or the pressure
specified in the 3rd column of Table 1
of this standard for the corresponding
tire type, whichever is higher (see
S4.2(a)).
A number of commenters raised
concerns about the 25-percent underinflation detection level proposed in the
NPRM. Although their reasoning
differed, these commenters all argued
that a more stringent detection level
should be required under the final rule.
Public Citizen stated that a 20-percent
threshold should be adopted. Public
Citizen argued that NHTSA’s
technology-neutral standard, as
proposed, was crafted to accommodate
indirect TPMSs (which Public Citizen
considers to be an ‘‘inferior
technology’’) when there is other
adequate technology readily available
(i.e., direct TPMSs). (Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates)
provided a similar comment.) According
to Public Citizen, NHTSA should not
reduce safety requirements in order to
accommodate inferior technology,
particularly when other affordable and
more effective technology exists.
Public Citizen stated that the aspect of
the agency’s rationale that a higher
threshold could discourage
technological innovation is
unsubstantiated. The comments of
Public Citizen similarly characterized as
unsubstantiated NHTSA’s concerns
about nuisance warnings that could
result from a detection level that is set
too close to placard pressure and
requested substantive driver behavioral
research to confirm that this would be
a problem. (Similarly, Advocates argued
that NHTSA acted arbitrarily in
selecting a 25-percent under-inflation
threshold (as opposed to the 20-percent
level proposed in the 2001 NPRM) and
that the record does not justify NHTSA’s
claim that a 20-percent under-inflation
detection level would result in nuisance
warnings.)
Public Citizen rounded out its
comments in this area by characterizing
the NPRM’s 25-percent under-inflation
detection level as a cost-saving measure.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

It argued that safety should outweigh
cost considerations and that NHTSA’s
other rulemaking activities provided
support for adopting a 20-percent
under-inflation detection level (e.g., the
2001 TPMS NPRM and the agency’s
rollover research). The Advocates
argued that NHTSA has not compared
the actual benefits of the two thresholds
and suggested that NHTSA’s New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) data
would support the theory that different
pressure levels correlate with different
levels of risk.
Fairfax County Public Schools
expressed support for a system that
either provides a built-in tire pressure
gauge or provides an earlier warning,
such as a 20-percent under-inflation
detection level. It stated that it is not
always easy to find a functioning air
compressor when traveling, so it is
better to provide an earlier indication
before the vehicle is past the point of
safe operation.
Mr. James Anderson, an individual,
commented that the under-inflation
detection level should be set at some
point between 15 percent and 18
percent below placard pressure, the
point at which the commenter argued
that the tire sidewall begins to over-flex.
According to Mr. Anderson, as the tire
over-flexes, heat begins to build up, but
the tire is no longer able to dissipate the
heat. Mr. Anderson stated that at some
point above 200 °F, the tire compounds
begin a reversion process, which may
lead to delamination and, ultimately,
separation of tire components. He
argued that a warning level 25-percent
below placard pressure would not
permit sufficient time for driver
recognition and timely action to correct
the under-inflation situation before tire
damage may occur.
The Tire Industry Association (TIA)
argued that the proposed TPMS underinflation detection level is too lenient,
suggesting that the trigger point instead
should be tied to the vehicle’s placard
pressure and GAWR. Specifically, TIA
stated that the under-inflation detection
warning should be triggered at 1–2 psi
below the vehicle’s recommended cold
tire inflation pressure or at an inflation
level where the tires can no longer carry
the vehicle weight, whichever is higher.
(TIA’s argument here is related to the
issue of Tire Reserve Load, a topic
discussed later in this document.) TIA
argued that the standard should require
the TPMS to provide a warning before
there is a serious problem, thereby
taking into account that drivers may not
immediately take corrective action
when the warning telltale illuminates.
ETV Corporation (ETV) stated that the
TPMS should be required to take into

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18145

account different load conditions in
determining the need to activate the low
tire pressure warning.
The National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA) stated that
although the final rule must factor in
technological and cost constraints, it
should specify the smallest underinflation threshold that can be reliably
monitored.
EnTire Solutions, LLC (EnTire)
commented that the direct TPMSs it
produces are capable of providing low
pressure warnings at a more stringent
threshold than the NPRM’s proposed
25-percent under-inflation detection
level. EnTire also stated that its system
and those of other TPMS manufacturers
have multiple thresholds for underinflation detection. GE Infrastructure
Sensing stated that technology currently
exists for TPMSs to detect a 20-percent
under-inflation level.
The Tire Rack argued that the 25percent under-inflation detection level
does not provide an adequate and
timely warning to the driver and may
provide a false sense of security. The
Tire Rack also stated that, to the extent
the 25-percent under-inflation detection
level reflects limitations of current
technology, the final rule should
establish successively more stringent
requirements in order to ensure future
improvements in TPMS technology. It
argued that establishing goals and
timetables as part of the final rule would
encourage technological developments
for TPMSs.
The American Automobile
Association (AAA) stated that the
NPRM proposes to set the underinflation warning threshold at a level
that is insufficiently stringent, because a
tire that is 25 percent below the
manufacturer’s recommended inflation
pressure could already present a
dangerous situation, particularly if the
vehicle is in a fully-loaded condition.
AAA argued that under-inflated tires
‘‘produce increased heat, which is a
major cause of failure.’’ According to
AAA, an effective TPMS is one that
provides a warning before a dangerous
situation is imminent and which does
not mislead motorists into equating the
absence of an illuminated warning light
with safety.
BERU Corporation (BERU)
commented that the under-inflation
detection level should be set to trigger
a warning at either 25-percent below
placard pressure or a minimum
activation pressure of 1.4 bar.
The Rubber Manufacturers
Association (RMA) commented that lost
fuel efficiency was not adequately
accounted for in the assessment of
economic costs when selecting an

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18146

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

under-inflation detection threshold. The
RMA asserted that the NPRM’s benefits
calculations indicated that 26 percent of
vehicles have tires that are underinflated below placard pressure, but that
associated fuel efficiency costs were not
considered.
The Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA) argued that TPMSs
should be reprogrammable in order to
accommodate alternate and replacement
tires with different pressure thresholds,
or alternatively, the system could
include ‘‘smart’’ software that would
automatically detect the proper pressure
threshold. According to SEMA, as
currently proposed, when a higherpressure tire is installed on the vehicle,
the TPMS would not indicate low tire
pressure until the tire is 25-percent
below the value for the lower-pressure,
original tire, and the converse would
also be a problem, with the telltale
actuating prematurely when a lowerpressure aftermarket tire is installed.
SEMA stated that this situation would
defeat the intent of the rule, give drivers
a false sense of security, and be
potentially problematic for new, lowprofile tires that may be easily damaged.
As part of the final rule, we have
decided to retain the proposed underinflation detection level, by which the
TPMS is required to illuminate a low
tire pressure warning telltale whenever
the inflation pressure in one or more of
the vehicle’s tires, up to a total of four
tires, is equal to or less than their the
pressure 25 percent below the vehicle
manufacturer’s recommended cold
inflation pressure or the pressure
specified in the 3rd column of Table 1
of this standard for the corresponding
tire type, whichever is higher. We have
reached this determination for the
following reasons.
Selecting an appropriate notification
threshold level for the TPMS is one of
the most fundamental matters to be
resolved as part of this rulemaking. It
involves balancing the safety benefits of
alerting consumers to low tire pressure
against the risks of over-alerting them to
the point where the warning becomes a
nuisance that may be ignored. We
believe that the final rule’s 25-percent
under-inflation detection level strikes
the proper balance in this regard.
As discussed in the June 5, 2002 final
rule, NHTSA conducted a tire pressure
survey that inspected over 11,500
vehicles, which reported that 26 percent
of passenger cars and 29 percent of light
trucks had at least one tire that was 25
percent or more below the
recommended inflation pressure for that
vehicle (see 67 FR 38704, 38713).
However, despite this substantial
percentage of vehicles with under-

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

inflated tires at this level, incidents of
tire failures remain infrequent. NHTSA
conducted testing on a variety of
Standard Load P-metric tires at 20 psi
with 100-percent load at 75 mph for 90
minutes on a dynamometer, and none of
these tires failed (see 67 FR 38704,
38726 (June 5, 2002)). This testing led
the agency to conclude that warnings at
less severe conditions will give drivers
sufficient time to check and re-inflate
their vehicles’ tires before the tires
experience appreciable damage.
Accordingly, we believe that an underinflation detection level of 25 percent
would have a strong fleet impact,
holding driver behavior constant.
However, if we instead selected an
under-inflation detection threshold that
is too stringent, with some commenters
arguing for a level as small as 1 or 2 psi
below placard pressure, the warning
telltale might illuminate frequently, and
the driver would need to repeatedly
stop and add a small amount of air to
the tires in order to extinguish the
telltale. After servicing the tires in this
manner for the first few times, the driver
might decide to postpone action on the
TPMS’s warnings or ignore such
warnings entirely. Thus, if the underinflation warning threshold were to be
set too low, the safety benefits
associated with the TPMS’s low
pressure warning could be lost. Because
we have determined that a 25-percent
under-inflation detection threshold
already provides a warning to the driver
before adverse safety consequences
arise, providing a more stringent
warning threshold would not be
expected to provide additional safety
benefits, although it could increase the
risk of the nuisance warnings discussed
above.
We disagree with Public Citizen’s
reading of the Court’s decision in Public
Citizen v. Mineta, implying that the
Court had somehow ruled against
NHTSA’s development of a technologyneutral standard or its consideration of
costs as a part of the rulemaking. In fact,
the Court held that it was appropriate
for NHTSA to consider costs as part of
the rulemaking, stating ‘‘the agency was
correct to consider the relative costs,’’20
although the Court disagreed with how
the agency weighed those costs in
setting compliance options in the June
2002 final rule. Furthermore, the Court
specifically found the four-tire, 25percent under-inflation detection level
to be reasonable. The Court held,
‘‘Given that the 25 percent standard was
a substantially more cost effective
means of preventing injuries and saving

lives than the 20 percent standard, we
conclude that it was reasonable for
NHTSA to adopt the former and reject
the latter.’’21
Available agency data show that a
TPMS with a four-tire, 25-percent
under-inflation threshold is more costeffective than one with a four-tire, 20percent under-inflation threshold. This
issue was specifically addressed in the
Final Economic Assessment (FEA) for
the June 2002 final rule, which found
that the net cost per equivalent life
saved for a four-tire, 20-percent system
would be $5.1–$5.3 million but that the
net cost per equivalent life saved for a
four-tire, 25-percent system would be
$4.3 million.22 Although we realize that
the precise values of these figures are
somewhat outdated, we believe that
their cost-effectiveness relative to each
other has not changed significantly. For
additional information on the cost of
alternative systems considered, please
consult the FEA and the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) for
this final rule, which has been included
in the docket for this rulemaking.
We are not adopting BERU’s
recommendations regarding the underinflation detection test procedures
because BERU has not provided any
rationale to explain why the existing
procedures are inadequate.
Regarding the issue of TPMS
reprogrammability raised by SEMA, we
have decided to permit, but not require,
such a feature. However, we reiterate
that we will conduct compliance testing
with the tires installed on the vehicle at
the time of initial sale, and we will
follow manufacturer instructions for
resetting the TPMS.
(b) Time Period for Low Pressure
Detection. As noted above, paragraph
S4.2(a) of the NPRM proposed to require
the TPMS to detect and provide a
warning to the driver within 10 minutes
after a tire becomes significantly underinflated (i.e., reaches the warning
threshold specified in the standard).
Under paragraph S4.2(b), the NPRM
proposed to require the low pressure
telltale to continue to illuminate as long
as the pressure in any of the tires is
equal to or less than the activation
threshold specified in S4.2(a) and the
ignition locking system is in the ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) position, whether or not the
engine is running. The NPRM proposed
that the telltale must extinguish after the
inflation pressure is corrected.
A number of commenters urged
NHTSA to modify this ten-minute
detection time requirement as part of
21 Id.

20 Public

Citizen v. Mineta, 340 F.3d 39, 57 (2d

Cir. 2003).

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

at 62.
page iv of the FEA (Docket No. NHTSA–
2000–8572–216).
22 See

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the final rule, with some commenters
recommending a longer time period and
others recommending a shorter one.
Manufacturers that commented on
low pressure detection time generally
recommended extending the time
period. BMW of North America, LLC
(BMW) stated that the TPMS
requirements should reflect real world
needs. As a result, BMW stated that the
NPRM’s 10-minute detection
requirement should be retained when
only one tire becomes significantly
under-inflated (e.g., to detect situations
where a tire is punctured by a nail or
sustains other damage that could result
in a relatively rapid loss of inflation
pressure). BMW stated that when two,
three, or all four tires become
significantly under-inflated at the same
time, the detection time requirement
should be extended to 90 minutes,
because under-inflation in these
circumstances is likely to result from
slow diffusion over months and is not
likely to result in a problem requiring
immediate attention. NIRA Dynamics
provided similar arguments and
reasoning, although it recommended a
detection time of 20 minutes for a single
tire and at least one hour for multiple
tires.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries
(Sumitomo) offered a different
assessment of the time needed for low
pressure detection. Sumitomo stated
that it is appropriate to maintain a 10minute detection (and extinguishment)
requirement for one tire, but that a
TPMS would need at least 30 minutes
(preferably one hour) to detect (and
extinguish) multiple under-inflated
tires.
In its comments, Hyundai American
Technical Center, Inc./ Kia Motors
Corporation (Hyundai) provided yet
another recommendation regarding low
tire pressure detection time, stating that
the time period for detection and
verification of low tire pressure under
the standard should be extended to at
least 20 minutes. Hyundai stated that
delivery frequency for data from the
direct TPMS tire pressure sensor to the
main control unit can take as long as
three minutes, which is a function of
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) requirements 23 that limit signal
transmissions and the capacity of the
battery in the sensor. In addition,
Hyundai stated that a number of
transmissions may be required to
correctly diagnose low tire pressure.
Therefore, if a wireless data error
occurs, Hyundai argued that the TPMS
may not be able to gather sufficient data
within the NPRM’s proposed 10-minute
23 See

47 CFR 15.231.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

time limit to assess the vehicle’s tire
pressures. Accordingly, Hyundai argued
that the final rule should permit at least
20 minutes for low tire pressure
detection in order to give the TPMS
sufficient time to gather enough data to
make an accurate assessment.
Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG (VW/
Audi) commented that in order to
overcome the technology-limiting
requirements of the NPRM, the final
rule should permit a driving time of up
to one hour for the low tire pressure
warning, a time period consistent with
detecting the unlikely situation where
all four tires become under-inflated due
to slow air leakage or changes in
ambient temperature.
In contrast, other commenters argued
that the NPRM’s 10-minute underinflation detection time is too long and
should be reduced. Public Citizen
argued that the requirement for underinflation detection time should be
reduced to one minute in the final rule,
because direct TPMSs can meet such a
requirement. Public Citizen stated that
in proposing a 10-minute underinflation detection requirement, NHTSA
has unjustifiably lowered the bar in
order to accommodate more
manufacturers (i.e., to permit indirect
TPMSs requiring a longer time period
for detection).
ETV commented that the TPMS
should be required to activate (and
extinguish) its warning within 10
seconds of vehicle start-up in order to
prevent the vehicle from entering traffic
with a potentially dangerous level of tire
under-inflation.
The EC commented that the 10minute detection time for the low tire
pressure warning does not adequately
address the tire safety problem, because
during this period, the tire(s) may be
operated at pressures even lower than
25-percent below the recommended
pressure and significant structural
damage could occur during that time
period. The EC expressed concern that
a combination of high speed, a long
activation period, and a 25-percent
under-inflation detection level could
significantly reduce the time available
to the driver to take appropriate action.
(The European Tyre and Rim Technical
Organisation (ETRTO) provided a
similar comment.) The RMA similarly
objected to the 10-minute activation
time period as being unsafe; the RMA
argued that, particularly at higher
speeds, that activation time would allow
the vehicle to travel with under-inflated
tires for many miles with excessive heat,
over-deflected body cords, and possible
structural damage.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18147

According to Emtop Ltd. (Emtop), the
NPRM’s 10-minute under-inflation
detection requirement does not address
the 15 percent of incidents of underinflation caused by rapid pressure drop
(Emtop’s estimate). Emtop argued that
the proposed requirement is dictated by
the inability of many current systems to
meet a more stringent requirement for
detection time. Emtop stated that its
TPMSs can detect rapid pressure losses
‘‘in a fraction of a second’’ and that the
TPMS rule should not create barriers to
such high-performance systems.
MLHO, Inc. (MLHO), which has
developed a battery-less, non-radiofrequency (RF) TPMS that relies on
directional magnetic coupling to send
pressure information, commented that
there is no need for a TPMS to provide
either an under-inflation warning or a
malfunction warning while the vehicle
is stationary. (In simple terms, in the
MLHO TPMS system, wheel rotation
powers the transmitter.) The commenter
argued that a very flat tire will be
obvious to the driver or will trigger the
warning before the vehicle has traveled
a significant distance. As to the
malfunction indication, MLHO argued
that since a TPMS malfunction does not
constitute an emergency, the
malfunction need not to be detected
prior to vehicle movement.
Instead, MLHO recommended that the
proposed detection requirements in S4.2
of the NPRM should be revised to
require the TPMS to detect the
significantly under-inflated tire(s) and
to illuminate the low tire pressure
telltale within 10 minutes after the
vehicle is in motion within the
standard’s designated speed range.
MLHO requested that NHTSA also
include language in S4.2 to specify that
the TPMS will not be expected to either
illuminate or extinguish the low tire
pressure telltale without the vehicle
being in motion, as motion is necessary
for some systems to assess the vehicle’s
tire pressure status.
MLHO stated that as currently
proposed, the NPRM imposes
unnecessary design restrictions, favors
the ‘‘present dominant RF-based
technology,’’ and discriminates against
small businesses.
NHTSA has carefully considered the
commenters’ countervailing arguments
regarding the time limit for the TPMS to
detect a significantly under-inflated tire,
and we have decided to modify the
relevant requirement in this final rule.
As revised, under S4.2 of the standard,
the TPMS must illuminate a low tire
pressure warning telltale not more than
20 minutes after the inflation pressure
in one or more of the vehicle’s tires, up
to a total of four tires, is equal to or less

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18148

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

than the pressure 25 percent below the
vehicle manufacturer’s recommended
cold inflation pressure or the pressure
specified in the 3rd column of Table 1
of this standard for the corresponding
tire type, whichever is higher. We
believe that this detection time period is
appropriate for the following reasons.
As noted in the agency’s June 5, 2002
Federal Register notice, TPMSs were
not developed to warn the driver of
extremely rapid pressure losses that
could accompany a vehicle encounter
with a road hazard or a tire blowout.24
According to the tire industry, those
types of events account for
approximately 15 percent of pressure
loss cases.25 Arguably, a driver would
be well aware of the tire problem in
those situations, and the TPMS would
provide little added benefit. Instead,
TPMSs’ benefits lie in warning drivers
when the pressure in the vehicle’s tires
is approaching a level at which
permanent tire damage could be
sustained as a result of heat buildup and
tire failure is possible; this low level of
inflation pressure generally results from
a more measured pressure loss
(produced over weeks or months)
caused by a slow leak, defective valve,
or diffusion. According to the tire
industry, approximately 85 percent of
all tire pressure losses are slow air
losses that occur over hours, weeks, or
months of vehicle use.26 In those cases,
a detection time of 20 minutes is not
likely to pose a safety risk to the driving
public.
The agency’s tire research suggests
that even in a 25-percent under-inflated
condition, the vehicle can be operated
safely for this detection period without
an appreciable risk of tire failure.
Specifically and as noted above, NHTSA
conducted testing on a variety of
Standard Load P-metric tires at 20 psi
with 100-percent load at 75 mph for 90
minutes on a dynamometer, and none of
these tires failed.27 This testing led the
agency to conclude that warnings at less
severe conditions will give drivers
sufficient time to check and re-inflate
their vehicles’ tires before the tires
experience appreciable damage.
Commenters advocating a reduced
detection time did not provide any
evidence to demonstrate that operation
of the vehicle with one or more tires
under-inflated by 25 percent leads to
tire damage or tire failure. Although
manufacturers are encouraged to
provide the low tire pressure warning as
quickly as possible, we believe that a
24 67

FR 38704, 38728 (June 5, 2002).

25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.

at 38726.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

20-minute detection period is unlikely
to result in any adverse safety
consequences.
We further believe that a change in
the detection time is necessary in order
to articulate a standard that is
practicable and technology-neutral.
According to manufacturers’ comments,
even direct TPMSs will require
additional time to detect and verify low
tire pressure, in part as a result of FCC
regulations limiting the frequency of
electronic transmissions.
Furthermore, we anticipate that the
extended time period also will ease
compliance for indirect systems
(particularly when detecting multiple
under-inflated tires). Most indirect and
hybrid TPMSs cannot currently meet
the four-tire, 25-percent under-inflation
detection threshold within 20 minutes.
However, we are aware of at least one
indirect TPMS that is currently capable
of doing so,28 and we expect that with
additional time and effort, other indirect
and hybrid systems also would be able
to meet the requirements of the
standard.
In sum, without an extension of the
time period for low tire pressure
detection and warning, the number of
TPMS technologies available for use
under the standard may be significantly
curtailed. Available information does
not demonstrate a safety need for
imposing such limitations, and we
believe that drivers would operate the
vehicle for 20-minutes periods with
some frequency. For these reasons, we
believe that a 20-minute detection time
period is both practicable and meets the
need for motor vehicle safety.
We have decided not to extend the
low tire pressure detection time beyond
20 minutes, however, as requested by
some manufacturers in their comments.
Available research shows that 75
percent of commuters regularly
experience commute times of 30
minutes or less.29 A recent study by the
U.S. Census Bureau, using 2002 survey
data, found that average commute times
for most major U.S. cities range from 20
to 30 minutes.30 Many other trips, such
as routine errands, may also involve
drive times of less than 30 minutes.
Therefore, if we were to require a low
tire pressure detection time of 30
minutes or more, it is conceivable that
consumers could be driving on
No. NHTSA–2004–19054–96.
statistic is based upon the results of a
Washington Post-ABC News-Time poll conducted
by telephone from January 27–31, 2005 among
1,204 randomly selected adults nationwide. Results
of this poll were reported in the Washington Post
on February 13, 2005, at page A1.
30 See http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/
Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm.

PO 00000

28 Docket
29 This

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

significantly under-inflated tires for a
potentially extended period of time
without receiving a warning from the
TPMS.
In addition, we are concerned that
extending low pressure detection time
period beyond 20 minutes could be
problematic in other situations. For
example, where a tire is punctured by
a nail or is otherwise damaged and may
experience a moderately rapid pressure
loss. As to damaged tires but
experiencing a relatively less rapid
pressure loss, research into the rate of
temperature buildup shows that for
constant load, pressure, and speed
conditions, tires generally warmed up
and stabilized their temperatures within
15 minutes of testing;31 thus, the tire
will rapidly reach a temperature that
places stress on an under-inflated tire.
In both of those cases, we are concerned
that a 30-minute detection time could
delay the warning to the driver too long.
For these reasons, we have decided that
a requirement that would permit a low
tire pressure detection time longer than
20 minutes could diminish the overall
utility of the TPMS and concomitantly
reduce the safety benefits associated
with that system.
In response to the concerns of MLHO,
it was never the agency’s intention to
require detection absent vehicle motion.
As demonstrated by the standard’s test
procedures, the detection time for low
tire pressure includes a period of
vehicle operation within a designated
speed range (see S6(f)). This provision
for vehicular motion is already built in
to the general requirements of S4.1,
which provides that the TPMS must
meet the detection requirements of S4
under the test conditions specified in S5
and the test procedures specified in S6
of the standard. We believe that no
further modifications to the standard are
necessary related to this point.
2. TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
(MIL) Activation Requirements
Paragraph S4.4 of the NPRM proposed
to require each covered vehicle to be
equipped with a TPMS that includes a
telltale that illuminates whenever there
is a malfunction that affects the
generation or transmission of control or
response signals in the TPMS and
extinguishes when the malfunction has
been corrected.
The NPRM’s proposed requirement
for a TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
(MIL) was not included in earlier
rounds of the TPMS rulemaking
process. Consequently, the agency
31 See June 5, 2002 comments of the Rubber
Manufacturers Association (Docket No. NHTSA–
00–8011–64).

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
expected and did receive extensive
public comment on this proposed
provision. Commenters offered
recommendations regarding how
quickly the TPMS must detect system
malfunctions, the types of functions to
be detected, and the test procedures for
detecting such malfunctions. Each of
these topics will be discussed in turn.
(a) Time Period for Malfunction
Detection. The NPRM did not specify a
time period for the TPMS to detect a
malfunction and to illuminate the TPMS
MIL.
The Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM)
expressed concern that the NPRM
would require detection and notification
of a TPMS malfunction immediately
upon occurrence. However, AIAM
stated that immediate detection is not
possible in most cases, because TPMSs
generally require the vehicle to be in
motion in order to detect a malfunction
(an argument also raised by Honda
Motor Co., Ltd. and American Honda
Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and EnTire),
and several transmissions from the
pressure sensor to the controller are
required to validate the existence of a
malfunction.
AIMA stated that the FCC requires a
pause between signal transmissions at
least 30 times as long as the signal
transmission itself. In addition, AIMA
stated that interference may result in the
loss of some of these signals. AIMA
argued that a requirement for immediate
detection and reporting of a TPMS
malfunction could result in many false
positive warnings, which could
undermine consumers’ faith in the
system and potentially lead them to
ignore TPMS-related warnings (an
argument repeated by General Motors
North America (GM) and Hyundai in
their comments). In light of the above,
AIMA recommended that the agency
allow the TPMS between 30 and 60
minutes to determine with a high degree
of certainty whether a true malfunction
is present (e.g., not one caused by
signals external to the vehicle). The
Alliance made a similar comment,
suggesting a 30-minute detection time
for a malfunction.
Several other commenters also
recommended that the agency specify a
time period for the detection of a TPMS
malfunction, although the
recommended time periods varied. For
example, ALPS Automotive, Inc. (ALPS)
and Honda commented that a TPMS
cannot detect malfunctions any faster
than the system can detect low tire
pressure and that the same durational
parameters should be set for both
functions. ALPS, BERU, Schrader
Electronics, Ltd. (Schrader), and Fuji

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

Heavy Industries USA, Inc. (Fuji) each
recommended a 10-minute detection
time. BERU stated that it does not
support an ‘‘excessive[ly] long’’
duration for TPMS malfunction
detection, because an extended ride
(even 20 minutes) with a defective
TPMS or an incompatible tire could
prevent a low pressure warning and
lead to a tire blow out. BERU also
recommended specification of a vehicle
moving distance. BERU stated that
specifications for ‘‘duration’’ and
‘‘vehicle moving distance’’ are necessary
not only for the detection of a
malfunction, but also for the validation
of the correction of a malfunction.
EnTire and Hyundai recommended a
malfunction detection time of 20
minutes. According to EnTire, if a
pressure sensor is disabled, it can take
over 13.5 minutes for the fault to
‘‘mature’’ and to be detected by the
system and suggested 20 minutes as a
reasonable detection time. (EnTire also
suggested 20 minutes as a reasonable
extinguishment time for the MIL, and
Fuji recommended that a vehicle be
driven at least 10 minutes at a minimum
of 40 kph in order to verify that the
malfunction has been eliminated.)
Hyundai commented that current direct
TPMSs are designed so that a failure is
recognized only when the control unit
does not receive data from the pressure
sensor for three to four consecutive
delivery cycles. Hyundai stated that
current systems, therefore, require
approximately 20 minutes to properly
detect and verify TPMS malfunctions, a
time period consistent with
minimization of nuisance warnings.
GM recommended a 30-minute drive
time for TPMS malfunction detection.
GM stated that the MILs for its current
TPMSs have a 25-minute drive period
for the detection threshold, and the
company is not aware of any consumer
complaints arising from delayed TPMS
malfunction warnings. GM argued that a
TPMS that is programmed to be highly
reactive in terms of malfunction
detection and that provides an
immediate response may result in
relatively frequent malfunction
warnings because common, everyday
occurrences are likely to temporarily
disturb the TPMS’s signals.
MLHO stated that the regulatory text
related to the TPMS malfunction
detection requirement should be revised
to focus on the detection of a
malfunction or correction of a
malfunction, rather than the occurrence
of those events. MLHO’s comment is
related to those about the need for the
system to have adequate time to
detection the presence or absence of a
malfunction.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18149

DaimlerChrysler Corporation
(DaimlerChrysler) made a general
argument that NHTSA has not
calculated or otherwise demonstrated
any significant safety benefits associated
with the TPMS MIL.
Based upon the information provided
by the commenters, we have decided to
modify our approach to the MIL by
providing a time period for malfunction
detection and a speed range in which
the vehicle will be driven as part of the
malfunction detection phase in the test
procedures. Specifically, this final rule
requires the TPMS to detect a
malfunction and to illuminate the MIL
within 20 minutes of the occurrence of
a malfunction, when the vehicle is
driven at a speed between 50 km/h and
100 km/hr.
Several commenters have stated that
TPMSs generally require the same
amount of time to detect and to verify
a malfunction as they do for low tire
pressure. As discussed above, the
detection time period for low tire
pressure has been increased to 20
minutes. A number of commenters
stated that 20 minutes would provide
adequate time for TPMS malfunction
detection, with some commenters
recommending an even shorter time
period (e.g., 10 minutes). We also
believe that specifying a time period for
detection addresses MLHO’s comment
that the standard should not imply a
requirement for automatic illumination
of the MIL as soon as a malfunction
occurs.
We understand that certain TPMS
technologies require vehicular motion
in order to diagnose a TPMS
malfunction, which is similar to the way
in which such systems detect low tire
pressure. For that reason, we are now
specifying in the standard’s test
procedures that the vehicle will be
driving within a designated speed range
during the malfunction detection phase.
We see important benefits in
including a MIL requirement as part of
the final rule. First, the malfunction
detection requirement is intended to
ensure the long-term functionality of the
TPMS by identifying those small
number of replacement tires with
construction characteristics that would
prevent proper operation of the TPMS.
Without the TPMS MIL, some drivers
would lose the benefit of the low tire
pressure warning to be provided by the
TPMS. The malfunction indicator was
recommended by the Alliance as a
solution to this problem. In addition,
the MIL could provide ancillary benefits
by alerting the driver of other situations
where the system becomes nonoperational; in some cases, the problem
may be temporary (e.g., brief signal

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18150

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

disturbance), but in other cases, the MIL
may signal the need for repair of the
TPMS. In all these cases, it is useful to
the driver to be aware that the system
is unavailable to provide a low tire
pressure warning.
However, with the above said, we do
believe that the above accommodations
can be made without any significant
decrease in safety benefits. A TPMS
malfunction does not itself represent a
safety risk to vehicle occupants, and we
expect that the chances of having a
TPMS malfunction and a significantly
under-inflated tire at the same time are
unlikely. Even if that is the case, we do
not believe that a 20-minute detection
time would increase occupant risk
appreciably.
(b) What Constitutes a TPMS
Malfunction? The NPRM proposed to
require the MIL to illuminate
‘‘whenever there is a malfunction that
affects the generation or transmission of
control or response signals in the
vehicle’s tire pressure monitoring
system’’ and to extinguish when such
malfunction is corrected (S4.4(a)).
A number of commenters argued that
proposed malfunction requirement is
overly broad and in need of
modification. The Alliance, the
organization that originally suggested
consideration of a TPMS MIL, stated
that it remains committed to providing
an in-vehicle indication when there is
inadequate signal reception from one or
more TPMS sensors. However, the
Alliance stated that the technical
specifications for the MIL proposed in
the NPRM are different than the MILs
that Alliance members were expecting
and, in some cases, are inconsistent
with the MILs that manufacturers are
already voluntarily providing.
Fuji stated that although it is
reasonable to require malfunction
detection for components that sense and
transmit tire inflation pressure data, the
standard should only require
malfunction detection and warning in
three situations: (1) When there is
inadequate (or no) input signal from the
wheel sensors; (2) when there is
inadequate (or no) input signal from the
antenna to the electronic control
module (ECM), or (3) when there is
inadequate (or no) input signal from
other systems used by the malfunction
warning system (e.g., ABS wheel speed
input to the ECM). Fuji stated that
malfunctions in the TPMS ECM (which
contains the logic to determine that a
malfunction exists) would be impossible
to indicate via the MIL, because the
module would not be functioning to
operate the lamp.
Sumitomo commented that paragraph
S4.4, as proposed, should be modified

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

to require the TPMS to indicate a
malfunction under the following two
conditions: (1) When wheel speed
signals cannot be transmitted from
wheel speed sensors to the TPMS, and
(2) when tire pressure signals cannot be
transmitted from the pressure sensors to
the TPMS.
ETV stated that the MIL should
indicate the following malfunctions: (1)
Incompatibility of replacement tires/
rims; (2) sensor failure; (3) signal failure
in communications channel; (4) reader
electronics failure, and (5) telltale bulb
failure. ETV argued that there should be
a redundancy or failsafe built into the
system so that a burnt out telltale bulb
can still produce a malfunction
warning, so as to alert the consumer that
that bulb needs replacement.
Hyundai stated that there are three
types of TPMS malfunctions that will
require addition of a separate electrical
circuit to activate the MIL: (1)
Disconnection of the power source to
the main control unit; (2) disconnection
of the power source to the telltale lamp,
and (3) disconnection of wiring between
the main control unit and the telltale
lamp. Hyundai requested that the
agency exclude these three malfunctions
from the requirements of the standard
during the phase-in period, because
incorporating detection capabilities for
these types of malfunctions would
require additional development time.
Alternatively, Hyundai suggested that
detection of these conditions could be
achieved through the bulb check
function and supplemental language in
the owner’s manual; in those cases, the
TPMS lamp would not be illuminated
during the bulb check, and the driver
would consult the owner’s manual to be
alerted to the TPMS malfunction in
such cases.
In addition, Hyundai stated that even
though components such as the
electronic control unit (ECU) or vehicle
speed sensors are involved in TPMS
operation, failure of these components
should not be considered a TPMS
malfunction. Mitsubishi stated that the
MIL should not be required to provide
a warning during brief interruption of
communication between sensors and
the ECU because the TPMS uses radio
communications that can be affected by
external interference; this is a common
occurrence that could result in false
positive warnings. GM made a similar
point about not requiring the TPMS MIL
to illuminate during brief and temporary
interruption of signals.
The comments of American Suzuki
Motor Corporation (Suzuki) discussed
the malfunction detection capabilities of
the TPMS currently installed on the
Suzuki XL–7. According to Suzuki, that

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

system provides a malfunction
indication when there is either a loss of
power to the TPMS control unit or when
there is no electrical connection
between the control unit and the TPMS
telltale. Suzuki stated that although its
system is not compliant with the
NPRM’s proposed MIL requirements, it
believes that its system is just as
effective as the MIL technical
specifications in the NPRM. Therefore,
Suzuki requested that NHTSA adopt
‘‘less design-restrictive’’ requirements
for the TPMS MIL, so as to allow
continued use of its system.
NIRA Dynamics commented that it is
important to keep the malfunction
indicator requirements generic, so that
any TPMS technology may be used. As
examples of limitations specific to
certain types of TPMS technology, NIRA
Dynamics stated that: (1) Many direct
systems cannot detect a malfunction
when the vehicle is stationary if the
sensor does not have any contact with
the receiver due to wheel angle; (2) it is
impossible for indirect systems to detect
a malfunction when the vehicle is
stationary because the wheel must rotate
to diagnose the sensor, and (3) indirect
systems cannot detect tire
incompatibilities. NIRA Dynamics urged
that the final rule should simply require
TPMSs to be designed to detect
malfunctions ‘‘according to good
engineering practices.’’
Honda’s comments sought
confirmation that the following system
failures would be excluded from the
TPMS MIL activation and warning
requirements: TPMS indicator light,
TPMS coupler, and meter panel. Honda
argued that it would be unnecessary for
the TPMS MIL to report these failures
because they would be apparent upon
bulb check. Honda also requested that
the agency issue a laboratory test
procedure for generating a TPMS system
fault, so as to clear up any confusion
related to the types of malfunctions that
will be subject to testing.
Continental Teves, Inc. (Continental
Teves) also commented that for a hybrid
system, it would not be possible for the
TPMS to illuminate the MIL to indicate
an incompatible tire unless it is on a
wheel with a pressure sensor.
Continental Teves stated that the TPMS
MIL should not be required to
illuminate when an incompatible
replacement tire is installed, but
instead, the system should be permitted
to continue to function with reduced
performance without the MIL being lit.
BMW also stated that the TPMS MIL
should not be required to illuminate
when system failure is the result of a
change to an incompatible tire, because

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
such failure is not the result of a
malfunction of the TPMS.
Schrader commented that the TPMS
should not be required to signal a
malfunction when the ignition locking
system is in the lamp-check position,
because that status check should be
reserved for confirming the
functionality of the telltale bulb.
After careful consideration of the
public comments, we have decided to
retain the NPRM’s requirement for the
MIL to illuminate whenever there is a
malfunction that affects the generation
or transmission of control or response
signals in the vehicle’s tire pressure
monitoring system. Although the
commenters expressed preferences for
TPMSs with reduced malfunction
detection capabilities, they did not state
that it would be impracticable to
provide the proposed warnings.
Furthermore, we believe that, given
adequate lead time, this requirement is
practicable, because a nearly identical
malfunction requirement for anti-lock
braking systems (ABS) is contained in
FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and
vehicle manufacturers have certified to
that standard successfully. We expect
that manufacturers would similarly be
able to meet the malfunction detection
requirements of the TPMS standard.
As drafted, the TPMS malfunction
detection requirement is technologyneutral and capable of accommodating
system design changes without the need
to continually amend the standard. For
example, in a direct TPMS, the control
signals are generated by the wheel
sensor and transmitted to an electronic
control unit via an antenna. In contrast,
in an indirect TPMS, the control signals
may be generated by the ABS wheel
sensor and transmitted to the electronic
control unit directly. The present
requirement encompasses both types of
systems.
In response to comments suggesting
that the TPMS MIL should only detect
specific malfunctions, the agency
believes that such restrictions would
unnecessarily reduce the safety benefits
of the TPMS. Specifications in the
standard that would limit malfunctions
that must be detected could impose
design restrictions on manufacturers
because such specifications and the
components to which they refer may not
be applicable to current or future TPMS
designs. The agency recognizes that the
requirement for malfunction detection
includes all TPMS components and may
require some additional circuitry and
software, but we believe that with minor
modifications, it would be practicable to
monitor all TPMS components for
malfunction. Therefore, we are not

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

adopting the specific limitations
recommended by the commenters.
We agree with the comment of
Schrader that the MIL should not be
required to signal a burned out bulb as
a TPMS malfunction, because that
problem would already be identified
during the check-of-lamp function at
vehicle start-up.
As discussed previously, we
recognize that most TPMSs require
vehicular motion in order to detect a
system malfunction, so we have
incorporated a 20-minute drive time in
a designated speed range as part of the
standard’s test procedures for
malfunction detection.
We do not agree with the comments
stating that the MIL should not be
required to illuminate during periods of
brief external signal disturbance. The
TPMS is unlikely to know for how long
a signal disturbance will continue.
Instead, we believe that the driver
should be provided a warning that the
TPMS system is unavailable to detect
low tire pressure. This situation is not
a false positive, but instead, it involves
a period when the TPMS is unavailable,
although through no fault of its own.
Once the period of signal disturbance
passes, the TPMS should detect that the
problem has been resolved and
extinguish the MIL, and no additional
action on the part of the driver would
be required.
In addition, during periods of brief
disturbance, the TPMS’s circuitry and
software may require time to detect a
malfunction, and the MIL telltale may
ultimately not illuminate. As discussed
above, we are requiring the TPMS to
detect a malfunction and to illuminate
the TPMS MIL within 20 minutes of the
occurrence of such malfunction. This
time period for detection should
provide the system with an adequate
opportunity to determine whether the
disturbance is, in fact, brief before
illuminating the MIL.
We also disagree with commenters
who suggested that the TPMS MIL
should not be required to signal when
the vehicle is equipped with alternate or
replacement tires that prevent
continued proper functioning of the
TPMS. That requirement is key to the
long-term functionality of the TPMS,
and unless such a warning is provided,
some drivers may lose the benefits of
the system entirely. It is plainly
foreseeable that most vehicles will
outlast their original set of tires, so this
requirement is necessary to ensure that
consumers continue to receive the
TPMS’s important information related
to low tire pressure.
In response to Honda’s comment that
the agency should rapidly issue a

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18151

laboratory test procedure for generating
a TPMS system malfunction, we would
offer the following clarification and
cautionary note. It is our intention to
publish guidelines to test facilities that
the agency contracts with to conduct
compliance testing in the near future.
These guidelines are referred to as
compliance test procedures, and they
are intended to provide a standardized
testing and data recording format among
the various contractors that perform
testing on behalf of the agency, so that
the test results will reflect performance
characteristics of the product being
tested, not differences between the
various testing facilities. However, we
would stress that vehicle manufacturers’
certification responsibilities are linked
to the requirements, test procedures,
and test conditions articulated in the
standard, not the laboratory test
procedures.
(c) MIL Disablement. The NPRM did
not contain any provision for MIL
disablement.
Honda requested clarification as to
whether it would be permissible to
disable or to suppress the MIL when the
TPMS sending units have been removed
as a result of the replacement of the
original equipment tires and rims with
aftermarket components that are not
compatible with the direct-sensing
TPMS. Honda stated that it had
previously received complaints from
customers and dealers who encountered
this situation and were confronted with
a recurrent malfunction warning. The
company expressed concern that if the
MIL cannot be suppressed in these
situations, consumers may become
desensitized to MILs generally, which
could have negative implications for
occupant safety. NADA provided a
similar comment.
We do not believe it is appropriate to
permit disablement of the MIL when
aftermarket tires and rims are installed
on the vehicle that are not compatible
with the continued proper functioning
of the TPMS. In such cases, the TPMS
MIL is performing its intended function.
We believe that the MIL should
continue to operate when tires and rims
that are incompatible with the TPMS are
mounted on the vehicle, not only to
discourage such actions, but also to
provide an ongoing reminder that the
TPMS is unavailable to provide low tire
pressure warnings.
3. Telltale Requirements
The NPRM proposed to require
installation of either a single TPMS
telltale (i.e., a combination telltale
indicating both low tire pressure and
system malfunction) or separate telltales

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18152

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

for low tire pressure and malfunction
indication.
For the low tire pressure warning,
paragraph S4.3 of the NPRM proposed
to require a telltale that is mounted
inside the occupant compartment in
front of and in clear view of the driver,
which is identified by one of the
symbols for ‘‘Low Tire Pressure
Telltale’’ in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101,
Controls and Displays, and is
illuminated under the conditions
specified in S4.2. For low tire pressure
telltales that identify which tire(s) is
(are) under-inflated, the NPRM
proposed to require that each tire in that
symbol must illuminate when the tire it
represents is under-inflated to the extent
specified in S4.2. That paragraph also
proposed to require the low tire
pressure telltale to illuminate during a
check-of-lamp function, and stated that
the telltale would not be required to
illuminate when a starter interlock is in
operation.
For the TPMS MIL, paragraph S4.4 of
the NPRM proposed two options for
compliance. As the first option, under
S4.4(b), a vehicle manufacturer could
install a dedicated TPMS malfunction
telltale that is mounted inside the
occupant compartment in front of and
in clear view of the driver, which is
identified by one of the symbols for
‘‘TPMS Malfunction Telltale’’ in Table 2
of FMVSS No. 101, and is continuously
illuminated under the conditions
specified in S4.4(a). That paragraph also
proposed to require the MIL to
illuminate during a check-of-lamp
function, and stated that the telltale
would not be required to illuminate
when a starter interlock is in operation.
As the second option, under S4.4(c),
a vehicle manufacturer could install a
combined Low Tire Pressure/TPMS
Malfunction telltale that continues to
meet the low tire pressure detection
requirements of S4.2 and S4.3 and
meets the MIL requirements of S4.4(a)
in the following fashion. The NPRM
proposed to require the combined
telltale to flash for one minute upon
detection of any malfunction condition
specified in S4.4(a) after the ignition
locking system is turned to the ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) position. After the first minute,
the telltale would be required to remain
continuously illuminated as long as the
malfunction exists and the ignition
locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position. The NPRM proposed that this
flashing and illumination sequence
would be required to be repeated upon
subsequent vehicle start-ups until the
situation causing the malfunction has
been corrected, after which time the
telltale must extinguish.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

(a) Function and Format of the
Combined Low Pressure Warning/
Malfunction Indicator Lamp.
A number of commenters discussed
the issue of how the MIL would operate,
particularly when it is combined with
the low pressure warning telltale. No
consensus was evident, as reflected by
the variety of viewpoints in the
following discussion of comments.
Some commenters argued that the
proposed requirements for the TPMS
MIL are design-restrictive and may
impose unnecessary costs. In its
comments, AIAM opposed the use of a
flashing low pressure telltale to indicate
TPMS malfunction when the MIL is part
of a combined format, because such a
format may require significant software
and hardware changes. AIAM stated
that a separate MIL will not be feasible
for many vehicles, and that the NPRM’s
limited MIL design options would
restrict a number of potentially
innovative solutions (e.g., voice
malfunction indicators, other visual or
text messaging displays).
AIAM argued that NHTSA instead
should include a technology-neutral
requirement for a MIL, but leave MIL
design to the discretion of the vehicle
manufacturer. Porsche Cars North
America, Inc. (Porsche) argued that
there is no evidence that clear and
concise text messages create confusion,
and the company recommended that the
final rule permit text messages related to
TPMS malfunction and permit those
messages to be cleared by the driver (but
not permit clearing of the low pressure
telltale). The Alliance, BMW,
DaimlerChrysler, and VW/Audi all
expressed similar views regarding
allowing design freedom for MILs with
a mix of product offerings. Suzuki
suggested that manufacturers should be
permitted to explain how different
malfunctions are identified in the
vehicle owner’s manual.
DaimlerChrysler stated that its
experience has shown TPMS
malfunctions to be uncommon events,
and therefore, detailed MIL
specifications are not warranted because
they do not address a significant safety
problem or provide a significant safety
benefit. DaimlerChrysler argued that it
should be sufficient to have the final
rule that the malfunction indicator ‘‘be
present, visible to the driver,
perceptually upright, and explained in
the owner’s manual.’’
Others were concerned that the
flashing-to-steady-burning MIL could
lead to consumer confusion. The
Alliance questioned whether having the
combined telltale flash for one minute
and then become steady burning to
indicate a malfunction would confuse

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

consumers as to whether a malfunction
or a low tire pressure condition exists.
More specifically, Hyundai stated that
the initial one-minute flashing sequence
may be an insufficient period of time,
because, particularly at vehicle start-up,
the driver may be preoccupied with
other tasks and may not notice the
flashing telltale until it becomes steadyburning, at which time it may be
misconstrued to be a low pressure
warning (a similar comment was
provided by Emtop). Hyundai
recommended that NHTSA either
consider other alternatives (e.g.,
periodic flashing) or an extension of the
one-minute time period for the initial
flashing. The comments of Mitsubishi
Motors R&D of America, Inc.
(Mitsubishi) and the TIA shared this
view. DaimlerChrysler, Mitsubishi, and
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan)
went even further in their comments
and suggested a continuously flashing
TPMS MIL, which would be distinct
from the continuous warning for low
tire pressure.
TIA also expressed concern that even
if the driver does notice the initial
flashing sequence of the combined
TPMS telltale, that person still may not
comprehend its significance, instead
misconstruing it as part of normal
vehicle start-up. According to TIA, if
that were the case, even a more detailed
explanation in the owner’s manual
would be insufficient because the driver
may never realize the need to consult it.
TIA also commented that a separate
TPMS MIL telltale would add yet
another light to an already crowded
dashboard. (BMW and Porsche provided
similar comments.) BMW commented
that a combined telltale would preserve
space for future safety-related
technologies and warnings.
Porsche argued that the 60-second
flashing format for the proposed
combined telltale is unwarranted and a
potentially dangerous way to signal a
TPMS malfunction. According to
Porsche, a flashing telltale would send
an incorrect message to the driver that
something is seriously wrong with the
vehicle, potentially alarming the driver
and leading to a panic situation that
could distract the driver’s attention from
driving.
In contrast, Emtop argued that there is
not any evidence to suggest that flashing
telltales produce inappropriate driver
responses or that the intended messages
are misunderstood, unless the
indication is inconsistent.
Fuji’s comments suggested that the
form of the MIL warning should depend
upon the type of malfunction
encountered. More specifically, Fuji
stated that malfunctions in the TPMS

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
ECM (which contains the logic to
determine that a malfunction exists)
would be impossible to indicate via the
MIL, because the module would not be
functioning to operate the lamp. Fuji
recommended that the MIL should flash
as long as the malfunction exists in
components ‘‘downstream’’ of the ECM
(e.g., loss of signal from a wheel sensor)
but that the MIL should have
continuous illumination for
malfunctions of components
‘‘upstream’’ of the ECM (e.g., wiring
harness to telltale, loss of power to the
ECM). Fuji stated that this hierarchy
would not apply to situations where the
TPMS failed the bulb check.
NADA stated that the TPMS could use
a single warning lamp to indicate a
variety of conditions (i.e., low tire
pressure, incompatible tires, TPMS
malfunction). Under the approach
recommended by NADA, when the
telltale is illuminated, the owner would
consult (at least the first time) the
following decision tree provided in the
vehicle owner’s manual in order to
determine the meaning of that
illumination: (1) There is an inflation
concern. Check tire pressures. If okay,
proceed to (2); (2) A tire is incapable of
being monitored. Check tires. If okay,
proceed to (3); (3) The system is faulty.
See your motor vehicle dealer. NADA
stated that the final rule should include
a requirement for owner’s manual
language consistent with its
recommended approach.
Emtop commented that having
separate TPMS telltales for low tire
pressure and the malfunction indicator
is inadvisable because an additional
telltale is costly, would consume
limited display space, and would
provide little or no additional safety
benefit. In contrast to earlier
commenters, Emtop argued that having
separate telltales would confuse drivers
and undermine confidence in the
TPMS, and it also argued that allowing
a choice in format could further confuse
consumers who drive multiple vehicles
when they encounter systems with
different indicators.
In addition, Emtop recommended
reversing the NPRM’s approach to the
low pressure and MIL warning signals,
urging the agency to require the telltale
to flash to indicate low tire pressure and
to be continuously illuminated to
indicate a TPMS malfunction.
According to Emtop, a flashing telltale
is more likely to be noticed and implies
a potential danger, so in this case,
Emtop recommended requiring the
telltale to flash continuously to indicate
low tire pressure, a potentially serious
condition which is relatively easy for
the driver to correct. (Honda provided a

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

similar comment.) Emtop also
recommended this approach because a
flashing malfunction indicator would
require a control signal that may be
unable to produce the requisite flashing
if the malfunction affects the control
signal itself; according to Emtop,
indicating a malfunction in a steady
state would be more appropriate
because an indicator can be made to
default to a fixed state in the absence of
a control signal.
In its comments, Emtop also
questioned the message conveyed by a
flashing-to-steady MIL, which it argued
may be confusing, counter-intuitive, and
context dependent. According to Emtop,
drivers may equate a change in the
indicator with a change in condition.
Emtop also suggested that the messages
in a combined telltale could be confused
in situations where low tire pressure is
masked by the malfunction warning or
where a low pressure warning flickers
(e.g., due to fluctuating pressure causing
the light to turn on and off), problems
which may increase as future TPMS
technology reduces system reaction
time.
Emtop recommended specifying a
flash rate of one to three times per
second, noting that the flash rate could
be changed to convey a greater sense of
urgency to the driver if the situation
deteriorates without being remedied.
Emtop stated that its TPMSs already
have a progressive flash rate that has
been tested and well received by
consumers. (EnTire and Honda also
recommended specification of a flash
rate for the 60-second flashing
malfunction indication, as well as a
tolerance for the 60-second period.
EnTire recommended a tolerance for the
60-second period of ± 10 seconds,
whereas Honda recommended a
tolerance of ± 5 seconds.)
Public Citizen urged the agency to
mandate separate warning indicators for
low tire pressure and TPMS
malfunction because a combined telltale
could be confusing, particularly for
older drivers who may have poorer
vision and slower reaction times.
(Advocates provided a similar
comment.) Public Citizen argued that
both warning telltales should be
required to flash until the underlying
problem is corrected. The organization
stated that flashing telltales convey a
sense of urgency and are more likely to
elicit a driver response, and it suggested
that a flashing indicator could be
programmed to provide additional
information, such as by flashing more
frequently at increasingly lower
pressure levels. Public Citizen argued
that the agency has provided no support
for a determination that flashing

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18153

telltales are a nuisance or otherwise
unacceptable.
BERU requested clarification of
whether the MIL should be illuminated
while the system is running validation
protocols to determine whether a
problem has been corrected.
(Presumably, this question applies to
both combined and separate TPMS
MILs.)
EnTire sought clarification as to
whether vehicles that are equipped with
both of the proposed low tire pressure
telltales (i.e., the single symbol and the
symbol showing individual tires) are
required to have both symbols indicate
a TPMS malfunction per the defined
procedure or whether the MIL may be
incorporated in only one of those
telltales.
After considering the public
comments and all available information,
we have decided to retain the NPRM’s
general approach to the telltale
requirements for both the low tire
pressure warning and the TPMS
malfunction indicator (with minor
modifications), because we believe that
this approach provides an effective
message to virtually all drivers. As part
of this final rule, we have decided to
permit use of either separate telltales for
the low tire pressure warning and the
TPMS malfunction indicator, or a
combined telltale that incorporates both
functions. We believe that a visual
telltale is necessary to provide a clear
and consistent message to the driver.
We do not believe that other suggested
alternatives (e.g., audible or text
messages) would be as effective in
providing those warnings. Furthermore,
we are concerned that leaving the MIL
to manufacturer discretion could result
in a proliferation of warnings that may
not be sufficiently noticeable or
understandable to drivers. We believe
that these warnings are extremely
important in terms of providing tire
pressure information to drivers or of
alerting drivers when the systems is not
available to provide such information.
However, manufacturers may
supplement the required warnings with
these additional messages.
The agency’s cost-benefit analysis
does not support a mandatory
requirement for separate telltales, and
we acknowledge that with limited space
available on the dashboard, a combined
telltale has the potential to preserve
precious space for future safety
warnings. However, we believe that
there is sufficient justification for
separate warnings to warrant permitting
manufacturers to use separate warning
telltales if they elect to do so. We
believe that providing these two
different compliance options offers

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18154

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

manufacturers greater flexibility in
terms of their designs without
sacrificing the important safety
messages related to the TPMS.
If the manufacturer chooses the
option for separate telltales, the final
rule requires a low tire pressure telltale
that is mounted inside the occupant
compartment in front of and in clear
view of the driver, which is identified
by one of the symbols for ‘‘Low Tire
Pressure Telltale’’ in Table 2 of FMVSS
No. 101, and is illuminated under the
conditions specified in S4.2. For low
tire pressure telltales that identify
which tire(s) is (are) under-inflated, the
final rule requires that each tire in that
symbol must illuminate when the tire it
represents is under-inflated to the extent
specified in S4.2. That paragraph also
requires the low tire pressure telltale to
illuminate during a check-of-lamp
function, and states that the telltale is
not required to illuminate when a starter
interlock is in operation.
For the dedicated MIL, under S4.4(b),
the final rule requires the vehicle
manufacturer to install a TPMS
malfunction telltale that is mounted
inside the occupant compartment in
front of and in clear view of the driver,
which is identified by the word
‘‘TPMS,’’ as described under TPMS
Malfunction Telltale’’ in Table 2 of
FMVSS No. 101, and is continuously
illuminated under the conditions
specified in S4.4(a). That paragraph also
requires the MIL to illuminate during a
check-of-lamp function, and states that
the telltale is not required to illuminate
when a starter interlock is in operation.
For the combined low tire pressure
warning/MIL option, the final rule
requires that the telltale must meet the
low tire pressure detection requirements
of S4.2 and S4.3 and also meet the MIL
requirements of S4.4(a) in the following
fashion. Upon detection of any
condition specified in S4.4(a) after the
ignition locking system is turned to the
‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position, the combined
telltale must flash for a period of 60–90
seconds, after which, the telltale is
required to remain continuously
illuminated as long as the malfunction
exists and the ignition locking system is
in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. This
flashing and illumination sequence
must be repeated upon subsequent
vehicle start-ups until the situation
causing the malfunction has been
corrected, after which time the telltale
must extinguish.
The final rule’s requirement for a 60–
90 second time period of flashing of the
combined telltale to indicate a TPMS
malfunction represents an increase from
the NPRM’s proposed requirement. We
agree with comments that drivers may

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

be distracted by other tasks at vehicle
start-up and in some cases may miss a
60-second flashing sequence.32
However, we remain concerned that
drivers may consider a lengthy or
indefinite flashing sequence to be a
nuisance, which could cause the driver
to ignore the safety message. We are also
concerned that the flashing telltale
should elicit the appropriate driver
response. Thus, the final rule’s time
period for flashing the combined telltale
represents the agency’s determination as
how to best balance these competing
concerns. We do not believe that it is
necessary to specify a flash rate for the
combined telltale, so we leave this
matter to the discretion of the vehicle
manufacturer.
Although certain commenters
objected to the manner in which the low
tire pressure and MIL warnings are to be
provided, those commenters did not
provide any evidence to show that the
agency’s approach would confuse
consumers or that their suggested
alternatives would be more effective.
The following explains our reasoning in
not adopting these suggestions.
The TPMS standard represents a
novel case in terms of the agency’s use
of a telltale. Prior to this final rule,
NHTSA has not required a flashing
telltale for any of the safety systems in
any FMVSS. Although we agree with
commenters that a flashing telltale is
likely to attract driver attention more
quickly than a continuously illuminated
telltale, we also must consider the
appropriateness of the driver’s response
to the warning.
As we have discussed at various
points in the course of this rulemaking,
we do not believe that the TPMS’s
illumination of the low tire pressure
telltale represents an urgent situation
requiring immediate correction. As
noted above, the agency’s tire testing
has shown that the vehicle can be
operated safely with a tire that is underinflated by 25 percent without an
appreciable risk of tire failure for some
reasonable period of time (i.e., at least
90 minutes). If a significantly underinflated tire does not constitute an
urgent situation, a TPMS malfunction is
even less likely to represent an
emergency situation requiring
32 We note, however, that in those cases where
the driver does not see the flashing sequence, the
anticipated response would be to check and inflate
the vehicle’s tires. Even if none of the vehicle’s tires
is ‘‘significantly under-inflated,’’ the outcome
would be to return the tires to optimal pressure.
This outcome would nevertheless be beneficial,
although the driver may experience some
consternation at the continued illlumination of the
telltale. In addition, we do not expect that the
driver would miss the MIL’s flashing sequence on
a regular basis.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

immediate driver attention. Thus, in the
situations that would generate a TPMSrelated warning, the desired response
would not be to have the driver
immediately pull over to the side of
busy highway. That is the primary
reason why the color yellow was
selected for the TPMS telltale(s), rather
than red. It is also the reason why we
have chosen to require continuous
illumination of the dedicated TPMS
MIL and to require a limited period of
flashing followed by continuous
illumination (rather than continuous
flashing) of the combined TPMS telltale.
Particularly when combined with the
color yellow, we do not see any reason
to believe that a flashing TPMS MIL
telltale, in and of itself, would produce
a panic response on the part of the
driver. Furthermore, we do not believe
it is necessary to require the combined
telltale to produce periodic flashing
more frequent than upon subsequent
vehicle start-ups.
Some commenters suggested reversing
the way the warning messages are
presented in a combined telltale (i.e.,
requiring flashing to indicate low tire
pressure and continuous illumination to
indicate TPMS malfunction). While
these arguments are not illogical, we
have decided that it is appropriate, in
this regard, to retain the approach
proposed in the NPRM. We believe that
drivers are likely to encounter the low
tire pressure warning much more
frequently than the malfunction
warning. Thus, we believe that this
situation should be assigned the
continuous illumination format, which
represents the norm. The presumably
less frequent TPMS malfunction
warning is being assigned the flashingto-continuous illumination format.
Although it is arguably true that the low
pressure situation would be easier for
the driver to correct, we believe that the
final rule’s approach would minimize
the amount of flashing encountered by
the driver overall.
We believe that the messages
presented by the different compliance
options for the TPMS telltale(s) will be
clear and apparent to most drivers.
However, if any confusion arises, the
first time the warning is encountered,
the driver would be expected to consult
the owner’s manual to clarify the matter.
We are not adopting NADA’s
recommendation to have a single TPMS
telltale that would require the driver to
run through a hierarchy of diagnostics
to determine what type of problem is
causing the telltale to illuminate. We
envision significant driver frustration
with such an approach, particularly in
those cases where the telltale remains
illuminated after pressure check and

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
correction. This scenario can be avoided
by setting a performance requirement
that differentiates between low tire
pressure situations and TPMS
malfunctions.
In response to BERU’s request for
clarification, we note that the final rule
requires the TPMS MIL to remain
illuminated until such time as the
condition causing the malfunction has
been corrected. Accordingly, the MIL
must remain illuminated while the
system is running any validation
protocols to determine whether the
problem has been resolved, as the
telltale is permitted to extinguish only
after the TPMS can confirm that the
system is again fully operational.
In response to EnTire’s question, if
the vehicle manufacturer elects to
incorporate both of the TPMS low tire
pressure telltales, it is only necessary to
include a malfunction indicator in one
of those telltales. Requiring both
telltales to indicate a malfunction would
not only be redundant, but it would also
unnecessarily increase the amount of
flashing experienced by the driver. We
leave it to the manufacturer’s discretion
to choose in which of the two telltales
the MIL should be incorporated.
Regarding Fuji’s comment that the
MIL should flash in certain
circumstances and be continuously
illuminated in other circumstances
(depending upon the type of
malfunction), we have decided not to
adopt that recommendation. We are
concerned that having different types of
malfunction warnings within the same
system could lead to consumer
confusion. In order to detect
malfunctions in all TPMS components,
some additional circuitry and software
logic may be required, as compared to
current designs. We recognize that a
failure of the control unit would be
difficult to detect without appropriate
circuitry and logic. Nevertheless, we
believe that such a requirement for a
flashing MIL would be practicable and
achievable for all types of malfunctions.
(b) Telltale Symbols for Low Pressure
Warning and Malfunction Indication.
Several commenters stated that the
proposed symbols for low tire pressure
and TPMS malfunction are difficult to
distinguish and, therefore, potentially
confusing. Emtop argued that to the
extent that the symbols are confused,
drivers may delay taking the appropriate
remedial action, and it further stated
that misunderstood telltales could
undermine confidence in the TPMS.
In its comments, the Alliance
challenged statements in the NPRM
indicating that the proposed symbol for
the TPMS MIL could be recognized by
consumers or that it would help achieve

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

the desired response. The Alliance
argued that the TPMS Docket does not
provide documentation of the agency’s
evaluation of possible icons or the
results of any focus group evaluation or
study of such icons. The Alliance also
stated that the proposed MIL icon is not
consistent with the approach to other
ISO standards, which indicate
malfunctions by adding an exclamation
point symbol (‘‘!’’). Accordingly, the
Alliance argued that, in this instance,
the MIL would require the addition of
another exclamation point (‘‘!’’) on the
side of the low tire pressure symbol.
The Alliance commented that it is not
aware of any ISO symbol attributing a
meaning to the dashed element found in
the NPRM’s proposed TPMS MIL
symbol, and instead, it suggested an
alternate symbol (i.e., the low tire
pressure icon with the capital letters
‘‘TPM’’ in the middle).
Honda also recommended modifying
the proposed TPMS malfunction
warning telltale. Honda stated that the
proposed malfunction symbol is new
and not an internationally recognized
symbol for TPMS malfunction, so
Honda argued that there is latitude for
a change. It recommended using the
word ‘‘TPMS’’ for the system
malfunction telltale. (Hyundai provided
a similar comment.)
VW/Audi suggested that for the
malfunction indicator, a more
meaningful TPMS malfunction symbol
might utilize the low tire symbol with
a diagonal bar across it, a feature that is
generally interpreted as the negative of
the underlying symbol.
ETV expressed support for the
proposed TPMS telltale that has the
outline of a car with lighted indicators
at each tire that can provide tire-specific
information by referencing its installed
location. ETV commented that, as
opposed to the proposed ISO telltale
design (which ETV referred to as the
‘‘cutaway tire’’), the alternate symbol
provides a ‘‘common sense’’ and readily
recognizable symbol for low tire
pressure, which would leave the car
symbol’s roof area available for the
TPMS malfunction signal. ETV urged
NHTSA to require that the visual telltale
be supplemented with an audible alarm.
Advocates stated that the final rule
should only permit the low tire pressure
telltale that is capable of alerting the
driver as to which tire is under-inflated,
because motorists may not respond
appropriately to re-inflate their tires
unless they can tell which tire(s) is (are)
under-inflated. Advocates argued that
NHTSA has not provided any data
regarding how consumers will react to
a warning telltale that does not indicate
which tire is under-inflated.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18155

In the final rule, we have decided to
adopt the NPRM’s symbols for low tire
pressure, but we have decided to change
the requirement for the MIL symbol. For
the low tire pressure warning, an
internationally recognized symbol has
been developed by ISO, and we are
adopting that symbol as one of the
options under FMVSS No. 101. In
addition, we are providing an option for
a telltale with a car symbol that would
allow the TPMS to indicate which tire(s)
is (are) significantly under-inflated by
illuminating the corresponding tire on
the telltale, which we believe would be
readily understandable and also provide
additional useful information to the
driver. These symbols may be
supplemented by the words ‘‘Low Tire.’’
We are not expressing any preference
between these two symbols. Not all
TPMSs may be able to distinguish and
identify which tire is significantly
under-inflated, and we expected that if
the low tire pressure telltale were to
illuminate, most drivers would check
and adjust the pressure in all of their
tires. Further, the Advocates did not
provide any data to demonstrate that the
consumers would be confused by ISO’s
international symbol for low tire
pressure. Therefore, in order maintain a
technology-neutral standard, we are
adopting the NPRM’s two options for
the TPMS low tire pressure symbol.
Regarding the symbol for the TPMS
malfunction indicator using a separate
telltale, we have decided to modify the
requirements proposed in the NPRM.
(For those systems providing a
combined low tire pressure/TPMS
malfunction warning in a single telltale,
no additional symbol is required
because malfunction is indicated by the
flashing sequence discussed above.)
Several commenters stated that the ISO
symbol for low tire pressure and
NHTSA’s proposed symbol for the MIL
were so similar as to be confusing. In
addition, as noted by Honda and Emtop,
there is not any internationally
recognized symbol for TPMS
malfunction, so the agency has latitude
in selecting an appropriate symbol for
the MIL.
We agree that the TPMS-related
telltales should be sufficiently distinct
and comprehensible, so as to facilitate
proper driver response in both low tire
pressure and TPMS malfunction
situations. Accordingly, consistent with
the recommendations of Honda and
Hyundai in their comments, we have
decided that for dedicated TPMS
malfunction telltales, the telltale must
display the word ‘‘TPMS,’’ without any
symbol. We understand that the term
‘‘TPMS’’ is becoming commonly known,
and, because it references the system

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18156

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

itself, it is distinct from the low tire
pressure warning. We do not believe
that VW/Audi’s suggested approach of
having the low pressure symbol inside
a circle with a diagonal slash through it
would provide sufficient clarification.
In the event that the International
Standards Organization (ISO), the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
or some other voluntary standards
organization develops a symbol for
TPMS malfunction, the agency would
carefully evaluate such symbol and
consider migration to the consensus
standard as part of a subsequent
rulemaking. We will carefully evaluate
the distinctness and comprehensibility
of any such symbol.
We are not adopting ETV’s
recommendation that we require an
audible alarm to accompany the TPMS
telltale(s), because we believe that the
requirements of the final rule provide an
adequate warning to the driver.
(c) Telltale Color. (i) Low Pressure
Warning Telltale. The NPRM proposed
to require a yellow telltale to indicate to
the driver when a tire becomes
significantly under-inflated (see Table 2
of FMVSS No. 101).
BMW commented that manufacturers
should be permitted (but not required)
to change the TPMS low pressure
telltale from yellow to red once tire
pressure becomes ‘‘extremely low.’’
BMW recommended that the TPMS
should be allowed to change from
yellow to red once the tire(s) drop 50
percent or more below placard pressure,
a point at which the tire can be
considered functionally flat. In its
comments, BMW emphasized that this
feature is particularly important for runflat tires, because a consumer may not
be able to determine by visual
inspection or by handling feedback that
the tire is flat. According to BMW, runflat tires are designed to be driven with
a loss of inflation pressure, but only at
low speeds and for a limited distance;
therefore, the consumer must be advised
not to continue driving for an extended
period of time or at highway speeds.
VW/Audi and Emtop provided similar
comments about permitting the low tire
pressure warning to change from yellow
to red at a specified point. VW/Audi
asserted that this functionality is
desirable, both as a matter of safety (i.e.,
to provide a heightened level of alert to
indicate that the risk of tire failure is at
a higher level) and as a matter of
practicability (i.e., to permit a single
location for the basic warning indicator
and the heightened red alert).
ETV also suggested linking a change
in telltale color to a change in tire
pressure, although at a much earlier
point than other commenters.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

Specifically, ETV recommended
requiring illumination of a yellow
telltale when a tire is 20 percent below
placard pressure, but changing the color
to red (with an accompanying beep)
when the pressure drops to 25 percent
below placard pressure. ETV argued that
this color change would not confuse
drivers and that it may encourage more
immediate action to remedy the underinflation situation.
For the final rule, we have decided to
adopt the NPRM’s proposed
requirement for a yellow low tire
pressure telltale. The issues of the
appropriate telltale color and the
possibility of changing from one color to
another have been raised in earlier
rounds of this rulemaking, and the
commenters on the NPRM have largely
reiterated arguments raised previously.
The following summarizes our
reasoning for the yellow color
requirement.
As we noted in the NPRM, we believe
that yellow is the most appropriate color
for the low tire pressure telltale. The use
of the color red is usually reserved for
telltales warning of an imminent safety
hazard. An example is the brake system
warning telltale, which is red because a
failure in the vehicle’s brake system
results in an imminent safety hazard
that requires immediate attention. In
contrast, NHTSA requires a yellow
telltale for driver warnings when the
safety consequences of the
malfunctioning system do not constitute
an emergency and the vehicle does not
require immediate servicing. Based
upon the results of the agency’s tire
testing, we have concluded that yellow
is the appropriate color for the low tire
pressure telltale because it conveys the
intended message that the driver may
continue driving, but should check and
adjust the tire pressure at the earliest
opportunity.
To respond to the commenters’
requests that NHTSA permit a telltale
that changes color from yellow to red,
we are concerned that this could
confuse consumers, particularly if it is
left to the discretion of individual
vehicle manufacturers to decide the
level of under-inflation at which the red
telltale is triggered. Conceivably, it
would be possible for a vehicle
manufacturer to program the TPMS to
illuminate a yellow telltale for a fraction
of a second, after which time, it would
immediately turn red; such a
requirement would meet the letter of the
requirement, but foil its intent.
As a counterpoint to ETV’s argument,
we believe that it is possible that if a
driver knows that the TPMS low tire
pressure warning will eventually shift
from yellow to red, that person may

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

elect to postpone taking remedial action
until that time, a result quite contrary to
that which is intended. It is conceivable
that such drivers might actually take
corrective action more quickly if they
know that the illumination of the yellow
low tire pressure telltale is the only
warning that they will receive.
However, in any case, we expect that
such delayed action would be the
anomalous response.
Therefore, although we are retaining
the yellow color requirement for the low
tire pressure telltale, we have decided
that vehicle manufacturers may
supplement the required low pressure
telltale with an additional warning. For
example, vehicle manufacturers may
choose to incorporate a second, red
lamp to accompany the continuouslyilluminated yellow low tire pressure
telltale. This red lamp could be
illuminated when the pressure in one or
more tires becomes dangerously underinflated, as defined by the vehicle
manufacturer. This approach is
consistent with our traditional practice
of allowing manufacturers to
incorporate measures, consistent with
Federal motor vehicle safety standards,
which are designed to further enhance
safety. If a vehicle manufacturer chooses
to add a second, red warning lamp, its
meaning and function would have to be
discussed in the vehicle owner’s
manual.
We are not adopting ETV’s suggestion
for requiring an audible beep when tire
inflation pressure drops to some point
lower than 25 percent below placard
pressure, because the commenter has
not provided any evidence to show that
this redundant warning signal is
necessary. Likewise, we are not
adopting ETV’s recommendation for a
20-percent under-inflation threshold, for
the reasons discussed above.
(ii) Malfunction Indicator Telltale.
The NPRM proposed to require the color
for the MIL to be yellow, regardless of
whether it is incorporated in a
combined telltale with the low tire
pressure warning or is provided as a
separate, dedicated telltale. For the
combined telltale, the proposed MIL
color requirement would carry through
from the low tire pressure telltale’s color
requirement, and for the dedicated MIL,
the proposed color requirement was set
forth in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101.
In its comments, the Alliance
expressed support for requiring the
dedicated TPMS malfunction indicator
telltale to be yellow, to be constantly
illuminated as long as the malfunction
exists, and to perform a bulb check as
required for other telltales.
ETV stated its belief that a systemic
failure of the TPMS should illuminate a

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
red warning telltale, because the gravity
of this situation is on par with a tire
failure.
In the final rule, we are adopting a
yellow color requirement for the MIL,
both for the combined telltale and
separate telltale options. As noted under
the earlier discussion of the MIL, we do
not believe that a TPMS malfunction
constitutes an inherently dangerous
situation requiring immediate corrective
action, and just because the TPMS is
malfunctioning, it does not necessarily
mean that the vehicle’s tires are underinflated. Thus, if a yellow telltale is
appropriate for the low tire pressure
warning, we do not believe that there is
justification for a more stringent
warning for the TPMS MIL, as would be
indicated by the color red.
(d) Telltale Extinguishment
Requirements. Under S4.2(b), the NPRM
proposed to require that the low
pressure telltale ‘‘must extinguish after
the inflation pressure is corrected.’’
Similarly, under S4.4(a), the NPRM
proposed to require that the TPMS
malfunction telltale ‘‘extinguishes when
the malfunction has been corrected.’’
Continental Teves commented that
S4.2 is not technology-neutral because it
does not provide for systems requiring
manual reset (e.g., hybrid systems). It
recommended that the final rule permit
the telltale to stay illuminated until the
low-pressure situation has been
corrected and the system has been reset
in accordance with any applicable
instructions in the owner’s manual.
Schrader expressed concern that
drivers will use TPMS reset buttons to
extinguish the low pressure warning
lamp without correcting the tire
inflation problem, in order to extinguish
the ‘‘annoying’’ telltale. In order to
prevent such occurrences, Schrader
stated that the final rule should not
permit TPMSs with a manual reset
feature that would allow consumers to
recalibrate the system.
Emtop stated that the low tire
pressure warning should not be
extinguished until the tire pressure is at
least 10 percent above the level
specified in S4.2(a) of the NPRM.
We disagree with the comments of
Continental Teves, which stated that
S4.2 is not technology-neutral because
that section does not specifically
mention that the TPMS will be reset in
accordance with any applicable
instructions in the vehicle owner’s
manual. Although system reset was not
specifically mentioned in S4.2, it is
clearly addressed in S6(c), S6(i), S6(j),
and S6(1) of the test procedures.
However, in order to foster a better
understanding of this provision, we

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

have provided additional clarifying
language in S4.2 of the final rule.
We agree with Schrader that drivers
should not reset the TPMS so as to
extinguish the low tire pressure warning
telltale (or the MIL) until the underlying
problem has been corrected (e.g.,
restoring proper inflation pressure or
remedying other problems). We believe
that vehicle manufacturers will clearly
address this issue when explaining the
TPMS reset feature, if applicable. We
believe that no additional language is
necessary on this point.
As to Emtop’s recommendation that
we should require the tires to be refilled
to at least 10 percent above the level
specified in S4.2(a) of the NPRM before
permitting the telltale to extinguish, we
do not believe that such a requirement
is necessary. First, if a tire is inflated to
a level above the TPMS low tire
pressure warning threshold, it is
presumably safe to drive. In addition,
we do not believe that such a provision
is necessary, because we would expect
consumers to fill all four tires to the
recommended inflation pressure once
the low tire pressure telltale illuminates.
(e) Telltale Illumination Priority. The
NPRM did not provide any specification
for telltale illumination priority for the
combined TPMS telltale, in the event
that the vehicle’s TPMS encounters both
a low tire pressure situation and a
TPMS malfunction.
Several commenters urged the agency
to clarify how to prioritize the messages
for the low tire pressure warning and
the MIL in a combined TPMS telltale, in
the event that both of the underlying
conditions materialize simultaneously.
In their comments, Fuji and Mitsubishi
each stated that the low tire pressure
warning should take precedence over
the TPMS malfunction warning. Honda
suggested that the flashing sequence
could occur immediately before and
after one minute of steady illumination.
Emtop’s comments suggested that, in
many cases, illumination priority may
be a non-issue, because, according to
Emtop, if one of the telltales is
operative, the other inevitably is not.
Emtop stated that if there is a TPMS
malfunction, then the low tire pressure
telltale is unlikely to be able to provide
reliable information. However, Emtop
stated that the low tire pressure warning
should take priority, if there is a
malfunction affecting only one tire; in
those cases, the system should continue
to provide low tire pressure warnings
for the unaffected tires, to the extent
possible.
Fuji expressed concern that if the low
tire pressure warning has complete
priority over the malfunction warning,
resetting the low pressure telltale could

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18157

clear the malfunction telltale and would
require a complete diagnostic check
cycle before illuminating the
malfunction telltale.
We believe that cogent arguments can
be made that either the low tire pressure
warning or the malfunction warning
should be given priority in a
combination telltale, as both messages
relay important information to the
driver. However, we would preface this
discussion by saying that we expect that
the simultaneous occurrence of a low
pressure situation and a TPMS
malfunction would be a very rare event.
Furthermore, we believe that the
ability of the TPMS to monitor both low
tire pressure and a malfunctioning
component simultaneously may be a
derivative of system design. For
example, if a vehicle were equipped
with TPMS with a low pressure telltale
that depicts a vehicle with a light at
each wheel, the TPMS could
conceivably experience a malfunction in
the sensor for one tire (thus triggering a
malfunction warning) but still be
capable of detecting low pressure in the
remaining three tires. In contrast, a
different TPMS system might be
equipped with a low pressure telltale
that does not distinguish individual
tires, and a malfunction in its central
processing unit may wholly disable the
system’s under-inflation detection
capabilities. To the extent that a
malfunctioning system can maintain
some residual level of under-inflation
detection capability, that would be
beneficial, but it is not a result that
could be consistently expected across
TPM systems or even from a single
system at different times.
As a result, we have decided to leave
the issue of telltale illumination priority
for the combined telltale to vehicle
manufacturer discretion. We believe
that because the manufacturers are the
ones most familiar with the capabilities
of their individual systems, they are the
ones best equipped to handle this issue.
(f) Supplemental Telltale. Nissan
sought clarification that it would be
permissible to install a ‘‘continuouslyflashing yellow light’’ instead of a
second, red light on vehicles equipped
with run-flat tires, in order to warn the
driver when the tires have reach a level
of under-inflation necessitating more
immediate action. Nissan stated that the
flashing light would provide a warning
that the tire may not be appropriate for
continued use, but it would not indicate
the level of urgency associated with a
red light. Nissan commented that it
believes that its proposed continuously
flashing light is sufficiently distinct
from the TPMS combined telltale with
the one-minute flashing sequence as to

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18158

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

permit the driver to distinguish between
the two situations, and that the
operation of the TPMS telltales would
be fully explained in the vehicle
owner’s manual.
The NPRM’s discussion of how it
would be permissible for a vehicle
manufacturer to install an additional red
lamp to warn when a tire is extremely
under-inflated (as defined by the
manufacturer) was intended to provide
one example of a supplemental TPMS
telltale that could be provided. Other
supplemental telltales, such as the one
suggested by Nissan in its comments,
would also be permissible, provided
that they do not prevent the required
TPMS telltale(s) from complying with
the standard.
For example, for the flashing yellow
lamp proposed by Nissan, we caution
that it would not be permissible for that
lamp to be superimposed on the
required TPMS telltale(s), either the
combined telltale or either of the
separate TPMS telltales. We are
concerned that if that were to occur, the
required, continuously illuminated
yellow low tire pressure telltale could
be perceived as a flashing telltale. If the
supplemental lamp were included in a
combined TPMS telltale, the confusion
could escalate even further. Thus, a
supplemental telltale for TPMS must
not impede or mask the functionality of
the required TPMS telltale.
4. Tire-Related Issues
(a) Replacement Tires and Spare
Tires. As discussed above in further
detail, the NPRM proposed to require
vehicle manufacturers to certify that
their TPMS-equipped vehicles comply
with FMVSS No. 138 with the tires
installed at the time of initial vehicle
sale.
Public Citizen objected to the NPRM’s
approach vis-a`-vis replacement tires,
arguing that it would be feasible for
vehicle manufacturers to recommend
replacement tires that would work with
the system and that TPMS technology
should be flexible enough to
accommodate new tires. Public Citizen
argued that NHTSA should require
vehicle manufacturers to certify that the
TPMS will operate with all replacement
tires and original equipment full-sized
spare tires.
Advocates expressed concern that if
consumers install tires that are
incompatible with the TPMS, they may
elect to disable or disregard the TPMS
MIL rather than replace the tires
(presumably for reasons of cost). Even if
tire incompatibility is a relatively
uncommon event, Advocates argued
that drivers may lose the benefits of the
TPMS in those cases. Advocates stated

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

that if NHTSA decides to permit
incompatible replacement tires, the
agency has an ongoing responsibility to
determine which tires are incompatible
and that this responsibility should not
be shifted to the public. Instead,
Advocates stated that the agency should
issue frequent consumer notices
regarding replacement tires that are
incompatible with different TPMSs,
perhaps as part of NHTSA’s UTQG
consumer information efforts. (A similar
comment was provided by NADA,
urging NHTSA to develop and maintain
a comprehensive database of tire/rim
combinations that would not work with
particular TPMSs installed on certain
vehicles.)
Advocates also argued that the TPMS
should be required to comply with the
standard when a full-sized spare is
mounted on the vehicle, and that use of
a compact spare tire should trigger the
TPMS MIL. Advocates argued that
requiring that compact spares cause
illumination of the MIL presumably
would encourage the driver to replace
the spare tire quickly with a full-sized
tire.
ETV stated that use of a spare tire
should not totally disable the TPMS.
ETV argued that although it would be
preferable to have the TPMS monitor
the spare tire as well, use of a spare tire
should not mask a low tire pressure
problem with another tire.
The RMA commented that the
number of replacement tires in use at
any given time is very high, since tires
normally will be replaced two or three
times over the life of a vehicle.
Therefore, the RMA stated that the
TPMS should be required to function
with replacement tires, and that
permitting incompatible replacement
tires is contrary to the purpose of the
TREAD Act and could compromise
consumer safety. The Japan Automobile
Type Manufacturers Association, Inc.
(JATMA) expressed support for the
comments submitted by the RMA,
including the comment on the need for
the TPMS to continue to function
properly with replacement tires.
The TIA did not agree with the
NPRM’s approach limiting the
standard’s requirements to those tires
installed on the vehicle at the time of
initial vehicle sale. The TIA stated that
in recent years, the number of
replacement tires shipped has been
about four times greater than the
number of OE tires shipped, which
supports the common understanding
that vehicles generally outlast their OE
tires. In light of these statistics, the TIA
argued that it would be unacceptable to
allow a TPMS to cease to function after
the vehicle’s tires are replaced, for

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

reasons of public safety and in
observance of congressional intent
under the TREAD Act.
The TIA reiterated its earlier
comments on the TPMS rulemaking
(submitted by the Tire Association of
North America (TANA), as TIA was
then known), in which the organization
asked NHTSA to ensure that vehicle
manufacturers provide affordable access
to TPMS service information to all tire
dealers and service providers. In its
earlier comments, TANA stated,
‘‘Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs) and their wholly-owned or
endorsed stores should not be the only
businesses with the ability to service or
reset these systems, restricting the
ability of consumers, tire dealers,
aftermarket specialists and others to
service these TPMSs by requiring codes,
special equipment, computer software,
or other methods of restricting
automotive service.’’ 33
The TIA argued that without this type
of information, it would be very difficult
for an independent dealer to know how
to install, repair, or reset each type of
TPMS. It stated that tire rotation also
could become a major problem if
telltales are used that indicate each
individual wheel, as opposed to a TPMS
that simply warns of a low tire pressure
problem generally. The TIA stated that,
in order to help with these issues, it is
in the process of developing a
comprehensive TPMS training program
for the tire industry, with the goal of
bringing OE and aftermarket TPMS
manufacturers together to compile all
necessary information on servicing each
TPMS for the benefit of any individual
performing tire service. According to
TIA, this program should be launched
in the first quarter of 2005. Because of
this program, TIA argued that it is
appropriate for the TPMS final rule to
require vehicle manufacturer
certification that the vehicle’s TPMS
will continue to function after the OE
tires are replaced.
SEMA expressed support for
NHTSA’s tentative decision to apply the
rule to only the original tires and wheels
installed on the vehicle at the time of
first sale. SEMA stated that requiring
manufacturers to certify the vehicle
under the standard with aftermarket
tires and wheels would be unduly
burdensome, although the organization
urged NHTSA to go even further in
terms of addressing burdens under the
rule (see comments on Small Business
Impacts below).
NADA argued that no legal liability
should result in cases where a particular
tire/wheel combination cannot be
33 Docket

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

No. NHTSA–2000–8572–129.

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
properly monitored by a particular
TPMS. NADA stated that if tires and
rims that meet the applicable
requirements for FMVSSs directly
dealing with such equipment are
properly installed on a vehicle, the fact
that such installation causes
illumination of the TPMS MIL should
not be considered a violation of 49
U.S.C. 30112(a), which prohibits the
sale of noncomplying motor vehicle
equipment; in such cases, the MIL
would illuminate, but there would be no
defect or noncompliance. In its
comments, the NADA also stated that
installation of incompatible replacement
tires should not be considered a
violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), because
there would be no ‘‘make inoperative’’
situation (i.e., action to take the vehicle
out of compliance with an applicable
FMVSS) unless the repair business were
to somehow override the MIL. In
addition, NADA suggested that tire and
wheel manufacturers should be required
to certify to consumers and tire
installers as to the TPMSs with which
their tires are or are not compatible.
Fuji requested that NHTSA adopt
explicit language in the regulatory text
of the final rule acknowledging that
replacement tires and spare tires are not
covered under the standard. Fuji
recommended the definition of ‘‘tire
pressure monitoring system’’ or
paragraphs S4.2(a) and (b) of the NPRM
as potential locations for inclusion of
such a statement. Fuji argued that
unless clarifying language is added,
there may be confusion in the future as
to which ‘‘four tires’’ must be
monitored.
After considering these comments
related to TPMS functionality with
replacement tires, we have decided to
adopt the approach presented in the
NPRM to require the TPMS-equipped
vehicle to be certified with the tires
originally installed on the vehicle at the
time of initial vehicle sale. We
emphasize that it would not be
permissible for dealers to install tires on
a new vehicle that would take it out of
compliance with the TPMS standard,
and to do so would violate the
prohibition on manufacturing, selling,
and importing noncomplying motor
vehicles and equipment in 49 U.S.C.
30112. If the consumer cannot expect to
acquire a vehicle that meets all
applicable safety standards at the time
of first purchase, the purpose of
Standard No. 138, and in fact all Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, would
be severely undermined. Furthermore,
we expect that vehicle manufacturers, in
light of their close relationship to their
dealers, would provide sufficient
recommendations to allow dealers to

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

install alternate tires that permit the
TPMS to function properly.
In order to ensure continued longterm functionality of the TPMS, the
final rule requires a TPMS malfunction
indicator capable of detecting when a
replacement tire is installed which
prevents continued proper functioning
of the TPMS and of alerting the driver
about the problem. (The interplay
between the TPMS MIL and the
activities of aftermarket sales and
service providers related to TPMSs,
including legal implications of those
activities, are discussed below.)
As noted in the NPRM, there are
several factors that have contributed to
our decision as to how to best ensure
the long-term functionality of the tire
pressure monitoring system. First,
information presented to NHTSA shows
that there are currently over four million
TPMS-equipped vehicles.34 Neither the
agency nor vehicle manufacturers have
received reports indicating any
significant performance problems with
those TPMSs when replacement tires
are installed on the vehicle. In addition,
the agency has noted previously that
aftermarket direct TPMSs are available
and that such systems may be capable
of functioning regardless of the
construction of the tires.35 NHTSA does
not have any information to suggest a
significant problem with the operation
of aftermarket TPMSs, although the
performance capabilities of these
systems are not known. This significant
real world population of TPMSs
suggests that TPMSs will continue to
work with replacement tires in the vast
majority of cases.
However, NHTSA has been presented
with data demonstrating that a very
small number of replacement tires
(estimated at less than 0.5 percent of
production) may have construction
characteristics and material content that
cause the vehicle’s TPMS to exhibit
functional problems.36 There is no clear
design solution for this problem. In
34 Letter from Robert Strassburger, Vice President,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, to NHTSA
(October 20, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA–2000–
8572–277).
35 67 FR 38704, 38731 (June 5, 2002).
36 The RMA submitted information on the
prevalence of tires with characteristics identified as
potentially being incompatible with proper TPMS
functioning, at least in some cases. These problems
are primarily related to the tires’ construction (e.g.,
high carbon content in low aspect-ratio tires,
thicker sidewall, or steel body ply sidewall).
According to the RMA, in 2002, light vehicle tires
having either steel body ply cords (steel casing
tires) or run-flat capability accounted for less than
0.5 percent of tires distributed in the United States.
(See letter from Steven Butcher, Vice President,
Rubber Manufacturers Association, to NHTSA
(October 31, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA–2000–
8572–282)).

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18159

many instances, TPMSs may function
properly even when equipped with
replacement tires with the previously
discussed characteristics. However, to
date, it has not been possible to develop
an appropriate performance measure
that would reliably identify those
anomalous tires that would prevent
proper TPMS functioning.
The commenters did not provide any
new information that would suggest that
the technical problems related to TPMS
functionality with all replacement tires
have been resolved, or that it has
become possible to identify that small
subset of problematic tires that would
prevent the TPMS from continuing to
operate properly. Comments noting the
prevalence of replacement tires in
operation do nothing to resolve the
underlying technical problems
previously identified.
Further, it is NHTSA’s understanding
that some of the reported compatibility
problems between direct TPMSs and
certain replacement tires may have been
related to vehicle manufacturer use of
TPMS transmitters and receivers
produced by different suppliers.37
Incompatibility between different parts
of the TPMS may have contributed to
the overall problem in those cases.
Thus, cognizance of this problem may
limit further the number of incidents of
incompatibility between TPMSs and
replacement tires.
Based upon the above information, we
now believe that there is not a sufficient
basis to require vehicles to comply with
FMVSS No. 138 with all replacement
tires. While the number of tires
expected to be incompatible with the
TPMS is small, such a requirement
would nonetheless raise significant
practicability concerns. Because no one
is certain which tires, either produced
now or in the future, will cause various
TPMSs to malfunction, it is not
practicable to require vehicle
manufacturers to certify that the TPMS
will continue to function properly with
all replacement tires.
We continue to believe, however, that
the TPMS should continue to function
properly beyond the point at which the
vehicle’s original tires are replaced, a
clearly foreseeable event. Continued
TPMS functionality with replacement
tires is consistent with Congress’
intention to improve tire and vehicle
37 GM submitted a letter to NHTSA on September
11, 2003, outlining the problems that their direct
TPMS was experiencing when different run-flat
tires were installed on the vehicle. (Docket No.
NHTSA–2000–8572–275) Subsequent discussions
revealed that TPMS components from different
TPMS manufacturers were used and that the same
tires permitted proper TPMS functioning when
TPMS components from a single TPMS
manufacturer were used.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18160

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

safety, as expressed in the TREAD Act.
Moreover, there are other TPMS failure
modes (e.g., pressure sensor battery life,
pressure sensor failure, antenna failure,
TPMS power loss), and unless drivers
are made aware of such failures, they
could have a false sense of security.
Therefore, we are adopting a
requirement that the TPMS be equipped
with a telltale indicator that would alert
the driver of a TPMS malfunction, tirerelated or otherwise. In addition, we are
adopting owner’s manual requirements
to make consumers aware of this
potential problem.
In the final rule, we have decided not
to require the TPMS to monitor the
pressure in a spare tire (either compact
or full-sized), either while stowed or
when installed on the vehicle, and the
agency will not conduct compliance
testing for low tire pressure detection
under Standard No. 138 with a spare
tire installed on the vehicle. As we
discussed in the NPRM, we have come
to this decision for a number of reasons.
First, we believe that most drivers know
that temporary tires are not intended for
extended use. Second, compact spare
tires pose operational problems for both
direct and indirect TPMSs. Such a
requirement would be a potential
disincentive for the vehicle
manufacturer to supply a full-sized
spare (or any spare tire) if TPMS
compliance were required. In addition,
it would increase the cost of the rule,
but provide little if any safety benefit.
However, if a spare tire is installed on
the vehicle and it prevents the TPMS
from being able to detect low tire
pressure, the TPMS must illuminate the
MIL, as it would with any other TPMS
malfunction. We believe that such a
requirement is important to remind the
driver to replace the spare tire, either by
repairing the damaged tire or
purchasing a new replacement tire. In
that way, the TPMS would encourage
drivers not to continue driving on the
spare tire for extended periods and to
rapidly return the spare tire to its
emergency reserve status.
We do not agree with Fuji’s comment
regarding the need to include additional
regulatory text to clarify that
replacement tires are not covered under
the standard. Unless some special
provision is included, a FMVSS is
understood to require vehicle
certification with original equipment.
However, because the vehicle may come
equipped with a spare tire as original
equipment, we have added language to
the test conditions to clarify that the
spare tire will not be installed for the
purposes of low tire pressure testing
(see S5.3.7).

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

Regarding the issue of consumer
awareness of replacement and
aftermarket tires that are inconsistent
with continued proper TPMS
functionality, we believe that vehicle
manufacturers and the tire industry will
have strong incentive to make
information on incompatible tires
available to consumers and to
businesses supplying automotive
equipment and services. However,
because no one is certain which tires,
either produced now or in the future,
will cause various TPMSs to
malfunction, it is not reasonable to
expect vehicle manufacturers to make
assurances to other businesses or to
consumers that the TPMS will continue
to function properly with all
replacement tires or to attempt to
identify all incompatible tires and rims.
For its part, NHTSA will notify vehicle
manufacturers when incompatible tires
are discovered during compliance
testing, and the results of such tests are
publicly available.
Finally, we would address NADA’s
comments regarding the legal
implications for aftermarket installers
and vehicle repair businesses who
either install aftermarket tires or rims on
the vehicle or who service the TPMS.
We would begin by noting that the
TPMS standard is not the first to require
a malfunction indicator. Malfunction
indicators are also required under
FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric
Brake Systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air
Brake Systems, and a ‘‘readiness
indicator’’ is required under FMVSS No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection. Such
malfunction indicators are generally
favored because they provide important
information to consumers, as well as to
businesses with an interest in vehicle
system operations.
Under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), ‘‘A
manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or
motor vehicle repair business may not
knowingly make inoperative any part of
a device or element of design installed
on or in a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle equipment in compliance with
an applicable motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter
[49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.] unless the
manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or
repair business reasonably believes the
vehicle or equipment will not be used
(except for testing or a similar purpose
during maintenance or repair) when the
device or element is inoperative.’’ As a
general matter, malfunction indicators
can alert consumers when one of the
above entities has made a vehicle
modification that has rendered a
functioning system inoperative. In such
instances, the business presumably took
such action inadvertently and would

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

remedy the situation accordingly once
the malfunction indicator is triggered.38
This principle is important, because
such modifications may: (1) Make the
monitored system itself incapable of
functioning; (2) have an appreciable
impact on vehicle safety, and (3) be
relatively difficult for the consumer to
remedy.
However, the situation surrounding
the TPMS malfunction indicator
represents a special case. First, the
TPMS itself is analogous to a
malfunction indicator, because the low
tire pressure telltale would only be
expected to illuminate if the driver has
failed to perform routine tire
maintenance or if a tire has developed
a leak. Therefore, the TPMS MIL is one
step removed, essentially being a
malfunction indicator for a malfunction
indicator. In any event, even if the
TPMS back-up system were not
available, the driver could (and should)
manually check his vehicle’s tire
inflation pressure on a regular basis.
In situations where the TPMS MIL is
detecting aftermarket or replacement
tires or rims that prevent the continued
proper functioning of the TPMS, such
equipment arguably has not damaged
the TPMS itself, but instead has
hindered its low tire pressure detection
capability. (Arguably, the tires
themselves meet the requirements of the
relevant FMVSSs related to tires and
would be suitable for safe vehicle
operation, absent the TPMS problem.)
Once the TPMS MIL illuminates, the
consumer would be warned that the
equipment has caused a TPMS
malfunction, and the consumer could
substitute other equipment that would
permit the TPMS to resume normal
functioning.
As noted previously, vehicle
manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and
other businesses may not know, or
reasonably be able to know, exactly
which of the many aftermarket or
replacement tire and rims would
prevent the TPMS from continuing to
function properly. There are many tire
and rim choices for a given vehicle, and
a variety of businesses are involved in
tire and rim installation and repair. In
such cases, these businesses may only
come to know of a problem once the
TPMS MIL illuminates. Furthermore,
because some TPMSs must be driven for
a period of time in order to detect a
38 An exception to this principle is where the
monitored system, or a part of that system, wears
out or experiences damage in a crash or similar
event. In such cases, some intervening event caused
the ‘‘make inoperative’’ situation, and a dealer or
vehicle repair business is not required to bring the
safety system back up to full compliance with an
applicable FMVSS.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
malfunction, it is quite possible that the
consumer would have driven away from
such business before the MIL
illuminates.
After the time of first sale, our
primary goal for the TPMS MIL is to
provide information and a warning to
the consumer in order to ensure longterm operability of the TPMS. In the
tire-related situations described above,
the TPMS MIL has arguably served its
purpose; the consumer has been warned
of the compatibility problem, and the
consumer and the installer are able to
work together to resolve that problem.
The intention is not to penalize the
business for accidentally installing one
of a very small number of incompatible
replacement tires that are difficult to
identify.
We note that this result might be
different where it can be shown that the
installer knew of the incompatibility
beforehand or took some other action to
disable a functioning TPMS unit. In
addition, we would point out that we
believe that the TPMS MIL represents a
unique case, and the above discussion
does not alter our approach to
malfunction indicators generally or to
the other specific malfunction
indicators referenced above.
(b) Tire Reserve Load. Commenters
representing tire manufacturers and
sellers stated that the TPMS standard
should require the low tire pressure
telltale to illuminate before any of the
vehicle’s tires have insufficient pressure
to carry the actual load on the vehicle.
Commenters argued that because it is
difficult to determine what a vehicle’s
actual load will be, the vehicle
maximum load should be used for the
relevant TPMS calculations. The RMA
discussed this issue at length in its
comments, and its arguments are
summarized below. ETRTO, JATMA,
TIA, and the Tire Rack provided similar
comments that supported RMA’s
position on this issue, and AAA also
supported a pressure reserve
requirement.
RMA argued that the NPRM was
deficient and that a supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
should be issued ‘‘to solicit public
comment on the need to include a
requirement in the TPMS rule that a low
tire pressure warning telltale will be
activated when the pressure is already
at a level below that required to support
the vehicle maximum load.’’ RMA said
that a tire pressure reserve is essential,
because a TPMS may instill a false sense
of security in many consumers who may
rely on the TPMS to provide an underinflation warning, rather than
conducting regular tire maintenance.
RMA argued that this concern was

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

noted by NHTSA at earlier stages of the
TPMS rulemaking, and it cited other
sources in NHTSA’s TPMS docket to
conclude that the record establishes that
consumers may rely on the TPMS in
this manner. As a result, RMA stated its
belief that there is a high probability
that tires will be operating below
placard pressure, but above the TPMS
warning threshold.
The RMA further argued that placard
pressure (upon which the low tire
warning is based) is set by the vehicle
manufacturer, and oftentimes for
reasons such as handling and comfort,
the placard pressure is set only slightly
above the minimum pressure needed to
carry the vehicle’s maximum load. Such
minimum pressures are specified in the
load/pressure tables published by
relevant tire industry organizations,
such as those contained in the Tire &
Rim Association Yearbook. As a result,
the RMA stated that in a significant
number of cases, by the time a vehicle’s
tires drop to 25 percent below placard
pressure and the driver receives a low
pressure warning from the TPMS, tire
pressure would have dropped below the
minimum pressure required to safely
carry the vehicle’s weight at maximum
load. The RMA argued that overloaded
tires in a fully-loaded condition could
result in cumulative structural damage
to the tire and an increased risk of tire
failure.
Therefore, RMA argued that in the
interest of safety, NHTSA should adopt
a tire pressure reserve requirement to
ensure that the tires can carry the
vehicle maximum load at the point at
which the TPMS low tire pressure
warning telltale illuminates. As already
noted, the RMA urged NHTSA to issue
an SNPRM to address this issue.
In its comments, the EC stressed that
the maximum load capacity and
minimum inflation pressure compatible
with the load (along with the speed of
travel) are important factors for tire
performance and safety. The EC stated
that the pressures recommended by the
tire manufacturers should be regarded
as minima, because tires might suffer
structural damage at pressures below
those recommended pressures.
The TRA’s comments also expressed
concern that the proposed rule would
permit the vehicle to operate without a
warning in situations where tire
inflation pressure is below the
minimum load/inflation pressure values
established by the tire industry. TRA
argued that the NPRM’s approach is a
deviation from other NHTSA
rulemakings, which have incorporated
language to ensure that the tire pressure
is appropriate for the vehicle’s load
(e.g., requirements in FMVSS Nos. 109,

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18161

New Pneumatic Tires, and 110, Tire
Selection and Rims).
This issue is already before the agency
in a separate proceeding. RMA
submitted a petition for rulemaking
with the agency to amend FMVSS No.
110 to establish a tire reserve load
requirement.39 RMA’s comments on the
NPRM reiterate the arguments raised in
its petition, and those other commenters
who addressed the tire reserve load
issue made arguments consistent with
those of RMA.
In response to the RMA’s petition,
NHTSA re-examined a 1981 NHTSA
study of tire failure and reserve load did
not demonstrate any correlation
between failure and load,40 and decided
to conduct a newer and more
comprehensive study of tire failure and
reserve load, which would reflect
changes in both tires and the vehicle
fleet. NHTSA noted in the TPMS NPRM
that if new data indicate a sufficiently
strong correlation, the agency would
propose appropriate amendments to its
standards in a separate proceeding.41
As we noted in the NPRM, we believe
that the issue of reserve load is a tire
issue most properly considered under
FMVSS No. 110, as amended (see 67 FR
69600 (November 18, 2002) and 68 FR
37981 (June 26, 2003)). Instead of
issuing an SNPRM, we have decided to
address this issue in our response to the
RMA’s petition for rulemaking on tire
reserve load. We are publishing a
separate notice that responds to that
petition.
(c) Changes to Tire Publications.
Because of its potential to impact
NHTSA’s TPMS and tire standards, we
are taking this opportunity to address
the comment submitted by the Tire and
Rim Association 42 and the related
supplemental comment submitted by
the Alliance 43 regarding changes to the
2005 TRA Year Book. In its comment,
the TRA expressed concern that, in its
opinion, the NPRM may
‘‘inappropriately’’ permit underinflation of passenger car and light truck
tires below the recommended load/
inflation limits established by the tire
industry, as reflected in the TRA Year
Books. (As discussed in further detail
below, FMVSS Nos. 109 and 110
currently reference the publications of a
number of tire organizations, including
the TRA, as source documents that
vehicle manufacturers must consult in
39 Docket

No. NHTSA–2002–11398–8.
Relationship Between Tire Reserve Load
Percentage and Tire Failure Rate,’’ Crash Avoidance
Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,
NHTSA (81–09–NPRM–N01–002) (1981).
41 69 FR 55896, 55914 (Sept. 16, 2004).
42 Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19054–72.
43 Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19054–90.
40 ‘‘The

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18162

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

specifying tire inflation pressure
values.)
The TRA stated its intention to
modify its 2005 TRA Year Book by
adding the following statement: ‘‘If the
vehicle is equipped with a Tire Pressure
Monitoring System (TPMS), the load on
the tire must not exceed the tire load
capacity based on the inflation pressure
at the point of illumination of the TPMS
warning telltale.’’ (This language has
since been incorporated in a footnote in
the 2005 TRA Year Book.)
The Alliance’s supplemental
comment stated that TRA’s actions
create potential compliance problems
for TPMS-equipped vehicles. The
Alliance stated that the TRA’s
amendment of its Year Book in this
fashion amounts to a unilateral attempt
to modify substantive provisions of a
vehicle safety standard. It also faulted
the TRA for eliminating information
from its Year Book about load limits at
pressures between 20 psi and 26 psi.
According to the Alliance, NHTSA
granted a privileged status to the TRA
and other tire organizations named in
FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other
Than Passenger Cars, by authorizing
those organizations’ publications to
serve as source documents for the tire
load limit and other information
required on certain vehicle labels. Other
industry standards incorporated in
FMVSSs and other NHTSA regulations
refer to a specific version or year of
issuance. According to the Alliance, the
TRA’s actions amount to an abuse of
this privilege.
The Alliance argued that the load
rating information in the publications of
the TRA and other referenced
organizations have remained relatively
stable for nearly two decades, except for
introduction of new tire sizes, and that
the information has been generally
predictable, having been calculated on
the basis of universally adopted
formulae for tire load rating. The
Alliance argued that the TRA’s action
undermines NHTSA’s rulemaking
authority by taking steps which would
have the effect of modifying the
threshold for illumination of the TPMS
low tire pressure warning telltale in a
manner consistent with the TRA’s
policy preference.
In light of the above, the Alliance
urged NHTSA to clarify in the final rule
for TPMS that the footnote in the 2005
TRA Year Book related to TPMSequipped vehicles has no regulatory
significance and does not affect the tire
load rating for purposes of S4.3.1(c) of
FMVSS No. 110 and the related
provision in FMVSS No. 120, Tire
Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

Other Than Passenger Cars. In addition,
the Alliance requested that NHTSA
amend FMVSS Nos. 109, 119, and 139,
New Pneumatic Tires for Light Vehicles,
to specify use of the 2004 publications
of the listed tire organization in those
tire standards as the appropriate sources
for determining permissible tire load
ratings. The Alliance argued that good
cause exists for so amending FMVSS
Nos. 109, 119, and 139 without notice
and comment, because of the potential
compliance problems that could arise
upon publication of the 2005 TRA Year
Book. In the alternative, the Alliance
asked that its supplemental comment be
treated as a petition for rulemaking to
amend FMVSS Nos. 109, 119, and 139.
We would begin by briefly explaining
the relevant requirements currently
contained in our safety standards for
tires and our reasoning for referencing
certain tire industry publication without
a specific year or volume designation.
Paragraph S4.4.1 of FMVSS No. 109
requires that each tire manufacturer
make available to the public information
on the rims that may be used with each
tire that it produces.44 Such information
may: (1) Take the form of a list that must
be furnished to dealers of the
manufacturer’s tires, NHTSA, and any
person upon request; or (2) be contained
in a publication by one of the following
organization: (a) The Tire and Rim
Association; (b) the European Tyre and
Rim Technical Organization; (c) the
Japanese Automobile Tyre
Manufacturers Association; (d) Deutsche
Industrie Norm; (e) the British
Standards Institution; (f) the
Scandinavian Tire and Rim
Organization; and (g) the Tyre and Rim
Association of Australia. In most
instances, the relevant information is
listed in one of these industry
publications.
The current requirements, discussed
above, were adopted in 1981, when
NHTSA amended its tire standards to
authorize the publications of the
organizations listed above to serve as
the source documents for tire load limits
and other tire safety information.45 The
purpose of this rulemaking action was
to expedite the introduction of new tires
to the market. (Before the 1981
amendment to the tire standards, tire
manufacturers were required to petition
NHTSA each time they intended to
introduce new tires. NHTSA maintained
a listing of all registered tires in Table
1, Appendix A of FMVSS No 109.) The
44 Similar requirements are contained in S5.1 of
FMVSS No. 119 and S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 139.
45 See 46 FR 61473 (Dec. 17, 1981).

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

current system worked predictably and
generated little controversy until now.
However, the TRA’s recent action
(i.e., amending its 2005 Year Book by
incorporating additional text in a
footnote to its tire selection procedure)
represents a de facto substantive change
to our tire placard requirements. This
change could have an impact on vehicle
manufacturers’ tire and rim selections,
because FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120
require vehicle manufacturers to rely on
information provided by the tire
industry. Specifically, S4.3.1(c) of
FMVSS No. 110 allows vehicle
manufacturers to recommend a lowerthan-maximum tire inflation pressure so
long as the tire load does not exceed the
tire load rating appearing in one of the
publications described in S4.4.1(b) of
FMVSS No. 109.46 Because the new
TRA language may change how the tire
load information is calculated, this
represents a substantive change to our
tire safety information regulations.
Only NHTSA has the authority to
amend the FMVSSs pertaining to tires.
Any substantive changes to our
regulations, including ones involving
maximum tire load formulae, require
agency action, as well as notice and
comment. Because no such action has
taken place and because TRA’s abovediscussed amendment to its 2005 Year
Book may affect our regulations, we
believe that it is necessary to clarify the
regulatory effect of the TRA’s footnote.
In order to avoid the impermissible
regulatory effect of the TRA’s footnote,
we are clarifying that the provisions of
FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 pertaining to
tire selection only require vehicle
manufacturers to consult the numerical
values contained in the load/pressure
tables provided in the publications of
the enumerated tire industry
organizations. Thus, the footnote related
to TPMSs in the 2005 TRA Year Book
has no legal or regulatory effect.
We caution the tire organizations
referenced in our tire standards that
action to achieve the footnote’s results
through direct manipulation of the
values in the load/pressure tables would
have the equally impermissible effect of
amending our tire standards. If that
were to occur, the agency would be
forced to consider other options, such as
specifying a specific year(s) for these
tire industry publications (e.g., 2000 or
later), reverting to the prior system
under which tire manufacturers would
be required to petition the agency before
introducing new tires, or publishing the
equations for calculation of
recommended tire pressures (thereby
46 Similar requirements are contained in S5.1 of
FMVSS No. 120.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
allowing vehicle manufacturers to
directly recommend pressures).
(d) Minimum Activation Pressure.
Paragraph S4.2 of the NPRM proposed
to require that the TPMS must
illuminate a low tire pressure warning
telltale not more than 10 minutes after
the inflation pressure in one or more of
the vehicle’s tires, up to a total of four
tires, is equal to or less than either the
pressure 25 percent below the vehicle
manufacturer’s recommended cold
inflation pressure, or the pressure
specified in the third column of Table
1, Low Tire Pressure Warning Telltale—
Minimum Activation Pressure,
whichever is higher. Table 1 proposed
minimum activation pressures (MAPs)
for different tires, based upon: (1) Tire
type, and (2) maximum or rated
inflation pressure. The specified tire
types included P-metric (Standard
Load), P-metric (Extra Load), Load
Range ‘‘C,’’ Load Range ‘‘D,’’ and Load
Range ‘‘E.’’
In general, the proposed MAPs in
Table 1 were based on the lowest
inflation pressure values provided in
the TRA, JATMA, and ETRTO Year
Books for loads specified, as well as
available information on minimum
activation pressures for TPMSs. The
relevant tire industry Year Books in
2000 consistently reported low pressure
values down to 140 kPa (20 psi) for
standard P-metric tires.
However, the agency found that for
light truck tires, the low values reported
in the tire industry Year Books were not
consistent, although further analysis
demonstrated that minimum pressure
values were approximately 58 percent of
the maximum inflation pressure for the
tires. Therefore, the agency utilized this
formula in proposing values for LT tires
in Load Ranges ‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’ and ‘‘E.’’ 47
In its comments, the Alliance
requested that, as part of the final rule,
the agency respond to the Alliance’s
earlier petition for rulemaking 48 seeking
revision of Table 1 for minimum
activation pressures for vehicles with
Load Range ‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’ and ‘‘E’’ light
truck tires. The Alliance’s petition
stated that the MAPs currently
contained in Table 1 do not allow tires
(particularly Load Range ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’
tires) to be used across the safe
operating ranges of inflation pressures
for which loads are specified in the Tire
and Rim Association Yearbooks.
47 We note that the TRA 2000 Year Book did
report values lower than 58 percent for some LT
tires. However, the agency believes that at 58
percent below the maximum pressure, most tires
would be significantly under-inflated for most
vehicle applications. Consequently, we did not
propose MAPs for LT tires below this level.
48 Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572–265.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

According to the Alliance, on some
vehicles such as 15-passenger vans and
large pick-up trucks with a large
differential between front and rear
GAWRs, the front tires may be overspecified for the load they carry. In such
cases, vehicle manufacturers may
specify tires that are appropriate for the
heaviest axle (i.e., the rear axle), thereby
minimizing potential consumer
confusion related to different front and
rear placard pressures and different
front and rear replacement tires. The
Alliance argued that the MAPs proposed
in Table 1 for LT Load Range ‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’
and ‘‘E’’ tires are set too close to the
placard pressure for these vehicle
applications and, accordingly, should be
set at lower values.
The Alliance argued that for Load
Range ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires, field
performance data and other test data
show that there is no safety need for the
MAPs for these tires currently contained
in Table 1, and in fact, the Alliance
stated that the currently listed MAPs for
those tires could actually have adverse
safety implications. According to the
Alliance, the MAPs recommended in its
petition as revisions to Table 1 would
allow LT tires to be used safely in
different load applications in a manner
consistent with the TRA Yearbook. The
Alliance’s petition asserted that if the
agency retains Table 1 as proposed, it
‘‘would necessitate significant vehicle
redesigns, cost penalties, and adverse
safety and non-safety effects that are not
justified by any safety need.’’
Based upon the above, the Alliance’s
petition requested modification of Table
1 to set minimum activation pressure for
LT tires based upon the vehicle’s load
range. For example, if a Load Range ‘‘E’’
tire were used in a Load Range ‘‘D’’
application, the Load Range ‘‘D’’
minimum activation pressure could be
used for TPMS activation purposes. For
a more complete explanation, readers
should consult the Alliance’s petition.
Alternatively, the Alliance stated that
if the petition for rulemaking related to
MAPs could not be resolved in time for
issuance as part of the final rule,
NHTSA should not specify MAPs for
the affected vehicles and instead defer
implementation of the MAP
requirements for those vehicles until
rulemaking can be conducted at a later
date.
The major vehicle manufacturers that
commented on the MAP issue
supported the Alliance petition and the
arguments raised therein.
DaimlerChrysler stated that the NPRM
does not accommodate vehicles that
require multiple tire pressures for
different driving conditions (i.e., Load
Range ‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires).

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18163

DaimlerChrysler commented that the
MAPs for LT tires in Load Ranges ‘‘D’’
and ‘‘E’’ in Table 1 are 38 psi and 46 psi,
respectively, but that it uses these tires
in applications with a placard pressure
of 40 psi. Thus, DaimlerChrysler
requested that the MAP for these tires be
set at 35 psi, a value consistent with the
TRA minimum recommended pressure
for those tires. (However, in a
supplementary comment dated February
8, 2005, DaimlerChrysler subsequently
retracted its support for a MAP set at 35
psi for Load Range ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires.49
In that letter, DaimlerChrysler stated
that it supports a solution consistent
with the recommendation in the
Alliance’s petition for rulemaking on
the MAP issue.)
In its comments, DaimlerChrysler also
provided its view of the practical
implications of the MAP issue. It stated
that if proposed Table 1 were adopted
without change, vehicle manufacturers’
current practices for use of Load Range
‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires would result in
the low tire pressure telltale being
illuminated much of the time when the
vehicle is lightly loaded.
DaimlerChrysler argued that this
situation could result in desensitization
of the driver and that such drivers may
lose the benefits of the TPMS.
DaimlerChrysler further argued that this
situation would leave vehicle operators
with the choice of ignoring the safety
warning, permanently disabling the
warning, or over-inflating their tires.
DaimlerChrysler suggested that the
vehicles in question could be equipped
with a driver-selectable TPMS.
DaimlerChrysler stated that this
mechanism would make TPMSs
technology-neutral and tire type-neutral,
because the driver (or the service shop)
could set the reference pressure based
on the load, driving conditions, or
recommended replacement tire
pressure. According to DaimlerChrysler,
such a system would provide a reliable
warning when there is a pressure loss of
25 percent under this reference level.
DaimlerChrysler suggested that if
NHTSA is not prepared to address this
MAP issue quickly, the final rule could
defer the rulemaking’s requirements for
trucks greater than 8,500 pounds (3,856
kg) (not passenger cars or MPVs) to
allow more time to respond to the issue.
General Motors stated that it
conducted tests of four vehicles using
lightly-loaded and GVWR loading
conditions. GM stated that the vehicles
were tested both at the recommended
pressures and at the increased pressures
that would be required by the proposed
MAPs in Table 1. According to GM, the
49 Docket

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

No. NHTSA–2004–19054–89.

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18164

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

higher pressures resulted in adverse
effects, including decreased rollover
resistance, reduced understeer (2
vehicles), increased response time (2
vehicles), and degraded on-center
handling (3 vehicles). GM commented
that the MAPs currently proposed could
provide a disincentive for vehicle
manufacturers to select tire types that
exceed load-carrying requirements for
particular vehicle applications, resulting
in lower load range tire types for some
vehicle models than would otherwise
have been chosen.
The issues raised by the Alliance’s
petition related to MAPs involve a key
aspect of the low tire pressure warning
provided by the TPMS, in that the MAP
represents a threshold value for
maintaining safe tire operation, because
a higher MAP could provide an earlier
warning to the driver. Although the
MAP issue raised by the Alliance is only
expected to impact a small percentage of
vehicles using LT tires (i.e., typically
vehicles with a GVWR of over 8,500
pounds), the agency must fully
understand the potential rollover and
handling implications of the final values
it selects for the MAPs. This is
particularly true for vehicle applications
where the recommended inflation
pressure is close to the MAP or where
it is much lower than the maximum
inflation pressure. For example, 15passenger vans and some pickup trucks
may have a greater propensity for
rollover when their tires are
significantly under-inflated, so prompt
application of FMVSS No. 138 (with
appropriate MAPs) to such vehicles is
important for achieving the safety
benefits of the TPMS standard. The
agency is currently analyzing the issue
of minimum activation pressures for LT
tires, and it is our intention to respond
to the Alliance’s petition on MAPs as
part of a separate rulemaking.
We would emphasize that vehicles
equipped with LT tires load range ‘‘D’’
and ‘‘E’’ must be equipped with a TPMS
that conforms to the requirements of
FMVSS No. 138. However, in the
interim period, we have decided to alter
the MAPs listed in Table 1 for load
range ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires from the values
proposed in the NPRM. As the
commenters pointed out, the TRA
Yearbooks report load rating values for
LT load range ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires as low
as 35 psi. Hence, according to the TRA,
these tires can be used at that inflation
pressure at the specified load rating.
Therefore, we are adopting a MAP of 35
psi for LT Load Range ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘E’’ tires
as part of this final rule. (The values for
P-metric and LT Load Range ‘‘C’’ tires
are unchanged from the NPRM.)

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

Once the agency completes its
analysis of the relevant data, the MAP
values set forth in this final rule will be
either confirmed or we will propose to
modify them as part of our rulemaking
response to the Alliance’s petition.
5. Owner’s Manual Requirements
Paragraph S4.5 of the NPRM proposed
to require each certified vehicle to
provide an image of the low tire
pressure telltale symbol (and an image
of the TPMS malfunction telltale
symbol, if a dedicated telltale is utilized
for this function) and the following
specific, standardized statement in
English regarding the presence of a
TPMS in the vehicle and its function:
Each tire, including the spare (if provided),
should be checked monthly when cold and
inflated to the inflation pressure
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer
on the vehicle placard or tire inflation
pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a
different size than the size indicated on the
vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure
label, you should consult the appropriate
section of this owner’s manual to determine
the proper tire inflation pressure.) When the
low tire pressure telltale is illuminated, one
or more of your tires is significantly underinflated. You should stop and check your
tires as soon as possible, and inflate them to
the proper pressure. Driving on a
significantly under-inflated tire causes the
tire to overheat and can lead to tire failure.
Under-inflation also reduces fuel efficiency
and tire tread life, and may affect the
vehicle’s handling and stopping ability.
Your vehicle has also been equipped with
a TPMS malfunction telltale to indicate when
the system is not operating properly. When
the malfunction telltale is illuminated, the
system may not be able to detect or signal
low tire pressure as intended. TPMS
malfunctions may occur for a variety of
reasons, including the installation of
incompatible replacement tires on the
vehicle. Always check the TPMS malfunction
telltale after replacing one or more tires on
your vehicle to ensure that the replacement
tires are compatible with the TPMS.

That paragraph of the NPRM also
proposed to permit the owner’s manual
to include additional information about
the significance of the low tire pressure
warning telltale illuminating, a
description of corrective action to be
undertaken, whether the tire pressure
monitoring system functions with the
vehicle’s spare tire (if provided), and
how to use a reset button, if one is
provided (S4.5(b)). For vehicles that do
not come with an owner’s manual, the
NPRM proposed to require the
mandatory information to be provided
in writing to the first purchaser
(S4.5(c)).
In its comments, Nissan argued that
the NRPM’s proposed owner’s manual
statement is restrictive and would

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

prevent manufacturers from tailoring
the TPMS discussion in the owner’s
manual to the specific system installed
on the vehicle. Nissan stated that
NHTSA should refrain from adopting
specific owner’s manual language for
TPMS, but instead provide requirements
for its general content (i.e., alerting
consumers regarding: (1) Potential
problems related to compatibility
between the vehicle’s TPMS and various
types of replacement tires, and (2) the
presence and operation of the TPMS
malfunction indicator).
Nissan stated that if the agency
nevertheless decides to adopt specific
owner’s manual language similar to that
proposed in the NPRM, the following
points should be considered. First,
Nissan expressed concern about the use
of the terms ‘‘compatible’’ and
‘‘incompatible replacement tires’’
without defining those terms. Nissan
stated that consumers could be misled
unless they are made aware that the
purpose of this warning is to inform the
consumer that the construction or other
design characteristics of some
replacement tires may cause the TPMS
to experience inadequate signal
reception. Accordingly, Nissan
recommended that additional language
be added to clarify the terms
compatible/incompatible in the owner’s
manual language.
Nissan commented that the proposed
owner’s manual language seemed to
focus on systems with a separate TPMS
MIL telltale, without discussion of
TPMSs providing a combination low
pressure/malfunction telltale. Nissan
argued that as proposed, the owner’s
manual language could confuse
consumers whose vehicles are equipped
with a combination telltale, so its
comments stated that the owner’s
manual language should be revised to
also include a discussion of the
combination telltale. The comments of
AIAM, Fuji, and Suzuki raised similar
arguments.
In its comments, Nissan also
recommended that the following
sentence from the proposed owner’s
manual language not be included in the
final rule: ‘‘If your vehicle has tires of
a different size than the size indicated
on the vehicle placard or tire inflation
pressure label, you should consult the
appropriate section of this owner’s
manual to determine the proper tire
inflation pressure.’’ Nissan stated that
there is not currently any requirement to
include in the owner’s manual
information regarding tire sizes other
than those included as original
equipment on the vehicle. According to
Nissan, vehicle manufacturers do not
and cannot provide such information for

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
all tires that might conceivably be used
in wheel/tire/inflation pressure
combinations not designed by the
vehicle manufacturer, but which the
consumer may nonetheless choose to
install. Nissan expressed concern that
such a statement could confuse
consumers whose owner’s manual does
not include supplemental tire
information.
SEMA recommended four
modifications to the proposed owner’s
manual language. First, it stated that the
owner’s manual language should reflect
the fact that the recommended tire
pressure for the originally-installed tires
may not be applicable to certain
replacement tire/wheel combinations.
Therefore, SEMA recommended adding
a statement to ‘‘select a tire pressure that
considers the vehicle’s loading
characteristics and is appropriate for the
wheel and tire combination installed on
the vehicle.’’
Second, SEMA stated that the
proposed owner’s manual language
alerts the consumer that replacement
tires may trigger the TPMS malfunction
telltale, but that it does not specifically
address combined wheel/tire packages.
SEMA argued that because consumers
frequently replace both the vehicle’s
tires and wheels and also can replace
the wheels while maintaining the
original tires, the owner’s manual
language should add the term ‘‘wheels’’
(to read ‘‘tires or wheels’’) in order to
avoid any consumer confusion.
Third, SEMA objected to the term
‘‘incompatible’’ to describe replacement
tires whose installation causes the
TPMS malfunction indicator to activate.
SEMA seems to be arguing that the
replacement tires (and/or wheels) may
be an appropriate match in terms of
supporting the vehicle, but the
construction nevertheless may prevent
the TPMS from functioning properly.
Accordingly, SEMA recommended
substituting the word ‘‘alternate’’ for
‘‘incompatible.’’
Fourth, SEMA recommended that the
owner’s manual should note that
dealers, retailers, and installers should
have access to all service information
necessary to make the alternate tires and
wheels operate correctly in conjunction
with the TPMS malfunction indicator
lamp. However, SEMA stated that this
recommendation would apply only if
NHTSA mandates that vehicle
manufacturers share such service
information with other relevant parts
and service suppliers.
Sumitomo urged NHTSA to modify
the proposed owner’s manual language
to reflect the responsibility of the
vehicle operator to maintain the correct
tire pressure. Sumitomo argued that the

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

NPRM could be interpreted as shifting
this responsibility to the vehicle
manufacturer. Therefore, Sumitomo
proposed that the following additional
statement be required in the owner’s
manual: ‘‘The vehicle operator has the
responsibility to maintain the correct
tire pressure even though the tire
pressure indicator warning may not be
illuminated due to the lower than
specified tire pressure.’’ Sumitomo also
recommended adding a statement to
reflect the fact that the TPMS itself will
not maintain correct tire pressure.
Consistent with Sumitomo’s
comments immediately above, the RMA
stated that the owner’s manual should
include language explicitly stating that
the TPMS does not verify that proper
tire pressure is maintained (i.e., even
when the TPMS telltale is not
illuminated, the tires may not be at
optimum pressure). The RMA expressed
concern that the NPRM’s proposed
owner’s manual language could induce
consumers to substitute reliance on the
TPMS for routine tire maintenance.
The TIA stated the owner’s manual
should require a statement that even for
a TPMS-equipped vehicle, the vehicle
operator should check the tires regularly
for proper inflation pressure and tread
depth and should rotate the tires every
6,000 miles for optimum performance
and fuel economy.
NADA questioned the NPRM’s
discussion of vehicles without an
owner’s manual, which NADA thought
might refer to used vehicles (see 69 FR
55896, 55906 (Sept. 16, 2004)). NADA
commented that NHTSA does not have
authority to require point-of-sale
dissemination of TPMS information
other than through the vehicle owner’s
manual.
Particularly for a new safety standard
for a device whose function might not
be apparent to the average driver, we
believe that a clear and consistent
written statement in the vehicle’s
owners manual is necessary to explain
the benefits and limitations of the TPMS
and the driver’s responsibility to
maintain proper tire pressure.
Consequently, as part of this final rule,
we are including a required statement in
the owner’s manual (or in writing to the
first purchaser for vehicles without an
owner’s manual).
In response to NADA’s comments, we
would clarify that this requirement only
applies to new vehicles. Regarding
NADA’s comment about the
requirement for a statement in writing
outside the owner’s manual (in cases
where there is no owner’s manual), we
believe that this TPMS-related
information is important and must be
provided to the first purchaser.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18165

However, rather than requiring that
vehicle manufacturers provide an
owner’s manual, we believe that it is
preferable to allow vehicle
manufacturers the flexibility to instead
provide this information through a
written statement.
We disagree with the comment of
Nissan that the proposed owner’s
manual language is overly restrictive
and would prevent vehicle
manufacturers from tailoring the
owner’s manual discussion of the TPMS
to the specific system installed on the
vehicle. Paragraph S4.5(b) of the NPRM
proposed to permit manufacturers to
discuss a variety of issues related to the
operation of their particular system. We
believe that requiring a specified
statement in the owner’s manual in the
final rule does not diminish the ability
of vehicle manufacturers to provide
explanation of the TPMS and its
operation.
In response to public comments, we
have made some modifications to the
NPRM’s proposed owner’s manual
statement. We have modified our
discussion of ‘‘incompatible’’
replacement tires. We recognize that
replacement tires may be compatible
with the vehicle in terms of carrying the
maximum vehicle load, but may
nevertheless be incompatible with
continued proper TPMS functioning.
However, replacement tires that prevent
proper TPMS functioning are indeed
incompatible with the TPMS. With that
said, we have revised the owner’s
manual statement to provide further
clarity. We have also modified the
owner’s manual statement to reflect the
fact that drivers frequently replace both
the vehicle’s tires and wheels (rims).
We have decided to include tailored
language reflecting the fact that there are
two options for the MIL, a dedicated
TPMS malfunction telltale or inclusion
as part of a combined low tire pressure/
TPMS malfunction telltale.
We agree with Nissan that vehicle
manufacturers are unlikely to provide
recommended inflation pressures for
every possible replacement tire in the
vehicle owner’s manual. However, it
remains important for consumers to
inflate their tires to a pressure level
appropriate for those tires. Accordingly,
we have modified the relevant statement
in the owner’s manual to delete the
statement regarding consultation with
the owner’s manual to find such
alternate tire pressures. We expect that
consumers will be able to easily obtain
the relevant pressure information from
tire industry sources.
We agree with Sumitomo that it
remains the driver’s responsibility to
maintain proper tire inflation pressure

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18166

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

and that the TPMS is not designed to
signal as soon as the tires have deviated
from the optimal inflation level, and we
have added language to stress the
importance of proper tire maintenance.
Regarding Sumitomo’s other comments
that the TPMS is a detection device that
does not act to add air itself to maintain
inflation pressure, we believe that in the
future, TPMSs may become available
that combine under-inflation detection
and re-inflation features; accordingly,
we have decided not to opine as to
future TPMS capabilities in this regard.
We also agree with SEMA that some
replacement tires may call for an
inflation pressure different than that of
the OE tires that is reflected on vehicle
placard. The owner’s manual statement
has been revised to include language
related to these points.
We have decided not to adopt TIA’s
recommended language concerning tire
maintenance advice related to checking
tread depth and rotating the tires every
6,000 miles. Although this information
may be useful for voluntary inclusion in
the owner’s manual, we do not believe
that it is necessary to require such
language for the following reasons. First,
we believe that discussion of other
aspects of tire maintenance is outside
the scope of the TPMS rulemaking. In
addition, we believe that there may be
reasonable differences of opinion
regarding proper tread depth or
frequency of tire rotation. We do not
agree with the TIA’s conclusion that
consumers cannot be trusted to consult
their vehicle’s owner’s manual in
appropriate situations.
Regarding SEMA’s recommendation
to require vehicle manufacturers to
make TPMS information available to tire
retailers and dealers and to provide
related language in the owner’s manual,
we are addressing that issue in this
notice under section IV.C.8. Please
consult that section for further details.
Accordingly, we have decided to
require the following statement, in
English, in the vehicle’s owner’s manual
(or in writing for the first purchasers of
vehicles without an owner’s manual):
Each tire, including the spare (if provided),
should be checked monthly when cold and
inflated to the inflation pressure
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer
on the vehicle placard or tire inflation
pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a
different size than the size indicated on the
vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure
label, you should determine the proper
inflation pressure for those tires.)
As an added safety feature, your vehicle
has been equipped with a tire pressure
monitoring system (TPMS) that illuminates a
low tire pressure telltale when one or more
of your tires is significantly under-inflated.
Accordingly, when the low tire pressure

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

telltale illuminates, you should stop and
check your tires as soon as possible, and
inflate them to the proper pressure. Driving
on a significantly under-inflated tire causes
the tire to overheat and can lead to tire
failure. Under-inflation also reduces fuel
efficiency and tire tread life, and may affect
the vehicle’s handling and stopping ability.
Please note that the TPMS is not a
substitute for proper tire maintenance, and it
is the driver’s responsibility to maintain
correct tire pressure, even if under-inflation
has not reached the level to trigger
illumination of the TPMS low tire pressure
telltale.
[The following paragraph is required for all
vehicles certified to the standard starting on
September 1, 2007 and for vehicles
voluntarily equipped with a compliant TPMS
MIL before that time.] Your vehicle has also
been equipped with a TPMS malfunction
indicator to indicate when the system is not
operating properly. [For vehicles with a
dedicated MIL telltale, add the following
statement: The TPMS malfunction indicator
is provided by a separate telltale, which
displays the symbol ‘‘TPMS’’ when
illuminated.] [For vehicles with a combined
low tire pressure/MIL telltale, add the
following statement: The TPMS malfunction
indicator is combined with the low tire
pressure telltale. When the system detects a
malfunction, the telltale will flash for
approximately one minute and then remain
continuously illuminated. This sequence will
continue upon subsequent vehicle start-ups
as long as the malfunction exists.] When the
malfunction indicator is illuminated, the
system may not be able to detect or signal
low tire pressure as intended. TPMS
malfunctions may occur for a variety of
reasons, including the installation of
replacement or alternate tires or wheels on
the vehicle that prevent the TPMS from
functioning properly. Always check the
TPMS malfunction indicator after replacing
one or more tires or wheels on your vehicle
to ensure that the replacement or alternate
tires and wheels allow the TPMS to continue
to function properly.

Vehicle manufacturers may include
information in the owner’s manual
about the time for the TPMS telltale(s)
to extinguish once the low tire pressure
condition or the malfunction is
corrected. They may also include
information in the owner’s manual
about the significance of the low tire
pressure warning telltale illuminating, a
description of corrective action to be
undertaken, whether the TPMS
functions with the vehicle’s spare tire (if
provided), and how to use a reset button
(if one is provided).
6. Test Procedures
As a general comment, the Alliance
argued that the NPRM’s test procedures
may not be sufficiently technologyneutral so as to accommodate
developing and advanced TPMS
technologies. In response, we note that
it is NHTSA’s practice to issue

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

performance standards that meet the
need for motor vehicle safety, are
practicable, and are stated in objective
terms. Although NHTSA tries to
develop standards that are technologyneutral, that does not mean that we will
sacrifice safety in order to accommodate
every available technology. However,
when public comments identify areas
where an NPRM, such as the one for
FMVSS No. 138, could be refined to
promote advanced technologies without
sacrificing safety, we will consider those
comments carefully. Other specific
comments related to the NPRM’s test
procedures are addressed below.
(a) Calibration Time. Under paragraph
S6(d), the NPRM proposed a cumulative
driving time of not less than 20 minutes
for the ‘‘system calibration/learning
phase,’’ which would include driving
the vehicle in two directions on the test
course. The NPRM proposed that time
would not be accumulated while the
vehicle’s brakes are being applied.
Schrader commented that a
calibration/learning phase should not be
necessary, regardless of the technology
used. According to Schrader, because
calibration requires a significant amount
of user knowledge and interaction to
ensure proper performance, the TPMS
should be ready to use and fulfill its
intended purpose without user
interaction. Schrader argued that the
only time a calibration phase should be
necessary is when a malfunctioning
system has been repaired by a qualified
technician and needs to be recalibrated
in order to restore proper performance.
Sumitomo recommended that the
time period for specified calibration in
the test procedures should be increased
to one hour, in order to reasonably
accommodate indirect TPMSs and
thereby keep the standard technologyneutral. Sumitomo stated that indirect
TPMSs require a calibration time of at
least 30 minutes under good conditions
to detect 25-percent under-inflation in
multiple tires, but that one hour is
preferable in order to account for the
variety of circumstances the system may
encounter.
NIRA also recommended increasing
the calibration time to one hour, in
order to be comparable with NIRA’s
recommended detection time for low
tire pressure. NIRA argued that the
additional calibration time would not
affect the life-saving potential of TPMSs.
It also recommended that the final rule
explicitly state that the calibration
procedure will be conducted at normal
driving speeds, at a varied speed profile,
and without engagement of cruise
control (if equipped).
For the final rule, NHTSA has
decided to retain a 20-minute time

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
period for TPMS calibration as part of
the standard’s test procedures. We
believe that a 20-minute time period is
appropriate in order to provide a
technology-neutral standard that
accounts for the need of some TPMSs to
have time to calibrate the system when
the vehicle is new, when new tires are
installed, and when a tire is replaced or
rotated. We do not agree with Schrader’s
comment that calibration would require
a significant amount of user knowledge
and interaction to ensure proper
performance. Not all TPMSs require
calibration, and for those that do, a
driver would most likely need to press
a reset button at an appropriate point, as
described in the owner’s manual. We do
not believe that this process would be
difficult or require any specialized
knowledge.
However, we are not adopting
commenters’ suggestions to increase the
calibration time in the test procedures.
We believe that an excessively long
calibration period would increase the
likelihood that a tire could develop a
leak during calibration that would go
undetected. Available information
suggests that most TPMSs requiring
calibration could do so within this 20minute time period, so we do not see
any reason to delay the timing for the
TPMS to begin providing low tire
pressure warnings to the driver.
In response to NIRA’s comment that
the calibration procedure should be
conducted at normal driving speeds, at
a varied speed profile, and without
engagement of cruise control (if
equipped), we note that the final rule’s
test procedures provide for a cumulative
driving time of 20 minutes within a
speed range of 50–100 km/hr. We
believe that this speed range is adequate
for proper TPMS calibration. However,
we agree with the commenter that use
of cruise control during calibration
could provide the TPMS with a large
amount of redundant information, as
compared to information obtained while
driving at different speeds, and we also
believe that it is important to ensure
that the system performs properly over
a range of speeds, an objective that
could be foiled by the use of cruise
control in this context. Accordingly, we
have included a statement in S5.3.2 that
for vehicles equipped with cruise
control, cruise control will not be
engaged during testing.
(b) Driving Conditions. Under the test
procedures section, the NPRM proposed
that the ambient temperature for testing
would be between 0° C (32° F) and 40°
C (104° F) (see S5.1) and that the road
surface would be dry during testing (see
S5.2). It also proposed that the vehicle’s
TPMS would be calibrated and tested at

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

speeds between 50 km/h (31.1 mph) and
100 km/h (62.2 mph) (see S5.3.2). The
NPRM proposed that testing would be
conducted on any portion of the
Southern Loop of the Treadwear Test
Course defined in Appendix A and
Figure 2 of 49 CFR 575.104. The RMA
commented that the TPMS test
conditions and performance parameters
should be expanded to capture a fuller
range of real world driving conditions.
(AAA and ETRTO provided similar
comments.) Accordingly, the RMA
argued that the temperature range for
testing should be expanded to include
ambient temperatures below freezing
(32° F) and above 104° F. The RMA also
advocated testing under slippery road
conditions and increasing the range for
the driving speed to include speeds over
100 km/hr for low tire pressure
detection. The RMA argued that as
currently proposed, the TPMS test
procedures would not test at higher
speeds (arguably when the TPMS is
most important), on wet/snowy/icy
roadways, under extreme temperatures,
on secondary roads, or during turning or
braking maneuvers. RMA stated that
these conditions do not occur in
isolation, but instead create situations
where multiple factors contribute to an
increased level of risk. (The Advocates,
the EC, Public Citizen, TIA, Tire Rack,
and ETRTO provided similar comments.
In addition, ETRTO also called for
testing at speeds below 31 mph.) VW/
Audi recommended that the test
procedures should incorporate a variety
of speed ranges without the use of
cruise control in order to be technologyneutral.
Sumitomo recommended establishing
a limit in the test procedures on
longitudinal acceleration. Sumitomo
argued that such a limit is necessary to
reflect ordinary driving conditions, so
the company recommended that
longitudinal acceleration should be
limited to ± 0.05 G during the
calibration and low tire pressure
detection phases.
For the final rule, we have decided to
adopt the test conditions as proposed in
the NPRM. Commenters who requested
a broader range of test speeds (both
higher and lower) did not provide any
evidence to show that the vehicle’s
TPMS would not function properly at
vehicle speeds outside the 50–100 km/
hr range. Furthermore, the commenters
did not specify maximum or minimum
test speeds that would ensure that real
world driving conditions would be
represented.
Similarly, commenters who requested
a broader range of ambient temperatures
for testing (both higher and lower) did
not provide any evidence to show that

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18167

the vehicle’s TPMS would not function
properly at temperatures below 0° C (32°
F) or above 40° C (104° F). We believe
that this temperature range covers a
large percentage of the temperatures
normally encountered by most of the
driving public in the United States.
Furthermore, the commenters did not
specify an ambient temperature range
that they would consider to be more
appropriate.
We have decided not to include
longitudinal acceleration limits in the
test procedures for either system
calibration or low tire pressure
detection. It is our understanding that
TPMS technology has improved since
the time that the June 2002 final rule
was published and that current systems
detect and compensate for short periods
of abnormal longitudinal acceleration.
Accordingly, we do not believe that it is
necessary to set longitudinal
acceleration limits as part of the final
rule.
Regarding suggestions that
compliance testing should be conducted
on slippery road surfaces, commenters
did not provide any evidence to show
that the TPMS would not function
normally on road surfaces with a
coefficient of friction lower than the
coefficient of friction of the road surface
during compliance testing. Although
surfaces with a lower coefficient of
friction may result in increased wheel
slip, which in turn could result in a
slightly longer time to detect low tire
pressure, we do not anticipate that
additional safety benefits would arise
from testing on slippery surfaces.
Furthermore, the commenters did not
specify a coefficient of friction or
provide any other quantification for the
recommended surface.
We believe that the test conditions
specified in this final rule will result in
robust TPMSs that will function
normally over a wide range of operating
conditions. We do not believe that
additional specifications related to
temperature, weather, or speed would
appreciably change the TPMS’s
performance or result in design changes
yielding greater safety benefits.
(c) MIL Activation. Under paragraph
S6(l) of the proposed test procedures,
the TPMS malfunction indicator would
be tested by simulating one or more
TPMS malfunction(s) by disconnecting
the power source to any TPMS
component, disconnecting any electrical
connection between TPMS components,
by simulating a TPMS sensor
malfunction, or by installing a tire on
the vehicle that is incompatible with the
TPMS (S6(l)(1)). When the ignition
locking system is turned to the ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) position (or, where appropriate,

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18168

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

the position for lamp check), the TPMS
malfunction telltale would be required
to illuminate (S6(l)(2)). The NPRM also
proposed that for systems equipped a
TPMS reset feature to extinguish the
low tire pressure and/or malfunction
telltale, the system would be reset in
accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions, after which, continued
illumination of the MIL would be
verified (S6(l)(3)). Finally, the proposal
stated that the malfunction would be
corrected, that the system would be
reset (if necessary), and that there would
be verification that the telltale has been
extinguished (S6(l)(4)).
Public comments on this issue relate
to the previous discussion of what types
of malfunctions the system should be
required to detect and how quickly they
should be detected. EnTire provided
draft regulatory text for the portion of
the standard’s test procedures related to
the TPMS malfunction indicator. The
following paraphrases EnTire’s
recommended approach for the final
rule on this issue. First, disable one of
the following TPMS functions: (a)
Control/transmission of information to
the low pressure lamp; (b) transmission
of pressure data from a sensor; or (c)
capability of the controller to receive
pressure information. Verify that the
TPMS telltale(s) perform the check of
lamp function. Drive for 15 minutes or
until the malfunction lamp illuminates.
If the MIL did not illuminate within that
time period, reverse direction and drive
for up to a total cumulative time of 20
minutes or until the MIL illuminates. If
the MIL does not illuminate,
discontinue the test. If the MIL does
illuminate, restore the system to normal
operation. Drive for up to 15 minutes or
until the malfunction lamp
extinguishes. If the MIL did not
extinguish within that time period,
reverse direction and drive for up to a
total cumulative time of 20 minutes.
EnTire argued that this approach
would resolve a number of questions
which EnTire believes were left
unanswered by the NPRM. According to
EnTire, by focusing on the primary
TPMS functions, it would clarify what
malfunctions must be detected by the
system. It would specify a time for the
TPMS to discover the malfunction. It
would specify that the vehicle is to be
driven, because vehicular motion is
necessary for many systems to run
malfunction diagnostics. It would
provide for verification of both the MIL
lamp check and malfunction indication.
EnTire also stated that because
various malfunction conditions may
require different recovery mechanisms
to take place, the driving sequence for
extinguishment may be avoided or

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

reduced if the standard were to permit
reference to additional instructions in
the owner’s manual procedures (if
applicable).
In its comments, NIRA Dynamics
recommended that the final rule’s test
procedures should simulate a TPMS
malfunction by disconnecting the power
source to any TPMS component or by
disconnecting any electrical connection
between TPMS components, thereby
limiting the requirements to only
electrical and radio transmission errors.
NIRA stated that the test procedures
should be limited to detection of these
types of malfunctions in order to keep
the test procedures technology-neutral.
Related to its earlier comments on the
types of malfunctions that the system
should be required to detect, Fuji
commented that the proposed test
procedures may involve disconnecting
the power to the TPMS ECM, but that
such action could make it impossible for
the system’s malfunction logic to
operate.
GM recommended adding 30 minutes
of cumulative driving time for
malfunction detection, under S6(l)(2) of
the NPRM’s proposed test procedures,
in order to ensure that the TPMS has
time to accumulate sufficient data to
make a sound decision about whether a
malfunction has occurred. The Alliance
recommended a similar period of 30
minutes of continuous driving under
S6(l)(4), in order to allow the TPMS the
time necessary to confirm that a
malfunction no longer exists.
Fuji’s comments made similar
arguments, stating that in order to
provide a reasonable battery life (8–10
years) for the wheel-mounted pressure
sensors and transmitters, it and other
vehicle manufacturers have designed
their TPMSs to have the wheel sensors
remain inactive until wheel rotation is
above 40 kph. Fuji also commented that
vehicle motion is required for the TPMS
to begin its diagnostic cycle, along with
a sufficient time period to make a
reliable diagnosis of the malfunction.
Accordingly, Fuji recommended that the
final rule’s test procedures include a
drive time of at least 10 minutes with a
vehicle speed of at least 40 kph.
Nissan also commented that the test
procedures related to malfunction
detection should specify a time for
detection and vehicle speed. Nissan
recommended that the TPMS should be
required to detect a malfunction under
the same conditions and same
timeframe as that required for detection
of low tire pressure (i.e., within 10
minutes at speeds between 50 km/hr
and 100 km/hr).
In its comments, Schrader urged
NHTSA to clarify its ‘‘confusing’’ test

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

procedures related to TPMS
malfunction detection. Schrader
recommended that the TPMS test
procedures should limit the simulation
of a malfunction to removal of a
component from the system.
As noted above, the comments on the
test procedures for the TPMS
malfunction indicator intertwined
substantive discussions of what types of
malfunctions the system would be
required to detect with procedural
discussions of how the standard’s test
procedures would create those
malfunctions and confirm that the
TPMS can detect them. However, the
substantive issue of what types of
malfunctions the system must detect has
been addressed in Section IV.C.2(b); that
discussion will not be repeated here.
Similarly, the time period for the TPMS
to detect a system malfunction and to
illuminate the MIL, was discussed in
Section IV.C.2(a). For a complete
discussion of those aspects of the test
procedures, please consult those
sections of this final rule.
We recognize that most direct and
indirect TPMSs will require that the
vehicle be driven in order for the system
to detect malfunctions. Commenters
such as Nissan stated that most TPMSs
use the same analytical processes for
TPMS malfunction detection as they
would for low tire pressure detection.
Therefore, even though some
commenters (e.g., Fuji, Nissan)
suggested that malfunction detection
would be possible for certain systems
within a shorter timeframe, we have
decided to adopt the same 20-minute
driving time for TPMS malfunction
detection as for the low tire pressure
warning. In addition, we have
incorporated the same test conditions
(with some minor modification) as were
proposed in S5 of the NPRM, including
the requirement that the vehicle will be
driven within a speed range of 50–100
km/hr, with no time accumulating when
the service brake is applied. Again, we
recognize that most TPMSs will require
vehicular motion to detect that a TPMS
malfunction has been corrected as well.
Regarding EnTire’s suggestion that
there should be a specification for a MIL
bulb check, such a requirement was
already proposed in S6(b) of the NPRM,
and it has been retained in this final
rule. Further, we are not adopting
EnTire’s recommendation that the
owner’s manual be consulted for
additional instructions related to
operation of the MIL because we do not
believe it is necessary. We believe that
the final rule’s requirements for MIL
operation will provide a simple,
consistent, and timely warning to the

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
driver in the event of a TPMS
malfunction.
(d) Vehicle Cool-Down Period. Under
S6(e) of the NPRM, the vehicle would be
stopped and kept stationary with the
engine off for up to one hour, after
which time one or more tires would be
deflated to 7 kPa (1 psi) below the level
that should cause the TPMS low
pressure warning telltale to illuminate.
This provision would allow the tires
time to cool prior to initiating the
system detection phase of testing.
In its comments, the Alliance
recommended reducing the cool-down
period in S6(e) from ‘‘up to one hour’’
to ‘‘up to five minutes.’’ The Alliance
argued that, as currently proposed, this
cool-down period could make the rule
technology-dependent, because only
direct TPMSs could comply. According
to the Alliance’s understanding, air
would be let out of the vehicle’s tire(s)
after the cooling-down period, but some
systems may not be able to detect the
changes immediately, and by the time
they can, the tires may have warmed up
to a level above the warning threshold.
However, the Alliance stated that if the
test is conducted with tires that were
under-inflated just after having been
warmed up during the calibration
phase, then those systems should be
able to detect the differential.
As a related matter, the Alliance
argued that proposed S6(f)(3) of the
NPRM, which provides instructions in
the event that the TPMS low pressure
telltale fails to illuminate after the tires
are deflated and the vehicle is driven as
required, should be revised to provide
for an additional check of the tires’
inflation pressures prior to
discontinuing the test. The Alliance
stated that it is requesting this change to
avoid incorrect findings of
noncompliance in cases where the tire
inflation pressure is higher than the
required TPMS activation threshold due
to a tire temperature increase as a result
of driving, ambient temperature
changes, or a difference in temperature
from the road surface in a stationary
location to that of the test road surface.
The Alliance recommended similar
modifications to proposed paragraph
S6(g).
NIRA Dynamics made a similar
comment, arguing that the portion of the
NPRM’s test procedures in which the
tires are deflated could conceivably
result in tires inflated above the warning
threshold during the test. According to
NIRA, tests have shown that tire
pressure increases due to temperature
changes after rapid deflation, which can
negate the pressure change to some
extent. Therefore, NIRA Dynamics
recommended that the tire pressure be

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

decreased to 2 psi below the warning
threshold, and that if the TPMS does not
issue a warning during the test, the tire
pressure should be double-checked.
Similarly, VW/Audi recommended that
the final rule should provide no more
than five minutes to adjust and check
the tires’ inflation pressures before
starting the system detection phase, and
it supported decreasing the tire pressure
to 2 psi below the warning threshold.
Sumitomo stated that its experience
has shown that it can take several
minutes for the tire pressure to become
stable after being set to a certain value.
Thus, Sumitomo recommended that the
test procedures be modified to set the
tire 1 psi below the activation pressure,
wait three minutes, and then verify the
tire pressure to ensure that the pressure
has been accurately set.
In order to compensate for the
temperature effects discussed by the
Alliance, NIRA Dynamics, VW/Audi,
and Sumitomo, we have decided to
reduce the tire cool-down period in
S6(e) from ‘‘up to one hour’’ to ‘‘up to
five minutes,’’ as requested by the
commenters. We believe that the
pressure differential between cold tire
inflation pressure and running tire
inflation pressure is approximately 8–10
percent. Therefore, tires that have their
pressure reduced to the TPMS
activation pressure while cold may
experience a tire pressure increase once
the vehicle has been driven for a short
period of time, and this increase in
pressure may prevent the TPMS from
providing the low tire pressure warning.
Regarding the commenters’
recommendations for a decrease in the
tire pressure deflation in S6(e) from the
current 1 psi below the TPMS activation
threshold to 2 psi below that level and
for an additional pressure check, we
have decided to adopt the 2 psi
recommendation. We believe that this
modification would be sufficient to
account for the temperature effect
described by the commenters without
the need for additional pressure checks.
(e) Testing with Pressures Other Than
Placard Pressure. Under S6 of the
NPRM, the proposed test procedures set
placard pressure as the baseline for
inflating and deflating tires during
testing.
The Alliance argued that because
FMVSS No. 110 requires the new tire
pressure label to specify only one
recommended pressure, other
recommended pressures for special
conditions (e.g., extreme temperatures,
heavy loads, off-road use) must now be
provided in the owner’s manual.
Accordingly, the Alliance recommended
revising the test procedures to provide
that in conducting testing, NHTSA

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18169

would consult the owner’s manual and,
if covered special conditions are
present, use the inflation pressures
specified for such conditions in lieu of
the placard pressure. (Porsche and VW/
Audi provided similar comments.)
Schrader commented that TPMSs
should accommodate drivers’ needs to
change inflation pressures to match the
load on the tires.
We are not adopting the commenters’
recommendations regarding testing at
pressures other than placard pressure,
because we do not believe that any of
the above-described ‘‘special
conditions’’ are likely to occur during
compliance testing.
(f) System Reset. As reflected in the
NPRM, the agency recognizes that many
TPMSs are equipped with a system reset
feature that must be used in appropriate
circumstances. This understanding is
reflected in the NPRM’s test procedures,
which refer to reset at S6(c), (i), (j), and
(l).
Several commenters discussed what
they perceived to be an error in
paragraph S6(i) of the test procedures,
which discusses action to be taken at
the end of the system detection phase
(i.e., after point at which the low
pressure telltale should have
illuminated but prior to re-inflation of
the tires). As proposed, that provision
provided, ‘‘If the vehicle’s TPMS has a
manual reset feature, attempt to reset
the system in accordance with
instructions specified in the vehicle
owner’s manual prior to re-inflating the
vehicle’s tires. If the low tire pressure
telltale illuminates, discontinue the
test.’’
The Alliance recommended
elimination of S6(i) because it seems to
imply that an owner may extinguish the
TPMS low pressure telltale without
correcting the under-inflation condition.
According to the Alliance,
manufacturers’ recommended
procedures for TPMS reset require that
the manual reset procedure be
performed only after correcting the
inflation pressure. Continental Teves,
Schrader, Sumitomo, and VW/Audi also
raised this issue.
Paragraph S6(c) of the NPRM
proposed the following language, ‘‘If
applicable, reset the tire pressure
monitoring system in accordance with
the instructions in the vehicle owner’s
manual. The Alliance recommended
modifying S6(c) to specify that the
system will be ‘‘set or reset.’’
BMW raised a more substantive
argument regarding system reset, stating
that a manufacturer should be permitted
to incorporate a TPMS reset feature to
accommodate situations such as a
consumer switching between summer

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18170

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

and winter tires. According to BMW, the
reset would allow the system to
calibrate immediately after the tire
change. BMW commented that if the
agency is seriously concerned about
driver misuse of a reset, NHTSA should
consider a requirement that would
prevent TPMS reset from the driver’s
seat.
After further consideration on the
issue of system reset, we have decided
to delete the provision contained at
S6(i) of the NPRM. Because some
TPMSs cannot determine tire pressure
in individual tires, these systems cannot
detect correction of the under-inflation
situation (and extinguish the low tire
pressure telltale) without resetting the
system. In light of the information
presented by the commenters, we have
decided not to test whether the TPMS
telltale will extinguish after the system
is reset. We expect that, for vehicles
equipped with a reset, the owner’s
manual would have instructions for the
proper use of the reset feature (e.g.,
stating that the driver should re-inflate
the tires to the proper level before
resetting the system).
Regarding BMW’s comment on the
permissibility of a TPMS that may be
reprogrammed or reset to accommodate
different tires, we leave that decision to
the vehicle manufacturer. As noted
previously, NHTSA will conduct
compliance testing with the tires
installed on the vehicle at the time of
initial sale.
Regarding the Alliance’s request to
modify the language of S6(c), we have
decided to adopt the Alliance’s
recommended language, although we
believe that the Alliance’s request
largely involves semantics.
7. Lead Time and Phase-In
The NPRM proposed the following
schedule for compliance with the TPMS
standard: 50 percent of a vehicle
manufacturer’s light vehicles would be
required to comply with the standard
during the first year (September 1, 2005
to August 31, 2006); 90 percent during
the second year (September 1, 2006 to
August 31, 2007); all light vehicles
thereafter (see S7). The proposal stated
that carry-forward credits would be
provided for vehicles certified as
complying with the standard that are
produced after the effective date of the
final rule.
The NPRM’s proposed schedule for
lead time and phase-in was based upon
information that the agency obtained
from September 2003 Special Orders to
14 vehicle manufacturers (regarding
their production plans for TPMS at the
time of the Second Circuit’s decision)
and to 13 TPMS manufacturers

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

(regarding their production capacity).
From the responses to these Special
Orders, NHTSA learned that, in
anticipation of the start of the phase-in
under the June 2002 final rule, most
vehicle manufacturers were moving
aggressively toward installation of
TPMSs capable of meeting the four-tire,
25-percent under-inflation detection
requirement, but some were not. The
information provided by TPMS
suppliers indicated sufficient capacity
to supply TPMSs with a four-tire, 25percent detection capability in
quantities that would easily meet the
newly proposed phase-in requirements.
In general, most of the vehicle
manufacturers that commented on the
NPRM, as well as the Alliance,
requested additional lead time and a
modified phase-in schedule. Public
interest groups, such as the Advocates,
expressed support for the NPRM’s
compliance schedule, as proposed.
Specific comments and
recommendations regarding lead time
and the phase-in are discussed
immediately below.
(a) Lead Time. The Alliance
recommended that the final rule include
a two-year phase-in for compliance
beginning on September 1, 2006. It
stated that the agency could encourage
early compliance by making phase-in
credits available for compliant vehicles
built after publication of the final rule.
However, the Alliance made its lead
time and phase-in recommendations
contingent upon its assumption that the
agency would defer the proposed MIL
and related owner’s manual provisions
until September 1, 2007.
The Alliance stated that the NPRM’s
prohibition against a telltale that
changes color from yellow to red at
increasingly low tire pressure levels will
require manufacturers to add an
additional telltale to the instrument
panel. According to the Alliance,
instrument panel redesign requires one
to four years of lead time, so this change
could not be accomplished before
September 1, 2007.
Similar comments about lead time
were provided by AIAM,
DaimlerChrysler, Fuji, GM, Hyundai,
Porsche, Suzuki, VW/Audi, and
Sumitomo. For example, the AIAM
stated that the proposed MIL
requirements could dictate redesign of
vehicle dashboards and necessitate new
software and hardware. AIAM also
argued that changes to the owner’s
manual cannot be accomplished
quickly, and that the owner’s manuals
for some MY 2006 vehicles have already
gone to print. As a further example, Fuji
argued that the proposed MIL
requirements would necessitate

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

substantial changes in ECM logic and
circuitry, which will require additional
design, calibration, testing, and
incorporation by suppliers.
The Alliance commented that,
because of the need to lock in
production-related decisions for MY
2006, if a final rule were issued later
than December 2004, a phase-in
beginning in September 2005 would
only be feasible if the technical
provisions of the new final rule would
allow compliance certification for all
systems currently in production that
were designed in accordance with the
carryover provisions of the June 5, 2002
final rule for TPMS, without any
revision. (GM and the AIAM each made
a similar comment.)
The Alliance also stated that under
the Safety Act, a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard may not become
effective in less than 180 days.50 (The
Alliance stated that its member
companies will require the full 180 days
in order to complete certification testing
and documentation after the new
standard is promulgated.) Therefore, the
Alliance argued that, as a legal matter,
March 1, 2005 is the latest date that the
agency can issue a final rule and have
it be effective on September 1, 2005.
Once again, the Alliance commented
that its statements regarding a
September 2005 date for the start of
compliance assumes deferral of
compliance with the MIL provisions
and related owner’s manual language
until September 1, 2007. (AIAM, BMW,
Honda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Suzuki
provided similar comments.)
The Alliance also commented that the
agency should make FMVSS No. 138 a
test case for the proposed revisions to 49
CFR Part 568 that would allow final
stage manufacturers and alterers, many
of which are small businesses, an extra
year for compliance.
DaimlerChrysler commented that
even if the agency were to publish a
final rule in Spring 2005 that was
identical to the September 2004 NPRM,
the company could not implement the
MIL provisions in time for MY 2006.
DaimlerChrysler stated that close to two
years is needed to convert an assembly
plant in order to accommodate a TPMS
component into the assembly line, and
9–12 months is needed to accommodate
the newly proposed MIL requirement.
In its comments, General Motors
stated that it would require 24 months
from publication of a final rule to the
effective date in order to meet the
requirements of the new proposal. GM
stated that this time period includes 18
months to engineer, prototype, tool, and
50 49

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

U.S.C. 30111(d).

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
validate the system, and six months to
go from vehicle validation test
completion to production.
Hyundai stated that NHTSA should
extend the compliance date in the final
rule to September 1, 2007, but dispense
with the phase-in and instead require
full compliance by that date.
After careful consideration of the
public comments related to lead time,
we have decided to begin mandatory
compliance (with a modified phase-in
discussed below) on October 5, 2005,
but to defer compliance with the
standard’s MIL requirements until
September 1, 2007. The reasons for this
decision are as follows.
The proposed requirements for the
TPMS to detect low tire pressure (i.e., a
four-tire, 25-percent under-inflation
detection capability) should have come
as no surprise to vehicle manufacturers,
because the Second Circuit’s opinion in
Public Citizen v. Mineta made clear that
the standard would require a system
with a four-tire detection capability, and
the NPRM’s proposed four-tire, 25percent requirement harkened all the
way back to the June 2002 final rule.
The September 2004 NPRM also
clearly indicated to the industry that
NHTSA intended to specify
requirements for TPMSs beginning with
MY 2006. Furthermore, vehicle
manufacturers’ own production data, as
contained in the September 2003
Special Orders, demonstrated that at
that time, the industry was well on its
way in terms of planning for
incorporation of TPMSs with a four-tire,
25-percent under-inflation detection
capability.
In addition, we do not agree with the
Alliance’s argument that additional lead
time should be provided because
manufacturers may wish to incorporate
a second red lamp to indicate extremely
low tire pressure; such a lamp is not
required under the standard.
However, we recognize that vehicle
manufacturers could not be certain of
the exact details of the final rule until
publication of this notice. Therefore, in
consideration of the changes made to
this final rule (as described below,
including deferral of the TPMS MIL
requirements and associated owner’s
manual requirements), we have made
adjustments to the percentages specified
for light vehicle compliance with the
phase-in in order to maintain Fall 2005
compliance date proposed in the NPRM.
In an additional effort to maintain a Fall
2005 compliance date, as further
described below, we have decided to
permit vehicle manufacturers to earn
carry-forward credits and carrybackward credits (i.e., reduce
compliance during the first year of the

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

phase-in and increase compliance by a
corresponding amount during the
second year of the phase-in). We believe
that these changes in the final rule
effectively resolve manufacturers’ lead
time concerns. Consequently, we see no
reason to delay implementation of the
standard for an additional year in
response to the arguments raised by the
commenters.
Regarding the TPMS MIL, we
understand that the TPMS malfunction
indicator represents a new requirement
that was not present prior to the
September 2004 NPRM, and that
implementation of the MIL
requirements may necessitate significant
design and production changes (e.g.,
redesign of vehicle dashboards, new
software and hardware). Therefore, it
may not be practicable for vehicle
manufacturers to comply with the
TPMS MIL requirements by the start of
the phase-in. We believe that the
recommendation of at least 24 months
lead time for the TPMS MIL is
reasonable.
In addition, as reflected in the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this
rulemaking, the incremental benefits
associated with the MIL are expected to
be small in comparison to those
provided by the system’s low tire
pressure warning. The TPMS MIL is
expected to account for 0.677 percent of
the final rule’s estimated benefits,
which equates to 1 fatality and 57
injuries prevented per year (see page
VII–12 of the FRIA). Extrapolating from
the figures provided in the FRIA, we
believe that delaying the final rule until
vehicle manufacturers could have a
compliant TPMS MIL in place (i.e.,
delaying the 20-percent phase-in in MY
2006 and the 70-percent phase-in in MY
2007) would lead to an estimated 107
fatalities and 7,536 injuries that could
have been prevented if TPMSs without
an MIL were provided in vehicles under
the final rule’s phase-in (with benefits
accruing over the life of vehicles so
equipped). Accordingly, we believe that
it would be more advantageous to have
TPMSs (without an MIL) to begin being
incorporated in new light vehicles
sooner, rather than defer
implementation of the entire standard.
For these reasons, we believe that a
compliance date of September 1, 2007
for the standard’s MIL requirements
(including associated owner’s manual
requirements) would be both practicable
and maximize safety benefits under the
standard.
In response to the Alliance’s comment
that, by statute, a safety standard may
not become effective less than 180 days
after the standard is prescribed (see 49
U.S.C. 30111(d)), we have decided to

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18171

postpone the start of compliance until
180 days after publication of this final
rule. In order to better coincide with
manufacturer production schedules, we
have scheduled the second part of the
phase-in to begin on September 1, 2006.
However, if the agency is forced to
postpone this compliance date for an
additional year (i.e., eliminate the 20percent compliance requirement for MY
2006), we would expect to lose 24 lives,
a result that could be prevented if the
vehicles subject to a phase-in
commencing in Fall 2005 were
equipped with a TPMS that could
provide a low tire pressure warning to
the driver. Such delay would also be
expected to result in 1,675 more injuries
than otherwise would have occurred.
We believe that other changes
between the June 2002 final rule and
today’s final rule for TPMS are
relatively minor, and do not constitute
major new and unexpected structural
requirements. However, after
considering public comments, we have
sought to accommodate these changes
through modifications in the phase-in
schedule, as discussed in the next
section below. Specifically, we have
modified the compliance percentages of
the phase-in, which should ease
implementation.
Furthermore, manufacturers have
known since at least August 2003 that
a TPMS with a four-tire detection
capability would be required and that
there would likely be a requirement for
25-percent under-inflation detection.
These expectations were confirmed in
the September 2004 NPRM, which
included a proposed phase-in beginning
September 1, 2005; manufacturers have
not suggested that TPMS technologies
are unavailable to meet those
requirements. And once again we note
that vehicle manufacturers’ own
production data, as contained their
responses to the September 2003
Special Orders, demonstrated that at
that time, most of the industry was
moving aggressively in terms of
planning for incorporation of TPMSs
with a four-tire, 25-percent underinflation detection capability. The
Alliance’s argument suggests that
vehicle manufacturers have disregarded
all of the knowledge they have gained
about the eventual TPMS standard since
the time of the Second Circuit’s
decision, including their own
production plans.
In addition, the Alliance has not
provided any evidence to demonstrate
that their members could not meet a Fall
2005 compliance date, other than to
assert that they will require the full 180
days. The Alliance’s comments also
intimate that a September 1, 2005

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18172

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

phase-in would be feasible ‘‘if the
technical provisions of the new Final
Rule allow compliance certification by
all systems currently in production that
were designed in accordance with the
carryover provisions of the 2002 Final
Rule, without any revision’’ (which
included a four-tire, 25-percent underinflation detection option).
Furthermore, we believe that concerns
related to lead time are either rendered
moot or significantly mitigated by the
final rule’s allowance of both carryforward and carry-backward credits. For
these reasons, we have decided to
require compliance with the
requirements of the standard beginning
on October 5, 2005.
In order to ease implementation,
NHTSA has decided to permit vehicle
manufacturers to earn carry-forward
credits for compliant vehicles, produced
in excess of the phase-in requirements,
that are manufactured between the
effective date of this rule and the
conclusion of the phase-in.51 These
carry-forward credits could be used
during the phase-in, but they could not
be used to delay compliance
certification for vehicles produced at the
conclusion of the phase-in. Except for
vehicles produced by final-stage
manufacturers and alterers (who receive
an additional year for compliance), all
covered vehicles must comply with
FMVSS No. 138 on September 1, 2007,
without use of any carry-forward
credits.
Furthermore, we have determined
that there is good cause to make this
final rule effective upon publication so
that vehicle manufacturers would have
a standard in effect to which they may
certify vehicles for purposes of early,
voluntary compliance and to maximize
the time for earning carry-forward
credits. Providing this earlier effective
date may cause some vehicles to be
equipped with TPMSs that otherwise
might not have been, thereby advancing
the safety goals of the standard. We
explicitly note that vehicle
manufacturers have no mandatory
compliance responsibilities under the
standard until the start of the phase-in.
To further ease implementation and to
maintain a Fall 2005 compliance date,
we have decided also to provide carrybackward credits, whereby vehicle
manufacturers may defer compliance
with a part or all of the certification
requirements for the first period of the
phase-in, provided that they certify a
correspondingly increased number of
vehicles under the standard during the
second period of the phase-in. Stated
51 Any such certification of compliance with the
standard is irrevocable.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

another way, carry-backward credits
allow for under-compliance in the first
period of the phase-in, provided that
there is corresponding, compensating
over-compliance in the second period of
the phase-in. For example, if a vehicle
manufacturer anticipated production
problems in terms of incorporating
compliant TPMSs into vehicles
produced from October 5, 2005, through
August 31, 2006 (i.e., MY 2006), it could
choose to certify 10 percent of its light
vehicles to the standard during that
period and commit to certifying 80
percent of its light vehicles
manufactured from September 1, 2006
through August 31, 2007 (i.e., MY 2007).
We believe that permitting carrybackward credits would not impact the
overall safety benefits of the final rule,
because the same number of vehicles
would be subject to compliance
certification, although the distribution
may vary over the model years of the
phase-in. Corresponding changes have
been added to the regulatory text of both
FMVSS No. 138, as well as the TPMS
phase-in requirements contained in 49
CFR Part 585.
In addition, since the NPRM was
published, NHTSA has issued a final
rule pertaining to certification
requirements for vehicles built in two or
more stages and altered vehicles (see 70
FR 7414 (Feb. 14, 2005)). The
amendments made in that final rule
become effective September 1, 2006. In
relevant part, the multi-stage
certification final rule amended 49 CFR
571.8, Effective Date, and it added a
new subparagraph (b) providing as
follows:
(b) Vehicles built in two or more stages
vehicles and altered vehicles. Unless
Congress directs or the agency expressly
determines that this paragraph does not
apply, the date for manufacturer certification
of compliance with any standard, or
amendment to a standard, that is issued on
or after September 1, 2006 is, insofar as its
application to intermediate and final-stage
manufacturers and alterers is concerned, one
year after the last applicable date for
manufacturer certification of compliance.
Nothing in this provision shall be construed
as prohibiting earlier compliance with the
standard or amendment or as precluding
NHTSA from extending a compliance
effective date for intermediate and final-stage
manufacturers and alterers by more than one
year.

In light of the agency’s policy on
multi-stage manufacturer certification,
as expressed in the February 14, 2005
final rule, we have decided to adopt the
Alliance’s suggestion and to apply that
principle to the compliance certification
requirement for final-stage
manufacturers and alterers under the
TPMS standard. Thus, the final rule for

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

TPMS is requiring final-stage
manufacturers and alterers to certify
compliance for all covered vehicles
manufacturers on or after September 1,
2008. However, final-stage
manufacturers and alterers may
voluntarily certify compliance with the
standard prior to this date (although no
carry-forward credits would accrue in
this case).
(b) Phase-In Schedule. In their
comments, vehicle manufacturers and
the Alliance generally favored
modification of the phase-in schedule
set forth in the NPRM. The following
summarizes the commenters’
recommendations regarding the phasein schedule. It should be noted that,
unless otherwise indicated, the phase-in
percentages specified below are
exclusive of requirements related to the
malfunction indicator, compliance with
which manufacturers argued should be
postponed until the end of the phase-in
period.
The Alliance recommended that 65
percent of covered vehicles should be
required to comply in September 2006,
and that 100 percent of covered vehicles
should be required to comply in
September 2007. The Alliance stated
that this schedule would accommodate
its member companies’ different stages
of readiness in terms of developing and
producing large numbers of compliant
TPMSs. The Alliance also argued that
the agency has based its phase-in
schedule on the responses to NHTSA’s
September 2003 TPMS Special Orders;
however, the response to those Special
Orders rested on certain vehicle
manufacturer assumptions that have not
proven true (e.g., that carry-forward
credits would be available from the Fall
of 2002, that indirect TPMSs could be
used to comply with the rule). In
addition, the Alliance commented that
the MIL provisions are new to the
NPRM and will require redesigns by
manufacturers.
In addition, Mitsubishi commented
that business circumstances since the
time of the Special Order have resulted
in changes in product plans, which have
impacted installation of TPMSs, and
Mitsubishi stated that it uses different
TPMS technology in each of its models,
a factor which contributes to the need
for longer lead time.
AIAM recommended that 50 percent
of covered vehicles should be required
to comply in September 2006, and that
100 percent of covered vehicles should
be required to comply in September
2007.
BMW recommended that 35 percent
of covered vehicles should be required
to comply in September 2005, that 70
percent of covered vehicles should be

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
required to comply in September 2006,
and that 100 percent of covered vehicles
should be required to comply in
September 2007.
DaimlerChrysler recommended the
following phase-in schedules if the
proposed MIL are required at the start
of the phase-in. If carry-forward credits
are permitted, DaimlerChrysler
recommended that 70 percent of
covered vehicles should be required to
comply in September 2006, and that 100
percent of covered vehicles should be
required to comply in September 2007.
If carry-forward credits are not
permitted, DaimlerChrysler
recommended that 50 percent of
covered vehicles should be required to
comply in September 2006, and that 100
percent of covered vehicles should be
required to comply in September 2007.
If the MIL requirements are deferred
to the end of the phase-in,
DaimlerChrysler stated that it could
support a recommendation that 30
percent of covered vehicles should be
required to comply in September 2005,
that 70 percent of covered vehicles
should be required to comply in
September 2006, and that 100 percent of
covered vehicles should be required to
comply in September 2007.
Hyundai recommended that 100
percent of covered vehicles should be
required to comply in September 2007,
without any phase-in.
Mitsubishi recommended that 50
percent of covered vehicles should be
required to comply in September 2005,
that 70 percent of covered vehicles
should be required to comply in
September 2006, and that 100 percent of
covered vehicles should be required to
comply in September 2007.
Porsche recommended that 65 percent
of covered vehicles should be required
to comply in September 2006, and that
100 percent of covered vehicles should
be required to comply in September
2007. Porsche stated that if a three-year
phase-in is necessary, it recommended a
10–50–100% phase-in schedule, which
is consistent with the June 2002 final
rule.
Fuji offered two recommended
options for the phase-in. Under Option
1, Fuji recommended that 50 percent of
covered vehicles should be required to
comply in September 2006, that 90
percent of covered vehicles should be
required to comply in September 2007,
and that 100 percent of covered vehicles
should be required to comply in
September 2008. Under Option 2, Fuji
recommended that 100 percent of
covered vehicles should be required to
comply in September 2007, without any
phase-in.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

VW/Audi recommended that 40
percent of covered vehicles should be
required to comply in September 2006,
and that 100 percent of covered vehicles
should be required to comply in
September 2007. VW/Audi’s
recommended schedule would include
a MIL (consistent with its suggested
changes). VW/Audi stated its belief that
it would be preferable to postpone the
phase-in until 2006 and require TPMSs
with a MIL at that time, rather than
begin the phase-in in 2005 and allow
TPMSs without a MIL.
After carefully considering all
available information, we have decided
to require a phase-in schedule for
FMVSS No. 138 as follows: 20 percent
of a vehicle manufacturer’s light
vehicles must comply with the standard
during the period from October 5, 2005,
to August 31, 2006; 70 percent during
the period from September 1, 2006 to
August 31, 2007, and all light vehicles
thereafter. However, compliance with
the standard’s requirements for the
TPMS malfunction indicator and related
owner’s manual language would be
deferred until September 1, 2007, at
which time those provisions also would
be mandatory for all light vehicles.
For the reasons discussed under the
Lead Time section immediately above,
we believe that this final rule, as
modified, provides manufacturers with
sufficient lead time to begin a October
5, 2005, phase-in of the core
requirements of the TPMS standard (i.e.,
implementing the standard’s low
pressure detection requirements but
briefly deferring implementation of the
new requirements for the MIL and
related owner’s manual language). Once
again, the requirements of the final rule
are not drastically different from those
of the (subsequently vacated) standard
established by the June 2002 final rule,
except for the deletion of the one-tire,
30-percent detection option and the
addition of the MIL requirements. The
Special Orders demonstrated that in Fall
2003, most vehicle manufacturers were
moving aggressively towards TPMSs
with a four-tire, 25-percent underinflation detection capability and
suppliers had sufficient capacity to meet
demand. The direction of this
rulemaking, in terms of a system with a
four-tire, 25-percent detection
capability, was again expressed in the
September 2004 NPRM. In addition,
some manufacturers (e.g., BMW,
Mitsubishi) stated in their comments
that they could begin certification to the
standard in September 2005, provided
that the MIL requirements and related
owner’s manual language requirements
are deferred.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18173

However, based upon the information
provided by the manufacturers and the
rapidly approaching start of the 2006
Model Year, we have decided to modify
the phase-in percentages from those
contained in the NPRM. Particularly at
this stage in a vehicle manufacturer’s
normal production cycle, a phase-in
starting at 50 percent of production may
not be practicable, so we have lowered
that percentage to 20 percent. For
similar reasons, we have also decided to
modify the second year’s phase-in
percentage to 70 percent from 90
percent.
Regarding the MIL requirements,
vehicle manufacturers have commented
that it would be possible to implement
the necessary software and hardware
changes fully by the conclusion of the
phase-in on September 1, 2007. (No
additional phase-in is being provided
for the MIL requirements.) We believe
that that timeframe is reasonable, in
light of the technical and production
challenges associated with
incorporating the MIL. As a related
matter, it would make little sense to
include owner’s manual language for
the MIL until that feature is actually
incorporated into the vehicle; therefore,
the requirements for owner’s manual
language related to the MIL are similarly
deferred until the conclusion of the
phase-in.
As a technical matter, we note that on
December 8, 2004, NHTSA published a
final rule that, among other things,
consolidated the phase-in reporting
requirements for various standards by
revising 49 CFR part 585 (69 FR 70904).
The amendments in that final rule
become effective on September 1, 2005.
Accordingly, we have decided to make
the TPMS final rule’s amendments to
part 585 for the TPMS phase-in
reporting requirements effective that
same day (i.e., September 1, 2005). We
do not anticipate that this delay in the
effective date for the part 585
amendments will cause any problems,
because not only does it coincide with
the start of the TPMS phase-in, but also
vehicle manufacturers are not expected
to do any actual phase-in reporting until
2006. However, the details of the
reporting requirements are available for
recordkeeping purposes in the interim,
something that may be of interest to
manufacturers seeking carry forward
credits for early, voluntary compliance.
8. Small Business Impacts
In the NPRM, the agency tentatively
concluded that the proposal would not
have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small
entities.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18174

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

SEMA’s comments expressed
disagreement with the NPRM’s
preliminary conclusion that the TPMS
proposal would not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial
number of small businesses. SEMA
represents over 550 companies that
manufacture, distribute, retail, and
install tire, wheel, and tire/wheel
accessories, most of which are defined
as ‘‘small businesses.’’
Specifically, SEMA challenged the
NPRM’s contention that the proposal
would not have a significant impact
upon aftermarket wheel and rim
manufacturers because the proposal
does not contain requirements for spare
tires and rims. SEMA argued that the
proposal would indeed have an impact
upon these manufacturers, because: (1)
The NPRM would cover replacement
tires and wheels installed by
dealerships prior to first sale, and (2) the
service industry would need to make
sure that the malfunction telltale does
not illuminate when one or more tires
are replaced.
According to SEMA, for replacement
tires and wheels to work in conjunction
with the OEM-installed TPMS, these
aftermarket manufacturers may need to
institute numerous and potentially
costly changes, including equipment
redesign, production retooling, and
recall of noncompliant equipment.
Furthermore, SEMA argued that the
proposed TPMS standard could force
small business installers of aftermarket
wheel/tire combinations (e.g.,
automobile dealerships, tire shops,
repair shops) to invest in computer
diagnostic equipment and employee
training in order to access, service,
repair, install, and calibrate these
TPMSs. Failure to take these steps could
cause these businesses to violate the
relevant statutory provisions prohibiting
the manufacture/sale/importation of
noncomplying motor vehicles 52 and
prohibiting actions that knowingly make
inoperative safety devices and elements
inoperative.53
52 Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), ‘‘* * * a person may
not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale,
introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate
commerce, or import into the United States, any
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
manufactured on or after the date an applicable
motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this
chapter [49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.] takes effect unless
the vehicle or equipment complies with the
standard and is covered by a certification issued
under section 30115 of this title.’’
53 Under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), ‘‘A manufacturer,
distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business
may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a
device or element of design installed on or in a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in
compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter [49 U.S.C.
30101 et seq.] unless the manufacturer, distributor,

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

In addition, SEMA stated that
consumers would have legitimate
expectations that the TPMS will
continue to operate properly with
replacement tires and wheels, and the
aftermarket industry would be faced
with product liability exposure.
SEMA recommended that NHTSA
consider alternative approaches, as
outlined in its comments, in order to
limit the impacts of the TPMS rule on
the small business community. As
discussed previously, SEMA
recommended that vehicle
manufacturers should be required to
share with retailers, installers, and
consumers, in a timely and affordable
manner, all servicing information
needed to operate a compliant TPMS.
SEMA suggested that NHTSA consult
with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for guidance, because,
according to SEMA, EPA has required
vehicle manufacturers to share on-board
diagnostic system (OBD) information
with the service and repair industry in
a timely and cost-effective manner.
SEMA’s recommendations sought to
ensure that manufacturers develop
transparent and minimally burdensome
processes for TPMS maintenance and
repair. Specifically, SEMA commented
that vehicle manufacturers should be
required to comply with applicable
Society of Automotive Engineers and
European Union (EU) standards
governing the design of wheel mounting
pockets in order to facilitate transferal of
sensors from the OE tires/wheels to
replacement tires/wheels (no references
provided). SEMA stated that
communications protocols should be
standardized so as to facilitate the use
of aftermarket sensors, and that
recalibration processes should be
straightforward. SEMA also
recommended that manufacturers
should be prohibited from requiring
special tools for TPMS reprogramming
or utilizing encrypted systems that
would prevent installation of
aftermarket products.
According to SEMA, if these changes
are not adopted, the potential result
would be to restrict aftermarket
manufacturers from offering a full range
of wheel and tire combinations to
consumers, leaving such manufacturers
with an unenviable choice between not
selling these aftermarket products or
accepting the associated product
liability exposure.
In contrast, VW/Audi stated that the
test procedures in the final rule should
dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the
vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for
testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or
repair) when the device or element is inoperative.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

recognize that some malfunctions may
require action on the part of the dealer
in order to extinguish the TPMS MIL.
In the NPRM, the agency’s rationale
for its tentative conclusion that the
proposal would not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial
number of small entities was based
upon several considerations. First, the
agency understands that there are
currently only four small motor vehicle
manufacturers in the U.S. that would
have to comply with the standard and
that those manufacturers would rely on
TPMS suppliers to provide the requisite
system hardware to be integrated into
their vehicles. There are a few small
manufacturers of recreational vehicles,
but the agency expressed its belief that
most of these manufacturers could use
the TPMSs supplied with the van
chassis supplied by other large vehicle
manufacturers and rely upon the chassis
manufacturer’s incomplete vehicle
certification. We believe that the
circumstances for these entities remain
essentially unchanged.
In the NPRM, the agency also sought
to eliminate the concerns of small
businesses that make and sell custom
wheels and aftermarket rims by
proposing to exempt spare tires and
aftermarket rims (that do not match the
original equipment rims) from the
requirements of the standard on a
practicability basis.
For the following reasons, we
continue to believe that the
requirements of the standard, as
contained in this final rule, will not
have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small
entities.
We do not believe that the final rule
will have a significant impact upon the
service industry in terms of aftermarket
sales or repair. First, the agency has
already stated that we do not consider
installation of an aftermarket or
replacement tire or rim that is not
compatible with the TPMS to be a
‘‘make inoperative’’ situation under 49
U.S.C. 30122, provided that the business
entity does not disable the TPMS MIL
(see section IV.C.4(a)). In such
situations, once the TPMS MIL
illuminates, the consumer is put on
notice that the aftermarket motor
vehicle equipment in question is not
compatible with the TPMS. From that
point, it is within the consumer’s power
to substitute other tires or rims that
permit continued proper TPMS
functionality.
In addition, SEMA has not provided
any evidence to demonstrate that
vehicle manufacturers would not make
necessary repair and servicing
information available to the aftermarket

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
sales industry and to the service
industry. We have not received any
consumer complaints regarding the
serviceability of existing TPMSs.
Vehicles currently include many
complex systems, and, although dealer
involvement may be necessitated in
some cases, the marketplace has
generally made available sufficient
information to permit convenient
maintenance and repair of such systems.
We do not believe that TPMS
technologies will prove any different in
this regard. Accordingly, we believe that
it is unnecessary to further consider
SEMA’s suggestion to compel vehicle
manufacturers to share service
information with the service and repair
industry.
We note that we are permitting, but
not requiring, TPMSs to be
reprogrammable. Although we are
uncertain as to the exact details of
system reprogrammability, we assume
that it will be fairly easy for the service
industry to reprogram TPMSs to
accommodate different tires and rims.
We do not have any reason to believe
that such information would be
withheld from automotive service
providers.
Regarding SEMA’s suggestion that
NHTSA require vehicle manufacturers
to comply with SAE and EU standards
governing the design of the wheel
mounting pockets in order to facilitate
transferal of sensors from the OE tires/
wheels to replacement tires/wheels, we
do not see a reason to impose such
design restrictions on manufacturers.
In addition, we believe that there are
other available options for replacement
of TPMS sensors without imposing such
design restrictions. As we understand,
there are two primary methods of
mounting a direct TPMS sensor on a
rim. The first option is to produce a
mold for the rim that includes a small
cut-out area for the TPMS sensor. The
other option is to utilize a strap to hold
the sensor to the rim. If aftermarket
manufacturers do not receive specific
information on the cut-out area or if
they wish to produce a more generic
mold that could be used on any vehicle
with the same size tires, they could
choose to use a strap to secure the
TPMS sensor. We estimate that four
straps might cost approximately $4,
which is not very expensive as
compared to the cost for replacement
rims, so we believe that aftermarket rim
suppliers could readily apply the strap
method without a significant economic
impact.
9. Environmental Impacts
ETV commented that the final rule
should include an expanded discussion

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

of the rule’s anticipated impacts on the
environment. According to ETV, both
positive and negative impacts would be
expected to result from establishment of
an FMVSS for TPMS. ETV stated that
two important positive environmental
benefits would be lower levels of air
pollution and reduced tire disposal
rates, both resulting from operating tires
at their proper pressures. In its
comments, ETV stated that correct tire
pressure improves fuel economy, with
less fuel burned and correspondingly
less pollutants produced. Correct
pressure also extends tire life, thereby
decreasing tire disposal rates at waste
depots.
On the negative side, ETV stated that
a significant environmental impact may
result from the use of batteries to power
wheel module pressure sensors in many
TPMSs. The following summarizes
ETV’s view of these purported negative
environmental impacts. According to
ETV, there are approximately 16 million
new vehicle produced annually that
ultimately will be required to be
equipped with a TPMS under the
standard. If each vehicle has five tires
(including the spare) fitted with batterypowered sensors, then there will be
approximately 80 million batteries
introduced annually into the U.S.
environment. Eventually, these batteries
will lose their charge, and they (and the
chemicals contained therein) will be
discarded. ETV expressed concern that
toxic and corrosive chemicals in those
batteries could be released into the
environment.
According to ETV, in developing the
final rule, NHTSA should carefully
consider the impacts of requiring
systems that will use chemical power
sources, particularly given the
standard’s broad applicability. Instead,
ETV argued in favor of a requirement for
a batteryless TPMS, which ETV believes
is practical, safe and economically
viable.
In the preamble to the NPRM, the
agency certified that it has analyzed the
TPMS rulemaking for the purposes of
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and that the agency has
determined that implementation of this
action would not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment. Even after having
considered ETV’s comments regarding
the environmental impacts of our
proposal, for the reasons that follow, we
stand by our tentative conclusion that
this action would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
NHTSA has implemented the
requirements of NEPA through our
regulations at 49 CFR Part 520,

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18175

Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts. Our regulations
require preparation of an environmental
impact statement for ‘‘major Federal
actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.’’ 49
CFR 520.5(a). The regulations also
provide specific examples of situations
that should ordinarily be considered as
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. The relevant
situations that might apply to the
present rulemaking include:
(8) Any action that may directly or
indirectly result in a significant increase in
the energy or fuel necessary to operate a
motor vehicle, including but not limited to
the following: (i) Actions which may directly
or indirectly result in a significant increase
in the weight of a motor vehicle; and (ii)
actions which may directly or indirectly
result in a significant adverse effect upon the
aerodynamic drag of a motor vehicle;
(9) Any action that may directly or
indirectly result in a significant increase in
the amount of harmful emissions resulting
from the operation of a motor vehicle;
(10) Any action that may directly or
indirectly result in a significant increase in
either the use of or the exposure to toxic or
hazardous materials in the manufacture,
operation, or disposal of motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment;
(11) Any action that may directly or
indirectly result in a significant increase in
the problem of solid waste, as in the disposal
of motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment;

49 CFR 520.5(b)(8), (9), (10), and (11).
We believe that none of the purported
impacts cited by ETV rise to the level of
‘‘significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.’’ According to
ETV, a requirement for a TPMS would
result in tires operating at proper
pressures, thereby leading to lower
levels of air pollution (through
improved fuel economy) and reduced
tire disposal rates (through increased
tread life). As discussed in the FRIA, we
believe that installation of a TPMS in
light vehicles will result in an average
savings of 22–27 gallons of gasoline over
the life of the vehicle, depending upon
the type installed. This equated to
roughly two fill-ups, which would be
expected to result in an average annual
emissions reduction of 0.90–1.10
million metric cubic tons of carbon
equivalent (see p. V–60 of the FRIA).
While these benefits in terms of reduced
emissions are welcome, they would not
significantly change the overall level of
emissions from automotive point
sources. In addition, such positive
impacts would not necessitate
preparation of an environmental impact
statement under our regulations
pursuant to NEPA.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18176

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Regarding increased tread life, we
believe that installation of a TPMS will
result in average tire tread life being
increased by 740–900 miles per tire,
depending upon the type installed (see
pp. V–61 to 67 of the FRIA). The average
lifespan of tires, at current inflation
levels, is 45,000 miles. Consequently,
although installation of a TPMS may
increase the life of tires, it is unlikely to
significantly impact the number of tires
required over the life of the fleet or the
number of tires ultimately reaching their
final resting place in a landfill.
However, any increases in tire life
would be positive impacts that would
not necessitate preparation of an
environmental impact statement under
our regulations pursuant to NEPA.
Finally, we turn to the issue of the
incorporation of chemical batteries in
direct TPMSs that will eventually
require disposal. NHTSA’s current
information suggests that most vehicle
manufacturers will comply with the
requirements of the TPMS standard by
installing a direct TPMS that utilizes
batteries in sensors mounted in each of
the vehicle’s wheels. If we expect, upon
completion of the phase-in, 17 million
light vehicles would be certified to the
standard each year, that would mean
that 68 million batteries would be used.
If manufacturers choose to also equip
full-size spare tires with a TPMS sensor
(15 percent anticipated), the number of
batteries used would rise to 71 million.
However, we do not believe that
requiring TPMSs, which may be
equipped with batteries, would have a
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment, as ETV suggests.
To start, the number of batteries
attributable to TPMSs would result in
only a modest increase in the number of
batteries sold. In 1998, the U.S. EPA
estimated that approximately 3 billion 54
industrial and household batteries were
sold.
NHTSA believes that battery usage is
a function of population. Given that the
population was roughly 270,248,000 55
in 1998 and 293,028,000 56 in 2004, to
arrive at a more current estimate, we
proportionately increased the batteries
sold by multiplying the 1998 figure by
the fractional increase in population or
3,000,000,000 x [293,028,000
270,248,000], which results in a 2004
estimate of 3.25 billion batteries.
Adding the estimate of 71 million
additional batteries as a result of a
battery-powered TPMS to the estimated
54 See http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/
reduce/epr/products/batteries.html.
55 See http://www.census.gov/population/
estimates/nation/intfile3–1.txt.
56 See http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/
factbook/geos/us.html.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

3.25 billion batteries already in use,
yields an increase of 2.18 percent. We
believe that this increase is not
significant in terms of total battery use
and will not have a significant impact
upon the quality of the human
environment.
In addition, we believe that other
considerations further diminish these
impacts. First, TPMS sensor batteries
tend to be extremely small in size, a
mere fraction of the size of the main
engine battery present in every vehicle.
Thus, from a volume standpoint, these
batteries would be expected to add very
little to existing landfills, either in terms
of their volume or chemical content.
Furthermore, we believe that the
number of batteries used in TPMSs is
likely to decrease over time. We
understand that new, batteryless TPMS
technologies have been developed, and
manufacturers will have strong
incentives to migrate to such systems
both in terms of decreasing costs and
minimizing maintenance issues for
customers. We also understand that
indirect TPMSs are becoming available
which can meet the requirements of the
standard without the need for batteries.
Furthermore, if hybrid systems are
developed, the number of batteries for a
given TPMS could be cut in half.
For these reasons, we continue to
believe that the TPMS rulemaking will
not have any significant impact on the
quality of the human environment.
10. Maintenance Issues
(a) TPMS Maintenance. Aviation
Upgrade Technologies commented that
most consumers will not spend money
to maintain the functionality of the
TPMS, and it argued that because the
system is unlikely to last the life of the
vehicle without needing maintenance or
repair, the safety benefits associated
with the TPMS may be lost at some
point. The commenter asserted that
indirect TPMSs would need to be
recalibrated each time tires are changed
or rotated and that recalibration would
cost the consumer $100 per episode.
This comment does not comport with
our understanding of how indirect
TPMSs operate, and Aviation Upgrade
Technologies was alone in making this
point. It is our understanding from our
review of indirect TPMSs that
recalibration is a normal part of the
system’s operations after tires are
changed or rotated, although it may be
necessary to reset the system in
accordance with instructions in the
vehicle’s owners manual. Furthermore,
Aviation Upgrade Technologies did not
provide any evidence, beyond its
assertion, to demonstrate that the
consumer would encounter such

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

recalibration costs, nor did it provide
any evidence to demonstrate the
consumers would not be willing to
incur routine maintenance costs
associated with their vehicle’s TPMS.
We encourage consumers to keep their
TPMS properly maintained in order to
receive ongoing benefits in terms of low
tire pressure warnings.
(b) Tire Maintenance. In its
comments, ETRTO expressed concern
that installation of a TPMS in a vehicle
may result in less preventive tire
maintenance (e.g., regular pressure and
wear checks) because drivers may rely
upon the TPMS to inform them when
tire service is necessary. (Similar
comments were provided by NADA and
SEMA.) According to the commenters,
such a result would be contrary to the
agency’s goals related to tire safety.
NADA argued that the NPRM did not
adequately address the issue of whether
TPMSs will necessitate tire installers/
rotators to maintain existing rim
positions and that it failed to analyze
the nature and extent to which TPMS
functions may be impacted when rims
are replaced. NADA expressed concern
that having to rotate tires off the rims
could significantly increase the cost of
tire rotations (which presumably could
impact the regularity of rotations).
Under the TREAD Act, Congress
directed the Secretary of Transportation
to promulgate a regulation to require
installation of TPMSs in new motor
vehicles, a responsibility that was
subsequently delegated to NHTSA. As a
result, NHTSA does not have discretion
vis-a`-vis this TPMS mandate. However,
NHTSA has stated many times that the
TPMS is not a substitute for regular tire
maintenance, and as part of this final
rule, we have reiterated such a
statement in the required owner’s
manual language.
Although the presence of a TPMS in
the vehicle may cause some drivers to
become more complacent and to check
their tire pressure less regularly, we
believe that this potential, negative
consequence would be outweighed by
the positive impact of having the system
provide a warning to all drivers,
particularly those who seldom or never
checked their tire pressure.
Regarding NADA’s comments on the
potential consequences of allowing
vehicle manufacturers to specify in the
owner’s manual that original rim
positions must be maintained, we do
not believe that this situation is likely
to occur with significant frequency or
that it would impose significant burdens
when it does arise. For example,
indirect TPMSs would not be expected
to experience any problems associated
with tire rotation.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Several types of direct TPMSs have
radio frequency receivers that identify
sensors by their location on the vehicle.
If the location of a particular sensor is
changed, the sensor still will provide
low tire pressure or TPMS malfunction
data as designed when there is a general
TPMS warning telltale. However, if the
vehicle is equipped with a TPMS
telltale that identifies the vehicle
location of the tire with low pressure,
tire and rim relocation (i.e., rotation)
may result in the TPMS receiver not
knowing the proper location of the tire/
rim combination. However, for many
systems, the sensors can be ‘‘retrained’’
to their new positions on the vehicle
after being rotated, and the telltale will
identify the proper tire/rim position.
Therefore, the tires on most TPMSs will
not need to be separated from the rim
for normal tire rotation as a result of this
retraining capability.
For these reasons, we have decided to
adopt the proposed requirement for rim
position under S5.3.3. Therefore, in
conducting compliance testing, the
vehicle rims may be positioned at any
wheel position, consistent with any
related instructions or limitations in the
vehicle owner’s manual.
11. Markings for Vehicles With Direct
TPMSs
SEMA recommended that NHTSA
require a means of identifying vehicles
equipped with a direct TPMS, so that
individuals working in the service and
repair industry will be able to tell
whether a direct TPMS sensor is in
place in or around the tires. According
to SEMA, its suggestion may prevent
damage to the TPMS sensors when the
tires are dismounted or mounted. SEMA
stated that such marking should be
implemented in a manner that does not
impose unnecessary burdens and costs
on the tire and wheel industry, such as
through permanent markings that would
require retooling or new molds. Instead,
SEMA suggested that one low-cost
option might be to require that vehicles
equipped with a direct TPMS must have
a unique, standardized valve stem
retaining nut that is distinctive by
special color or design.
In its comments, TIA made similar
arguments regarding the need to require
coding of the wheels or tires to let
automotive professionals know that a
direct TPMS sensor is in place. TIA
expressed support for the recommended
approach contained in SEMA’s
comments. TIA also stated that TPMS
sensor location should be standardized.
We have decided not to adopt SEMA’s
and TIA’s recommendations to require a
specialized design feature to alert
service and repair personnel when a

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

direct TPMS sensor is in place in or
around the tires, because we believe that
such a requirement is unnecessary and
would provide no safety benefit. The
commenters did not provide any
evidence to demonstrate that
technicians have been unable to locate
and service direct TPMSs currently
installed on vehicles or that they would
be unable to do so in the future. In
contrast, we believe that as such
systems become more prevalent in the
vehicle fleet, service providers will
become increasingly aware of the
potential presence of TPMS sensors and
will exercise due care when servicing
the vehicle.
We are not adopting TIA’s
recommendation that we mandate a
specific location for TPMS sensors. We
believe that such an approach would be
unnecessarily design restrictive, could
increase costs, and would provide no
appreciable benefit.
12. Definitions
(a) ‘‘Tires’’. Sumitomo commented
that although the NPRM expressed the
agency’s intention to require vehicle
manufacturers to assure compliance
with FMVSS No. 138 only with the tires
installed on the vehicle at the time of
initial vehicle sale, there is no
corresponding provision in the
regulatory text of the standard. To
address this matter, Sumitomo
recommended that the final rule should
incorporate this limitation under S1,
Purpose and Scope, and also define the
term ‘‘tires’’ as ‘‘the tires installed on
the vehicle at the time of initial sale’’
under S3, Definitions.
Consistent with the preamble of the
NPRM, this final rule provides that the
TPMS must function properly with the
tires installed on the vehicle at the time
of initial sale, and that the TPMS is not
required to function with the spare tire.
We agree with Sumitomo that these
topics should be addressed in the
regulatory text. Therefore, we are adding
a new paragraph to S5.3, Vehicle
Conditions, related to tires. In that new
paragraph, S5.3.7, Tires, we are
clarifying that testing under S6 will be
conducted with the tires installed at the
time of initial vehicle sale, excluding
the spare tire (if provided). However, a
spare tire could be installed for TPMS
malfunction testing purposes.
(b) ‘‘Manual Reset’’. Sumitomo asked
the agency to define the term ‘‘manual
reset’’ as ‘‘an operation to extinguish the
warning lamp or warning messages.’’
According to Sumitomo, manual reset
should not include the start of
calibration.
We do not believe that it is necessary
to define the operation of a manual reset

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18177

feature. In the final rule, we recognize
that manual reset, where applicable,
may be relevant to system calibration
and extinguishment of the low tire
pressure telltale, but we will leave the
details of the operation of reset for
individual systems to the discretion of
vehicle manufacturers.
13. Educational Efforts
A number of commenters (AAA,
DaimlerChrysler, EnTire, VW/Audi)
raised the issue of consumer education
regarding the importance of proper tire
maintenance and the role of the TPMS.
For example, AAA recommended that
NHTSA, manufacturers, and the traffic
safety community must continue to
aggressively educate motorists as to the
importance of proper tire maintenance,
in order to ensure that the presence of
a TPMS does not lull motorists into a
false sense of security.
DaimlerChrysler commented that it is
important for NHTSA, automobile
manufacturers, and tire manufacturers
to work together to educate the public
about how TPMSs work and about such
systems’ limitations. DaimlerChrysler
requested that the agency help improve
consumer understanding of the
importance of regular tire inspections
and maintenance, and it suggested that
NHTSA may be able to work with the
vehicle supply and maintenance
industries to improve the availability
and convenience of facilities for
checking and correcting tire inflation
pressure levels.
NADA stated that outreach efforts
should be extended to tire installers as
well.
As noted in the NPRM, NHTSA
supports industry efforts to make the
public aware of the importance of
proper tire maintenance, including
maintaining adequate tire inflation
pressure. The agency has produced a
tire safety brochure in conjunction with
tire manufacturers and tire dealers that
is titled, ‘‘Tire Safety, Everything Rides
On It.’’ This brochure is part of a public
campaign to provide information on tire
pressure monitoring, tire inspection,
and the selection of replacement tires.
The brochure also stresses the
importance of tires to overall vehicle
performance.
14. Alternative Systems
Aviation Upgrade Technologies
requested that NHTSA reconsider its
tentative decision not to permit TPMS
systems with indicators on a vehicle’s
tire valve stems. The NPRM declined to
accommodate such systems because
they cannot provide a low pressure
warning to the driver while the vehicle
is in motion.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18178

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Aviation Upgrade Technologies
argued that its valve cap system meets
the letter and intent of the TREAD Act
and actually outperforms other types of
TPMSs by measuring actual tire
pressure and functions before the
vehicle begins moving. Aviation
Upgrade Technologies also stated that as
proposed, the TPMS standard would
only benefit the wealthy, because the
TPMSs that can meet the proposed
requirements are expensive. The
company’s comments essentially repeat
its earlier arguments raised in its
petition for reconsideration of the June
2002 final rule for TPMS.
For the reasons expressed in the
NPRM, we have decided not to permit
TPMS systems with indicators on a
vehicle’s tire valve stems. We will
briefly restate our reasoning, which is as
follows. First, we believe that the
language of and the safety need
addressed by section 13 of the TREAD
Act would be best satisfied by requiring
that the TPMS warning display be
inside the motor vehicle in order to
indicate to the driver when a tire is
significantly under-inflated. We believe
that external TPMS warning indicators
do not provide a clear, timely, and
effective safety warning, as compared to
TPMS indicators in the vehicle’s
occupant compartment.
Specifically, TPMSs with external
indicators cannot provide a warning to
the driver about low tire inflation
pressure with the vehicle is in
operation, which is the most critical
time period from a safety perspective. If
a vehicle developed a significant
pressure loss while it is being driven,
the driver would not receive a prompt
warning from a valve stem system and
is unlikely to be aware of the underinflation problem.
Even in cases in which the vehicle is
stopped, we believe that external TPMS
warning indicators would not provide
as effective a warning as a TPMS telltale
inside the occupant compartment.
People routinely do not walk around
their vehicle prior to driving, so it is
likely that many drivers would miss the
message provided when there is an
under-inflated tire. Therefore, we
believe that valve cap devices would not
provide an adequate warning to the
driver.
Second, NHTSA also finds benefit to
the centralization of warning indicators
in a single, highly visible location,
where they can provide important
safety-related information to the driver.
Historically, NHTSA has required safety
warnings to be provided to the vehicle
operator inside the vehicle.
Therefore, we have decided not to
accommodate TPMSs that do not

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

include an on-board telltale as part of
the final rule.
15. Over-Inflation Detection
ETV commented that, although
requiring the TPMS to monitor high
pressure is as important as monitoring
low pressure, the NPRM did not
consider or address this issue. ETV
stated that manufacturers specify a safe
maximum tire pressure, and that the
final rule should address this aspect of
vehicle safety. ETV’s comments
recommended an intermittently flashing
yellow telltale warning when the
vehicle’s tires are within five percent of
their maximum inflation pressure and
an intermittently flashing red telltale
when the vehicle’s tires have exceeded
the maximum inflation pressure.
We have decided not to adopt a
requirement for over-inflation detection
for the following reasons. First, the
TREAD required a rulemaking to detect
a significantly under-inflated tire, not
over-inflated tires, so such a
requirement is arguably outside the
scope of this rulemaking. Furthermore,
we are not aware of vehicle safety data
reporting over-inflated tires as a
significant safety hazard. In addition,
available information does not suggest
that over-inflation has the same safety
implications as under-inflation, which
causes heat buildup in a tire, potentially
leading to permanent tire damage and
sudden failure.
16. Temperature and Altitude
Compensation
ETV requested that the agency
reconsider its tentative decision in the
NPRM to not include a requirement for
temperature compensation as part of the
TPMS standard. ETV argued that the
standard must provide temperature
compensation when the TPMS
calculates tire pressure in order to
determine the need for activation of the
low pressure warning. According to
ETV, temperature compensation is
needed to account for the rise in
pressure (4 psi) from the cold-start,
ambient temperature to the normal
running temperature.
ETV also stated that the TPMS should
be required to account for changes in
atmospheric pressure that accompany
changing altitudes. ETV commented
that such atmospheric pressure changes
could change tire pressure by as much
as 10 psi.
ETV argued that the TPMS should
make the necessary adjustments to
account for temperature, altitude, and
load prior to vehicle motion in order to
prevent nuisance warnings that may
result from daily and seasonal variations
in those factors and which eventually

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

might cause the driver to ignore TPMS
warnings. Alternatively, ETV argued
that those factors could cause the TPMS
low pressure telltale to fail to
illuminate, thereby resulting in a false
sense of security on the part of the
driver.
We have decided not to adopt
requirements for temperature and
altitude compensation because we
believe that such requirements would
introduce unnecessary complexity to
the standard. Regarding temperature
correction, the test procedures for low
tire pressure detection in the final rule
have been amended to compensate for
tire pressure fluctuation. Tires will be
deflated to testing pressure within five
minutes after a 20-minute period of
driving, which will ensure that the tire
pressure will not rise above the telltale
activation pressure during the
remainder of the test.
Regarding altitude correction, we do
not believe that altitude will be a
significant factor in tire pressure
fluctuation. We expect that the effect of
atmospheric pressure on tire pressure
will not result in more than a 5-percent
change in tire pressure over the
atmospheric pressure extremes
encountered during normal driving.
We note further that ETV did not
provide any data to demonstrate the
need for either temperature or
atmospheric compensation.
17. System Longevity
ETV commented that the TPMS safety
system should be required to last for the
life of the vehicle, which ETV stated is
usually about ten years. ETV’s
comments expressed particular
skepticism toward battery-dependent
TPMSs, which it suggests are likely to
fail in under ten years, and it argued
that consumers may decide not to
replace the batteries or otherwise repair
the system late in the life of the vehicle.
ETV argued that operation of the vehicle
in that state would frustrate the purpose
of the rule.
We are not adopting ETV’s suggestion
for what amounts to a longevity
requirement for the vehicle’s TPMS,
because we believe that such a
requirement is both impracticable and
unnecessary. Vehicle systems and
components routinely wear out over the
life of a vehicle, although the frequency
may vary. For example, drivers may
need to replace their wiper blades
several times over the life of the vehicle,
to replace their timing belt once, but
perhaps never need to replace their
transmission. It is simply not reasonable
to expect vehicle manufacturers to
certify that a system, such as the TPMS,
will function for the life of the vehicle.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Instead, we believe that consumer
expectations and market competition
will ensure that manufacturers provide
TPMSs that are reasonably robust.
Furthermore, ETV has provided no
evidence to demonstrate that consumers
would not take the necessary steps to
keep their TPMS functioning (even for
systems with battery-powered sensors)
or that the service industry would be
unable to provide adequate TPMS
repair.
18. Harmonization
The EC commented that the United
Nations (UN) World Forum on
Harmonization of Motor Vehicle
Regulations has begun a global technical
regulation (GTR) on tires. Accordingly,
the EC requested that the United States
adapt TPMS requirements in the future
to reflect the work of this international
body.
NHTSA will follow closely
international efforts related to tires and
TPMSs, including the activities of the
UN World Forum on Harmonization of
Motor Vehicle Regulations. To the
extent that a GTR or a consensus
standard related to TPMS becomes
available, the agency will carefully
consider what actions, if any, are
necessary to amend FMVSS No. 138.
V. Benefits
In preparing its June 5, 2002 final
rule, NHTSA prepared a Final Economic
Analysis (FEA), which was placed in
the docket.57 In that document, we
discussed the costs and benefits of both
the four-tire, 25-percent option and the
one-tire, 30-percent option incorporated
in that final rule. However, in Public
Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta, the Second
Circuit determined that the TREAD Act
requires TPMSs to be four-tire systems
and invalidated the one-tire, 30-percent
option. Accordingly, that option has not
been included in this final rule.
Although the FEA included analyses
related to TPMSs with a four-tire, 25percent under-inflation detection
capability (the same performance
standard required in this final rule),
circumstances have changed to a certain
extent since the June 2002 final rule.
New technologies are emerging (e.g.,
batteryless direct TPMSs that could
greatly reduce maintenance costs for
such systems), and new requirements
have been adopted (e.g., requirement for
a TPMS malfunction indicator).
Accordingly, the agency has prepared a
new Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
to accompany this final rule for tire
pressure monitoring systems. The FRIA
57 Docket

No. NHTSA–2000–8572–216.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

has been submitted to the Docket under
the docket number for this notice.
The purpose of the FRIA is to reassess
the costs and benefits of TPMS
requirements, particularly in light of our
resolution of the replacement tire issue
and the requirement for a TPMS
malfunction indicator. (The FRIA states
that incorporation of a TPMS
malfunction indicator may save an
additional two equivalent lives,
assuming a one-percent malfunction
rate for replacement tires.) In addition,
the FRIA examines various technologies
suitable for compliance with the
standard, as well as additional
regulatory alternatives considered by
the agency. It also discusses the
uncertainties analyses and sensitivities
analyses conducted by the agency as
part of the FRIA, as required by OMB
Circular A–4, Regulatory Analysis,
which was issued in September 2003.
The following discussion summarizes
the benefits associated with this final
rule and its four-tire, 25-percent underinflation detection requirement.
Estimates of monetary impact (both in
the section V. Benefits and section VI.
Costs) are presented using a 3-percent
discount rate; however, the FRIA also
presents these impacts using a 7-percent
discount rate.
The agency notes that the FRIA
estimates 90-percent confidence bounds
for many of the benefit and cost
statistics. Those bounds reflect a 90percent certainty level that the value is
within that range (both for a 3-percent
and a 7-percent discount rate). However,
to simplify the discussion here, we are
presenting the mean values for the
benefit estimates in this section and the
cost estimates in the next section, with
the ranges below reflecting differences
in the mean values based upon
manufacturers’ technology selection.
The mean values are our best estimates.
Please consult the FRIA for a more
complete discussion of benefits and
costs. The full ranges of benefits and
costs, as well as their 90-percent
confidence bounds, can be found in the
FRIA’s uncertainty analysis (Chapter X).
Under-inflation of tires affects the
likelihood of many different types of
crashes. These include crashes which
result from: (1) Skidding and/or losing
control of the vehicle in a curve, such
as a highway off-ramp, or in a lanechange maneuver; (2) hydroplaning on a
wet surface, which can cause increases
in stopping distance and skidding or
loss of control; (3) increases in stopping
distance; (4) flat tires and blowouts, and
(5) overloading the vehicle. In assessing
the impact of this final rule on those
crashes, the agency assumes that 90
percent of drivers will respond to a low

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18179

tire pressure warning by re-inflating
their tires to the recommended placard
pressure.
Based upon this assumption and
depending upon the specific technology
chosen for compliance, the agency
estimates that the total quantified safety
benefits from reductions in crashes due
to skidding/loss of control, stopping
distance, and flat tires and blowouts
will be 119–121 fatalities prevented and
8,373–8,568 injuries prevented or
reduced in severity each year, if all light
vehicles meet the TPMS requirement.
Further, NHTSA anticipates
additional economic benefits from the
standard due to improved fuel economy,
longer tread life, property damage
savings, and travel delay savings.
Correct tire pressure improves a
vehicle’s fuel economy. Based upon
data provided by Goodyear, we have
determined that a vehicle’s fuel
efficiency is reduced by one percent for
every 2.96 psi that its tires are below the
placard pressure. The agency estimates
that if all light vehicles meet the TPMS
requirement, vehicles’ higher fuel
economy would translate into an
average discounted value of $19.07–
$23.08 per vehicle over the lifetime of
the vehicle, depending upon the
specific technology chosen for
compliance.
Correct tire pressure also increases a
tire’s tread life. Data from Goodyear
indicate that, for every 1-psi drop in tire
pressure, tread life decreases by 1.78
percent. NHTSA estimates that if all
light vehicles meet the four-tire, 25percent compliance requirement,
average tread life would increase by 740
to 900 miles. The agency estimates that
the average discounted value of
resulting delays in new tire purchases
would be $3.42–$4.24 per vehicle,
depending upon the specific technology
chosen for compliance.
To the extent that TPMSs provide
improvements related to stopping
distance, blowouts, and loss of control
in skidding, we expect that some
crashes would be prevented and that in
others, the severity of the impacts and
the injuries that result would be
reduced. As a related matter, we expect
that property damage and travel delays
would also be mitigated by these
improvements. To the extent that
crashes are avoided, both property
damage and travel delay would be
completely eliminated. Crashes that still
occur, but do so at less serious impact
speeds, would still cause property
damage and delay other motorists, but
to a lesser extent than they otherwise
would have. The value of property
damage and travel delay savings is

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18180

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

estimated to be from $7.70–$7.79 per
vehicle.
VI. Costs
The FRIA also contains an in-depth
analysis of the costs associated with the
TPMS standard. It analyzes the cost of
different TPMS technologies, overall
vehicle costs, maintenance costs, testing
costs, and opportunity costs. The FRIA
also analyzes the cost impact of the
requirement for a TPMS malfunction
warning and its effectiveness in
resolving the replacement tire issue.58
Again, please consult the FRIA for a
more complete discussion of costs.59
The following points summarize the key
determinations related to costs.
The agency examined three types of
technology that manufacturers could
use to meet the TPMS requirements.
Assuming that manufacturers will seek
to minimize compliance costs, the
agency expects that manufacturers
would install hybrid TPMSs on the 67
percent of vehicles that are currently
equipped with an ABS and direct
TPMSs on the 33 percent of vehicles
that are not so equipped. The highest
costs for compliance would result if a
manufacturer installed direct TPMSs
with an interactive readout of
individual tire pressures that included
sensors on all vehicle wheels.
In the near term, the agency believes
that a direct system with a generic
warning lamp (Option 2) is the most
likely option to be selected by
automobile manufacturers. To date, no
one has produced a hybrid system
(Option 3) and responses to requests for
information from the manufacturers
resulted in most indicating that they
were planning on using direct systems.
Individual tire pressure displays
(Option 1) are more costly than a
warning light and are not required by
the final rule, but some manufacturers
may choose them for their higher priced
models. In the long run, the agency
suspects that price pressure and further
development of tire pressure monitoring
systems could result in hybrid or
indirect systems meeting the final rule
and being introduced.
58 As noted in the discussion of benefits in the
section immediately above, the following
discussion of costs estimates monetary impacts
using a 3-percent discount rate and provides the
mean values for cost statistics based upon
manufacturers’ technology selection. The mean
values are our best estimates. However, the FRIA
provides a full range of costs, as well as their 90percent confidence bounds, and it also presents
these impacts using a 7-percent discount rate.
59 With future technological development, it may
become possible for indirect TPMSs and other types
of systems to meet the four-tire, 25-percent
requirement. However, until such new, compliant
TPMSs are developed, it is impossible to accurately
estimate their costs.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

Thus, the agency estimates that the
average incremental cost for all vehicles
to meet the standard’s requirements
would range from $48.44–$69.89 per
vehicle, depending upon the specific
technology chosen for compliance.
Since approximately 17 million vehicles
are produced for sale in the U.S. each
year, the total annual vehicle cost is
expected to range from approximately
$823–$1,188 million per year.
The agency estimates that the net cost
per vehicle [vehicle cost + maintenance
costs + opportunity costs—(fuel savings
+ tread life savings + property damage
and travel delay savings)] would be
$26.63–$100.25, assuming a one-percent
TPMS malfunction rate for replacement
tires. (Maintenance costs would be
variable, depending upon whether the
TPMS has batteries or is batteryless.) As
noted above, the agency estimates the
total annual vehicle cost for the fleet
would be about $823–$1,188 million.
Thus, using the same equation, the
agency estimates the total annual net
cost would be about $453–$1,704
million.
NHTSA estimates that the net cost per
equivalent life saved would be
approximately $2.3–$8.5 million,
depending upon the specific technology
chosen for compliance. Placing 90percent confidence bounds around the
cost per equivalent life saved results in
a range of $1.5–$14.5 million.
Net benefits-costs (i.e., benefits,
including fatalities and injuries, valued
in dollars minus costs) were also
calculated per OMB Circular A–4. The
value of a statistical life is uncertain,
and a wide range of values has been
established in the literature. (In general,
the statistical value of a life is valued in
the range of $1 million to $10 million
per life, with a midpoint of $5.5
million.) For this analysis, we have
examined values of $3.5 million and
$5.5 million, both of which fall within
the range of accepted values. The mean
value for net benefits-costs ranges of the
TPMS standard from a net cost of $597
million to a net benefit of $655 million,
depending upon the specific technology
chosen for compliance. A 90-percent
confidence bound around the net
benefits-costs results in a range from a
net cost of $1,156 million to a net
benefit of $1,302 million.
VII. Regulatory Alternatives
The performance requirements
specified in this final rule contain two
key variables: (1) The number of tires
monitored and (2) the threshold level
for providing tire pressure warnings. As
noted elsewhere in this preamble, the
Second Circuit determined in Public
Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta that the TREAD

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Act unambiguously mandates TPMSs
capable of monitoring each tire up to a
total of four tires, effectively precluding
any option with less than a four-tire
detection capability. Further, the Court
found that the agency had justification
for adopting a four-tire, 25-percent
option instead of the four-tire, 20percent option proposed at an earlier
stage of the rulemaking.
Although NHTSA is requiring a 25
percent below placard threshold for
under-inflation detection, technically,
other threshold levels could also be
established. Selecting an appropriate
notification threshold level is a matter
of balancing the safety benefits achieved
by alerting consumers to low tire
pressure against over-alerting them to
the point of becoming a nuisance and
causing consumers to ignore the
warning, thus negating the potential of
the standard to produce safety benefits.
Degradation in vehicle braking and
handling performance does not become
a significant safety issue at small
pressure losses. There does not appear
to be a specific threshold level at which
benefits are maximized by a
combination of minimum reduction in
placard pressure and maximum
response by drivers. NHTSA is
confident that existing technology can
meet the 25 percent threshold.
Setting a lower threshold might have
resulted in the opportunity for more
savings if drivers’ response levels were
maintained; however, we are concerned
that setting a lower threshold could
result in a higher rate of non-response
by drivers who regard the more frequent
notifications as a nuisance. Current
direct TPMS systems have a margin of
error of 1–2 psi. That means, for
example, that for a 30-psi tire,
manufacturers would have to set the
system to provide a warning when tires
are 4 psi below placard if we had
decided to require a 20 percent
threshold. We have concluded that this
may be approaching a level at which a
portion of the driving public would
begin to regard the warning as a
nuisance. We have not examined lower
threshold levels in this analysis because
we believe that the net impact of these
offsetting factors (quicker notification,
but lower frequency of driver response)
is unknown and unlikely to produce a
significant difference in safety benefits.
We note that a four-tire, 20-percent
option was examined in our March 2002
analysis, and that the total benefit for
the 20 percent threshold was about 15
percent higher than from the 25 percent
threshold. However, that calculation
assumed the same level of driver
response for both thresholds. It is also
possible that lower thresholds might

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
limit technology and discourage
innovation.
Overall, we have concluded that the
25 percent threshold adequately
captures the circumstances at which
low tire pressure becomes a safety issue.
We also believe that this level would be
acceptable to most drivers and would
not be considered a nuisance to the
point that it would be ignored by large
numbers of drivers. We also believe
there is no reason to examine higher
thresholds (e.g., a 30 percent threshold),
since they would provide fewer benefits
for similar costs.
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Vehicle Safety Act
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor
Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.),
the Secretary of Transportation is
responsible for prescribing motor
vehicle safety standards that are
practicable, meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, and are stated in
objective terms.60 These motor vehicle
safety standards set a minimum
standard for motor vehicle or motor
vehicle equipment performance.61
When prescribing such standards, the
Secretary must consider all relevant,
available motor vehicle safety
information.62 The Secretary also must
consider whether a proposed standard is
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate
for the type of motor vehicle or motor
vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed and the extent to which the
standard will further the statutory
purpose of reducing traffic accidents
and associated deaths.63 The
responsibility for promulgation of
Federal motor vehicle safety standards
has been delegated to NHTSA.64
As noted previously, section 13 of the
TREAD Act mandated a regulation to
require a tire pressure monitoring
system in new vehicles. In developing
this final rule for TPMS, the agency
carefully considered the statutory
requirements of both the TREAD Act
and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
First, this proposal is preceded by an
initial NPRM, a final rule, and a second
NPRM, all of which facilitated the
efforts of the agency to obtain and
consider relevant motor vehicle safety
information, as well as public
comments. Further, in preparing this
document, the agency carefully
evaluated available research, testing
results, and other information related to
60 49

U.S.C. 30111(a).
U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
62 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
63 Id.
64 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.
61 49

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

various TPMS technologies. We have
also updated our cost and benefit
analyses to account for new
technologies emerging since issuance of
our prior notices in the ongoing TPMS
rulemaking (e.g., batteryless direct
TPMSs). In sum, this document reflects
our consideration of all relevant,
available motor vehicle safety
information.
Second, to ensure that the TPMS
requirements are practicable, the agency
considered the cost, availability, and
suitability of various TPMSs, consistent
with our safety objectives and the
requirements of the TREAD Act. We
note that TPMSs are already installed on
many light vehicles, so we believe that
it will be practicable to extend a TPMS
requirement to all light vehicles. In light
of the steady advances made in TPMS
technologies over the past few years, we
expect that vehicle manufacturers soon
will have a number of technological
choices available for meeting the
requirements of the final rule for TPMS.
In sum, we believe that this final rule is
practicable and will provide several
benefits, including prevention of deaths
and injuries associated with
significantly under-inflated tires,
increased tread life, fuel economy
savings, and savings associated with
avoidance of property damage and
travel delays (i.e., from crashes
prevented by the TPMS).
Third, the regulatory text following
this preamble is stated in objective
terms in order to specify precisely what
performance is required and how
performance will be tested to ensure
compliance with the standard.
Specifically, the final rule sets forth
performance requirements for operation
of the TPMS, both in terms of detecting
and providing warnings related to low
tire pressure and system malfunction.
The final rule also includes test
requirements for TPMS calibration, low
tire pressure detection, and TPMS
malfunction. This test involves driving
the vehicle under a defined set of test
conditions (e.g., ambient temperature,
road test surface, test weight, vehicle
speed, rim position, brake pedal
application) on a designated road course
in San Angelo, Texas. The test course
has been used for several years by
NHTSA and the tire industry for
uniform tire quality grading testing. The
standard’s test procedures carefully
delineate how testing will be conducted.
Thus, the agency believes that this test
procedure is sufficiently objective and
would not result in any uncertainty as
to whether a given vehicle satisfies the
requirements of the TPMS standard.
Fourth, we believe that this final rule
will meet the need for motor vehicle

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18181

safety because the TPMS standard will
provide a warning to the driver when
one or more tires become significantly
under-inflated, thereby permitting the
driver to take corrective action in a
timely fashion and potentially averting
crash-related injuries. Furthermore, by
including a requirement for a TPMS
malfunction indicator, we expect that
the TPMS will be able to continue to
provide low tire pressure warnings even
after the vehicle’s original tires are
replaced. The TPMS malfunction
indicator will also alert the consumer as
to when the system is unavailable to
detect low tire pressure and is
potentially in need of repair.
Finally, we believe that this final rule
is reasonable and appropriate for motor
vehicles subject to the applicable
requirements. As discussed elsewhere
in this notice, the agency is addressing
Congress’ concern that significantly
under-inflated tires could lead to tire
failures resulting in fatalities and
serious injuries. Under the TREAD Act,
Congress mandated installation of a
system in new vehicles to alert the
driver when a tire is significantly underinflated, and NHTSA has determined
that TPMSs meeting the requirements of
this final rule offer an effective
countermeasure in these situations.
Accordingly, we believe that this final
rule is appropriate for covered vehicles
that are or would become subject to
these provisions of FMVSS No. 138
because it furthers the agency’s
objective of preventing deaths and
serious injuries associated with
significantly under-inflated tires.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to OMB review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18182

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Since the June 5, 2002 final rule, to
which this final rule is directly related,
was determined to be economically
significant, the agency prepared and
placed in the docket a Final Economic
Analysis. This final rule likewise was
determined to be economically
significant. As a significant notice, it
was reviewed under Executive Order
12866. The rule is also significant
within the meaning of the Department
of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. The agency has
estimated that compliance with this
final rule will cost $823–$1,188 million
per year, since approximately 17 million
vehicles are produced for the United
States market each year. Thus, this rule
would have greater than a $100 million
effect.
As noted above, this final rule was
necessitated by the August 6, 2003
opinion of the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit in Public Citizen, Inc. v.
Mineta. In that case, the court
determined that the TREAD Act requires
TPMSs to be four-tire systems,
invalidated the one-tire, 30-percent
option contained in the June 5, 2002
final rule, and vacated the standard. As
part of the final rule, NHTSA also has
responded substantively to public
comments in response to the September
16, 2004 NPRM. Accordingly, the
agency has prepared and placed in the
docket a Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis for this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required
to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions). The
Small Business Administration’s
regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a
small business, in part, as a business
entity ‘‘which operates primarily within
the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is
required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of
this final rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I certify that this final
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The rationale
for this certification is that currently
there are only four small motor vehicle
manufacturers (i.e., only four with fewer
than 1,000 employees) in the United
States that will have to comply with this
final rule. These manufacturers are
expected to rely on suppliers to provide
the TPMS hardware, and then they
would integrate the TPMS into their
vehicles.
There are a few small manufacturers
of recreational vehicles that will have to
comply with this final rule. However,
most of these manufacturers use van
chassis supplied by the larger
manufacturers (e.g., GM, Ford, or
DaimlerChrysler) and could use the
TPMSs supplied with the chassis. These
manufacturers should not have to test
the TPMS for compliance with this final
rule since they should be able to rely
upon the chassis manufacturer’s
incomplete vehicle documentation.
Under the June 5, 2002 final rule,
commenters expressed concerns about
the impact upon aftermarket wheel and
rim manufacturers, many of which are
small businesses. These manufacturers
were concerned that certain provisions
of that final rule would have had the
effect of restricting their ability to
provide a full range of wheel and tire
combinations to consumers, thereby
negatively impacting their business.
However, we believe that these concerns
have largely been resolved by the final
rule, which does not contain
requirements for spare tires and
aftermarket rims.
We likewise do not believe that the
final rule will have a significant impact
upon small businesses within the
automotive service industry, either for
aftermarket sales or repair. As
previously discussed, the agency does
not consider installation of an
aftermarket or replacement tire or rim
that is not compatible with the TPMS to
be a ‘‘make inoperative’’ situation under
49 U.S.C. 30122, provided that the
entity does not disable the TPMS
malfunction indicator. As with other
vehicle systems, we expect that vehicle
manufacturers will make available
sufficient information to permit routine
maintenance and repair of such systems.
We note also that we are permitting
TPMSs to be reprogrammable, which we
expect would further accommodate

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

installation of different tires and rims.
In addition, we believe that there are
other low-cost options for maintenance
and repair of TPMS sensors, such as
strap mounting direct TPMS sensors to
the vehicle’s rims. For all these reasons,
we believe that the final rule will not
result in a significant economic impact
upon aftermarket sellers of tires and
rims or the vehicle service industry.
(For further discussion related to these
entities, see section IV.C.8 of this
notice.)
We also analyzed the impact of this
proposal on 14 identified suppliers of
TPMS systems. However, of these
companies, only three have fewer than
750 employees. Of these three
companies, one (SmarTire) has its
headquarters located outside of the
United States, and another (Cycloid) has
only ten employees and outsources the
manufacturing of its products.
In conclusion, the agency believes
that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact upon a
substantial number of small businesses.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires
NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ are defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may
not issue a regulation with Federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, the agency consults with
State and local governments, or the
agency consults with State and local
officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
NHTSA also may not issue a regulation
with Federalism implications and that
preempts a State law unless the agency
consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the
regulation.
Although statutorily mandated, this
final rule for TPMS was analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria set forth in Executive Order
13132, and the agency determined that

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the rule would not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant
consultations with State and local
officials or the preparation of a
Federalism summary impact statement.
This final rule is not expected to have
any substantial effects on the States, or
on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local
officials.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), the agency has
considered whether this rulemaking
would have any retroactive effect. This
final rule does not have any retroactive
effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever
a Federal motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect, a State may not adopt or
maintain a safety standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance which
is not identical to the Federal standard,
except to the extent that the State
requirement imposes a higher level of
performance and applies only to
vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49
U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for
judicial review of final rules
establishing, amending, or revoking
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file a
suit in court.
F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks)
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April
23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1)
Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health, or safety risk that
the agency has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation
is preferable to other potentially
effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the agency.
Although the TPMS final rule has
been determined to be an economically
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, the problems
associated with under-inflated tires
equally impact all persons riding in a
vehicle, regardless of age. Consequently,
this final rule does not involve
decisions based upon health and safety

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

risks that disproportionately affect
children, as would necessitate further
analysis under Executive Order 13045.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. As part of this final rule, each
of the estimated 21 affected vehicle
manufacturers is required to provide
one phase-in report for each of two
years, beginning in the fall of 2006.
Pursuant to the June 5, 2002 TPMS
final rule, the OMB has approved the
collection of information ‘‘Phase-In
Production Reporting Requirements for
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,’’
assigning it Control No. 2127–0631
(expires 6/30/06). NHTSA has been
given OMB clearance to collect a total
of 42 hours a year (2 hours per
respondent) for the TPMS phase-in
reporting. At an appropriate point,
NHTSA may ask OMB for an extension
of this clearance for an additional
period of time.
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the agency
to evaluate and use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless doing so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or is otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA
directs us to provide Congress (through
OMB) with explanations when we
decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards. The NTTAA does not apply
to symbols.
There are no voluntary consensus
standards related to TPMS available at
this time. However, NHTSA will
consider any such standards as they
become available.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires federal agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits,
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18183

aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995 (so currently about $112 million in
2001 dollars)). Before promulgating a
NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the
UMRA generally requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows the agency
to adopt an alternative other than the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the agency
publishes with the final rule an
explanation of why that alternative was
not adopted.
This final rule is not expected to
result in the expenditure by State, local,
or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or more than $112 million annually, but
it is expected to result in an expenditure
of that magnitude by vehicle
manufacturers and/or their suppliers. In
the June 5, 2002 final rule, the precursor
to the current final rule, the agency
chose two compliance options (i.e.,
four-tire, 25-percent and one-tire, 30percent) in order to minimize
compliance costs with the standard
during the phase-in period.
However, the Second Circuit in Public
Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta struck down the
one-tire, 30-percent option. Thus, in this
final rule, NHTSA is adopting a fourtire, 25-percent requirement, which we
believe is consistent with safety and the
mandate in the TREAD Act. We note
that in promulgating a performance
standard, NHTSA has left the door open
for an array of technologies that may be
used to meet the standard’s
requirements. With further TPMS
development, we expect that vehicle
manufacturers will have a number of
technological choices that will provide
broad flexibility to minimize their costs
of compliance with the standard.
J. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking
action for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has determined that implementation of
this action will not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment. (See section IV.C.9 of this
notice for further discussion of the
environmental impacts of this final rule,
in response to a related public
comment.)

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18184

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
L. Privacy Act
Please note that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–
78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and
585
Imports, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
■ In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Parts 571
and 585 as follows:
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of
Title 49 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.101 is amended by
revising paragraph S5.2.3 and Table 2 to
read as follows:

■

§ 571.101
displays.

Standard No. 101; Controls and

*

*
*
*
*
S5.2.3 Except for the Low Tire
Pressure Telltale, any display located
within the passenger compartment and
listed in column 1 of Table 2 that has

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

a symbol designated in column 4 of that
table shall be identified by either the
symbol designated in column 4 (or
symbol substantially similar in form to
that shown in column 4) or the word or
abbreviation shown in column 3. The
Low Tire Pressure Telltale (either the
display identifying which tire has low
pressure or the display which does not
identify which tire has low pressure)
shall be identified by the appropriate
symbol designated in column 4, or both
the symbol in column 4 and the words
in column 3. Additional words or
symbols may be used at the
manufacturer’s discretion for the
purpose of clarity. Any telltales used in
conjunction with a gauge need not be
identified. The identification required
or permitted by this section shall be
placed on or adjacent to the display that
it identifies. The identification of any
display shall, under the conditions of
S6, be visible to the driver and appear
to the driver perceptually upright.
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

18185

ER08AP05.000

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138

VerDate jul<14>2003

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ER08AP05.001

18186

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
3. Section 571.138 is added to read as
follows:

■

§ 571.138 Standard No. 138; Tire pressure
monitoring systems.

S1 Purpose and scope. This
standard specifies performance
requirements for tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMSs) to warn
drivers of significant under-inflation of
tires and the resulting safety problems.
S2 Application. This standard
applies to passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
that have a gross vehicle weight rating
of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or
less, except those vehicles with dual
wheels on an axle, according to the
phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this
standard.
S3 Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this standard:
Lightly loaded vehicle weight means
unloaded vehicle weight plus the
weight of a mass of 180 kg (396 pounds),
including test driver and
instrumentation.
Tire pressure monitoring system
means a system that detects when one
or more of a vehicle’s tires is
significantly under-inflated and
illuminates a low tire pressure warning
telltale.
Vehicle Placard and Tire inflation
pressure label mean the sources of
information for the vehicle
manufacturer’s recommended cold tire
inflation pressure pursuant to § 571.110
of this Part.
S4 Requirements.
S4.1 General. To the extent provided
in S7, each vehicle must be equipped
with a tire pressure monitoring system
that meets the requirements specified in
S4 under the test conditions specified in
S5 and the test procedures specified in
S6 of this standard.
S4.2 TPMS detection requirements.
The tire pressure monitoring system
must:
(a) Illuminate a low tire pressure
warning telltale not more than 20
minutes after the inflation pressure in
one or more of the vehicle’s tires, up to
a total of four tires, is equal to or less
than either the pressure 25 percent
below the vehicle manufacturer’s
recommended cold inflation pressure,
or the pressure specified in the 3rd
column of Table 1 of this standard for
the corresponding type of tire,
whichever is higher;
(b) Continue to illuminate the low tire
pressure warning telltale as long as the
pressure in any of the vehicle’s tires is
equal to or less than the pressure
specified in S4.2(a), and the ignition
locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position, whether or not the engine is

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

running, or until manually reset in
accordance with the vehicle
manufacturer’s instructions.
S4.3 Low tire pressure warning
telltale.
S4.3.1 Each tire pressure monitoring
system must include a low tire pressure
warning telltale that:
(a) Is mounted inside the occupant
compartment in front of and in clear
view of the driver;
(b) Is identified by one of the symbols
shown for the ‘‘Low Tire Pressure
Telltale’’ in Table 2 of Standard No. 101
(49 CFR 571.101); and
(c) Is illuminated under the
conditions specified in S4.2.
S4.3.2 In the case of a telltale that
identifies which tire(s) is (are) underinflated, each tire in the symbol for that
telltale must illuminate when the tire it
represents is under-inflated to the extent
specified in S4.2.
S4.3.3 (a) Except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section, each low
tire pressure warning telltale must
illuminate as a check of lamp function
either when the ignition locking system
is activated to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position when the engine is not
running, or when the ignition locking
system is in a position between ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) and ‘‘Start’’ that is designated
by the manufacturer as a check position.
(b) The low tire pressure warning
telltale need not illuminate when a
starter interlock is in operation.
S4.4 TPMS malfunction.
(a) The vehicle shall be equipped with
a tire pressure monitoring system that
includes a telltale that provides a
warning to the driver not more than 20
minutes after the occurrence of a
malfunction that affects the generation
or transmission of control or response
signals in the vehicle’s tire pressure
monitoring system. The vehicle’s TPMS
malfunction indicator shall meet the
requirements of either S4.4(b) or S4.4(c).
(b) Dedicated TPMS malfunction
telltale. The vehicle meets the
requirements of S4.4(a) when equipped
with a dedicated TPMS malfunction
telltale that:
(1) Is mounted inside the occupant
compartment in front of and in clear
view of the driver;
(2) Is identified by the word ‘‘TPMS’’,
as described under ‘‘TPMS Malfunction
Telltale’’ in Table 2 of Standard No. 101
(49 CFR 571.101);
(3) Continues to illuminate the TPMS
malfunction telltale under the
conditions specified in S4.4 for as long
as the malfunction exists, whenever the
ignition locking system is in the ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) position; and
(4) (i) Except as provided in paragraph
(ii), each dedicated TPMS malfunction

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18187

telltale must be activated as a check of
lamp function either when the ignition
locking system is activated to the ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) position when the engine is not
running, or when the ignition locking
system is in a position between ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) and ‘‘Start’’ that is designated
by the manufacturer as a check position.
(ii) The dedicated TPMS malfunction
telltale need not be activated when a
starter interlock is in operation.
(c) Combination low tire pressure/
TPMS malfunction telltale. The vehicle
meets the requirements of S4.4(a) when
equipped with a combined Low Tire
Pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale
that:
(1) Meets the requirements of S4.2
and S4.3; and
(2) Flashes for a period of at least 60
seconds but no longer than 90 seconds
upon detection of any condition
specified in S4.4(a) after the ignition
locking system is activated to the ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) position. After this period of
prescribed flashing, the telltale must
remain continuously illuminated as
long as the malfunction exists and the
ignition locking system is in the ‘‘On’’
(‘‘Run’’) position. This flashing and
illumination sequence must be repeated
each time the ignition locking system is
placed in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position
until the situation causing the
malfunction has been corrected.
S4.5 Written instructions.
(a) The owner’s manual in each
vehicle certified as complying with S4
must provide an image of the Low Tire
Pressure Telltale symbol (and an image
of the TPMS Malfunction Telltale
warning (‘‘TPMS’’), if a dedicated
telltale is utilized for this function) with
the following statement in English:
Each tire, including the spare (if provided),
should be checked monthly when cold and
inflated to the inflation pressure
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer
on the vehicle placard or tire inflation
pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a
different size than the size indicated on the
vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure
label, you should determine the proper tire
inflation pressure for those tires.)
As an added safety feature, your vehicle
has been equipped with a tire pressure
monitoring system (TPMS) that illuminates a
low tire pressure telltale when one or more
of your tires is significantly under-inflated.
Accordingly, when the low tire pressure
telltale illuminates, you should stop and
check your tires as soon as possible, and
inflate them to the proper pressure. Driving
on a significantly under-inflated tire causes
the tire to overheat and can lead to tire
failure. Under-inflation also reduces fuel
efficiency and tire tread life, and may affect
the vehicle’s handling and stopping ability.
Please note that the TPMS is not a
substitute for proper tire maintenance, and it
is the driver’s responsibility to maintain

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18188

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

correct tire pressure, even if under-inflation
has not reached the level to trigger
illumination of the TPMS low tire pressure
telltale.
[The following paragraph is required for all
vehicles certified to the standard starting on
September 1, 2007 and for vehicles
voluntarily equipped with a compliant TPMS
MIL before that time.] Your vehicle has also
been equipped with a TPMS malfunction
indicator to indicate when the system is not
operating properly. [For vehicles with a
dedicated MIL telltale, add the following
statement: The TPMS malfunction indicator
is provided by a separate telltale, which
displays the symbol ‘‘TPMS’’ when
illuminated.] [For vehicles with a combined
low tire pressure/MIL telltale, add the
following statement: The TPMS malfunction
indicator is combined with the low tire
pressure telltale. When the system detects a
malfunction, the telltale will flash for
approximately one minute and then remain
continuously illuminated. This sequence will
continue upon subsequent vehicle start-ups
as long as the malfunction exists.] When the
malfunction indicator is illuminated, the
system may not be able to detect or signal
low tire pressure as intended. TPMS
malfunctions may occur for a variety of
reasons, including the installation of
replacement or alternate tires or wheels on
the vehicle that prevent the TPMS from
functioning properly. Always check the
TPMS malfunction telltale after replacing one
or more tires or wheels on your vehicle to
ensure that the replacement or alternate tires
and wheels allow the TPMS to continue to
function properly.

(b) The owner’s manual may include
additional information about the time
for the TPMS telltale(s) to extinguish
once the low tire pressure condition or
the malfunction is corrected. It may also
include additional information about
the significance of the low tire pressure
warning telltale illuminating, a
description of corrective action to be
undertaken, whether the tire pressure
monitoring system functions with the
vehicle’s spare tire (if provided), and
how to use a reset button, if one is
provided.
(c) If a vehicle does not come with an
owner’s manual, the required
information shall be provided in writing
to the first purchaser of the vehicle.
S5 Test conditions.
S5.1 Ambient temperature. The
ambient temperature is between 0°C
(32°F) and 40°C (104°F).
S5.2 Road test surface. Compliance
testing is conducted on any portion of
the Southern Loop of the Treadwear
Test Course defined in Appendix A and
Figure 2 of section 575.104 of this
chapter. The road surface is dry during
testing.
S5.3 Vehicle conditions.
S5.3.1 Test weight. The vehicle may
be tested at any weight between its
lightly loaded vehicle weight and its

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
without exceeding any of its gross axle
weight ratings.
S5.3.2 Vehicle speed. The vehicle’s
TPMS is calibrated and tested at speeds
between 50 km/h (31.1 mph) and 100
km/h (62.2 mph). For vehicles equipped
with cruise control, cruise control is not
to be engaged during testing.
S5.3.3 Rim position. The vehicle
rims may be positioned at any wheel
position, consistent with any related
instructions or limitations in the vehicle
owner’s manual.
S5.3.4 Stationary location. The
vehicle’s tires are shaded from direct
sun when the vehicle is parked.
S5.3.5 Brake pedal application.
Driving time shall not accumulate
during service brake application.
S5.3.6 Range of conditions or test
parameters. Whenever a range of
conditions or test parameters is
specified in this standard, the vehicle
must meet applicable requirements
when tested at any point within the
range.
S5.3.7 Tires. The vehicle is tested
with the tires installed on the vehicle at
the time of initial vehicle sale,
excluding the spare tire (if provided).
However, the spare tire may be utilized
for TPMS malfunction testing purposes.
S6 Test procedures.
(a) Inflate the vehicle’s tires to the
cold tire inflation pressure(s) provided
on the vehicle placard or the tire
inflation pressure label.
(b) With the vehicle stationary and the
ignition locking system in the ‘‘Lock’’ or
‘‘Off’’ position, activate the ignition
locking system to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position or, where applicable, the
appropriate position for the lamp check.
The tire pressure monitoring system
must perform a check of lamp function
for the low tire pressure telltale as
specified in paragraph S4.3.3 of this
standard. If the vehicle is equipped with
a separate TPMS malfunction telltale,
the tire pressure monitoring system also
must perform a check of lamp function
as specified in paragraph S4.4(b)(4) of
this standard.
(c) If applicable, set or reset the tire
pressure monitoring system in
accordance with the instructions in the
vehicle owner’s manual.
(d) System calibration/learning phase.
(1) Drive the vehicle for up to 15
minutes of cumulative time (not
necessarily continuously) along any
portion of the test course.
(2) Reverse direction on the course
and drive the vehicle for an additional
period of time for a total cumulative
time of 20 minutes (including the time
in S6(d)(1), and not necessarily
continuously).

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(e) Stop the vehicle and deflate any
combination of one to four tires until
the deflated tire(s) is (are) at 14 kPa (2
psi) below the inflation pressure at
which the tire pressure monitoring
system is required to illuminate the low
tire pressure warning telltale.
(f) System detection phase.
(1) Within 5 minutes of reducing the
inflation pressure in the tire(s), drive the
vehicle for up to 10–15 minutes of
cumulative time (not necessarily
continuously) along any portion of the
test course.
(2) Reverse direction on the course
and drive the vehicle for an additional
period of time for a total cumulative
time of 20 minutes (including the time
in S6(f)(1), and not necessarily
continuously).
(3) The sum of the total cumulative
drive time under paragraphs S6(f)(1)
and (2) shall be the lesser of 20 minutes
or the time at which the low tire
pressure telltale illuminates.
(4) If the low tire pressure telltale did
not illuminate, discontinue the test.
(g) If the low tire pressure telltale
illuminated during the procedure in
paragraph S6(f), deactivate the ignition
locking system to the ‘‘Off’’ or ‘‘Lock’’
position. After a 5-minute period,
activate the vehicle’s ignition locking
system to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position.
The telltale must illuminate and remain
illuminated as long as the ignition
locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position.
(h) Keep the vehicle stationary for a
period of up to one hour with the engine
off.
(i) Inflate all of the vehicle’s tires to
the same inflation pressure used in
paragraph S6(a). If the vehicle’s tire
pressure monitoring system has a
manual reset feature, reset the system in
accordance with the instructions
specified in the vehicle owner’s manual.
Determine whether the telltale has
extinguished. If necessary, drive the
vehicle until the telltale has been
extinguished.
(j) The test may be repeated, using the
test procedures in paragraphs S6(a)–(b)
and S6(d)–(i), with any one, two, three,
or four of the tires on the vehicle underinflated.
(k) Simulate one or more TPMS
malfunction(s) by disconnecting the
power source to any TPMS component,
disconnecting any electrical connection
between TPMS components, or
installing a tire or wheel on the vehicle
that is incompatible with the TPMS.
(l) TPMS malfunction detection.
(1) Drive the vehicle for up to 15
minutes of cumulative time (not
necessarily continuously) along any
portion of the test course.

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18189

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Reverse direction on the course
and drive the vehicle for an additional
period of time for a total cumulative
time of 20 minutes (including the time
in S6(l)(1), and not necessarily
continuously).
(3) The sum of the total cumulative
drive time under paragraphs S6(l)(1)
and (2) shall be the lesser of 20 minutes
or the time at which the TPMS
malfunction telltale illuminates.
(4) If the TPMS malfunction indicator
did not illuminate in accordance with
paragraph S4.4, as required, discontinue
the test.
(m) If the TPMS malfunction indicator
illuminated during the procedure in
paragraph S6(l), deactivate the ignition
locking system to the ‘‘Off’’ or ‘‘Lock’’
position. After a 5-minute period,
activate the vehicle’s ignition locking
system to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position.
The TPMS malfunction indicator must
again signal a malfunction and remain
illuminated as long as the ignition
locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position.
(n) Restore the TPMS to normal
operation. If necessary, drive the vehicle
until the telltale has extinguished.
S7 Phase-in schedule.
S7.1 Vehicles manufactured on or
after October 5, 2005, and before
September 1, 2006. For vehicles
manufactured on or after October 5,
2005, and before September 1, 2006, the
number of vehicles complying with this
standard (except for the provisions of
S4.4 unless the manufacturer elects to
also certify to those provisions) must
not be less than 20 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2002, and before
October 5, 2005; or
(b) The manufacturer’s production on
or after October 5, 2005, and before
September 1, 2006.
S7.2 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2006, and before
September 1, 2007. For vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2006, and before September 1, 2007, the
number of vehicles complying with this
standard (except for the provisions of
S4.4 unless the manufacturer elects to

also certify to those provisions) must
not be less than 70 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer’s average annual
production of vehicles manufactured on
or after September 1, 2003, and before
September 1, 2006; or
(b) The manufacturer’s production on
or after September 1, 2006, and before
September 1, 2007.
S7.3 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2007. Except as
provided in S7.7, all vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
2007 must comply with all requirements
of this standard.
S7.4 Calculation of complying
vehicles.
(a) Carry-Forward Credits. For
purposes of complying with S7.1, a
manufacturer may count a vehicle if it
is certified as complying with this
standard and is manufactured on or
after April 8, 2005, but before
September 1, 2006.
(b) For purposes of complying with
S7.2, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it:
(1) (i) Is certified as complying with
this standard and is manufactured on or
after April 8, 2005, but before
September 1, 2007; and
(ii) Is not counted toward compliance
with S7.1; or
(2) Is manufactured on or after
September 1, 2006, but before
September 1, 2007.
(c) Carry-Backward Credits. At the
vehicle manufacturer’s option, for
purposes of complying with S7.1, a
manufacturer may count a vehicle it
plans to manufacture and to certify as
complying with this standard that will
be produced on or after September 1,
2006 but before September 1, 2007.
However, a vehicle counted toward
compliance with S7.1 may not be
counted toward compliance with S7.2.
If the vehicle manufacturer decides to
exercise the option for carry-backward
credits, the manufacturer must indicate
this in its report for the production
period corresponding to S7.1 filed
pursuant to 49 CFR 585.66. The vehicles
are counted in fulfillment of the
requirements of S7.1, subject to actually
being produced in compliance with this
standard during the specified time

period and not being counted toward
the requirements of S7.2.
S7.5 Vehicles produced by more
than one manufacturer.
S7.5.1 For the purpose of calculating
average annual production of vehicles
for each manufacturer and the number
of vehicles manufactured by each
manufacturer under S7.1 through S7.3,
a vehicle produced by more than one
manufacturer must be attributed to a
single manufacturer as follows, subject
to S7.5.2:
(a) A vehicle that is imported must be
attributed to the importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the
United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also
markets the vehicle, must be attributed
to the manufacturer that markets the
vehicle.
S7.5.2 A vehicle produced by more
than one manufacturer must be
attributed to any one of the vehicle’s
manufacturers specified by an express
written contract, reported to the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration under 49 CFR Part 585,
between the manufacturer so specified
and the manufacturer to which the
vehicle would otherwise be attributed
under S7.5.1.
S7.6 Small volume manufacturers.
Vehicles manufactured by a
manufacturer that produces fewer than
5,000 vehicles for sale in the United
States during the period of September 1,
2005 to August 31, 2006, or the period
from September 1, 2006 to August 31,
2007, are not subject to the
corresponding requirements of S7.1,
S7.2, and S7.4.
S7.7 Final-stage manufacturers and
alterers. Vehicles that are manufactured
in two or more stages or that are altered
(within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7)
after having previously been certified in
accordance with Part 567 of this chapter
are not subject to the requirements of
S7.1 through S7.4. Instead, vehicles that
are manufactured in two or more stages
or that are altered must comply with
this standard beginning on September 1,
2008.
Tables to § 571.138

TABLE 1.—LOW TIRE PRESSURE WARNING TELLTALE—MINIMUM ACTIVATION PRESSURE
Column 2—maximum or
rated inflation pressure

Column 1—tire type

(kPa)
P-metric—Standard Load ................................................................................................

P-metric—Extra Load ......................................................................................................

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

240,
300, or
350
280 or
340

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

(psi)
35,
44, or
51
41 or
49

08APR3

Column 3—minimum
activation pressure
(kPa)
140
140
140
160
160

(psi)
20
20
20
23
23

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
18190

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—LOW TIRE PRESSURE WARNING TELLTALE—MINIMUM ACTIVATION PRESSURE—Continued
Column 2—maximum or
rated inflation pressure

Column 1—tire type

(kPa)
Load Range C .................................................................................................................
Load Range D .................................................................................................................
Load Range E ..................................................................................................................

PART 585—PHASE–IN REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
4. The authority citation for Part 585 of
Title 49 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.

5. Part 585 is amended by adding
Subpart G as follows:

■

Subpart G—Tire Pressure Monitoring
System Phase-in Reporting Requirements
Sec.
585.61 Scope.
585.62 Purpose.
585.63 Applicability.
585.64 Definitions.
585.65 Response to inquiries.
585.66 Reporting requirements.
585.67 Records.
585.68 Petition to extend period to file
report.

Subpart G—Tire Pressure Monitoring
System Phase-in Reporting
Requirements
§ 585.61

Scope.

This subpart establishes requirements
for manufacturers of passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less, except those vehicles
with dual wheels on an axle, to submit
a report, and maintain records related to
the report, concerning the number of
such vehicles that meet the
requirements of Standard No. 138, Tire
pressure monitoring systems (49 CFR
571.138).
§ 585.62

Purpose.

The purpose of these reporting
requirements is to assist the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
in determining whether a manufacturer
has complied with Standard No. 138.
§ 585.63

Applicability.

This subpart applies to manufacturers
of passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less,
except those vehicles with dual wheels
on an axle. However, this subpart does
not apply to manufacturers whose

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

production consists exclusively of
vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, and vehicles that are altered after
previously having been certified in
accordance with part 567 of the chapter.
In addition, this subpart does not apply
to manufacturers whose production of
motor vehicles for the United States
market is less than 5,000 vehicles in a
production year.
§ 585.64

Definitions.

Production year means the 12-month
period between September 1 of one year
and August 31 of the following year,
inclusive.
§ 585.65

Response to inquiries.

At any time prior to August 31, 2007,
each manufacturer must, upon request
from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information
identifying the vehicles (by make,
model, and vehicle identification
number) that have been certified as
complying with Standard No. 138. The
manufacturer’s designation of a vehicle
as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.
Upon request, the manufacturer also
must specify whether it intends to
utilize either carry-forward or carrybackward credits, and the vehicles to
which those credits relate.
§ 585.66

Reporting requirements.

(a) General reporting requirements.
Within 60 days after the end of the
production years ending August 31,
2006 and August 31, 2007, each
manufacturer must submit a report to
the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration concerning its
compliance with Standard No. 138 (49
CFR 571.138) for its passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating of less than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) produced in
that year. Each report must—
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and
address of the official responsible for
preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being
reported on;
(4) Contain a statement regarding
whether or not the manufacturer
complied with the requirements of

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(psi)

350
450
550

Column 3—minimum
activation pressure
(kPa)

51
65
80

200
240
240

(psi)
29
35
35

Standard No. 138 (49 CFR 571.138) for
the period covered by the report and the
basis for that statement;
(5) Provide the information specified
in paragraph (b) of this section;
(6) Be written in the English language;
and
(7) Be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Report content—(1) Basis for
statement of compliance. Each
manufacturer must provide the number
of passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less,
except those vehicles with dual wheels
on an axle, manufactured for sale in the
United States for each of the three
previous production years, or, at the
manufacturer’s option, for the current
production year. A new manufacturer
that has not previously manufactured
these vehicles for sale in the United
States must report the number of such
vehicles manufactured during the
current production year.
(2) Production. Each manufacturer
must report for the production year for
which the report is filed: the number of
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds) or less that meet
Standard No. 138 (49 CFR 571.138).
(3) Statement regarding compliance.
Each manufacturer must provide a
statement regarding whether or not the
manufacturer complied with the TPMS
requirements as applicable to the period
covered by the report, and the basis for
that statement. This statement must
include an explanation concerning the
use of any carry-forward and/or carrybackward credits.
(4) Vehicles produced by more than
one manufacturer. Each manufacturer
whose reporting of information is
affected by one or more of the express
written contracts permitted by S7.5.2 of
Standard No. 138 (49 CFR 571.138)
must:
(i) Report the existence of each
contract, including the names of all
parties to the contract, and explain how

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3

ATTACHMENT A2
FMVSS 138
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
§ 585.68
report.

the contract affects the report being
submitted.
(ii) Report the actual number of
vehicles covered by each contract.
§ 585.67

Records.

Each manufacturer must maintain
records of the Vehicle Identification
Number for each vehicle for which
information is reported under
§ 585.66(b)(2) until December 31, 2009.

VerDate jul<14>2003

19:23 Apr 07, 2005

Jkt 205001

Petition to extend period to file

A manufacturer may petition for
extension of time to submit a report
under this Part. A petition will be
granted only if the petitioner shows
good cause for the extension and if the
extension is consistent with the public
interest. The petition must be received
not later than 15 days before expiration
of the time stated in § 585.66(a). The
filing of a petition does not

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

18191

automatically extend the time for filing
a report. The petition must be submitted
to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590.
Issued: March 31, 2005.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–6741 Filed 4–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\08APR3.SGM

08APR3