[Federal Register: April 8, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 67)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18135-18191]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ap05-8]
[[Page 18135]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 18136]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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 phase-in.
Petitions for Reconsideration: If you wish to submit a petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by May 23,
2005.
ADDRESSES: 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
George Soodoo or Mr. Samuel Daniel, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards
(Telephone: 202-366-2720) (Fax: 202-366-4329).
For legal issues, you may call 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:
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
(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 under-inflated. Under-inflation of
tires increases the likelihood of many different types of crashes,
including those involving: (1) Skidding and/or
[[Page 18137]]
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, 30-percent 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
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 under-
inflated 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
[[Page 18138]]
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 two-part 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 carry-backward
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 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.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We note that carry-forward credits may not be used to defer
the mandatory compliance date of September 1, 2007 for all covered
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 phase-in, 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.
[[Page 18139]]
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 carry-backward credits in meeting the phase-in 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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000).
\5\ See 49 U.S.C. 30123 note (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The minimum levels of pressure were the same for both
compliance options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 18140]]
for reconsideration of the June 2002 final rule, raising a variety of
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 under-inflation in any combination of
tires up to four tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 340 F.3d 39, 54 (2d Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 under-inflated. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 under-inflated 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 under-inflated. 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 alert the driver when the system is non-operational 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 bulb-check 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
[[Page 18141]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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 under-inflation 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 under-
inflation 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 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. Other commenters
suggested that the under-inflation 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 10-minute 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 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,
[[Page 18142]]
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 under-inflated, 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.
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 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 20-minute 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.
[[Page 18143]]
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.
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 under-inflated. 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 technology-neutral, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle manufacturers must certify vehicle compliance
under the standard with the tires installed on the vehicle at the time
of initial vehicle sale.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TPMS must also include a TPMS malfunction indicator to
alert the driver when the system is non-operational, and thus unable to
provide the required low tire pressure warning.\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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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),
[[Page 18144]]
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 four-tire, 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 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 carry-backward 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 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 carry-forward
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
carry-backward 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
[[Page 18145]]
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 under-
inflation 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. 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 [deg]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
under-inflation 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 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 under-inflation 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 under-inflation
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 25-percent 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 under-inflation 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
[[Page 18146]]
under-inflation detection threshold. The RMA asserted that the NPRM's
benefits calculations indicated that 26 percent of vehicles have tires
that are under-inflated 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 higher-pressure 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
lower-pressure 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, low-profile
tires that may be easily damaged.
As part of the final rule, we have decided to retain the proposed
under-inflation 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-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 under-inflation 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 under-
inflation 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 technology-neutral 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, 25-percent
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Public Citizen v. Mineta, 340 F.3d 39, 57 (2d Cir. 2003).
\21\ Id. at 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available agency data show that a TPMS with a four-tire, 25-percent
under-inflation threshold is more cost-effective than one with a four-
tire, 20-percent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See page iv of the FEA (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not adopting BERU's recommendations regarding the under-
inflation 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 under-inflated (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
[[Page 18147]]
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 10-minute 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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 47 CFR 15.231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
under-inflation detection time is too long and should be reduced.
Public Citizen argued that the requirement for under-inflation
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 under-inflation 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 10-minute 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.
According to Emtop Ltd. (Emtop), the NPRM's 10-minute under-
inflation detection requirement does not address the 15 percent of
incidents of under-inflation 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-radio-
frequency (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
[[Page 18148]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 67 FR 38704, 38728 (June 5, 2002).
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20-minute detection period is unlikely to result in any
adverse safety consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id. at 38726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19054-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 significantly under-
inflated tires for a potentially extended period of time without
receiving a warning from the TPMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ This 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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See June 5, 2002 comments of the Rubber Manufacturers
Association (Docket No. NHTSA-00-8011-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 18149]]
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 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.
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 non-
operational; in some cases, the problem may be temporary (e.g., brief
signal
[[Page 18150]]
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 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 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
[[Page 18151]]
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
technology-neutral 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
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 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
[[Page 18152]]
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.
(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 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 steady-burning, 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
[[Page 18153]]
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 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
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
[[Page 18154]]
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
under-inflated 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 under-inflated tire does not constitute an urgent
situation, a TPMS malfunction is even less likely to represent an
emergency situation requiring immediate driver attention. Thus, in the
situations that would generate a TPMS-related 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
flashing-to-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
[[Page 18155]]
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 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.
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
[[Page 18156]]
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 run-flat
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, run-flat 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. 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 under-inflation 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 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 continuously-
illuminated yellow low tire pressure telltale. This red lamp could be
illuminated when the pressure in one or more tires becomes dangerously
under-inflated, 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
[[Page 18157]]
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 under-inflated. 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 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 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 ``continuously-flashing 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
[[Page 18158]]
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-[agrave]-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 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 18159]]
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 install alternate tires that permit
the TPMS to function properly.
In order to ensure continued long-term 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 18160]]
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,
tire-related 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).
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 18161]]
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
long-term 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 under-inflation
warning, rather than conducting regular tire maintenance. RMA argued
that this concern was 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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11398-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 under-inflation 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
[[Page 18162]]
specifying tire inflation pressure values.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19054-72.
\43\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19054-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 TPMS-equipped 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Similar requirements are contained in S5.1 of FMVSS No. 119
and S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 current system
worked predictably and generated little controversy until now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 46 FR 61473 (Dec. 17, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 lower-than-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Similar requirements are contained in S5.1 of FMVSS No.
120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 above-discussed 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
[[Page 18163]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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 over-specified 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19054-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 18164]]
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, 15-passenger 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.)
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 under-inflated. 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 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
[[Page 18165]]
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 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. 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
[[Page 18166]]
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 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 technology-neutral so as to
accommodate developing and advanced TPMS technologies. In response, we
note that it is NHTSA's practice to issue 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
technology-neutral, 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
technology-neutral. 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
[[Page 18167]]
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 20-minute 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[deg] C (32[deg] F) and 40[deg] C (104[deg] 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 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[deg] F) and above 104[deg] 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 technology-neutral.
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 the vehicle's TPMS would not function properly at
temperatures below 0[deg] C (32[deg] F) or above 40[deg] C (104[deg]
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,
[[Page 18168]]
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 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 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
[[Page 18169]]
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 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 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
[[Page 18170]]
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 (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, 25-percent 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 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 18171]]
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, 25-percent 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 carry-backward
credits (i.e., reduce compliance during the first year of the 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 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 20-percent
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 under-inflation
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
[[Page 18172]]
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 under-inflation 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 carry-forward 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Any such certification of compliance with the standard is
irrevocable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 carry-backward
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 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 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.
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 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 phase-in 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
[[Page 18173]]
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.
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 under-inflation
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.
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.
[[Page 18174]]
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, 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
[[Page 18175]]
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 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 battery-powered 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, 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.
[[Page 18176]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/epr/products/batteries.html.
\55\ See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt.
\56\ See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding the estimate of 71 million additional batteries as a result
of a battery-powered TPMS to the estimated 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 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-
[agrave]-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.
[[Page 18177]]
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 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 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.
[[Page 18178]]
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 under-
inflation 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
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 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.
[[Page 18179]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572-216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the FEA included analyses related to TPMSs with a four-
tire, 25-percent 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 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 under-inflation 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 90-percent 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 lane-change 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 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, 25-percent 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
[[Page 18180]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 90-percent
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 90-percent 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 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,
20-percent 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
[[Page 18181]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\61\ 49 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 under-inflated, and
NHTSA has determined that TPMSs meeting the requirements of this final
rule offer an effective countermeasure in these situations.
Accordingly, we believe that this final rule is appropriate for covered
vehicles that are or would become subject to these provisions of FMVSS
No. 138 because it furthers the agency's objective of preventing deaths
and serious injuries associated with significantly under-inflated
tires.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
[[Page 18182]]
(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 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 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
[[Page 18183]]
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
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 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 cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative other than the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if
the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
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, 30-percent) 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 four-tire, 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.)
[[Page 18184]]
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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Parts 571
and 585 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.101 is amended by revising paragraph S5.2.3 and Table 2
to read as follows:
Sec. 571.101 Standard No. 101; Controls and displays.
* * * * *
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 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
[[Page 18185]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP05.000
[[Page 18186]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP05.001
[[Page 18187]]
0
3. Section 571.138 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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) under-inflated, 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 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
[[Page 18188]]
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[deg]C (32[deg]F) and 40[deg]C (104[deg]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 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).
(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 under-inflated.
(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.
[[Page 18189]]
(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 Sec. 571.138
Table 1.--Low Tire Pressure Warning Telltale--Minimum Activation Pressure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column 2--maximum or Column 3--minimum
rated inflation pressure activation pressure
Column 1--tire type ---------------------------------------------------
(kPa) (psi) (kPa) (psi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-metric--Standard Load..................................... 240, 35, 140 20
300, or 44, or 140 20
350 51 140 20
P-metric--Extra Load........................................ 280 or 41 or 160 23
340 49 160 23
[[Page 18190]]
Load Range C................................................ 350 51 200 29
Load Range D................................................ 450 65 240 35
Load Range E................................................ 550 80 240 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
0
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.
0
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
Sec. 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).
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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 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.
Sec. 585.64 Definitions.
Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 of
one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
Sec. 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
carry-backward credits, and the vehicles to which those credits relate.
Sec. 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 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 carry-
backward 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
[[Page 18191]]
the contract affects the report being submitted.
(ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.
Sec. 585.67 Records.
Each manufacturer must maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec. 585.66(b)(2) until December 31, 2009.
Sec. 585.68 Petition to extend period to file report.
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 Sec.
585.66(a). The filing of a petition does not 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