Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38017 

1 70 FR 18136 (April 8, 2005) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–20586–1). 

2 70 FR 53079 (Sept. 7, 2005) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–22251–1). 

Marie or his on-scene representative to 

obtain permission to do so. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie or 

his on-scene representative. 

Dated: June 25, 2007. 

L.W. Hewett, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate 

Captain of the Port Sault Ste Marie. 

[FR Doc. E7–13504 Filed 7–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2007–28694, Notice 1] 

RIN 2127–AJ90 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Tire Pressure Monitoring 

Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; partial response to 

petitions for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds in 

part to petitions for reconsideration of 

our statutorily-mandated rulemaking 

establishing a new Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 

requiring installation in new light 

vehicles of a tire pressure monitoring 

system (TPMS) capable of detecting 

when one or more of a vehicle’s tires is 

significantly under-inflated. We 

established the standard in a final rule 

published in April 2005. We responded 

to petitions for reconsideration of that 

final rule in a final rule published in 

September 2005. This final rule 

responds to the petition for 

reconsideration of our September 2005 

final rule submitted by the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, which 

raised a number of technical issues 

pertaining to the combined low tire 

pressure/TPMS malfunction indicator 

lamp. (The agency will respond 

subsequently in a separate notice to a 

second petition for reconsideration 

submitted by ETV Corporation Pty 

Limited.) We are granting the Alliance’s 

petition, and through this document, we 

are amending the standard accordingly. 

We anticipate that today’s amendments, 

which are of a minor technical nature, 

will not necessitate redesign of current 

TPMSs nor appreciably change the costs 

of compliance with the safety standard. 

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments 

made in this final rule are effective 

August 13, 2007. Voluntary compliance 

is permitted immediately. 

Petitions for Reconsideration: If you 

wish to submit a petition for 

reconsideration for this rule, your 

petition must be received by August 27, 

2007. The agency will not consider 

redundant petitions. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket number above 

and be submitted to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

portion of this document (Section VI; 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for 

DOT’s Privacy Act Statement regarding 

documents submitted to the agency’s 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 

George Soodoo or Mr. Samuel Daniel, 

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards 

(Telephone: 202–366–2720) (Fax: 202–

366–4329). 

For legal issues, you may call Ms. 

Rebecca Schade, Office of Chief Counsel 

(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–

366–3820). 

You may send mail to these officials 

at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Decision 

II. Background 

A. The TREAD Act 

B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April 

2005 Final Rule 

C. The April 2005 Final Rule 

D. The September 2005 Final Rule; 

Response to Petitions for 

Reconsideration 

III. New Petitions for Reconsideration 

IV. Discussion and Analysis—TPMS 

Malfunction Indicator Lamp Telltale 

Requirements 

V. Benefits and Costs 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Summary of Decision 

This document responds to a petition 

for reconsideration submitted by the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

(Alliance) related to our rulemaking 

establishing FMVSS No. 138, Tire 

Pressure Monitoring Systems, which 

was adopted in a final rule published in 

the Federal Register on April 8, 2005.1

The petitioner sought further 

amendments to the standard pertaining 

to matters that it deemed either to be 

insufficiently addressed by or newly 

arising from our September 2005 final 

rule 2 responding to petitions for 

reconsideration of the April 2005 final 

rule. Specifically, the petitioner 

requested changes to the specifications 

for the TPMS malfunction warning 

provided by a combined low tire 

pressure/TPMS malfunction warning 

telltale (see section IV of this document 

for a complete discussion of issues 

raised in the petition and their 

resolution). We have decided to grant 

the petition for the reasons below. (We 

further note that a second petition for 

reconsideration was submitted by ETV 

Corporation Pty Limited (ETV), in 

response to which the agency is 

currently analyzing additional data. In 

order to prevent unnecessary delay in 

responding to the separate and distinct 

requests for amendment set forth in the 

Alliance’s petition, we have decided to 

bifurcate our response to this latest 

round of petitions for reconsideration of 

the TPMS rulemaking. Accordingly, we 

have decided to respond to the ETV 

petition subsequently, as part of a 

separate document.) 

After careful consideration of the 

Alliance’s request and available data, 

the agency has decided to amend 

FMVSS No. 138 in response to one 

technical matter raised in this latest 

round of petitions for reconsideration, 

which involves the standard’s 

requirements and test procedures 

related to operation of the combined 

low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction 

indicator lamp (MIL) telltale. 

Specifically, we have decided to retain 

the requirement for the system to detect 

a system malfunction and to initiate a 

60–90 second flashing sequence by the 

combined TPMS telltale (followed by 

continuous illumination) within 20 

minutes of occurrence of that 

malfunction. However, we are amending 

the standard to provide that if the TPMS 

subsequently encounters additional, 

separate malfunctions, the TPMS may 

(but is not required to) initiate another 

flashing sequence for each distinct 

malfunction condition. 

As a related matter, we are amending 

the standard’s test procedures to 

provide that only one malfunction will 

be simulated during each malfunction 

detection test (i.e., one per ignition 

cycle). Under the standard, the agency 

may still test for more than one 

malfunction, although each additional 

malfunction would be simulated in a 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
38018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000). 

4See 49 U.S.C. 30123 note (2003). 

5 66 FR 38982 (July 26, 2001) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2000–8572–30). 

6 67 FR 38704 (June 5, 2002) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2000–8572–219). 

7 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003). 

8The only reference to TPMS operability with 

spare tires was provided at page 7 of the petitioners’

brief, which, in a description of different types of 

TPMSs, merely stated, ‘‘Direct systems can also 

work with a spare tire.’’

9 Id. at 62. 

10 68 FR 65404 (Nov. 20, 2003) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2003–16524–1). 

11 69 FR 55896 (Sept. 16, 2004) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2004–19054–1). 

12 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–20586–1). 

13There 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. 

14As part of the final rule, we added two versions 

of the TPMS low tire pressure telltale and a TPMS 

malfunction telltale to Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, 

Controls and Displays (since changed to Table 1). 

separate test during a different ignition 

cycle, rather than simulating multiple 

TPMS malfunctions simultaneously 

during the same ignition cycle. 

Effective Date 

In light of the fact that the phase-in 

for FMVSS No. 138 commenced on 

October 5, 2005, we find that there is 

good cause to make these amendments 

effective 30 days after publication. The 

changes resulting from this final rule 

responding to the Alliance’s petition for 

reconsideration generally involve 

requested technical modifications and 

clarifications to the standard. We 

believe that vehicle manufacturers and 

other interested stakeholders would 

benefit from rapid implementation of 

these amendments. We note, however, 

that vehicle manufacturers may 

voluntarily comply with the 

requirements of this final rule 

immediately. 

II. Background 

A. The TREAD Act 

Congress enacted the Transportation 

Recall Enhancement, Accountability, 

and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 

2000 3 on November 1, 2000. Section 13 

of that Act 4 required the Secretary of 

Transportation, within one year of the 

statute’s enactment, to complete a 

rulemaking ‘‘to require a warning 

system in new motor vehicles to 

indicate to the operator when a tire is 

significantly under inflated.’’ Section 13 

also required the regulation to take 

effect within two years of the 

completion of the rulemaking. 

Responsibility for this rulemaking was 

delegated to NHTSA. 

B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April 

2005 Final Rule 

Since passage of the TREAD Act, 

FMVSS No. 138 has had a protracted 

regulatory history. In summary, the 

agency published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) 5 on July 26, 2001, 

which was followed by a final rule 6

published on June 5, 2002. 

After issuance of the June 2002 final 

rule, Public Citizen, Inc., New York 

Public Interest Research Group, and the 

Center for Auto Safety filed a lawsuit 

challenging certain aspects of the TPMS 

regulation. The Court of Appeals for the 

Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued 

its opinion in Public Citizen, Inc. v. 

Mineta 7 on August 6, 2003, holding that 

the TREAD Act unambiguously 

mandates TPMSs capable of monitoring 

each tire up to a total of four tires. The 

Court’s decision effectively precluded 

the one-tire, 30-percent under-inflation 

detection option in the June 5, 2002 

final rule, or any similar option for a 

system that cannot detect underinflation in any combination of tires up 

to four tires. 

We note, however, that the Second 

Circuit was presented with a final rule 

that did not specify a requirement for 

TPMS operability with a spare tire, but 

the Court did not find fault with that 

aspect of the safety standard. Moreover, 

the petitioners in Public Citizen, Inc. v. 

Mineta did not object to that aspect of 

the TPMS final rule in their litigation 

filings.8 Instead, the Court’s opinion 

explicitly sanctioned the agency’s fourtire, 25 percent under-inflation 

detection option (without any provision 

requiring TPMS operability with spare 

tires), stating, ‘‘We conclude that the 

agency’s adoption of a one-tire, 30 

percent option was both contrary to law 

and arbitrary and capricious, and that 

the agency’s adoption of the phase-in 

period and the four-tire, 25 percent 

option were not.’’ 9

Ultimately, the Court vacated the 

standard in its entirety and directed the 

agency to conduct further rulemaking. 

NHTSA published a final rule in the 

Federal Register on November 20, 2003, 

vacating FMVSS No. 138.10

The agency commenced rulemaking 

efforts to re-establish FMVSS No. 138 in 

a manner consistent with the Court’s 

opinion and responsive to issues raised 

in earlier petitions for reconsideration, 

the majority of which remained 

relevant. To this end, the agency 

published a new NPRM 11 on September 

16, 2004, obtained and considered 

public comments, and published a final 

rule 12 in the Federal Register on April 

8, 2005. (For a more complete 

discussion of the regulatory history of 

the TPMS rulemaking, readers should 

consult the June 5, 2002 final rule, the 

September 16, 2004 NPRM, and the 

April 2005 final rule.) 

C. The April 2005 Final Rule 

In re-establishing FMVSS No. 138, the 

April 2005 final rule required passenger 

cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except those 

with dual wheels on an axle, to be 

equipped with a TPMS to alert the 

driver when one or more of the vehicle’s 

tires, up to all four of its tires, is 

significantly under-inflated.13 Subject to 

the phase-in schedule and the 

exceptions below, the final rule 

mandated compliance with the 

requirements of the standard, 

commencing with covered vehicles 

manufactured on or after October 5, 

2005 (i.e., model year (MY) 2006). The 

standard is intended to be technologyneutral, so as to permit compliance with 

any available TPMS technology that 

meets the standard’s performance 

requirements. 

The following points highlight the key 

provisions of the April 2005 final rule. 

• The TPMS is required to detect and 

to provide a warning to the driver 

within 20 minutes of when the pressure 

of one or more of the vehicle’s tires, up 

to a total of four tires, is 25 percent or 

more below the vehicle manufacturer’s 

recommended cold inflation pressure 

for the tires, or a minimum level of 

pressure specified in the standard, 

whichever pressure is higher. These 

minimum activation pressures are 

included in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 138. 

• The TPMS is not required to 

monitor the spare tire (if provided), 

either when it is stowed or when it is 

installed on the vehicle. 

• The TPMS must include a low tire 

pressure warning telltale 14 (yellow) that 

must detect (within 20 minutes) and 

remain illuminated as long as any of the 

vehicle’s tires remain under-inflated 

(i.e., at a level below the standard’s 

detection level for low tire pressure) and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38019 

15We note that if a vehicle manufacturer elects 

to install a low tire pressure telltale that indicates 

which tire is under-inflated, the telltale must 

correctly identify the under-inflated tire. (See 

S4.3.2, as contained in the April 2005 final rule.) 

16Available information at the time of the April 

2005 final rule showed that a very small number of 

replacement tires (estimated at less than 0.5 percent 

of production) may have characteristics and 

material content that cause the vehicle’s TPMS to 

exhibit functional problems. Specifically, the 

Rubber Manufacturers Association submitted 

information on the prevalence of tires with 

characteristics identified as potentially being 

incompatible with proper TPMS functioning, at 

least in some cases. These problems are primarily 

related to the tires’ construction (e.g., high carbon 

content in low aspect-ratio tires, thicker sidewall, 

or steel body ply sidewall). According to the RMA, 

in 2002, light vehicle tires having either steel body 

ply cords (steel casing tires) or run-flat capability 

accounted for less than 0.5 percent of tires 

distributed in the United States. (See letter from 

Steven Butcher, Vice President, Rubber 

Manufacturers Association, to NHTSA (October 31, 

2003) (Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572–282)). 

At that time, the agency also noted information 

showing that there were over four million TPMSequipped vehicles. (See letter from Robert 

Strassburger, Vice President, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, to NHTSA (October 20, 

2003) (Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572–277)). As 

discussed in the April 2005 final rule, neither the 

agency nor vehicle manufacturers had received 

reports indicating any significant performance 

problems with those TPMSs when replacement tires 

are installed on the vehicle (see 70 FR 18136, 18159 

(April 8, 2005)), and the agency is similarly 

unaware of any significant compatibility problems 

between aftermarket TPMSs and replacement tires 

(see 67 FR 38704, 38731 (June 5, 2002)). This 

information was generally consistent with the 

information above suggesting that the magnitude of 

the compatibility problem between TPMSs and 

replacement tires is likely to be a small one. 

However, neither the agency nor the commenters 

were able to identify a clear design solution for this 

problem, one which would pose an insurmountable 

certification challenge for vehicle manufacturers if 

the agency were to require ongoing TPMS 

operability with all replacement tires. However, in 

light of the agency’s concern that TPMSs should 

continue to provide safety benefits in the 

foreseeable event of replacement tires subsequently 

being installed on the vehicle, the agency adopted 

its present approach requiring a TPMS malfunction 

indicator lamp, which can also detect the presence 

of replacement tires that are not compatible with 

the TPMS. 

17We note that the TPMS telltale(s) may be 

incorporated as part of a reconfigurable display, 

provided that all requirements of the standard are 

met. 

the vehicle’s ignition locking system is 

in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position.15 The 

TPMS’s low tire pressure warning 

telltale must perform a bulb-check at 

vehicle start-up. 

• The TPMS is required to be 

certified as meeting the standard’s 

performance requirements with the tires 

originally installed on the vehicle at the 

time of initial vehicle sale. This 

requirement reflects a change from the 

June 2002 final rule, which required 

vehicle manufacturers to certify 

compliance with any optional or 

replacement tires of the size(s) 

recommended by the vehicle 

manufacturer. This modification to the 

standard was because of new 

information demonstrating that a small 

number of aftermarket and replacement 

tires have construction characteristics 

that may prevent the continued proper 

functioning of the TPMS when original 

equipment tires are replaced and 

because of the difficulty in identifying 

those problematic tires.16

The agency acknowledged the 

practicability concerns associated with 

vehicle manufacturers’ trying to identify 

existing and future replacement tires 

which could negatively impact the 

performance of TPMSs, particularly 

given that tire production is outside the 

vehicle manufacturers’ control. 

Although we agreed that this situation 

could pose substantial difficulties in 

terms of compliance certification, we 

also stated our continued belief that a 

typical vehicle will outlast its original 

set of tires and that drivers should 

continue to have the opportunity to 

receive the benefits of the TPMS after 

the vehicle’s original tires are replaced. 

Accordingly, the agency decided on a 

new approach intended to accommodate 

both concerns, specifically through a 

requirement for a TPMS malfunction 

indicator (discussed immediately 

below) that can detect when tires 

installed on the vehicle are 

incompatible with the TPMS. 

• The TPMS must also include a 

TPMS malfunction indicator to alert the 

driver when the system is nonoperational, and thus unable to provide 

the required low tire pressure 

warning.17 The TPMS malfunction 

indicator must detect a malfunction 

within 20 minutes of occurrence of a 

system malfunction and provide a 

warning to the driver. This final rule 

provided two options by which vehicle 

manufacturers may indicate a TPMS 

malfunction: 

(1) Installation of a separate, 

dedicated telltale (yellow) that 

illuminates upon detection of the 

malfunction and remains continuously 

illuminated as long as the ignition 

locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) 

position and the situation causing the 

malfunction remains uncorrected, or 

(2) Designing the low tire pressure 

telltale so that it flashes for a period of 

at least 60 seconds and no longer than 

90 seconds when a malfunction is 

detected, after which the telltale must 

remain continuously illuminated as 

long as the ignition locking system is in 

the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. This 

flashing and illumination sequence 

must be repeated upon each subsequent 

vehicle start-up until the situation 

causing the malfunction has been 

corrected. 

If the option for a separate telltale is 

selected, the TPMS malfunction telltale 

must perform a bulb-check at vehicle 

start-up. 

In implementing FMVSS No. 138, 

NHTSA adopted a two-year phase-in as 

part of the April 2005 final rule, with a 

schedule as follows: 20 percent of a 

vehicle manufacturer’s light vehicles are 

required to comply with the standard 

during the period from October 5, 2005 

to August 31, 2006; 70 percent during 

the period from September 1, 2006 to 

August 31, 2007, and all light vehicles 

thereafter. The final rule also included 

provisions for carry-forward and carrybackward credits at the manufacturer’s 

option, as well as special timing 

provisions for small volume 

manufacturers, final-stage 

manufacturers, and alterers. 

Vehicle manufacturers are not 

required to comply with the 

requirements related to the TPMS 

malfunction indicator (including 

associated owner’s manual 

requirements) until September 1, 2007; 

however, at that point, all covered 

vehicles must meet all relevant 

requirements of the standard (i.e., no 

additional phase-in for MIL 

requirements). The final rule also 

included phase-in reporting 

requirements consistent with the phasein schedule discussed above. 

D. The September 2005 Final Rule; 

Response to Petitions for 

Reconsideration 

NHTSA received a total of 17 

petitions for reconsideration of the April 

2005 final rule (two of which were 

subsequently withdrawn prior to 

issuance of the agency’s decision). All of 

these petitions may be found in Docket 

No. NHTSA–2005–20586. 

The petitioners requested further 

amendments to the TPMS standard, 

most of which involved technical 

matters. These issues related to certain 

requirements of the April 2005 final 

rule, including: (1) The under-inflation 

detection level; (2) the under-inflation 

and malfunction detection times; (3) 

functioning of the TPMS with spare 

tires; (4) tire reserve load; (5) 

compliance testing conditions and 

procedures; (6) system disablement and 

reprogrammability; (7) telltale issues; (8) 

breadth of the malfunction detection 

requirement; (9) minimum activation 

pressure; (10) owner’s manual 

requirements; (11) sharing of TPMS 

servicing information, and (12) phase-in 

calculations. 

In response to this first set of 

petitions, the agency published a final 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
38020 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

18 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22251–2. 

19 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22251–3. 

rule in the Federal Register on 

September 7, 2005 that made a number 

of technical amendments to Standard 

No. 138, of which the following are 

relevant to the current petitions: 

• While retaining the final rule’s 

requirement for the TPMS malfunction 

indicator lamp to illuminate whenever 

there is a malfunction that affects the 

generation or transmission of control or 

response signals in the vehicle’s tire 

pressure monitoring system, the agency 

decided to amend the standard’s test 

procedures to clarify that telltale lamps 

will not be disconnected because such 

malfunctions will be indicated during 

the bulb check(s) required under the 

standard. 

• The rule amended the regulatory 

text in FMVSS No. 138 to clarify that for 

a combined low tire pressure/TPMS 

malfunction indicator telltale, the same 

flashing/continuous illumination 

sequence is required for one or more 

malfunctions that may affect the system 

simultaneously (i.e., no more than one 

flashing sequence per ignition cycle). 

III. New Petitions for Reconsideration 

NHTSA received two petitions for 

reconsideration submitted in response 

to the September 2005 final rule for 

TPMS from ETV Corporation 18 and the 

Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers.19 These petitions may 

be found in Docket No. NHTSA–2005–

22251. (As explained above, the agency 

will respond in a separate rulemaking 

document to the petition submitted by 

ETV Corporation; the amendments 

requested in the ETV petition will be 

discussed and addressed in that 

document. Accordingly, the balance of 

the discussion in this document will 

focus on the matters raised in the 

Alliance’s petition for reconsideration.) 

As noted above, the Alliance’s 

petition requested further amendments 

to FMVSS No. 138, primarily related to 

the specifications for the TPMS 

malfunction warning provided by a 

combined low tire pressure/TPMS 

malfunction telltale. All of the issues 

raised in the Alliance’s petition for 

reconsideration presently before us are 

addressed in the Discussion and 

Analysis section immediately below. 

IV. Discussion and Analysis 

TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp 

Telltale Requirements 

FMVSS No. 138 requires each TPMS 

to include a low tire pressure warning 

telltale that is mounted inside the 

occupant compartment in front of and 

in clear view of the driver and which is 

identified by one of the symbols for the 

‘‘Low Tire Pressure Telltale’’ in Table 1 

of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and 

Displays. The low tire pressure warning 

telltale is required to illuminate under 

the conditions specified in S4.2 of 

FMVSS No. 138, and it must also 

perform a check of lamp function when 

the ignition locking system is activated 

to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position or a 

position between ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) and 

‘‘Start’’ that is designated by the 

manufacturer as a check position. (See 

S4.3, as contained in the April 2005 

final rule.) 

Under the final rule, the TPMSequipped vehicle is also required to be 

equipped with a TPMS malfunction 

indicator (beginning September 1, 

2007). This malfunction indicator may 

be provided either through a separate, 

dedicated telltale or through a combined 

low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction 

telltale. For the separate TPMS MIL, the 

telltale must be mounted inside the 

occupant compartment in front of and 

in clear view of the driver and be 

identified by the word ‘‘TPMS,’’ as 

described under ‘‘TPMS Malfunction 

Telltale’’ in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101. 

The dedicated TPMS malfunction 

telltale is required to illuminate under 

the conditions specified in S4.4 of 

FMVSS No. 138 for as long as the 

malfunction exists, and it must also 

perform a check of lamp function when 

the ignition locking system is activated 

to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position or a 

position between ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) and 

‘‘Start’’ that is designated by the 

manufacturer as a check position. (See 

S4.4(b), as contained in the April 2005 

final rule.) 

If the vehicle manufacturer elects to 

provide a combination telltale, it must 

meet the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3, 

as discussed above, and paragraph 

S4.4(c)(2) of the standard in the April 

2005 final rule, which required a TPMS 

malfunction to be indicated as follows: 

(2) Flashes for a period of at least 60 

seconds but no longer than 90 seconds upon 

detection of any condition specified in 

S4.4(a) after the ignition locking system is 

activated to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. After 

this period of prescribed flashing, the telltale 

must remain continuously illuminated as 

long as the malfunction exists and the 

ignition locking system is in the ‘‘On’’

(‘‘Run’’) position. This flashing and 

illumination sequence must be repeated each 

time the ignition locking system is placed in 

the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position until the situation 

causing the malfunction has been corrected. 

As discussed below, the Alliance’s 

initial petition for rulemaking requested 

amendments related to the operation of 

the TPMS related telltale(s), one of 

which involved seeking clarification 

regarding how a combined TPMS 

telltale should operate when multiple 

malfunctions occur. The Alliance 

identified the following potential 

approaches: (1) Have one flashing 

sequence cover all TPMS malfunctions; 

(2) Have each malfunction trigger a 

separate warning, or (3) Extend the 

length of the flashing sequence to 

indicate more than one malfunction. 

The recommendation of the Alliance 

was to leave the choice among these 

approaches to vehicle manufacturer 

discretion. 

Regarding the issue of multiple 

malfunctions, we decided, in the 

September 2005 final rule, that for 

vehicles with a combined low tire 

pressure/TPMS malfunction warning 

indicator, the telltale must flash for a 

single period of at least 60 seconds, but 

no longer than 90 seconds and then 

remain continuously illuminated. In 

that rule, we expressed our concern that 

permitting multiple flashing sequences 

could lead to consumer confusion and 

would undermine the consistency of the 

message provided across the vehicle 

fleet. We further stated that this flashing 

sequence is intended to alert the driver 

to any and all TPMS malfunctions 

detected by the system, and we 

expressed our belief that once a 

consumer is warned that a TPMS 

malfunction exists, that person would 

be expected to take the vehicle to a 

service professional to diagnose and 

correct the problem(s). This reaction is 

not likely to change depending upon the 

number of malfunctions, and we further 

stated that we anticipate that all 

conditions impairing operation of the 

TPMS would be resolved at that time. 

Accordingly, we amended the 

regulatory text of the standard to specify 

how multiple malfunctions would be 

indicated. 

Thus, in the September 2005 final 

rule, we made minor technical changes 

to S4.4(c)(2) of the standard to clarify 

this matter, which reads as follows: 

(2) When the ignition locking system is 

activated to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position, 

flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but 

no longer than 90 seconds upon detection of 

any condition(s) specified in S4.4(a). After 

this period of prescribed flashing, the telltale 

must remain continuously illuminated as 

long as a malfunction exists and the ignition 

locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) 

position. This flashing and illumination 

sequence must be repeated each time the 

ignition locking system is placed in the ‘‘On’’

(‘‘Run’’) position until the situation(s) 

causing the malfunction(s) has (have) been 

corrected. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38021 

20The Alliance raised this issue in an October 24, 

2005 letter to the agency, which it alternatively 

asked to be treated as a request for a letter of 

interpretation pertaining to S4.4(c)(2) or a petition 

for rulemaking (Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22251–

3). In a letter dated December 21, 2005, NHTSA 

responded that the language of the regulation and 

the portion of the preamble dealing with S4.4(c)(2), 

when read together, left little ambiguity in terms of 

how the agency would interpret that provision, so 

the agency stated its intention to treat the Alliance’s 

letter as a petition for reconsideration of the 

September 2005 final rule (see Docket No. NHTSA–

2005–22251–9). 

21The General Motors submission explained the 

fault scenarios discussed in the Alliance’s petition 

through a series of block diagrams of a generic 

TPMS showing a tire pressure sensor, a TPMS 

receiver, and a display controller. (See Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–22251–13.) 

22 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–15. 

In its second petition for 

reconsideration,20 the Alliance asked 

the agency to further clarify S4.4(c)(2). 

The Alliance asserted that that 

provision does not appear, on its face, 

to preclude initiation of a second 

flashing sequence during the same 

ignition cycle if the system detects a 

subsequent TPMS malfunction. 

However, as the Alliance stated in its 

petition, the preamble to the September 

2005 final rule made clear the agency’s 

intention to permit only a single 

flashing sequence per ignition cycle for 

the combined low tire pressure/TPMS 

malfunction telltale. The Alliance’s 

second petition provided new 

information which more fully explained 

the nature of its concerns with S4.4(c)(2) 

and the anticipated impact that the 

agency’s current provision would have 

on the automobile industry, if NHTSA 

were to continue to limit the TPMS 

malfunction indicator in a combined 

telltale to a single flashing sequence in 

one ignition cycle, even if subsequent 

TPMS malfunctions are detected. 

According to the Alliance, the 

agency’s current approach is unduly 

restrictive and would prevent a number 

of current system design architectures 

from complying with the standard’s 

TPMS malfunction indicator 

requirements. The Alliance stated that 

many current vehicle architectures 

utilize ‘‘distributed logic,’’ in which the 

TPMS telltale can be independently 

commanded from different parts of the 

system. In terms of the system’s 

operation, the Alliance further 

explained that the combined TPMS 

telltale, which is located in the 

instrument cluster, may be commanded 

to flash by the multi-function control 

module, or, if it loses communications 

with the multi-function control module, 

the telltale recognizes the loss and 

initiates a flash sequence. 

The Alliance stated that in most cases, 

a TPMS fault detected by a multifunction control module will initiate a 

flash sequence per the current 

requirements of S4.4(c)(2), but in 

extremely rare instances, 

communication between the multifunction control module and the telltale 

may be lost, which would result in a 

second flashing sequence during the 

same ignition cycle. However, the 

Alliance acknowledged that in such 

situations, subsequent ignition cycles 

would produce only a single flashing 

sequence due to such lost 

communications. (General Motors North 

America (General Motors) submitted 

supplemental information in support of 

the Alliance’s petition intended to 

illustrate instances in which sequential 

faults in the TPMS could trigger the MIL 

to flash more than once during an 

ignition cycle.21) 

The Alliance argued that a 

requirement that a second flashing 

sequence never occur during the same 

ignition cycle would prohibit the use of 

a distributed logic and could, in effect, 

require all fault detection and control 

logic to be located at the telltale 

location. According to the Alliance, 

such system redesigns would not be 

practicable prior to the September 1, 

2007 mandatory compliance date for the 

TPMS malfunction indicator 

requirements. 

In addition, the Alliance argued that 

no additional safety benefits would 

result from requiring system redesigns 

to ensure that combined TPMS 

malfunction indicators are limited to a 

single flashing sequence during each 

ignition cycle. The Alliance stated that 

the agency did not provide any data or 

study to show that multiple telltale 

flashing sequences resulting from 

multiple malfunctions would cause 

consumer confusion. Instead, the 

Alliance countered that current, 

voluntary TPMS malfunction systems 

operating in the manner described 

above have been in production for more 

than two years, and there has been no 

apparent consumer confusion. 

Furthermore, the Alliance argued that 

consumer confusion is unlikely, because 

multiple TPMS malfunctions during the 

same ignition cycle are expected to be 

highly infrequent events. (We note that 

Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted 

confidential data showing the frequency 

of multiple TPMS malfunctions that 

would trigger a second MIL flashing 

sequence, an occurrence which the data 

showed to be an extremely rare event.22) 

Based upon the above reasoning, the 

Alliance’s petition requested that the 

agency permit, but not require, 

subsequent flash sequences when the 

initial malfunction is followed by others 

in the same ignition cycle, and it urged 

the agency to amend S4.4(c)(2) to read 

as follows: 

(2) When the ignition locking system is 

activated to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position, 

flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but 

no longer than 90 seconds upon detection of 

any singular condition specified in S4.4(a). 

After this period of prescribed flashing, the 

telltale must remain continuously 

illuminated as long as a malfunction exists 

and the ignition locking system is in the 

‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. This flashing and 

illumination sequence must be repeated each 

time the ignition locking system is placed in 

the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position until the 

situation(s) causing the malfunction(s) has 

(have) been corrected. Subsequent 

malfunctions occurring during any key cycle 

may, but are not required to, reinitiate the 

prescribed flashing sequence at any time. 

(Emphasis in original) 

After carefully considering the new 

information presented in the Alliance’s 

second petition and the supporting 

information provided by General Motors 

and Ford, we have decided to amend 

the standard’s requirements and test 

procedures related to operation of the 

combined low tire pressure/TPMS 

malfunction indicator telltale. 

Specifically, we have decided to retain 

the requirement for the system to detect 

a system malfunction and to initiate a 

60–90 second flashing sequence for the 

TPMS combined telltale (followed by 

continuous illumination) within 20 

minutes of occurrence of that 

malfunction. However, we are amending 

the standard to provide that if the TPMS 

subsequently encounters additional, 

separate malfunctions, the TPMS may, 

but is not required to, initiate another 

flashing sequence for each distinct 

malfunction condition. As a related 

matter, we are amending the standard’s 

test procedures to provide that only one 

malfunction will be simulated during 

each malfunction detection test (i.e., one 

per ignition cycle). Under the standard, 

the agency may still test for more than 

one malfunction, although this would 

be in separate tests during different 

ignition cycles, rather than simulating 

multiple TPMS malfunctions during the 

same ignition cycle. We are adopting 

this approach for the reasons that 

follow. 

Based upon the latest information 

provided by the Alliance and certain of 

its members, the agency now better 

understands the technical difficulties 

associated with requiring TPMSs with a 

combined telltale to limit the MIL 

flashing sequence to once per ignition 

cycle in the event of multiple, 

independent malfunctions. Redesigning 

affected TPMSs to overcome this 

technical limitation may not be 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
38022 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

23 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–2. 

24 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

25 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 

26 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 

27 Id. 

28 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50. 

practicable prior to the September 1, 

2007 compliance deadline for the MIL. 

Furthermore, the new information 

provided by Ford suggests that a second 

TPMS malfunction within an ignition 

cycle is likely to be an extremely rare 

event. A third TPMS malfunction 

within a given ignition cycle is likely to 

be a matter of only theoretical concern. 

Accordingly, we believe that the 

occurrence of more than one flashing 

sequence would be highly infrequent 

and, therefore, would not pose a 

nuisance to drivers or lead to 

considerable confusion. Although 

operation of the combined telltale may 

not be entirely uniform across the 

vehicle fleet, the message will 

nonetheless remain highly consistent, 

given the expected rarity of multiple 

TPMS malfunctions. Thus, in light of 

the data provided, we do not believe the 

potential delay that might accompany a 

strict limitation to one MIL flashing 

sequence for a combined telltale is 

warranted. 

Because we have decided to grant the 

request in the Alliance’s petition to 

permit more than one MIL flash 

sequence during a given ignition cycle, 

it is no longer necessary to retain that 

aspect of S6(k) which provides for 

simulation of multiple TPMS 

malfunctions at the same time (i.e., to 

ensure that the combined TPMS telltale 

is limited to a single flashing sequence 

per ignition cycle). The system is still 

required to detect any TPMS 

malfunction, as required under S4.4(a). 

Accordingly, we have decided to amend 

the standard’s test procedures to limit 

simulation of TPMS malfunctions to one 

per ignition cycle, which is consistent 

with the methodology employed in 

other Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards (e.g., FMVSS No. 105, 

Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems 

(S7.9, Service brake system test—partial 

failure), FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle 

Brake Systems (S7.10, Hydraulic circuit 

failure)). This modification will also 

simplify testing under the standard. 

However, the agency reiterates its 

intention to preserve its ability to test 

for more than one type of TPMS 

malfunction. We believe that such a 

provision is necessary to ensure the 

robustness of the system, although this 

objective will now be achieved by 

simulating different malfunctions 

during different ignition cycles, rather 

than multiple malfunctions during the 

same ignition cycle. 

V. Benefits and Costs 

Section VI of the April 2005 final rule 

summarized the costs associated with 

the TPMS standard, as more fully 

described in the Final Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (FRIA)23 accompanying 

the final rule. The FRIA addresses the 

full range of anticipated costs related to 

TPMSs, including the cost of different 

TPMS technologies, overall vehicle 

costs, maintenance costs, testing costs, 

and opportunity costs. 

In summary, the FRIA estimated that 

the average incremental cost for all 

vehicles to meet the standard’s 

requirements would range from $48.44–

$69.89 per vehicle, depending upon the 

specific technology chosen for 

compliance. Since approximately 17 

million vehicles are produced for sale in 

the U.S. each year, the total annual 

vehicle cost is expected to range from 

approximately $823–$1,188 million per 

year. The agency estimated that the net 

cost per vehicle would be $26.63–

$100.25 (assuming a one-percent TPMS 

malfunction rate for replacement tires) 

and that the total annual net cost would 

be approximately $453–$1,704 million. 

The agency has determined that the 

technical amendments resulting from 

this final rule responding to the 

Alliance’s petition for reconsideration 

will not appreciably change the costs 

and benefits reported in the FRIA. 

Accordingly, the agency has decided 

that the estimates in that document 

remain valid and that additional 

analysis is not required. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Vehicle Safety Act 

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor 

Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), 

the Secretary of Transportation is 

responsible for prescribing motor 

vehicle safety standards that are 

practicable, meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety, and are stated in 

objective terms.24 These motor vehicle 

safety standards set the minimum level 

of performance for a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment to be 

considered safe.25 When prescribing 

such standards, the Secretary must 

consider all relevant, available motor 

vehicle safety information.26 The 

Secretary also must consider whether a 

proposed standard is reasonable, 

practicable, and appropriate for the type 

of motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment for which it is prescribed 

and the extent to which the standard 

will further the statutory purpose of 

reducing traffic accidents and associated 

deaths.27 The responsibility for 

promulgation of Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards has been delegated to 

NHTSA.28

As noted previously, section 13 of the 

TREAD Act mandated a regulation to 

require a tire pressure monitoring 

system in new vehicles. In satisfaction 

of this congressional directive, NHTSA 

established FMVSS No. 138, Tire 

Pressure Monitoring Systems, in a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on April 8, 2005. The agency received 

17 petitions for reconsideration of the 

final rule (two of which were 

subsequently withdrawn), the agency 

published a final rule responding to 

petitions for reconsideration in the 

Federal Register on September 7, 2005, 

and the agency received two additional 

petitions for reconsideration in response 

to this latest TPMS rulemaking (one of 

which is addressed here). Most of these 

petitions requested amendments 

involving technical modifications. In 

this final rule partially responding to 

petitions for reconsideration, the agency 

carefully considered the statutory 

requirements of both the TREAD Act 

and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

First, this final rule reflects the 

agency’s careful consideration and 

analysis of all issues raised in the 

Alliance’s petition for reconsideration. 

In responding to the issues raised in the 

petition, the agency considered all 

relevant motor vehicle safety 

information. In preparing this 

document, the agency carefully 

evaluated relevant, available research, 

testing results, and other information 

related to various TPMS technologies. In 

sum, this document reflects our 

consideration of all relevant, available 

motor vehicle safety information. 

Second, to ensure that the TPMS 

requirements remain practicable, the 

agency evaluated the potential impacts 

of the petition’s requested actions in 

light of the cost, availability, and 

suitability of various TPMSs, consistent 

with our safety objectives and the 

requirements of the TREAD Act. As 

noted above, most of the changes 

contained in this final rule involve 

relatively minor modifications to the 

April 2005 and September 2005 final 

rules for TPMS. In sum, we believe that 

this final rule partially responding to 

petitions for reconsideration is 

practicable and will maintain the 

benefits of the TPMS standard, 

including prevention of deaths and 

injuries associated with significantly 

under-inflated tires, increased tread life, 

fuel economy savings, and savings 

associated with avoidance of property 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38023 

damage and travel delays (i.e., from 

crashes prevented by the TPMS). 

Third, the regulatory text following 

this preamble is stated in objective 

terms in order to specify precisely what 

performance is required and how 

performance will be tested to ensure 

compliance with the standard. 

Specifically, this final rule makes minor 

modifications to the performance 

requirements for operation of the TPMS, 

in terms of providing warnings related 

to system malfunction. The standard’s 

test procedures continues to carefully 

delineate how testing will be conducted, 

including malfunction testing. The 

agency continues to believe that this test 

procedure is sufficiently objective and 

would not result in any uncertainty as 

to whether a given vehicle satisfies the 

requirements of the TPMS standard. 

Fourth, we believe that this final rule 

partially responding to petitions for 

reconsideration will meet the need for 

motor vehicle safety by making certain 

modifications that will enhance the 

ability of the TPMS standard to provide 

a warning to the driver when the system 

becomes non-operational, thereby 

permitting the driver to take corrective 

action in a timely fashion and 

potentially averting crash-related 

injuries. 

Finally, we believe that this final rule 

partially responding to petitions for 

reconsideration is reasonable and 

appropriate for motor vehicles subject to 

the applicable requirements. As 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, the 

modifications to the standard resulting 

from this final rule will further the 

agency’s efforts to address Congress’

concern that significantly under-inflated 

tires could lead to tire failures resulting 

in fatalities and serious injuries. Under 

the TREAD Act, Congress mandated 

installation of a system in new vehicles 

to alert the driver when a tire is 

significantly under-inflated, and 

NHTSA has determined that TPMSs 

meeting the requirements of this final 

rule offer an effective countermeasure in 

these situations. Accordingly, we 

believe that this final rule is appropriate 

for covered vehicles that are or would 

become subject to these provisions of 

FMVSS No. 138 because it furthers the 

agency’s objective of preventing deaths 

and serious injuries associated with 

significantly under-inflated tires. 

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Although the April 2005 final rule 

was determined to be economically 

significant, this final rule partially 

responding to petitions for 

reconsideration involves only relatively 

minor technical amendments to FMVSS 

No. 138. Accordingly, this rulemaking 

document was not reviewed under E.O. 

12866. Further, this action has been 

determined to be ‘‘not significant’’

under the Department of 

Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. The agency has estimated 

that the incremental costs associated 

with the minor modifications to the 

standard resulting from this final rule 

will not appreciably change the costs of 

compliance with FMVSS No. 138. 

Accordingly, the figures presented in 

the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, 

docketed along with the April 2005 final 

rule, remain apposite without 

modification. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this final rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I certify that this final 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The rationale 

for this certification is that the present 

final rule partially responding to 

petitions for reconsideration only makes 

minor technical modifications to the 

safety standard for TPMS. As discussed 

in detail in the April 2005 final rule 

establishing FMVSS No. 138, we do not 

anticipate that the TPMS standard will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

and nothing in this final rule would 

change either that assessment or its 

underlying reasoning. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments, or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rule does not have federalism 

implications, because the rule does not 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and the 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive 

effect in at least two ways. First, the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act contains an express 

preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30102(b)(1). In addition, we note that 

the final rule establishing a safety 

standard for tire pressure monitoring 

systems was mandated by Congress, 

pursuant to section 13 of the TREAD 

Act. It is this statutory commands that 

preempts State law, not today’s 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
38024 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

rulemaking, so consultation would be 

inappropriate. 

In addition to the express pre-emption 

noted above, the Supreme Court has 

also recognized that State requirements 

imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes their State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

NHTSA has not outlined such potential 

State requirements in today’s 

rulemaking, however, in part because 

such conflicts can arise in varied 

contexts, but it is conceivable that such 

a conflict may become clear through 

subsequent experience with today’s 

standard and test regime. NHTSA may 

opine on such conflicts in the future, if 

warranted. See id. at 883–86. 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the 

effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. Pursuant to this 

Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The 

pre-emptive effect of this rule is 

discussed above. NHTSA notes further 

that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceeding before they 

may file suit in court. 

F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April 

23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) 

Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

the agency has reason to believe may 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets 

both criteria, the agency must evaluate 

the environmental health or safety 

effects of the planned rule on children, 

and explain why the planned regulation 

is preferable to other potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the agency. 

This final rule partially responding to 

petitions for reconsideration is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, 

and furthermore, the problems 

associated with underinflated tires 

equally impact all persons riding in a 

vehicle, regardless of age. Consequently, 

this final rule does not involve 

decisions based upon health and safety 

risks that disproportionately affect 

children, as would necessitate further 

analysis under Executive Order 13045. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. As part of the April 2005 final 

rule, each of the estimated 21 affected 

vehicle manufacturers is required to 

provide one phase-in report for each of 

two years, beginning in the fall of 2006. 

Pursuant to the June 5, 2002 TPMS 

final rule, the OMB approved the 

collection of information ‘‘Phase-In 

Production Reporting Requirements for 

Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,’’

assigning it Control No. 2127–0631 

(expiration 6/30/06). NHTSA has been 

given OMB clearance to collect a total 

of 42 hours a year (2 hours per 

respondent) for the TPMS phase-in 

reporting. NHTSA subsequently 

requested and was granted an OMB 

extension of this clearance (expiration 

9/30/09). 

However, the present final rule 

partially responding to petitions for 

reconsideration does not contain any 

additional information collection 

requirements beyond those contained in 

the April 2005 final rule. 

H. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the agency 

to evaluate and use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA 

directs us to provide Congress (through 

OMB) with explanations when we 

decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. The NTTAA does not apply 

to symbols. 

There are no voluntary consensus 

standards related to TPMS available at 

this time. However, NHTSA will 

consider any such standards as they 

become available. 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995 (so currently about $118 million in 

2004 dollars)). Before promulgating a 

NHTSA rule for which a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires the agency to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows the agency 

to adopt an alternative other than the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the agency 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation of why that alternative was 

not adopted. 

As discussed in that notice, the April 

2005 final rule establishing FMVSS No. 

138 is not expected to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, of more 

than $118 million annually, but it is 

expected to result in an expenditure of 

that magnitude by vehicle 

manufacturers and/or their suppliers. In 

that final rule, NHTSA adopted a 

performance requirement for a system 

with a four-tire, 25-percent underinflation detection capability; we 

believe that this approach is consistent 

with safety and the mandate in the 

TREAD Act, and it should provide a 

number of technological choices, 

thereby offering broad flexibility to 

minimize costs of compliance with the 

standard. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 133 / Thursday, July 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 38025 

In contrast, the present final rule 

partially responding to petitions for 

reconsideration only makes technical 

modifications to the standard. 

Therefore, we do not believe that this 

final rule will appreciably change the 

costs of compliance with FMVSS No. 

138. Therefore, the agency has not 

prepared an economic assessment 

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act. 

J. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

L. Privacy Act 

Please note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–

78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 571 

of Title 49 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 571.138 is amended by 

revising paragraphs S4.4(c)(2) and S6(k), 

and adding paragraph S6(o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.138 Standard No. 138; Tire pressure 

monitoring systems. 

* * * * * 

S4.4 TPMS malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(c) Combination low tire pressure/ 

TPMS malfunction telltale. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) Flashes for a period of at least 60 

seconds but no longer than 90 seconds 

upon detection of any condition 

specified in S4.4(a) after the ignition 

locking system is activated to the ‘‘On’’

(‘‘Run’’) position. After each period of 

prescribed flashing, the telltale must 

remain continuously illuminated as 

long as a malfunction exists and the 

ignition locking system is in the ‘‘On’’

(‘‘Run’’) position. This flashing and 

illumination sequence must be repeated 

each time the ignition locking system is 

placed in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position 

until the situation causing the 

malfunction has been corrected. 

Multiple malfunctions occurring during 

any ignition cycle may, but are not 

required to, reinitiate the prescribed 

flashing sequence. 

* * * * * 

S6 Test procedures. 

* * * * * 

(k) Simulate one TPMS malfunction 

by disconnecting the power source to 

any TPMS component, disconnecting 

any electrical connection between 

TPMS components, or installing a tire or 

wheel on the vehicle that is 

incompatible with the TPMS. When 

simulating a TPMS malfunction, the 

electrical connections for the telltale 

lamps are not to be disconnected. 

* * * * * 

(o) The test may be repeated using the 

test procedures in paragraphs S6(k)–(n), 

with each such test limited to 

simulation of a single malfunction. 

* * * * * 

Issued: July 5, 2007. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–3382 Filed 7–6–07; 4:34 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 061020273–6321–02] 

RIN 0648–XA94 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and 

Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 

Adjustments to the 2007 Black Sea 

Bass, and Total Allowable Landings 

(TAL) and Loligo Squid Initial Optimum 

Yield (IOY) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; restoration to 

the 2007 black sea bass TAL and Loligo 

squid IOY. 

SUMMARY: NMFS restores 18,142 lb (8.23 

mt) of unused research set-aside (RSA) 

to the 2007 black sea bass TAL and 

151,235 lb (68.60 mt) of unused RSA to 

the Loligo squid IOY, and makes 

corresponding adjustments to the 2007 

black sea bass commercial quota, the 

2007 black sea bass recreational harvest 

limit, and the 2007 Loligo squid 

commercial Trimester II and III quotas. 

The adjustments are intended to return 

unallocated RSA quotas to the 

respective fisheries. 

DATES: Effective July 12, 2007 through 

December 31, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Perra, Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9153, 

fax (978) 281–9135, e-mail: 

paul.perra@noaa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

December 2006, proposals for research 

projects requested more summer 

flounder RSA than was available 

through the annual 2007 summer 

flounder specification process (71 FR 

240, December 14, 2006), and, therefore, 

NMFS offered the projects increased 

amounts of Loligo squid and black sea 

bass RSA, within the amounts 

authorized under the respective fishery 

management plans (FMPs), to offset the 

summer flounder shortfalls. The 

respective 2007 FMP specifications 

allotted RSA to the four projects as 

follows: 389,490 lb (176.67 mt) of 

summer flounder; 1,124,356 lb ( 510 mt) 

of Loligo squid; 360,000 lb (163.29 mt) 

of scup; 150,000 lb (68.04 mt) of black 

sea bass; and 363,677 lb (164.96 mt) of 

bluefish. Following the 2007 

specification process, NMFS, in January 

2007, through emergency rulemaking 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES