Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28939 

4. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

17. None. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

18. This NPRM does not contain 

proposed information collections 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198. See 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

C. Ex Parte Presentations 

19. These matters shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

D. Comment Filing Procedures 

20. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before June 6, 2007, 

and reply comments June 13, 2007. 

Comments may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 

by filing paper copies. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. Filings 

can be sent by hand or messenger 

delivery, by commercial overnight 

courier, or by first-class or overnight 

U.S. Postal Service mail (although we 

continue to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–

418–0432 (tty). In addition, one copy of 

each pleading must be sent to each of 

the following: 

(1) The Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; Web site: 

http://www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1–

800–378–3160; 

(2) Antoinette Stevens, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room 5–B540, 

Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: 

Antoinette.Stevens@fcc.gov. 

21. For further information regarding 

this proceeding, contact Ted Burmeister, 

Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau at (202) 418–7389, 

or theodore.burmeister@fcc.gov, or Katie 

King, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–7491, or 

katie.king@fcc.gov. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

22. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201–205, 

214, 254, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201–

205, 214, 254, and 403, this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 

23. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–9837 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2003–15227] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Hydraulic and Electric 

Brake Systems, Air Brake Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to a 

petition for reconsideration of our 2003 

final rule establishing a braking-in-acurve performance requirement for 

single unit trucks and buses. The 

braking-in-a-curve requirement has 

applied to air-braked truck tractors since 

1997 and we determined that the 

requirement should also apply to singleunit trucks and buses. The requirement 

ensures that a vehicle’s antilock brake 

system (ABS) maintains adequate 

stability and control during a hard stop 

on a curved, slippery road surface. A 

petition for reconsideration was 

received from the National Truck 

Equipment Association (NTEA), which 

seeks to exclude vehicles built in two or 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
28940 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1 It was not clear to NHTSA from the petition 

whether NTEA was referring to pass-through 

certification for all FMVSSs, or was limiting its 

comments to pass-through certification to the 

braking standards, FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. 

more stages and altered vehicles from 

the braking-in-a-curve requirement if 

such vehicles are manufactured or 

altered by a final stage manufacturer or 

alterer that builds no more than 250 

affected vehicles per year. The agency is 

denying the petitioner’s request for the 

reasons discussed in this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may contact Jeff 

Woods, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Safety Standards at (202) 366–2720. For 

legal issues, you may contact Rebecca 

Schade, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 

366–2992. You may send mail to these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Petition for Reconsideration and Agency 

Response 

A. Pass Through Certification 

1. Auxiliary Axles 

2. Wheelbase Modifications 

B. Testing Costs and Alternatives to 

Testing 

C. New Temporary Exemption Procedure 

in Part 555 

III. Conclusion 

I. Background 

A braking-in-a-curve performance 

requirement was added for single-unit 

trucks and buses in a final rule 

published on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 

47485; Docket No. NHTSA–2003–

15277). The agency determined that 

such a requirement is necessary to 

ensure the safe performance of an 

antilock braking system (ABS), which is 

required equipment on these vehicles. 

Testing by the agency and information 

provided by industry indicated that the 

braking-in-a-curve test specified 

previously for truck-tractors could be 

applied to single-unit trucks and buses. 

The requirement ensures that an ABS 

installed on a vehicle helps the driver 

maintain vehicle control and stability 

during a hard stop on a curved, slippery 

road surface. 

In the final rule, the agency specified 

that the braking-in-a-curve is only 

conducted with these vehicles at lightly 

loaded vehicle weight (LLVW). The 

LLVW condition was determined to be 

the worst-case loading condition for 

ABS performance testing on single unit 

trucks. Test data indicated that testing a 

vehicle fully loaded to its gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) did not provide 

for additional benefits in vehicle safety 

when compared to the testing in the 

LLVW condition. Therefore, a 

requirement for single-unit trucks and 

buses to comply when tested at GVWR 

was not included in the final rule. 

Limiting the requirement to the LLVW 

condition also had the additional 

benefit of reducing the certification cost. 

As we stated in the final rule, the 

braking-in-a-curve performance test is 

necessary to ensure that the benefits of 

ABS are realized. Merely requiring ABS 

does not ensure that an ABS system will 

provide an acceptable level of 

performance. The added performance 

test provides such an assurance. 

As established in the final rule, 

vehicles built in two or more stages 

must meet the braking-in-a-curve 

performance requirements on and after 

July 1, 2006. 

II. Petition for Reconsideration and 

Agency Response 

The National Truck Equipment 

Association (NTEA) submitted a 

petition for reconsideration asking 

NHTSA to exclude vehicles built in two 

or more stages and altered vehicles from 

the braking-in-a-curve requirement if 

such vehicles are manufactured or 

altered by a final stage manufacturer or 

alterer that builds no more than 250 

affected vehicles per year. NTEA did not 

assert that such vehicles are unable to 

comply, but instead stated that it is not 

practicable for small final stage 

manufacturers and alterers to certify 

compliance with the requirement. 

NTEA argued that contrary to the 

agency’s determination in the final rule, 

final stage manufacturers and alterers 

are unable to rely on guidance from 

incomplete vehicle manufacturers in 

order to certify to the braking-in-a-curve 

performance requirement. Specifically, 

the petitioner stated that the agency 

failed to appropriately consider the 

impact of aftermarket axles and 

modifications to a vehicle’s wheelbase 

on the ability of final stage 

manufacturers and alterers to rely on 

guidance from incomplete vehicle 

manufacturers. Further, NTEA stated 

that the agency’s cost estimates were too 

low and that the agency failed to 

provide sufficient guidance on 

alternatives to testing that would 

constitute due care for purposes of 

certification of compliance with the 

requirement. 

A. Pass-Through Certification and 

Compliance Envelopes 

Final stage manufacturers complete 

the manufacture of incomplete vehicles 

and alterers perform modifications to 

completed and certified vehicles. 

Manufacturers of incomplete vehicles 

and original vehicle manufacturers often 

provide guidance on how a vehicle may 

be completed or altered to comply with 

all applicable FMVSSs. Guidance from 

incomplete manufacturers may permit 

an incomplete vehicle to be completed 

in a manner that permits a final-stage 

manufacturer or alterer to rely on passthrough certification. Incomplete 

vehicle manufacturers provide this 

information in incomplete vehicle 

documents (IVD). 49 CFR 568.5 requires 

incomplete vehicle manufacturers to 

provide IVDs to final stage 

manufacturers. Manufacturers of 

completed vehicles may provide alterers 

with a ‘‘compliance envelope,’’ i.e., 

guidance as to the modifications that 

can be made to a vehicle that will not 

remove the vehicle from compliance 

under the original certification. NHTSA 

stated in its final rule that the 

occurrences where final stage 

manufacturers may not rely on passthrough certification, or on data 

provided by incomplete vehicle 

manufacturers, will be rare and would 

represent a significantly smaller 

percentage of the affected vehicles than 

the 20 percent claimed by NTEA in its 

comments to the NPRM. 

In its petition for reconsideration, 

NTEA provided additional clarification 

that the 20 percent value it cited 

represents vehicles for which no passthrough certification exists.1 NTEA 

stated that when considering the 

number of vehicles that are completed 

or altered outside the guidelines for 

pass-through certification or the 

compliance envelope, the number of 

incomplete and altered vehicles for 

which certification guidance is not 

available may perhaps be as high as 60 

percent. NTEA stated that incomplete 

vehicle manufacturers and original 

vehicle manufacturers have an incentive 

to keep pass-through certification 

guidance narrow in order to limit 

potential liability from non-compliant 

final stage manufacture and alteration. 

The petitioner provided several IVDs 

that it argued demonstrated that final 

stage manufacturers and alterers 

effectively cannot rely on these 

documents for certification of 

compliance with the braking-in-a-curve 

requirement. 

NHTSA has reviewed the IVDs 

provided by NTEA in its petition for 

reconsideration, and also obtained 

additional IVDs for other types of 

chassis. We found no instance of an 

incomplete chassis-cab for which passthrough certification for FMVSS Nos. 

105 or 121 was unavailable to final stage 

manufacturers and alterers. The typical 

incomplete vehicle configuration, a 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28941 

2The IVD for the 2003 F-Super Duty Class A 

Motorhome Chassis is available from the Ford Web 

site at http://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/topics/ 

incomp.html. 

3NTEA did not specify whether auxiliary axle 

and wheelbase modifications account for the 60 

percent of vehicles that are unable to rely on a passthrough certification, or if other modifications, 

including those not related to braking, also 

contribute to this value. 

4See memo regarding conversation with 

Hendrickson Int’l., Docket No. NHTSA–2003–

15277–4. 

single-unit truck equipped with a 

completed cab, had pass-through 

certification for the braking standards so 

long as a final stage manufacturer 

completed the vehicle without 

modifying the brake system and 

followed other routine measures. 

Aside from the IVDs provided by the 

petitioner, NHTSA reviewed the IVD for 

a Ford F 53 basic stripped chassis 2

without a cab or any exterior bodywork. 

Page 9 of the Ford IVD specifies that if 

the chassis is completed within the 

guidelines identified for system or 

component modification, minimum 

body weight, vertical and longitudinal 

center-of-gravity specifications, and axle 

and gross vehicle weight ratings, it will 

conform to FMVSS No. 105. The IVD 

also provides a table of all U.S. and 

Canadian motor vehicle safety standards 

which show that this chassis can be 

completed as a bus (other than a school 

bus) or a multipurpose vehicle and still 

utilize pass-through certification for the 

hydraulic brake system requirements. 

In sum, NHTSA was unable to 

identify an IVD for which no passthrough certification was provided for 

the brake standards. Moreover, the 

petitioner did not provide examples of 

incomplete vehicles for which no passthrough certification was provided in 

general. 

NTEA did cite two vehicle 

modifications for which it stated that 

pass-through certification was not 

sufficient, installation of auxiliary axles 

and modifications to a vehicle’s 

wheelbase.3 The issues raised by these 

types of modifications are addressed 

below. 

1. Auxiliary Axles 

A common modification to air-braked 

trucks is the installation of one or more 

auxiliary axles to increase the GVWR to 

provide for increased cargo-carrying 

capacity. NTEA estimated that 25,000 

auxiliary axles are installed annually by 

final stage manufacturers and alterers. 

The petitioner stated that incomplete 

vehicle manufacturers typically do not 

provide compliance information to final 

stage manufacturers with regard to the 

installation of such axles, and noted that 

the agency did not test vehicles 

configured with auxiliary axles for the 

August 2003 final rule. 

We note that auxiliary axles can be 

configured as either liftable or nonliftable axles. A liftable axle can be 

raised and lowered by means of an air 

suspension system operated by a control 

switch provided for the driver. Whether 

an auxiliary axle is liftable or nonliftable relates to how the vehicle is 

tested in the braking-in-a-curve test. The 

braking-in-a-curve test procedure 

specified in the final rule states that 

single-unit trucks and buses are tested 

only in a LLVW condition. S6.1.12 of 

FMVSS No. 121 states that when a 

vehicle with a liftable axle is tested at 

lightly loaded vehicle weight, the 

liftable axle is to be raised. Thus, the 

wheels on a liftable axle would not be 

in contact with the pavement during the 

test, and would have no appreciable 

impact on the ability of a straight truck 

or bus to comply with the braking-in-acurve test procedure. As noted in the 

final rule, lighter vehicle weights 

typically perform worse than heavier 

vehicle weights during the braking-in-acurve test. The axle would add weight 

to a vehicle, but so long as the 

installation of the axle did not place the 

vehicle outside the envelope for weight 

distribution or center of gravity 

requirements in the IVD, a liftable axle 

(when raised) may even improve a 

vehicle’s performance in the braking-ina-curve test. 

Installations of non-liftable axles 

could affect the braking-in-a-curve test 

performance for a modified vehicle, 

because the wheels of these axles would 

be in contact with the pavement during 

the braking-in-a-curve test. Therefore, if 

a non-liftable axle is installed on a 

vehicle outside the scope of the passthrough certification, the party 

performing the installation must certify 

that the altered vehicle does comply 

with FMVSS No. 121. The costs to 

perform a certification test and 

alternatives to conducting the brakingin-a-curve test are discussed below. 

The agency estimates that a majority 

of auxiliary axles are liftable axles. 

Information provided by a major 

supplier of truck suspensions indicated 

that 99 percent of the auxiliary axle 

suspensions it sells are the liftable 

type.4 Based on NTEA’s estimates of the 

number of auxiliary axles installed 

annually and on the distribution of 

axles between liftable and non-liftable, 

if each non-liftable axle were installed 

on a separate vehicle, the number of 

affected vehicles would be 

approximately 250 a year. However, 

vehicles can be equipped with more 

than one auxiliary axle. Therefore, the 

number of vehicles with non-liftable 

axles is likely lower, which suggests to 

the agency that this is a less serious 

problem than NTEA implies. 

2. Wheelbase Modifications 

NTEA also asserted that with regard 

to the braking-in-a-curve test, ‘‘no 

certification pass-through is available 

for any vehicle with a wheelbase 

modification.’’ NTEA stated that under 

the previous regulations, if a final stage 

manufacturer or alterer stayed within 

the chassis manufacturers’ wheelbase 

range for a given model, it could be 

reasonably assured that the brake 

system was designed to perform within 

this range for stopping distance 

requirements. Additionally, NTEA 

stated that if a final stage manufacturer 

or alterer completes or alters a vehicle 

such that the wheelbase is modified 

outside the scope of an IVD, compliance 

with the brake standards should be 

assured if: 

• The GVWR and gross axle weight 

rating are not re-rated; 

• Tire or other suspension 

components are not changed or 

modified; 

• Added brake lines meet the 

requirements of FMVSS 106, brake 

hoses; and 

• Modifications are consistent with 

design guidelines from the chassis 

manufacturer. 

However, because of the new brakingin-a-curve test, NTEA argued that 

‘‘wheelbase changes will nullify both 

the hydraulic and air brake system 

conformity statements of the chassis 

manufacturer, and place the full burden 

of compliance with the [final stage 

manufacturer].’’

We disagree with the petitioner that 

wheelbase changes will necessarily 

‘‘nullify’’ chassis manufacturers’’

conformity statements. Data reviewed 

by the agency indicates that final stage 

manufacturers and alterers can modify 

wheelbases such that the vehicle 

continues to comply with the brakingin-a-curve test. For example, data 

provided by the Truck Manufacturers 

Association (TMA) in response to the 

NPRM indicated that for 31 trucks 

tested by TMA’s member companies 

with a wheelbase range of 152 to 300 

inches, each vehicle successfully passed 

the braking-in-a-curve test (Docket No. 

NHTSA–1999–6550–13). The agency 

has also observed that typical hydraulicbraked and air-braked ABS electronic 

control units (ECU) will perform 

satisfactorily on several types of 

hydraulic-braked or air-braked vehicles, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
28942 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

5For example, the Body Builder’s Book Bulletin 

BB–2, Rev. A, states that ‘‘When lengthening the 

wheelbase on vehicles with Anti-lock Brake 

Systems (ABS), the wiring for the wheel speed 

sensors and ABS components cannot and should 

not be altered, cut, spliced, or repaired. The use of 

approved ABS extension cables is recommended 

whenever a wheelbase is lengthened. Whenever the 

wheelbase is shortened, ensure that excess ABS 

cables are securely tied to the inside of the frame 

rail to prevent interference. Refer to UD Parts 

Bulletin UD99–116 for ABS extension cable 

information.’’ Based on the thoroughness of this 

explanation of necessary steps for preserving ABS 

when changing a wheelbase, we believe it is 

reasonable to assume that no changes to the ECU 

are necessary. Body Builder’s Book Bulletin BB–2, 

Rev. A, Nissan Diesel America Inc. (September 20, 

2004), available at http://www.udtrucks.com/ 

Q_Tech_Notes/BBB2%20Rev.pdf. 

6 In response to the NPRM, the TMA provided an 

upper range estimate for the stand-alone test of 

$6,000. However, the TMA provided no data in 

support of the estimate. TMA stated that this cost 

included the cost of transporting a vehicle and 

conducting the brake burnish specified in the 

standard. However, TMA did not itemize these 

costs. See 68 FR at 47491. 

respectively, including trucks, tractors, 

and buses.5

Thus, no alterations are needed to the 

ECU: it functions properly regardless of 

the wheelbase that is used. There are 

data available for a variety of vehicle 

configurations that a final stage 

manufacturer or alterer may be able to 

rely on for purposes of certification (e.g., 

the range of available wheelbases that 

are offered by the chassis manufacturer). 

We further note that final stage 

manufacturers and alterers may obtain 

technical support from the ABS 

suppliers or from the body builder 

advisory service that is available from 

many chassis manufacturers. 

However, if a final stage manufacturer 

or alterer were to modify a vehicle 

outside the scope of the IVD and for 

which no compliance data were 

available, such as a very short 

wheelbase beyond the range of what is 

offered by a chassis manufacturer, such 

a modification could degrade the 

vehicle’s handling characteristics 

beyond the performance capabilities of 

the vehicle’s ABS. A very short 

wheelbase could result in extreme 

weight transfer during the stopping 

distance tests on dry pavement and 

failure to stay within the 12-foot wide 

lane if, for example, the rear wheels 

lifted off the ground during the stop. In 

such a case, there would be problems 

complying with the both the braking-ina-curve test and the stopping distance 

test. In such cases, the final stage 

manufacturer or alterer would be 

responsible for ensuring that the 

vehicle’s ABS performed as necessary to 

comply with the braking-in-a-curve test. 

B. Testing Costs and Alternatives to 

Testing 

In the NPRM, NHTSA estimated the 

cost of conducting a braking-in-a-curve 

test at $1,500, if performed as a standalone test, or $1,000, if performed as 

part of a complete FMVSS No. 105 or 

121 certification test.6 In its petition, 

NTEA commented that because 

currently other braking requirements 

can be certified without testing, as 

discussed above, the braking-in-a-curve 

test would likely be a stand-alone test. 

In addition to the cost of the test itself, 

NTEA argued that final stage 

manufacturers and alterers would be 

faced with the cost of transporting the 

vehicle to the testing site, as well as the 

loss in value of the tested vehicle as it 

could not be sold as new. 

NTEA also stated its concern of the 

cost on the industry as a whole. NTEA 

again argued that based on the number 

of auxiliary axle installations and 

wheelbase modifications, 35,000 

vehicles will be produced for which 

there is no pass-through certification 

available. The petitioner further stated 

that because of the competitive nature of 

the industry and the number of vehicle 

configurations in the market place, 

consortium testing as a means to reduce 

certification costs for individual 

businesses is not a practical option. 

In response, as discussed above, some 

vehicle configurations will indeed 

require a final stage manufacturer or 

alterer to certify a vehicle’s compliance 

with the braking-in-a-curve test. 

However, the agency does not believe 

that this test will be prohibitive relative 

to the total vehicle cost. We estimate 

that the cost of a specialized heavy duty 

truck with auxiliary axles, an altered 

wheelbase, and custom body and work 

equipment may be in the range of 

$100,000 to $500,000, so the additional 

cost of a braking-in-a-curve test, in the 

range of $1,000 to $6,000, should not be 

hugely consequential. Also, we note that 

FMVSS No. 105 or 121 certification 

testing (e.g., the braking-in-a-curve test) 

is non-destructive to the vehicle. A 

vehicle can still be sold even if testing 

is required. 

The agency recognizes that there may 

be a small loss in the value of a new 

vehicle that requires certification testing 

for the braking-in-a-curve requirements, 

but reiterates that some highlyspecialized vehicles may require actual 

testing, even though the majority of 

vehicles may not. We are aware that 

custom heavy vehicles sometimes need 

brake system certification testing prior 

to delivery to the customer, and that 

manufacturers and alterers are able to 

accommodate such situations. The brake 

burnish specifications in FMVSS Nos. 

105 and 121 both specify 500 brake 

snubs from 40 mph to 20 mph at 1 mile 

intervals, which would add 500 miles to 

the odometer of a test vehicle, with the 

remaining portions of the brake system 

certification test under each standard 

adding several more miles. Thus, if a 

vehicle intended for a customer were 

tested for certification, it would 

accumulate slightly over 500 miles prior 

to delivery. Heavy vehicles often travel 

several hundreds of thousands of miles 

over their lifetime, and NHTSA believes 

that adding 500 miles of use to a vehicle 

for a brake system certification test only 

occasionally necessary would not 

appreciably devalue it. 

However, the agency believes that the 

vast majority of vehicles completed by 

final stage manufacturers and alterers 

will continue to use pass-through 

certification and will not need to be 

individually tested. As stated above, 

auxiliary lift installations and 

wheelbase modifications can be made 

such that a final stage manufacturer or 

alterer can rely on the IVD or 

engineering analysis to certify 

compliance with FMVSS No. 121. 

Additionally, we note that many chassis 

manufacturers offer chassis with many 

non-standard configurations of axles. 

Promotional information from 

Kenworth, Peterbilt, Oshkosh, and 

Western Star truck manufacturers 

indicates that these chassis 

manufacturers can provide a wide range 

of axle configurations, including lift 

axles, dual-steering front axles, allwheel drive, tridem drive axles, and 

bridge-formula tag axles. NTEA did not 

provide data indicating how many of 

the vehicle configurations offered by 

their member final stage manufacturers 

are so specialized that these 

configurations are not available from a 

chassis manufacturer with full brake 

system certification. 

Additionally, while NTEA stated that 

consortium testing would not be a 

practical solution for the industry, such 

testing is currently being performed by 

the industry in Canada. Consortium 

testing is an approach in which a parent 

organization or group of member 

companies develops and conducts 

certification testing and provides the 

results to each member company. This 

lowers testing costs per unit produced, 

sold, or manufactured, as compared to 

each company performing its own 

certification tests. Consortium testing is 

being used by the Canadian 

Transportation Equipment Association 

(CTEA) to compile certification data for 

Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28943 

7We note that Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 121 is virtually identical to FMVSS 

No. 121. 

8Available for public inspection in NHTSA’s 

Office of Rulemaking, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems,7

on axles that are installed by 

manufacturers in Canada. CTEA also 

sponsors testing on altered vehicles, as 

described in the report Stability and 

Handling Characteristics of a Straight 

Truck with a Self-steering Pusher Axle 

(Centre for Surface Transport 

Technology, National Research Council 

Canada, Technical Report CSTT–HVC–

TR–057, August 9, 2002).8 Thus the 

Canadian industry is able to provide 

consortium testing that results in 

reduced certification testing costs and 

offers valuable information on the 

alteration of heavy vehicles to 

consortium member companies. 

The agency notes that a consortium of 

individual final stage manufacturers and 

alterers might also develop engineering 

modeling or installation guidelines that 

could permit, for certain vehicles, 

certification without the need for 

performance testing of each individual 

vehicle. We suggest that a vehicle 

dynamics simulation program could be 

enhanced to include elements such as 

auxiliary axles. However, we recognize 

that an auxiliary axle component of the 

model would need to be developed and 

likely validated through road testing. A 

braking-in-a-curve testing program 

could explore several parameters to 

determine if there are limits at which 

the braking-in-a-curve test performance 

becomes unacceptable with a particular 

auxiliary axle configuration (e.g., 

minimum curb weight), and describe 

conditions under which appropriate 

countermeasures such as installing an 

ABS system on the auxiliary axle(s) are 

appropriate. 

C. New Temporary Exemption 

Procedure in Part 555 

On February 14, 2005, the agency 

published in the Federal Register (70 

FR 7414) a final rule which, among 

other things, created new procedures 

under which manufacturers of vehicles 

built in two or more stages and alterers 

could obtain temporary exemptions 

from certain dynamic performance 

requirements. These procedures were 

established as Subpart B of Part 555. 

The new procedures streamline the 

temporary exemption process by 

allowing an association or another party 

representing the interests of multiple 

manufacturers to bundle exemption 

petitions for a specific vehicle design, 

thus permitting a single explanation of 

the potential safety impact and good 

faith attempts to comply with the 

standards. The procedures specify that 

each manufacturer seeking an 

exemption is required to demonstrate 

financial hardship and good faith efforts 

to comply with applicable requirements. 

Exemptions based on financial hardship 

are available to companies 

manufacturing fewer than 10,000 

vehicles per year, and any single 

exemption cannot apply to more than 

2,500 vehicles per year. 

On May 15, 2006, NHTSA published 

in the Federal Register (71 FR 28168) a 

final rule in response to a petition 

submitted by NTEA requesting 

reconsideration of the February 2005 

final rule. See Docket No. NHTSA–

2006–24664. While the agency had 

limited the new procedures to FMVSS 

requirements that incorporate dynamic 

crash tests, NTEA argued that they 

should apply to all standards that are 

based on dynamic testing and not just 

dynamic crash testing. 

In response to NTEA’s petition, the 

agency reconsidered its previous 

position with respect to scope of relief 

available under Subpart B. On 

reconsideration, in the May 2006 final 

rule, it amended Part 555 to permit the 

manufacturers of multistage vehicles to 

petition for temporary exemption from 

requirements that incorporate various 

dynamic tests and not exclusively 

dynamic crash tests. This would include 

the braking-in-a-curve test. 

In the May 2006 final rule, the agency 

observed that small volume 

manufacturers were already able to 

petition the agency for temporary 

exemptions from all Federal standards 

under Subpart A. Therefore its 

reconsideration as to the scope of 

Subpart B related to the availability of 

the more streamlined procedures rather 

than to the possibility of a manufacturer 

obtaining an exemption in appropriate 

circumstances. 

Second, NHTSA noted that under 

§ 555.13(a) and (b) of Subpart B, in order 

to petition for an exemption, the 

petitioner must show why the test 

requirements of a particular standard 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship. This showing must include 

detailed financial information, and a 

complete description of each 

manufacturer’s good faith efforts to 

comply with the standards. Specifically, 

the petitioner must explain the 

inadequacy of the IVD document 

furnished by an incomplete vehicle 

manufacturer or by a prior intermediatestage manufacturer pursuant to Part 568. 

The petitioner must also show why 

generic or cooperative testing is 

impracticable. Finally, the petitioner 

must explain the difficulty in procuring 

goods and services necessary to conduct 

dynamic tests. We also noted that, in 

addition to showing of hardship, each 

petitioner is required to explain under 

§ 555.13(c) why the requested temporary 

exemption would not unreasonably 

degrade safety. 

In the May 2006 final rule, we also 

stated that for both dynamic crash tests 

and other dynamic tests, we believe that 

given the other relief provided in the 

February 2005 final rule, including 

greater ability to use pass-through 

certification, we expect that the number 

of cases for which exemptions are 

needed will be relatively small. 

For purposes of this response to 

NTEA’s petition concerning the brakingin-a-curve test, we note that the new 

streamlined temporary exemption 

procedures will be available for this test 

requirement. Thus, this relief will be 

available should it be necessary and 

appropriate. 

Moreover, the agency provided a 

considerable amount of information and 

analysis in its May 2006 document in 

connection with arguments raised by 

NTEA concerning multistage 

manufacturers and alterers. In addition 

to issues related to the new Part 555 

temporary exemption procedures, the 

agency included extensive discussion as 

to why the current multistage vehicle 

certification scheme is workable. 

Because many of the issues we 

discussed in that document are relevant 

to the issues raised by NTEA in 

connection with the braking in a curve 

test, we refer the reader to that 

document and its supporting record. See 

71 FR 28196 (May 15, 2006) and Docket 

No. NHTSA–2006–24664. 

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

agency is denying the petition for 

reconsideration from the NTEA to 

exclude certain small volume final stage 

manufacturers and alterers from 

certifying to the braking-in-a-curve 

performance requirements. Other than 

auxiliary axle and wheelbase 

modifications, NTEA did not provide 

any data showing specifically what 

modifications or deviations to IVD 

guidelines are occurring to incomplete 

or complete vehicles such that they 

cannot use pass-through certification for 

the brake system requirements. With 

regard to wheelbase modifications, the 

agency has determined that IVDs 

typically provide guidance on how such 

modifications can be performed while 

maintaining pass-through certification. 

Moreover, final stage manufacturers and 

alterers have considerable choice in 

purchasing chassis with different 

wheelbases and configuration of axles 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
28944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

certified as complying by the original 

vehicle manufacturer. 

We recognize that pass-through 

certification is not available for all 

modifications, including the addition of 

some types of auxiliary axles. However, 

these types of modifications would not 

necessarily result in the need for 

certification testing. For example, with 

the addition of a lift axle, a 

manufacturer or final stage 

manufacturer may be able to rely on 

engineering analysis to certify 

compliance with the requirements of 

FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. 

In the rare cases in which certification 

testing may be required, the testing is 

non-destructive and the industry has 

options available to minimize the cost of 

any testing that is required. While the 

agency recognizes that some 

modifications might be beyond the 

envelope of pass-through certification, 

final stage manufacturers and alterers 

must certify that vehicles with such 

modifications continue to comply with 

FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, to ensure that 

purchasers and other motorists have the 

full benefit of the required ABS. 

Finally, as discussed earlier, the new 

streamlined exemption procedures are 

available for this test requirement, 

providing relief if it is necessary and 

appropriate. 

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

30117, and 30166: delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: May 18, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–9944 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS