Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53079 

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

NHTSA–2005–20586–1). 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission 

will send a copy of this Report and 

Order in a report to be sent to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Channel 224A at Leesville is currently 

listed in the FM Table of Allotments, 

however, that channel was substituted 

for Channel 228C3 at Leesville in MM 

Docket No. 98–191, and the license of 

Station KJAE(FM) was modified 

accordingly. See Leesville, Louisiana, 64 

FR 31140, published June 10, 1999. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Louisiana, is 

amended by removing Channel 252A at 

Leesville and by adding New Llano, 

Channel 252C3. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 05–17520 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 05–181; FCC 05–159] 

Implementation of Section 210 of the 

Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 To Amend 

Section 338 of the Communications 

Act 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission is correcting a Final Rule 

summary that was published in the 

Federal Register on August 31, 2005 (70 

FR 51658). In this document, the 

Commission corrects paragraph (c)(6) of 

the 47 CFR 76.66. 

DATES: Effective September 30, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Eloise Gore, 

Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–

2120. 

SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 

05–17324 published on August 31, 2005 

(70 FR 51658), make the following 

correction. 

1. On page 51668, in the third 

column, the last sentence of paragraph 

(c)(6) is corrected to read as follows: 

A noncommercial television broadcast 

station located in a local market in Alaska or 

Hawaii must request carriage by October 1, 

2005, for carriage of its signal that originates 

as an analog signal for carriage commencing 

on December 8, 2005, and by April 1, 2007, 

for its signal that originates as a digital signal 

for carriage commencing on June 8, 2007 and 

ending on December 31, 2008. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–17794 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–22251] 

RIN 2127–AJ70 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Tire Pressure Monitoring 

Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to 

petitions for reconsideration requesting 

changes in our April 8, 2005 final rule 

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. The 

petitions for reconsideration are granted 

in part and denied in part, and through 

this document, we are amending the 

standard and related provisions 

accordingly. 

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments 

made in this final rule are effective 

October 7, 2005. 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 October 24, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket number above 

and be submitted to: Administrator, 

Room 5220, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

portion of this document (Section 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 Mr. Eric 

Stas, Office of Chief Counsel 

(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–

366–3820). 

You may send mail to these officials 

at National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Decision 

II. Background 

A. The TREAD Act 

B. Rulemaking History Prior to the April 

2005 Final Rule 

C. The April 8, 2005 Final Rule 

III. Petitions for Reconsideration 

IV. Discussion and Analysis 

A. Low Tire Pressure Warning Lamp 

Activation Requirements 

B. TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp 

(MIL) Activation Requirements 

1. What Constitutes a TPMS Malfunction? 

2. MIL Disablement 

C. Telltale Requirements 

D. Tire-Related Issues 

1. Spare Tires 

2. Tire Reserve Load 

3. Minimum Activation Pressure 

E. Owner’s Manual Requirements 

1. Lead Time 

2. Content of Required Statement 

3. Other Owner’s Manual Issues 

F. Test Procedures 

1. Test Conditions 

2. Vehicle Cool-Down Period 

3. 2-psi Adjustment (Temperature 

Correction) 

4. Calibration Time 

G. TPMS Reprogrammability 

H. Sharing of TPMS Servicing Information 

I. Phase-In Calculations 

V. Benefits and Costs 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Summary of Decision 

This document responds to 15 

petitions for reconsideration related to 

our April 8, 2005 final rule 1

53080 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2Public Law 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000). 

3See 49 U.S.C. 30123 note (2003). 

4 66 FR 38982 (July 26, 2001) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2000–8572–30). 

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

NHTSA–2000–8572–219). 

6 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003). 

7 68 FR 65404 (Nov. 20, 2003) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2003–16524–1). 

8 69 FR 55896 (Sept. 16, 2004) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2004–19054–1). 

establishing FMVSS No. 138, Tire 

Pressure Monitoring Systems. The 

petitioners raised a variety of issues, 

most of which involved requests for 

technical changes to the standard (see 

section IV of this document for a 

complete discussion of issues raised in 

the petitions and their resolution). We 

have decided to grant the petitions in 

part and to deny them in part. 

The following points highlight the 

amendments to Standard No. 138 that 

we are adopting in response to the 

petitions for reconsideration of the April 

8, 2005 final rule (excluding a few 

minor editorial changes). 

• We have decided to postpone the 

compliance date for the standard’s 

required TPMS-related owner’s manual 

statement until September 1, 2006 

(Model Year 2007), thereby granting 

petitions’ request for additional lead 

time to incorporate the required 

language into the vehicle owner’s 

manual. We do not believe that 

extending the compliance date in this 

manner (consistent with a 

recommendation in one of the petitions) 

would result in any safety 

consequences. Delay of the owner’s 

manual requirements would not impact 

the functioning of the TPMS or the 

warnings that it provides, and we expect 

that even before that date, TPMSequipped vehicles would have some 

owner’s manual statement presenting 

relevant information to the consumer. 

We specifically note that delay in the 

compliance date for the standard’s 

owner’s manual requirements does not 

impact vehicle manufacturers’

responsibility to provide TPMSs 

complying with FMVSS No. 138 on a 

schedule consistent with the phase-in 

commencing on October 5, 2005, as set 

forth in the April 8, 2005 final rule. 

• The agency has decided to retain 

the final rule’s requirement for the 

TPMS malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) 

to illuminate whenever there is a 

malfunction that affects the generation 

of transmission of control or response 

signals in the vehicle’s tire pressure 

monitoring system. However, in 

response to petitions, we have decided 

to amend the standard’s test procedures 

for malfunction detection to clarify that 

telltale lamps will not be disconnected 

because such malfunctions will be 

indicated during the bulb check(s) 

required under the standard. 

Specifically, we are amending S6(k) by 

adding the following statement: ‘‘When 

simulating a TPMS malfunction, the 

electrical connections for the telltale 

lamps shall not be disconnected.’’

• The lack of synchronization 

between the timing of compliance for 

compliance under FMVSS No. 138 and 

the TPMS telltale requirements of 

FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, 

have been remedied through an earlier 

amendment to FMVSS No. 101. 

Technical revisions to FMVSS No. 138 

have also been made in light of recent 

amendments to FMVSS No. 101 that 

have resulted in a change in location of 

the TPMS telltale provisions from Table 

2 to Table 1 of that standard. 

• In this rule, we are amending the 

regulatory text in FMVSS No. 138 to 

clarify that for a combined low tire 

pressure/TPMS malfunction indicator 

telltale, the same flashing/continuousillumination sequence is required for 

one or more malfunctions that may 

affect the system simultaneously. 

• The agency has decided to modify 

the standard’s test procedures to reduce 

the current 2-psi pressure adjustment 

(below the TPMS activation threshold) 

to 1 psi. The 2-psi adjustment was 

intended to facilitate testing, but several 

petitioners expressed concern that a 2- 

psi adjustment could allow TPMSs to 

achieve compliance with an underinflation detection capability of 30 

percent or more. The agency anticipates 

that a 1-psi adjustment would continue 

to facilitate testing while maintaining 

the under-inflation level close to the 

standard’s 25-percent under-inflation 

activation threshold. 

• In order to more clearly 

differentiate between the TPMS 

standard’s two phase-in production 

periods which are of different lengths 

(i.e., almost 11 months vs. one year), we 

have decided to modify 49 CFR 585.66, 

Reporting Requirements, to differentiate 

the reports to be submitted to the agency 

for each of the two phase-in periods. As 

currently drafted, section 585.66(b)(1), 

Basis for Statement of Compliance, and 

section 585.66(b)(2), Production, require 

manufacturers to report values for the 

full production year, without mention of 

the period corresponding to the first 

period of the phase-in (i.e., from 

October 5, 2005 to September 1, 2006), 

which is the relevant total production 

value for calculation under S7.1(b) of 

FMVSS No. 138. Because the reporting 

of this information directly relates to 

determining compliance with the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 138, we 

have decided to revise 49 CFR 

585.66(b)(1) and (2) to clearly 

differentiate between the two phase-in 

production periods. 

II. Background 

A. The TREAD Act 

Congress enacted the Transportation 

Recall Enhancement, Accountability, 

and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 

2000 2 on November 1, 2000. Section 13 

of that Act 3 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) 4 on July 26, 2001, 

which was followed by a final rule 5

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 suit 

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 6 on August 6, 2003. The Court 

found that the TREAD Act 

unambiguously mandates TPMSs 

capable of monitoring each tire up to a 

total of four tires, effectively precluding 

the one-tire, 30-percent 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. Ultimately, the Court 

vacated the standard in its entirety and 

directed the agency to issue a new rule 

consistent with its August 6, 2003 

opinion. NHTSA published a final rule 

in the Federal Register on November 20, 

2003, vacating FMVSS No. 138.7

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 8 on 

September 16, 2004. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53081 

9 70 FR 18136 (April 5, 2005) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–20586–1). 

10There 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. 

11We note that some vehicle manufacturers 

authorize their dealers to replace the vehicle’s 

factory-installed tires with other tires, including 

ones with a different size and/or recommended cold 

tire inflation pressure. The TPMS must perform 

properly with any such tires, because the vehicle 

could be equipped with those tires at the time of 

initial sale. Of course, the manufacturer would not 

have that responsibility if the dealer installed other 

tires without manufacturer authorization. 

12As part of this 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). 

13We 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 8, 2005 final rule.) 

14We note that the TPMS telltale(s) may be 

incorporated as part of a reconfigurable display, 

provided that all requirements of the standard are 

met. 

After carefully considering public 

comments on the NPRM, the agency 

published a final rule 9 in the Federal 

Register on April 8, 2005, which reestablished FMVSS No. 138, with a 

phase-in set to begin on October 5, 2005. 

(For a more complete discussion of this 

earlier period of the regulatory history 

of the TPMS rulemaking, readers should 

consult the June 5, 2002 final rule, the 

September 16, 2004 NPRM, and the 

April 8, 2005 final rule.) 

C. The April 8, 2005 Final Rule 

As noted above, the April 8, 2005 

final rule for TPMS re-established 

FMVSS No. 138 in a manner consistent 

with the Second Circuit’s opinion. 

Specifically, it requires passenger cars, 

multi-purpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

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

with dual wheels on an axle, to be 

equipped with a TPMS to alert the 

driver when one or more of the vehicle’s 

tires, up to all four of its tires, is 

significantly under-inflated.10 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., MY 2006). The standard is 

intended to be technology-neutral, so as 

to permit compliance with any available 

TPMS technology that meets the 

standard’s performance requirements. 

The following points highlight the key 

provisions of the April 8, 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. 

• Vehicle manufacturers must certify 

vehicle compliance under the standard 

with the tires installed on the vehicle at 

the time of initial vehicle sale.11

• The TPMS must include a low tire 

pressure warning telltale 12 (yellow) that 

must remain illuminated as long as any 

of the vehicle’s tires remain 

significantly under-inflated and the 

vehicle’s ignition locking system is in 

the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position.13 The 

TPMS’s low tire pressure warning 

telltale must perform a bulb-check at 

vehicle start-up. 

• The TPMS must also include a 

TPMS malfunction indicator to alert the 

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

the required low tire pressure 

warning.14 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. 

• 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. 

• For vehicles certified under the 

standard, vehicle manufacturers must 

provide in the owner’s manual a 

specified statement explaining the 

purpose of the low tire pressure warning 

telltale, the potential consequences of 

significantly under-inflated tires, the 

meaning of the telltale when it is 

illuminated, and what actions drivers 

should take when the telltale is 

illuminated. Vehicle manufacturers also 

must provide a specified statement in 

the owner’s manual regarding: (1) 

Potential problems related to 

compatibility between the vehicle’s 

TPMS and various replacement or 

alternate tires and wheels, and (2) the 

presence and operation of the TPMS 

malfunction indicator. For vehicles that 

do not come with an owner’s manual, 

the required information must be 

provided in writing to the first 

purchaser at the time of initial vehicle 

sale. 

In terms of the timing for compliance, 

the final rule provided as follows. 

Subject to the vehicle manufacturer 

option for carry-backward credits 

discussed below, NHTSA decided to 

adopt the following phase-in schedule: 

20 percent of a vehicle manufacturer’s 

light vehicles are required to comply 

with the standard during the period 

from October 5, 2005 to August 31, 

2006; 70 percent during the period from 

September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007, 

and all light vehicles thereafter. 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 included 

phase-in reporting requirements 

consistent with the phase-in schedule 

discussed above. 

Small volume manufacturers (i.e., 

those manufacturers producing fewer 

than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the U.S. 

per year during the phase-in period) are 

not subject to the phase-in 

requirements, but their vehicles must 

meet the requirements of the standard 

beginning September 1, 2007. 

53082 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

15 70 FR 7414 (Feb. 14, 2005) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–1999–5673–54). 

16 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–31. 

17 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–35. 

Consistent with the policy set forth in 

NHTSA’s February 14, 2005 final rule 15

on certification requirements for 

vehicles built in two or more stages and 

altered vehicles, final-stage 

manufacturers and alterers must certify 

compliance for all covered vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2008 (no phase-in). However, final-stage 

manufacturers and alterers may 

voluntarily certify compliance with the 

standard prior to this date. 

NHTSA decided to permit vehicle 

manufacturers to earn carry-forward 

credits for compliant vehicles, produced 

in excess of the phase-in requirements 

and manufactured between the effective 

date of this rule and the conclusion of 

the phase-in. These carry-forward 

credits could be used during the phasein, but they could not be used to delay 

compliance certification for vehicles 

produced after the conclusion of the 

phase-in. Except for vehicles produced 

by final-stage manufacturers and alterers 

(who receive an additional year for 

compliance), all covered vehicles must 

comply with FMVSS No. 138 on 

September 1, 2007, without use of any 

carry-forward credits. 

To further ease implementation, we 

decided to also provide carry-backward 

credits, whereby vehicle manufacturers 

may defer compliance with a part or all 

of the certification requirements for the 

first period of the phase-in, provided 

that they certify a correspondingly 

larger percentage of vehicles under the 

standard during the second period of 

the phase-in. 

III. Petitions for Reconsideration 

NHTSA received a total of 17 

petitions for reconsideration of the April 

8, 2005 final rule from: (1) The Alliance 

of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance); 

(2) the Association of International 

Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. 

(AIAM); (3) BMW Group (BMW); (4) 

Continental Teves, Inc.; (5) EnTire 

Solutions, LLC (EnTire); (6) ETV 

Corporation Pty Limited (ETV); (7) 

European Tyre and Rim Technical 

Organisation (ETRTO); (8) Michelin 

North America, Inc. (Michelin); (9) MVision, Inc.; (10) NIRA Dynamics AB; 

(11) Public Citizen; (12) Rubber 

Manufacturers Association (RMA); (13) 

SmarTire Systems, Inc. (SmarTire); (14) 

Specialty Equipment Market 

Association (SEMA); (15) Sumitomo 

Rubber Industries (SRI); (16) Tire 

Industry Association (TIA); and (17) 

Volkswagen/Audi (VW/Audi). All of 

these petitions may be found in Docket 

No. NHTSA–2005–20586. (We note that 

Public Citizen withdrew its petition for 

reconsideration in a letter dated June 16, 

2005,16 and TIA withdrew its petition 

for reconsideration in a letter dated July 

28, 2005.17 Consequently, we are not 

discussing these two petitions further in 

this document.) 

The petitioners raised a variety of 

issues related to the TPMS standard, 

most of which were technical. These 

issues included ones involving the final 

rule’s requirements for the underinflation detection level, the underinflation and malfunction detection 

times, functioning of the TPMS with 

spare tires, tire reserve load, compliance 

testing conditions and procedures, 

system disablement and 

reprogrammability, telltale issues, 

breadth of the malfunction detection 

requirement, minimum activation 

pressure, owner’s manual requirements, 

sharing of TPMS servicing information, 

and phase-in calculations. 

All of the issues raised in the 

petitions for reconsideration presently 

before us are addressed in the 

Discussion and Analysis section 

immediately below. 

Effective Date. In light of the rapidly 

approaching October 5, 2005 start of the 

phase-in for FMVSS No. 138, 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 petitions 

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. 

IV. Discussion and Analysis 

A. Low Tire Pressure Warning Lamp 

Activation Requirements 

The April 8, 2005 final rule required 

that each TPMS-equipped vehicle must 

illuminate a low tire pressure warning 

telltale not more than 20 minutes after 

the inflation pressure in one or more of 

the vehicle’s tires, up to a total of four 

tires, is equal to or less than either the 

pressure 25 percent below the vehicle 

manufacturer’s recommended cold 

inflation pressure, or the pressure 

specified in the third column of Table 

1 of the standard for the corresponding 

type of tire, whichever is higher. The 

low pressure telltale must continue to 

illuminate as long as the inflation 

pressure of the tire(s) remains below the 

activation threshold above and the 

ignition locking system is in the ‘‘On’’

(‘‘Run’’) position, or until the system is 

manually reset in accordance with the 

vehicle manufacturer’s instructions. 

(See S4.2, as contained in the April 8, 

2005 final rule.) 

Several petitioners requested that the 

agency modify the time period for the 

TPMS to detect and to provide a 

warning regarding significant underinflation in one or more of a vehicle’s 

tires. Some petitioners recommended a 

reduction in detection time (ETRTO, 

SmarTire Systems, ETV); others sought 

an increase in such time period (NIRA 

Dynamics, VW/Audi), and still another 

argued for some combination of the two 

(BMW). 

ETRTO argued that the decision in the 

final rule to set a 20-minute detection 

time requirement for the TPMS low tire 

pressure warning (an increase from the 

10-minute detection time proposed in 

the NPRM) may compromise safety, 

because driving for an additional 10 

minutes on a significantly underinflated tire could cause that tire to 

further deflate, overheat, and fail. 

ETRTO cautioned that ‘‘technical 

neutrality’’ should not be permitted to 

surpass safety concerns. Accordingly, 

the ETRTO petition urged NHTSA to 

adopt an under-inflation detection time 

of 10 minutes, as proposed in the 

NPRM. ETRTO did not provide 

supporting data to demonstrate the 

extent of tire degradation that would 

result from the under-inflation detection 

time adopted in the final rule. 

In its petition, SmarTire Systems 

argued that repeated exposure of a tire 

to excessive heat build-up could cause 

cumulative deterioration of the tire’s 

structural components, which could 

ultimately lead to tire failure. SmarTire 

Systems provided data intended to 

show that within 12 minutes of city 

driving (at approximately 30 mph) at a 

low ambient temperature, pressure 

build-up within a properly inflated tire 

is about 3 psi, resulting from 

temperature build-up within the tire. 

According to the petitioner, the longer 

detection time interval may exacerbate 

this phenomenon and could actually 

mask an under-inflation condition. 

SmarTire Systems argued that this 

situation potentially could have 

unintended consequences for testing, as 

well as negative safety implications. As 

a result, SmarTire Systems also 

recommended that the standard be 

modified to return to a 10-minute 

under-inflation time requirement, as 

originally proposed. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53083 

18 67 FR 38704, 38728 (June 5, 2002) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2000–8572–219). 

19 Id. 

20 Id. at 38726. 

21 Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19054–96. 

ETV argued that in order to maximize 

safety, the standard should be amended 

to require a TPMS to detect low tire 

pressure and to provide a warning 

immediately upon vehicle start-up. In 

making this argument, ETV analogized 

to other vehicle safety systems (e.g., air 

bags, ABS/brakes, seat belts) that 

provide a warning while the vehicle is 

stationary or parked (i.e., before the 

driver moves the vehicle into traffic). 

An opposing viewpoint was presented 

in the petition submitted by NIRA 

Dynamics, which argued that the 20- 

minute under-inflation detection time 

for more than one tire is unnecessarily 

stringent in light of the circumstances 

that normally cause multiple-tire underinflation. According to the petitioner, 

under-inflation in multiple tires usually 

results from slow diffusion over many 

months (loss of 1–2 psi per month), so 

20-minute time requirements for TPMS 

calibration and under-inflation 

detection are not necessary. NIRA 

Dynamics also stated that indirect 

TPMSs update actual parameter values 

whenever a vehicle is driven (storing 

the latest values in memory when the 

engine is turned off). Therefore, the 

TPMS telltale would be expected to 

illuminate, regardless of the length of 

the last driving cycle, as soon as the 

accumulated driving time with an 

under-inflated tire is sufficiently long. 

Accordingly, NIRA Dynamics 

recommended that NHTSA increase the 

time period permitted for TPMS 

calibration and low pressure detection 

for multiple tires to one hour. The 

petitioner stated that such a change 

would permit the use of advanced 

indirect TPMS technologies, while 

maintaining the safety benefits of the 

standard. The petition of VW/Audi 

made an argument very similar to that 

of NIRA Dynamics on this point. 

BMW also expressed its expectation 

that a TPMS-equipped vehicle would 

not need to be driven continuously 

during a single trip in order to detect 

low tire pressure, but instead, 

cumulative driving time gathered over a 

number of shorter trips should be 

adequate to detect and warn about 

significant tire under-inflation. 

Therefore, BMW reasoned that the 

TPMS would be unlikely to need the 

fully allotted detection time in most 

cases. 

However, BMW recommended a 

slightly different solution from that 

proposed by NIRA Dynamics and VW/ 

Audi. Specifically, BMW stated that 

NHTSA should revise the standard to 

require a 10-minute cumulative driving 

detection time for pressure loss in a 

single tire and a 60-minute cumulative 

driving detection time for pressure loss 

in multiple tires, an approach that it 

believes would offer an equivalent or 

higher level of safety than the approach 

adopted in the final rule. Alternatively, 

BMW suggested that its approach be 

adopted as an optional means of 

compliance. BMW argued that its 

requested change also would make the 

standard more technology-neutral, 

because it stated that there are not any 

‘‘production-ready’’ indirect TPMSs that 

can meet the standard’s 20-minute 

detection requirement under all 

circumstances. 

NHTSA has carefully considered the 

arguments of petitioners seeking 

modifications to the standard’s low tire 

pressure warning lamp activation 

requirements. In general, the petitioners 

reiterated arguments raised at previous 

stages of this rulemaking and did not 

provide any new information to support 

their positions. Thus, we have decided 

to retain the low tire pressure activation 

requirements (including those related to 

system calibration) set forth in the April 

8, 2005 final rule. Our reasoning is 

largely the same as expressed in that 

notice, which we summarize below. 

We continue to believe that a 20- 

minute time period for under-inflation 

detection in one to four tires is 

appropriate, as is a 20-minute time 

period for TPMS calibration. The low 

tire pressure lamp activation 

requirements reflect the agency’s careful 

balancing of safety and practicability 

concerns viewed through the prism of 

available data. 

As we noted in the final rule, TPMSs 

were not developed to warn the driver 

of extremely rapid pressure losses that 

could accompany a vehicle encounter 

with a road hazard or a tire blowout. 

According to the tire industry, those 

types of events account for 

approximately 15 percent of pressure 

loss cases.18 Presumably, a driver would 

be well aware of the tire problem in 

those situations, and the TPMS would 

provide little added benefit. 

Instead, TPMSs’ benefits lie in 

warning drivers when the pressure in 

the vehicle’s tires is approaching a level 

at which permanent tire damage could 

be sustained as a result of heat buildup 

and tire failure is possible; this low 

level of inflation pressure generally 

results from a more measured pressure 

loss cause by a slow leak, defective 

valve, or diffusion. According to the tire 

industry, approximately 85 percent of 

all tire pressure losses are slow air 

losses that occur over hours, weeks, or 

months of vehicle use.19 In those cases, 

a detection time of 20 minutes is not 

likely to pose a safety risk to the driving 

public. 

The agency’s tire research suggests 

that even in a 25-percent under-inflated 

condition, the vehicle can be operated 

safely for this detection period without 

an appreciable risk of permanent 

damage or tire failure. NHTSA 

conducted testing on a variety of 

Standard Load P-metric tires at 20 psi 

with 100-percent load at 75 mph for 90 

minutes on a dynamometer, and none of 

these tires failed.20 This testing led the 

agency to conclude that warnings at less 

severe conditions will give drivers 

sufficient time to check and re-inflate 

their vehicles’ tires before the tires 

experience appreciable damage. 

Furthermore, analysis of public 

comments at the NPRM stage 

demonstrated that a detection time 

period shorter than 20 minutes could 

raise issues of detection accuracy for 

many systems, which could lead to false 

telltale illuminations (‘‘nuisance 

warnings’’), which in turn could 

negatively impact consumer acceptance 

of TPMSs. 

Petitioners advocating a shorter time 

period did not provide any 

countervailing data to substantiate their 

assertions that a 20-minute detection 

time for a significantly under-inflated 

tire would lead to tire damage or tire 

failure. Although manufacturers are 

encouraged to provide the low tire 

pressure warning as quickly as possible, 

we believe that a 20-minute detection 

time is unlikely to result in any adverse 

safety consequences. 

We also believe that a 20-minute 

detection time is consistent with our 

intention to articulate a standard that is 

practicable and technology-neutral. As 

noted in the final rule, we are aware of 

at least one indirect TPMS that is 

currently capable of meeting the 

standard’s four-tire, 25-percent underinflation detection requirement within 

20 minutes,21 and we expect that with 

additional time and development, other 

indirect and hybrid systems also would 

be able to meet the requirements of the 

standard. 

We are not adopting ETRTO’s and 

SmarTire’s recommendations to reduce 

the time period for under-inflation 

detection time to 10 minutes because 

our tire data suggest that such change is 

not required for safety and because it 

would likely decrease the number of 

technologies available for complying 

with the standard. The same reasoning 

applies to our decision to deny ETV’s 

suggestion that the TPMS be required to 

53084 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

22 70 FR 18136, 18148 (April 8, 2005) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–20586–1). 

23See June 5, 2002 comments of the RMA (Docket 

No. NHTSA–2000–8011–64). 

provide a low tire pressure warning 

upon vehicle start-up (i.e., before the 

vehicle is in motion). 

Furthermore, we have decided not to 

extend the low tire pressure detection 

time beyond 20 minutes for multipletire under-inflation, as requested by 

NIRA Dynamics, VW/Audi, and BMW. 

As explained in the final rule, we 

believe that adverse safety consequences 

could result if the low tire underinflation detection time were to extend 

beyond 20 minutes. As discussed in the 

final rule, available research suggests 

that average commuting times are less 

than 30 minutes in most cases.22 Many 

other trips, such as routine errands, may 

also involve drive times of less than 30 

minutes. We expressed concerns that by 

increasing the low tire pressure 

detection time, it would be conceivable 

that consumers could be driving on 

significantly under-inflated tires for a 

potentially extended period of time 

without receiving a warning from the 

TPMS. 

We also expressed concern that 

extending the low tire pressure 

detection time beyond 20 minutes could 

be problematic in other situations. For 

example, where a tire is punctured by 

a nail or is otherwise damaged, it may 

experience a moderately rapid pressure 

loss. As to damaged tires experiencing 

a relatively less rapid pressure loss, 

research into the rate of temperature 

buildup shows that for constant load, 

pressure, and speed conditions, tires 

generally warmed up and stabilized 

their temperatures within 15 minutes; 23

thus, the tire will rapidly reach a 

temperature that places stress on an 

under-inflated tire. In such cases, we are 

concerned about delaying the warning 

to the driver for too long. Therefore, in 

the April 8, 2005 final rule, we selected 

20 minutes for the low tire pressure 

detection time, because we believed that 

it would maintain the utility of the 

TPMS and the safety benefits associated 

with that system. 

We do not believe that the arguments 

presented by BMW and NIRA Dynamics 

regarding the cumulative nature of data 

gathering by the TPMS justifies 

changing the standard’s low tire 

pressure detection time to one hour for 

multiple tires. We believe that a onehour delay in warning the driver of 

significant tire under-inflation either 

when the system is new, reset, or 

reprogrammed is too long, particularly 

given that other systems can provide a 

warning more rapidly. BMW and NIRA 

Dynamics did not provide any data 

indicating that tires could be operated 

safely for one hour after reaching a level 

of inflation that is 25 percent below 

placard pressure. Thus, we are 

concerned that an increase in the 

detection time for multiple-tire underinflation could decrease the safety 

benefits of the rule. The same logic 

applies to BMW’s suggestion that the 

time for malfunction detection be 

increased to one hour, a request that we 

are also denying, because a 

malfunctioning TPMS may not be 

available to warn about a concurrent tire 

under-inflation problem. 

B. TPMS Malfunction Indicator Lamp 

(MIL) Activation Requirements 

1. What Constitutes a TPMS 

Malfunction? 

As part of the final rule establishing 

FMVSS No. 138, the TPMS-equipped 

vehicle’s MIL telltale must provide a 

warning to the driver not more than 20 

minutes after the occurrence of a 

malfunction that affects the generation 

or transmission of control or response 

signals in the vehicle’s TPMS. (See S4.4, 

as contained in the April 8, 2005 final 

rule.) Paragraph S6(k) of the final rule’s 

test procedures provides for the 

simulation of one or more TPMS 

malfunction(s) by disconnecting any 

electrical connection between TPMS 

components, or by installing a tire or 

wheel on the vehicle that is 

incompatible with the TPMS. 

The details as to exactly what 

constitutes a TPMS malfunction were 

among the most extensively discussed 

issues in the petitions for 

reconsideration. Many petitioners who 

discussed this issue generally sought 

clarification regarding whether a 

malfunction warning would be required 

under specific situations. The 

malfunction-related issues raised in 

these petitions are addressed below. 

The AIAM recommended amending 

S4.4(a) to narrow the definition of 

‘‘TPMS malfunction’’ to limit that term 

to conditions where proper power 

supply is maintained to the TPMS. 

According to the AIAM petition, the 

standard, as currently written, would 

require installation of another electronic 

control module (ECM) in addition to the 

TPMS ECM in order to solely monitor 

MIL telltale operations, a largely 

redundant feature that would use up 

limited space behind the dashboard. 

As its recommended solution, the 

AIAM recommended that the scope of 

S4.4(a) be limited to situations where 

the TPMS has power, which would 

allow the system to identify 

malfunctions in the TPMS ECM and 

components such as the wheel sensors, 

signal antennae, or the presence of 

incompatible tires. In its petition, the 

AIAM argued that an interruption of 

power to the ECM or to the telltale (or 

to the connection between the ECM and 

the telltale) would be identifiable by 

failure to illuminate the TPMS MIL 

during bulb check. The AIAM also 

recommended modifying S6(l) to 

incorporate these conditions or by 

having S6(k) exclude these conditions 

from the procedures for creating a 

simulated TPMS malfunction. 

The Alliance similarly argued in its 

petition that NHTSA should clarify that 

S6(k) of the test procedures, which 

permits ‘‘disconnecting the power 

source to any TPMS component,’’

should not include disconnecting the 

power source to the telltale itself. The 

Alliance stated its belief that the telltale 

is an FMVSS No. 101 component (not a 

‘‘TPMS component’’), and that the 

situation where there is a loss of power 

to the telltale is already covered by the 

bulb check requirements in S4.3.3(a) or 

S4.4(b)(4)(i), thereby obviating the need 

for it to be covered under S4.4(a). 

The Alliance also recommended a 

minor editorial change in S4.4(b)(3) that 

would modify that provision to read as 

follows: ‘‘Continues to illuminate the 

TPMS malfunction telltale under the 

conditions specified in S4.4(a) * * *.’’

The standard currently references 

‘‘S4.4.’’

EnTire Solutions argued that for 

TPMSs using Hardwired Vehicle Speed 

Input to the TPMS receiver, such input 

does not directly affect ‘‘the generation 

or transmission of control or response 

signals’’ in the vehicle’s TPMS, and 

disconnecting vehicle speed input 

would not involve an electrical 

connection between ‘‘TPMS 

components’’ as called out specifically 

in S6(k) of the FMVSS No. 138 test 

procedures. According to EnTire 

Solutions, disconnecting vehicle speed 

input is ‘‘impractical’’ to diagnose since 

such a disconnect would not prevent 

the TPMS from providing underinflation warnings while driving unless 

there are multiple problems with the 

system. Accordingly, EnTire Solutions 

requested clarification as to whether 

systems using Hardwired Vehicle Speed 

Inputs need to illuminate the TPMS MIL 

telltale upon disconnection of those 

inputs. 

EnTire Solutions also requested a 

clarification regarding paragraph S6(k) 

of the TPMS test procedures, which 

provides an instruction regarding 

‘‘disconnecting any electrical 

connection between TPMS components 

* * *.’’ Specifically, the petitioner 

questioned whether the above language 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53085 

refers to connector-level interconnects 

or individual wires. 

In its petition, EnTire Solutions stated 

that for systems using multiple ground 

paths for the receiver, it is ‘‘impractical’’

to diagnose a single ground path 

disconnection. EnTire Solutions 

recommended that the standard be 

amended to clarify that TPMS MIL 

activation will not be required in such 

cases. EnTire Solutions also asked if the 

system could be constructed such that 

the low pressure detection lamp could 

be illuminated by an auxiliary power 

source when the primary source is 

disconnected without illuminating the 

MIL. This question applies to low tire 

pressure telltales that indicate which 

tire is under-inflated and telltales that 

do not indicate which tire is underinflated (i.e., the ISO lamp). 

NIRA Dynamics’ petition argued that 

it is not possible for vehicle 

manufacturers to meet the final rule’s 

certification requirement for the TPMS 

to be able to detect all replacement tires 

that are not compatible with the system, 

because it is not possible to know what 

tires will be offered in the future or how 

such tires will interact with current 

TPMSs. According to NIRA Dynamics, 

to make such a certification, vehicle 

manufacturers installing indirect TPMSs 

would be required to test their systems 

with all types of tires available on the 

market, both now and in the future, 

something which would not be possible 

for economic and practical reasons. 

Therefore, the petitioner recommended 

amending the final rule to state that the 

TPMS MIL requirements are limited to 

electrical and system transmission 

interruptions or failures that result in no 

sensor signal being sent to the TPMS 

control module. 

In its petition, SRI argued that there 

are other conditions, albeit rare, that 

could affect the performance of TPMSs 

even if the control or response signals 

are properly transmitted. For example, 

SRI stated that a direct TPMS may not 

recognize that it is transmitting 

incorrect pressure data due to a sensor 

failure, or an indirect TPMS may not 

recognize that the sensitivity of the 

TPMS is lower due to certain tire 

characteristics. SRI essentially agreed 

with the argument of NIRA Dynamics, 

arguing that analyzing the influence of 

all replacement tires on the TPMS 

would be just as difficult as requiring 

that the TPMS be compliant with all 

replacement tires. 

M-Vision’s petition questioned 

whether the standard’s requirements for 

malfunction detection would include 

instances where there is a mechanical 

failure of the TPMS, including ones 

resulting from a separation of the joint/ 

mount between the sensor assembly and 

the wheel, or separation of parts from 

the sensor assembly. According to MVision, a typical TPMS sensor weighs 

about 40 grams (1.41 ounces), and if 

such components come loose as a result 

of fatigue, they may generate high gforces, cause internal damage to the tire, 

and ultimately lead to tire failure. The 

M-Vision petition also argued that a 

loose TPMS device rattling within the 

front wheel could lead to sudden wheel 

imbalance while the vehicle is in 

motion, potentially causing the driver to 

steer improperly. In order to prevent 

what it deems to be a significant safety 

risk, M-Vision recommended that the 

definition of a ‘‘TPMS malfunction’’ be 

modified to include mechanical failures, 

as described in its petition. 

Continental Teves’ petition requested 

clarification of that portion of S4.4(a), 

which requires the TPMS MIL to 

illuminate ‘‘not more than 20 minutes 

after occurrence of a malfunction that 

affects the generation of transmission of 

control or response signals in the 

vehicle’s tire pressure monitoring 

system.’’ (Emphasis added.) We 

understand Continental Teves to be 

arguing that there are other 

circumstances or factors that could 

‘‘affect’’ the system (e.g., replacement 

tire construction) without preventing it 

from detecting and providing the 

requisite low tire pressure warning. 

Therefore, Continental Teves 

recommended changing the word 

‘‘affects’’ to ‘‘inhibits’’ in S4.4(a), which 

it argued is consistent with the purpose 

of the TPMS MIL to alert the driver 

when the system is not functional. 

Given that the TPMS MIL 

requirements were a relatively recent 

conceptual addition to FMVSS No. 138, 

it is not surprising that several 

petitioners requested clarification of 

those provisions. As noted above, such 

clarification requests included questions 

of coverage of specific potential 

malfunction, some of which the 

petitioners asserted could be difficult to 

detect. Our response, addressing these 

concerns about the standard’s 

malfunction requirements, is provided 

below. 

In overview, we have decided to 

retain the final rule’s requirement for 

the TPMS MIL to illuminate whenever 

there is a malfunction that affects the 

generation of transmission of control or 

response signals in the vehicle’s tire 

pressure monitoring system. The agency 

continues to favor a broad detection 

requirement for the TPMS MIL and not 

one limited to specific malfunctions, 

because such restrictions would 

unnecessarily reduce the safety benefits 

of the TPMS. However, in response to 

petitions (AIAM, Alliance) and in light 

of our own prior statements, we have 

decided to amend the standard’s test 

procedures for malfunction detection to 

explicitly state that telltale lamps will 

not be disconnected, because such 

malfunctions would be indicated during 

the bulb checks required under S4.3.3(a) 

and/or S4.4(b)(4). Consequently, the 

driver would be provided with 

information regarding the operability of 

the TPMS warning telltale(s) through 

alternative means. 

We believe that this clarifying change 

is consistent with the final rule. In that 

notice, we stated that ‘‘the MIL should 

not be required to signal a burned out 

bulb as a TPMS malfunction, because 

that problem would already be 

identified during the check-of-lamp 

function at vehicle start-up.’’ (70 FR 

18136, 18151 (April 8, 2005)) It was not 

our intention to require a redundant 

system solely to monitor the TPMS 

telltale(s). Similarly, the check-of-lamp 

function would alert the driver of 

malfunctions pertaining to processes 

directly tied to operation of the TPMS 

telltale(s) that necessitate servicing. 

When the driver takes the vehicle to the 

repair facility, the problem should be 

diagnosed and corrected, even though it 

may not be the one anticipated (e.g., a 

problem with a wire rather than a 

burned out bulb). Thus, this subset of 

TPMS-related malfunctions would still 

be expected to be identified, but through 

a mechanism other than the MIL. 

Accordingly, we are amending S6(k) to 

delimit the types of system 

malfunctions that will be simulated 

during testing, consistent with the 

above. Specifically, we are adding the 

following statement to that paragraph: 

‘‘When simulating a TPMS malfunction, 

the electrical connections for the telltale 

lamps shall not be disconnected.’’

Furthermore, in response to EnTire’s 

requests for clarification regarding 

specific potential disconnections, we 

have decided that all electricallypowered components and devices that 

interface with the TPMS, including 

hardwired vehicle speed inputs, are 

potential candidates for disconnection 

under S6(k). Similarly, a single ground 

path in a multiple ground path system 

may be a candidate for disconnection 

during TPMS malfunction testing. 

We are denying NIRA Dynamics’

request that the standard be amended to 

exclude incompatible aftermarket and 

replacement tires from the malfunctions 

that the TPMS malfunction indicator 

must be able to detect. As noted in the 

April 8, 2005 final rule, we believe that 

the ability of the TPMS malfunction 

indicator to detect incompatible tires is 

key to the long-term functionality of the 

53086 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TPMS, and unless such a warning is 

provided, some drivers may lose the 

benefits of the system entirely. It is 

plainly foreseeable that most vehicles 

will outlast their original set of tires, so 

this requirement is necessary to ensure 

that consumers continue to receive the 

TPMS’s important information related 

to low tire pressure. 

The petition of NIRA Dynamics did 

not provide data to demonstrate the 

nature or extent of indirect TPMSs’

alleged problems related to detection of 

incompatible tires. We do not believe 

that manufacturers would have to test 

all tires in order to determine which 

tires are incompatible with a given 

system, as NIRA Dynamics has 

suggested. Our understanding is that 

indirect TPMSs detect low tire pressure 

by comparing the differences in the 

rolling radius of the tires (i.e., speed of 

the tires) and activating the low tire 

pressure telltale when the difference 

between wheel speeds reaches a certain 

pre-determined value. We further 

understand that for indirect TPMSs, 

incompatible tires are primarily tires 

with a relationship between rolling 

radius and tire pressure that is outside 

the range of the system or where the 

geometry of one tire is outside the 

tolerances of the system. In such cases, 

the TPMS must be able to distinguish 

between a tire with low pressure and 

one that is incompatible with the TPMS, 

and to then illuminate the MIL. 

In direct TPMSs, tire incompatibility 

is primarily associated with tire 

construction materials and their 

potential attenuation of radio frequency 

signals generated by the TPMS unit 

(sensor) inside the tire. Based upon all 

available information, we have decided 

that TPMSs should continue to be 

required to alert the driver of a variety 

of system malfunctions, including 

installation of incompatible aftermarket 

or replacement tires. We believe that 

this approach will ensure continued, 

long-term TPMS functionality, which is 

consistent with Congress’ intention to 

improve tire and vehicle safety, as 

expressed in the TREAD Act. 

We have decided not to adopt MVision’s recommendation that we 

amend the standard’s malfunction 

detection requirement to specifically 

address mechanical failures of the 

system, such as a separation of wheelmounted TPMS components. We 

believe that severe mechanical failures 

of TPMS wheel components would 

trigger the TPMS malfunction indicator 

in most cases, because a severe 

mechanical problem with a sensor 

would retard communications between 

the sensor and the receiver. In addition, 

it would be difficult to simulate a 

mechanical malfunction of a wheel 

component without dismounting the 

tire from the wheel, and potentially 

damaging the TPMS. Furthermore, we 

have not been presented with any data 

to demonstrate that mechanical failures, 

such as those described in the M-Vision 

petition, are likely to arise in actual 

vehicles or the consequences thereof. If 

situations involving mechanical failures 

of TPMS wheel components were to 

develop frequently, those types of 

potential TPMS failures may be 

determined to be defects, which would 

be properly addressed by NHTSA’s 

Office of Defects Investigation. 

Regarding Continental Teves’

recommendation for a wording change 

under the standard’s malfunction 

detection requirement (S4.4), 

specifically to state that a malfunction 

‘‘inhibits’’ rather than ‘‘affects’’ the 

generation or transmission of control or 

response signals in the vehicle’s TPMS, 

we have decided to deny that request. 

Overall, the rationale offered by 

Continental Teves in support of its 

recommended change to the definition 

of a TPMS malfunction was not cogent 

and seemed incomplete. For example, 

the petition mentioned a hybrid system, 

but it did not explain how it operates. 

We do not believe that the Continental 

Teves petition provides a sufficient 

basis to support its recommended 

change to the standard. 

We have decided to grant the 

Alliance’s request for a technical change 

in S4.4(b)(3) that would modify that 

provision to read as follows: ‘‘Continues 

to illuminate the TPMS malfunction 

telltale under the conditions specified 

in S4.4(a) * * *.’’ Although we do not 

believe that the standard’s current 

reference to S4.4 in that provision is 

likely to cause any confusion or 

additional burden, we agree that the 

Alliance’s recommended specification is 

more precise. 

2. MIL Disablement 

The final rule did not contain any 

provision for MIL disablement, and the 

preamble discussed the agency’s 

rationale for not permitting system 

disablement (see section IV.C.2(c), as 

contained in the April 8, 2005 final 

rule). 

In its petition, SEMA expressed 

support for the agency’s decision in the 

final rule not to permit disablement of 

the TPMS malfunction indicator lamp. 

However, SEMA requested clarification 

as to whether the MIL may be disabled 

(made inoperative) for the purpose of 

replacing the TPMS with an equivalent 

aftermarket TPMS that also meets the 

requirements of the FMVSS No. 138. For 

example, SEMA suggested that a 

consumer may wish to ‘‘upgrade’’ the 

vehicle’s TPMS in situations where that 

person encounters incompatible 

replacement tires. If disablement of the 

MIL were permitted for such 

replacement purpose, SEMA argues that 

it would alleviate SEMA’s concerns that 

consumers will choose not to install 

aftermarket or replacement rims and 

tires because they would lose the 

benefits of the MIL or have to accept 

driving with the MIL illuminated. Thus, 

SEMA recommended that NHTSA 

clarify that it is permissible to make the 

TPMS inoperative in order to replace 

the system with another TPMS that is 

also compliant with FMVSS No. 138. 

We do not believe that it is necessary 

to amend the TPMS standard in order to 

permit suppliers and service technicians 

to install aftermarket components and 

systems that comply with FMVSS No. 

138. This principle holds for our safety 

standards generally. We believe this 

approach is appropriate for the 

following reasons. 

By way of background, the 

disablement for repair/replacement 

concept is addressed in 49 U.S.C. 

30122(b), which provides: 

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or 

motor vehicle repair business may not 

knowingly make inoperative any part of a 

device or element of design installed on or 

in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment in compliance with an applicable 

motor vehicle safety standard prescribed 

under this chapter [49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.] 

unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, 

or repair business reasonably believes the 

vehicle or equipment will not be used 

(except for testing or a similar purpose 

during maintenance or repair) when the 

device or element is inoperative. 

When an automotive service business 

brings a vehicle into its facility for 

repair, replacement, or servicing of 

vehicle systems or components, it 

stands to reason that certain operating 

components or systems may need to be 

disabled in order to effectuate those 

changes. Furthermore, while such 

changes are pending, we expect that the 

vehicle would not be engaged in onroad use. By the time the vehicle is 

again returned to on-road use, the 

business must ensure that aspects of the 

vehicle covered by applicable FMVSSs 

have been made inoperative. With that 

proviso, upgrades to the vehicle of the 

type mentioned by SEMA would be 

permissible, even if the standard does 

not explicitly state it. 

C. Telltale Requirements 

The final rule requires each TPMS to 

include a low tire pressure warning 

telltale that is mounted inside the 

occupant compartment in front of and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53087 

24The Alliance recommended that the following 

statement be added to Footnote 9 of FMVSS No. 101 

Table 2: ‘‘Display requirements for Tire Pressure 

Monitoring System Malfunction Telltale are 

effective for vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2007.’’ 25 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22113–1. 

in clear view of the driver and which is 

identified by one of the symbols for the 

‘‘Low Tire Pressure Telltale’’ in Table 2 

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 8, 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 2 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 8, 

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 also indicate a 

TPMS malfunction as follows. While the 

ignition locking system is activated to 

the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position, upon 

detection of a TPMS malfunction, the 

combination telltale must flash for a 

period of at least 60 seconds but no 

longer than 90 seconds. After this 

period of prescribed flashing, the telltale 

must remain continuously illuminated 

as long as the malfunction exists and the 

ignition locking system is activated to 

the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. This 

flashing and illumination sequence 

must be repeated each time the ignition 

locking system is activated to the ‘‘On’’

(‘‘Run’’) position until the situation 

causing the malfunction has been 

corrected. (See S4.4(c), as contained in 

the April 8, 2005 final rule.) 

As discussed below, the Alliance 

petition raised issues related to the 

operation of the TPMS related telltale(s), 

as well as the timing for implementing 

the telltale requirements. More 

specifically, the Alliance’s petition 

sought clarification regarding how a 

combined TPMS telltale should operate 

when sequential 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. 

The Alliance also petitioned to correct 

what it perceives to be a lack of 

synchronization between the TPMS 

telltale requirements in FMVSS No. 138 

and in FMVSS No. 101. Specifically, the 

Alliance stated that vehicle 

manufacturers have no compliance 

requirements vis-a`-vis FMVSS No. 138 

until October 5, 2005, but there is not 

any corresponding compliance date 

specified in FMVSS No. 101 regarding 

the TPMS-related symbols (which 

arguably results in a compliance date of 

April 8, 2005 for those telltale symbols). 

According to the Alliance, failure to 

remedy this apparent oversight would 

negatively impact the voluntary 

introduction of TPMSs that are not 

certified to FMVSS No. 138, and the 

Alliance stated that substantial lead 

time is needed to incorporate such 

display changes. Therefore, the Alliance 

recommended adding two footnotes to 

Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101 that would 

exempt vehicles from compliance with 

the TPMS symbol requirements for 

vehicles whose TPMSs are not certified 

as compliant with FMVSS No. 138 

during the phase-in period for that 

standard.24

The Alliance also recommended 

adding a new Footnote 10 to that table 

as follows: ‘‘Display requirements of the 

low tire pressure telltale are mandatory 

only for vehicles compliant with the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 138 at the 

date of vehicle manufacture.’’

Regarding the issue of sequential 

(multiple) malfunctions, we have 

decided that for vehicles with a 

combined low tire pressure/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. This sequence will serve to 

alert the driver to any and all TPMS 

malfunctions detected by the system. 

We believe 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. This 

reaction is not likely to change 

depending upon the number of 

malfunctions, and at such time, we 

anticipate that all conditions impairing 

operation of the TPMS would be 

resolved. Furthermore, we have decided 

to specify how sequential malfunctions 

would be indicated in order to prevent 

confusion on the part of the consumer 

and to ensure that TPMSs provide a 

consistent message across the fleet. 

Accordingly, we have made minor 

technical changes to S4.4(c)(2) of the 

standard to clarify this matter. 

Regarding the issue of the 

coordination of the compliance dates for 

the requirement of FMVSS No. 138 and 

Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, we agree 

that it was not the agency’s intention to 

require vehicle manufacturers to comply 

with the requirements for the TPMS 

telltale(s) in advance of the 

requirements for the installation of 

FMVSS No. 138-compliant TPMSs 

themselves. Vehicle manufacturers are 

not required to install TPMSs until 

October 5, 2005, and compliance could 

potentially be postponed if they elect to 

use carry-backward credits. During the 

phase-in, manufacturers could install 

other TPMSs that are not necessarily 

compliant with FMVSS No. 138, so we 

would not expect those vehicles to 

comply with the TPMS-related 

requirements of FMVSS No. 101, 

although we would expect vehicles 

voluntarily certified to FMVSS No. 138 

to also meet the requirements of FMVSS 

No. 101. Furthermore, the TPMS 

malfunction telltale is not required until 

September 1, 2007, a fact reflected in 

FMVSS No. 138 but not in FMVSS No. 

101. 

During our consideration of these 

petitions for reconsideration, the agency 

published a final rule updating FMVSS 

No. 101 (70 FR 48295 (August 17, 

2005)).25 At that time, we were already 

aware of this synchronization issue. 

Therefore, in order to clarify the 

relationship between the TPMS-related 

requirements of FMVSS Nos. 138 and 

101, we included an amendment in that 

final rule to modify the relevant table in 

FMVSS No. 101. 

We note here that the above final rule 

for FMVSS No. 101 reorganized that 

standard to some extent, and 

consequently, the TPMS telltale 

53088 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

26Specifically, the RMA referenced its 

submissions to Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572 

(entry numbers 116, 172, 228, 238, 241, 260, 261, 

262, 263, and 271) and to Docket No. NHTSA–

2004–19054 (entry number 34). 

27 70 FR 28888 (May 19, 2005) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–20967–8). 

provisions are now contained in Table 

1, rather than Table 2. Accordingly, we 

are revising S4.3.1(b) and S4.4(b)(2) of 

FMVSS No. 138, in order to properly 

reference the TPMS-related provision of 

FMVSS No. 101. 

Returning to our discussion of the 

three footnotes for the TPMS-related 

telltales incorporated into FMVSS No. 

101, these footnotes read as follows. 

Footnote 13, which is applied to the 

symbols and words for all three TPMS 

telltales (i.e., the combined telltale 

which does not indicate which tire is 

under-inflated, the combined telltale 

which does indicate which tire is underinflated, and the dedicated TPMS MIL), 

provides, ‘‘Required only for FMVSS 

compliant vehicles.’’ Thus, if the 

vehicle is certified to FMVSS No. 138, 

the TPMS telltale in question must 

comply with the requirements in Table 

2. 

Footnote 14, which applies only to 

the dedicated TPMS MIL telltale, makes 

clear that a separate telltale is not 

required; it states, ‘‘Alternatively, either 

low tire pressure telltale may be used to 

indicate a TPMS malfunction. See 

FMVSS 138.’’

Footnote 15 also applies only to the 

dedicated TPMS MIL, stating, ‘‘Required 

only for vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2007.’’ For vehicle 

manufacturers that elect to provide a 

separate telltale for the MIL, the telltale 

would need to display ‘‘TPMS’’ after 

that date. Again, vehicle manufacturers 

with vehicles certified to FMVSS No. 

138 could voluntarily certify that they 

comply with the MIL requirements 

before that date, in which case they 

would be subject to this TPMS telltale 

requirement, if they chose to install a 

dedicated MIL telltale. Because the 

necessary changes have already been 

incorporated into FMVSS No. 101, no 

additional amendments to the 

regulatory text are required by this final 

rule on this issue. 

D. Tire-Related Issues 

1. Spare Tires 

The April 8, 2005 final rule does not 

require the TPMS to monitor the 

pressure in a spare tire (either compact 

or full-sized), either while stowed or 

when installed on the vehicle. 

In its petition, ETV expressed its 

opinion that the TREAD Act requires 

the TPMS to continuously monitor all 

four active tires at all times while the 

vehicle is being driven. ETV then 

argued that because the April 8, 2005 

final rule does not require the spare tire 

(whether compact or full-size) to be 

equipped with a TPMS sensor (for direct 

systems), this would render the TPMS 

either entirely or partially inoperable, in 

contravention of the TREAD Act. 

Furthermore, ETV expressed concern 

that in such situations, the TPMS MIL 

may illuminate, thereby masking other 

tire or system faults. Accordingly, ETV 

recommended that the standard be 

amended to require the spare tire to be 

fitted with a TPMS sensor so that the 

TPMS may continue to function in 

compliance with the standard when a 

spare tire is in use. 

We have decided not to adopt ETV’s 

recommendation that we modify the 

standard to require the TPMS to operate 

when a spare tire is installed on the 

vehicle. We came to this decision for a 

number of reasons, including the 

knowledge on the part of drivers that 

temporary tires are not intended for 

extended use, the fact that compact 

spare tires pose operational problems 

for both direct and indirect TPMSs, the 

disincentive for manufacturers to 

supply a full-size spare (or any spare 

tire) if TPMS compliance were required, 

and the increased cost of the rule, with 

little if any safety benefit, if a spare tire 

must be monitored. In fact, as the 

standard is currently written, 

illumination of the TPMS MIL when a 

spare tire is installed may have the 

beneficial effect of encouraging the 

driver to rapidly repair or replace the 

regular tire, thereby permitting the spare 

tire to be returned to emergency reserve 

status. As noted in the final rule, 

NHTSA will not conduct compliance 

testing under Standard No. 138 with 

spare tires installed on the vehicle. 

2. Tire Reserve Load 

The April 8, 2005 final rule 

establishing FMVSS No. 138 does not 

include any separate requirements for 

tire reserve load beyond those already 

specified under our FMVSSs for tires. 

Consistent with the position in its 

earlier petition for rulemaking and its 

comments on the NPRM, the RMA 

argued that the April 8, 2005 final rule 

for TPMS does not adequately protect 

motor vehicle operators from the risk of 

driving on significantly under-inflated 

tires, because it does not provide a 

warning when one or more of the 

vehicle’s tires has insufficient pressure 

to carry the actual load on the tires. 

According to the RMA, the final rule’s 

TPMS activation threshold fails to 

ensure that consumers will receive 

adequate warning before the tire’s 

inflation pressure falls below the 

minimum level required to support the 

actual load (or if unknown, the 

maximum load) on the tire. The RMA 

did not provide any new data on this 

topic, and for the sake of brevity, it did 

not repeat in its petition all of its earlier 

arguments and reasoning as to the need 

for a tire reserve load. Instead, it 

incorporated its earlier submissions by 

reference.26 The RMA’s petition 

repeated its earlier recommendation that 

NHTSA should establish a reserve load 

requirement to ensure that the tires can 

safely carry the vehicle maximum load 

(i.e., not drop below the minimum 

values presented in the load/pressure 

tables of the Tire and Rim Association 

(TRA) Year Book), when the vehicle’s 

tires are under-inflated by 25 percent. 

ETRTO made essentially the same 

arguments as the RMA regarding the 

need for a tire reserve load requirement, 

in order to maximize consumer safety as 

required under the TREAD Act. We note 

that the RMA and ETRTO petitions for 

reconsideration provided no new data 

on the tire reserve load issue. 

We have decided to deny RMA’s and 

ETRTO’s request that we establish a tire 

reserve load requirement, based upon 

the reasoning cited in earlier agency 

pronouncements on this issue, as 

summarized below. In a notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 19, 2005, the agency denied the 

RMA’s petition for rulemaking seeking 

to establish its recommended tire 

reserve load because neither the RMA’s 

nor the agency’s data demonstrated a 

safety need for such a requirement.27

Specifically, the available evidence did 

not demonstrate a reliable or conclusive 

relationship between tires with little or 

no pressure reserve and a higher rate of 

tire failures in the field. For a more 

complete discussion of the tire reserve 

load issue, please consult the abovereferenced notice responding to the 

RMA petition. 

We further believe that the tire reserve 

load requirement requested by the RMA 

and ETRTO is unnecessary in light of 

certain other requirements in our tire 

standards. By way of explanation, 

FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and 

Rims, mandates, among other things, 

that all passenger cars sold in the 

United States be equipped with tires 

that are capable of carrying the vehicle’s 

maximum loaded vehicle weight at the 

manufacturer’s recommended cold 

inflation pressure (vehicle placard 

pressure). Multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, buses and trailers must 

be fitted with tires that are capable of 

supporting the vehicle’s gross axle 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53089 

28This requirement was adopted from FMVSS 

No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles 

Other Than Passenger Cars. Before TREAD Actrelated upgrades were made (which also 

consolidated NHTSA’s tire standards), passenger 

cars, and non-passenger cars regardless of their 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), were covered 

by FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 respectively. 

29Paragraph S4.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 110 permits 

the use of standard tire pressure/load tables 

contained in publications listed in paragraph 

S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 109 that are current at the 

date of manufacture of the tire or any later date. 

Specifically, publications by any of the following 

international industrial organizations may be used: 

(1) The Tire and Rim Association, (2) The European 

Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, (3) Japan 

Automobile Tire Manufacturers’ Association, Inc., 

(4) Tyre & Rim Association of Australia, (5) 

Associacao Latino Americana de Pneus e Aros 

Brazil), or (6) The South African Bureau of 

Standards. 

30The June 23, 2003 final rule pertained to 

FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Bias Ply and 

Certain Specialty Tires, FMVSS No. 110, Tire 

Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a 

GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less, 

FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor 

Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 

Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles, 

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor 

Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 

Kilograms (10,000 Pounds), and FMVSS No. 139, 

New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. See 

68 FR 38116 (June 23, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA–

2003–15400–1). 

31The agency has conducted a FMVSS No. 110 

vehicle normal load evaluation and has concluded 

that almost all light vehicles could meet a revised 

criteria for load reserve based on 94 percent of 

placard pressure with only a minor increase (e.g., 

1 or 2 psi) in inflation pressure to accommodate the 

new requirement. Id. at 38141. 

32 Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572–265 and 266. 

33The petition also stated that additional data 

related to the MAP issue were supplied by the 

Alliance and GM at Docket No. NHTSA–2000–

8572–268 and Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19054–95. 

weight rating (GAWR).28 In most cases, 

vehicle manufacturers meet these 

requirements by consulting 

standardized tables for tire size, loading, 

and inflation pressure published by the 

Tire and Rim Association or other 

international tire industry 

organizations.29

Vehicle manufacturers may, at their 

discretion, specify a higher placard 

pressure for the tires fitted to their 

products than that provided by the TRA 

tables to support the vehicle’s maximum 

load. This additional tire pressure is 

known as ‘‘tire pressure reserve.’’

Within bounds, an increase in tire 

pressure results in an increase in load 

carrying capacity. The extra load 

carrying capacity realized, because of 

the additional tire pressure, is called the 

‘‘tire load reserve.’’

As noted in our denial of the RMA’s 

petition, we believe that the existing 

requirements in our tires standards 

provide an adequate pressure reserve. 

FMVSS No. 110 also includes a 

requirement for a tire pressure reserve 

based on vehicle normal load. 

‘‘Vehicle normal load’’ is that load on 

an individual tire that is determined by 

distributing to each axle its share of the 

curb weight, accessory weight, and 

occupant weight and dividing the result 

by two. The number of occupants used 

to determine the ‘‘normal load’’ is 

defined in FMVSS No. 110 as two 

persons for a vehicle with four seating 

positions, and three persons for a 

vehicle with five seating positions. The 

current standard requires that the 

vehicle normal load on a tire shall not 

be greater than 88 percent of the tire’s 

maximum load rating as marked on the 

tire sidewall. 

NHTSA published a final rule 

upgrading the standards applicable to 

tires on June 26, 2003.30 The upgraded 

version of FMVSS No. 110 specifies that 

the vehicle normal load on each tire 

must not exceed 94 percent of the tire’s 

load rating at the placard pressure for 

that tire. This change in calculation of 

vehicle normal load is intended to more 

accurately reflect the load based on the 

vehicle’s placard pressure, which may 

vary from vehicle to vehicle, even when 

the same tires are used. We anticipate 

that this change may result in a placard 

pressure increase of 1–2 psi.31

3. Minimum Activation Pressure 

Under S4.2 of the standard, the TPMS 

must illuminate a low tire pressure 

warning telltale not more than 20 

minutes after the inflation pressure in 

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

a total of four tires, is equal to or less 

than either the pressure 25 percent 

below the vehicle manufacturer’s 

recommended cold inflation pressure, 

or the pressure specified in the 3rd 

column of Table 1 of the standard for 

the corresponding type of tire, 

whichever is higher. Table 1 is titled 

‘‘Low Tire Pressure Warning Telltale—

Minimum Activation Pressure’’ (MAP). 

The third column of Table 1 specifies 

the following MAP values: (1) P-metric, 

Standard Load (140 kPa/20 psi); (2) Pmetric, Extra Load (160 kPa/23 psi); (3) 

Load Range C (200 kPa/29 psi); (4) Load 

Range D (240 kPa/35 psi); and (5) Load 

Range E (240 kPa/35 psi). 

The Alliance acknowledged the 

modifications to the MAP values in the 

final rule as an improvement over the 

values proposed in the NPRM. However, 

the Alliance nevertheless recommended 

that the standard should be modified 

further to permit light truck Load Range 

D and E tires to be used across the safe 

operating range of inflation pressures for 

those tires that are specified in the load/ 

pressure tables of the TRA Year Book. 

According to the Alliance, TPMSs 

require a 7 to 10 psi differential between 

recommended cold inflation pressure 

and the TPMS low tire pressure warning 

threshold in order to allow for 

environmental effects, manufacturing 

variation, and other system variables, 

while avoiding nuisance warnings. 

Therefore, in order to specify a placard 

pressure of 35 psi, the TPMS activation 

threshold would need to be lowered to 

25 to 28 psi. 

As discussed in its earlier petition for 

rulemaking on MAPs,32 the Alliance 

argued that the MAP values in Table 1 

are likely to prove problematic for 

certain vehicle applications. The 

Alliance stated that it had previously 

submitted certain component and 

vehicle test data in support of its 

petition, including LT tire test data 

supplied by General Motors (data from 

endurance tests, low inflation pressure 

tests, laboratory and on-vehicle bead 

unseating tests).33 Based upon such 

data, the Alliance has concluded that 

there is not a demonstrated safety need 

for the specific MAP values for LT tires 

set forth in Table 1. According to the 

Alliance, more stringent requirements, 

testing at higher tire deflection levels, 

are already set by paragraph S6.4, ‘‘Low 

Inflation Pressure Performance,’’ of 

FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial 

Tires for Light Vehicles, so there is 

arguably not any need for such a 

requirement under FMVSS No. 138. 

Therefore, in its petition, the Alliance 

identified three recommended options 

for addressing the MAP issue: (1) 

Eliminate the MAP requirement for LT 

tires; (2) adopt the MAP values 

proposed by the Alliance, or (3) adopt 

29 psi as the MAP for all LT tires (Load 

Range C, D, and E). 

In its petition, the RMA expressed an 

opposing viewpoint on the MAP issue, 

objecting to the decision in the final rule 

to lower the MAP for Load Range D and 

E tires to 35 psi. The RMA argued that 

a MAP of 35 psi for these tires will not 

ensure that consumers receive an 

adequate warning before the tires 

become significantly under-inflated or 

over-inflated. The RMA recommended 

that the agency conduct further 

rulemaking related to MAPs, including 

issuance of an NPRM, so that the 

interested public has an opportunity to 

provide additional information and to 

fully participate in the resolution of this 

issue. (Michelin’s petition made the 

same arguments on this issue as the 

RMA petition, and it incorporated the 

RMA’s document by reference.) 

After careful consideration of the 

petitions addressing the MAP issue, we 

have decided to confirm and retain the 

MAP values for LT tires as presented in 

53090 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

34 Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8572–265. 

35 DOT HS 809 701. 

36The Alliance referenced NHTSA’s final rule 

responding to petitions for reconsideration of the 

Tire Safety Information rulemaking (see 68 FR 

33655 (June 5, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA–2003–

15278–1)). In that rule, the agency decided to 

extend the final rule’s lead time (of less than one 

year) for an additional year, in part because of the 

need for vehicle manufacturers to effect changes to 

owner’s manuals. The notice stated, ‘‘Additionally, 

for all car lines, manufacturers will be required to 

make extensive changes to their owner’s manuals 

and these changes typically require a longer lead 

time than that provided by the final rule.’’ 68 FR 

33655, 33656 (June 5, 2003). 

Table 1. As noted in the final rule, the 

TRA Year Book includes load/pressure 

relationships for Load Range D and E 

tires from 80 psi (maximum inflation 

pressure) down to 35 psi. This value 

provides a benchmark, indicating that a 

Load Range D or E tire could be safely 

operated at an inflation pressure as low 

as 35 psi. This approach is analogous to 

the approach we used in selecting the 

MAP values for P-metric tires, although 

the various tire industry publications 

exhibited more consistent values for Pmetric tires. 

The MAP values in Table 1 provide a 

floor value for activation of the TPMS 

for given classes of tires, and we do not 

believe that it is consistent with safety 

to eliminate the MAP for Load Range D 

and E tires. The MAPs play an 

important role in the TPMS’s ability to 

provide a timely warning to the driver 

regarding low tire pressure. We believe 

that the minimum operating pressure 

recommended for Load Range D and E 

tires in the TRA Year Book is an 

adequate and safe value for the MAP. 

We are aware that a MAP of 35 psi 

effectively requires that the minimum 

vehicle placard pressure be 40 to 45 psi 

to ensure proper TPMS function. 

However, we expect that the MAP issue 

raised by the Alliance and GM is only 

likely to impact a small percentage of 

vehicles using LT tires (i.e., typically 

vehicles with a GVWR of over 8,500 

pounds).34 Furthermore, our analysis of 

the available data has led us to conclude 

that the MAP values currently presented 

in Table 1 should not have a significant 

negative impact upon vehicle handling 

or the propensity for rollover, so we 

believe that the current MAP values 

provide a long-term resolution of this 

issue without the need for further 

rulemaking.35

With regard to the RMA and Michelin 

petitions, neither of them provided any 

data or rationale explaining why the 

agency should initiate new, separate 

rulemaking to address the MAP issue for 

Load Range D and E tires. These 

petitions merely provided a conclusory 

statement that MAP values of 35 psi will 

not ensure that consumers will be 

warned before the tires are dangerously 

overloaded or under-inflated. 

E. Owner’s Manual Requirements 

Under S4.5, the owner’s manual of 

each vehicle certified as complying with 

FMVSS No. 138 must provide an image 

of the Low Tire Pressure Telltale symbol 

(and an image of the TPMS Malfunction 

Telltale warning (‘‘TPMS’’), if a 

dedicated telltale is utilized for this 

function) with the following statement 

in English: 

Each tire, including the spare (if provided), 

should be checked monthly when cold and 

inflated to the inflation pressure 

recommended by the vehicle manufacturer 

on the vehicle placard or tire inflation 

pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a 

different size than the size indicated on the 

vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure 

label, you should determine the proper 

inflation pressure for those tires.) 

As an added safety feature, your vehicle 

has been equipped with a tire pressure 

monitoring system (TPMS) that illuminates a 

low tire pressure telltale when one or more 

of your tires is significantly under-inflated. 

Accordingly, when the low tire pressure 

telltale illuminates, you should stop and 

check your tires as soon as possible, and 

inflate them to the proper pressure. Driving 

on a significantly under-inflated tire causes 

the tire to overheat and can lead to tire 

failure. Under-inflation also reduces fuel 

efficiency and tire tread life, and may affect 

the vehicle’s handling and stopping ability. 

Please note that the TPMS is not a 

substitute for proper tire maintenance, and it 

is the driver’s responsibility to maintain 

correct tire pressure, even if under-inflation 

has not reached the level to trigger 

illumination of the TPMS low tire pressure 

telltale. 

[The following paragraph is required for all 

vehicles certified to the standard starting on 

September 1, 2007 and for vehicles 

voluntarily equipped with a compliant TPMS 

MIL before that time.] Your vehicle has also 

been equipped with a TPMS malfunction 

indicator to indicate when the system is not 

operating properly. [For vehicles with a 

dedicated MIL telltale, add the following 

statement: The TPMS malfunction indicator 

is provided by a separate telltale, which 

displays the symbol ‘‘TPMS’’ when 

illuminated.] [For vehicles with a combined 

low tire pressure/MIL telltale, add the 

following statement: The TPMS malfunction 

indicator is combined with the low tire 

pressure telltale. When the system detects a 

malfunction, the telltale will flash for 

approximately one minute and then remain 

continuously illuminated. This sequence will 

continue upon subsequent vehicle start-ups 

as long as the malfunction exists.] When the 

malfunction indicator is illuminated, the 

system may not be able to detect or signal 

low tire pressure as intended. TPMS 

malfunctions may occur for a variety of 

reasons, including the installation of 

replacement or alternate tires or wheels on 

the vehicle that prevent the TPMS from 

functioning properly. Always check the 

TPMS malfunction indicator after replacing 

one or more tires or wheels on your vehicle 

to ensure that the replacement or alternate 

tires and wheels allow the TPMS to continue 

to function properly. 

For vehicles that do not come with an 

owner’s manual, the required 

information must be provided in writing 

to the first purchaser of the vehicle 

(S4.5(c)). 

As provided under S4.5(b), vehicle 

manufacturers may include information 

in the owner’s manual about the time 

for the TPMS telltale(s) to extinguish 

once the low tire pressure condition or 

the malfunction is corrected. Vehicle 

manufacturers may also include 

information in the owner’s manual 

about the significance of the low tire 

pressure warning telltale illumination, a 

description of corrective action to be 

undertaken, whether the TPMS 

functions with the vehicle’s spare tire (if 

provided), and how to use a reset button 

(if one is provided). 

Petitioners recommended changes to 

the content of the owner’s manual 

language, and they also requested 

additional lead time for implementing 

the standard’s owner’s manual 

provisions. These arguments are 

presented immediately below. 

1. Lead Time 

The Alliance argued that because the 

owner’s manual requirements of FMVSS 

No. 138 do not provide any additional 

lead time for those provisions, they 

significantly impact the ability of 

manufacturers to earn and apply carryforward and carry-backward credits. 

The Alliance stated that the text for the 

required owner’s manual language 

differs substantially from that 

incorporated in the June 2002 final rule 

(since vacated) or September 2004 

NPRM, and its petition also stated that 

current owner’s manuals of TPMSequipped vehicles contain a statement 

consistent with the language provided 

in one or the other of those two notices. 

The Alliance stated that preparation 

of owner’s manuals normally involves a 

one-to-two year process, something that 

the Alliance claims that NHTSA has 

recognized in other proceedings.36

Although at first blush these owner’s 

manual changes may seem like a simple 

matter, the Alliance argued that the 

multiplicity of brands and models 

significantly increases the complexity of 

this task. Furthermore, the Alliance’s 

petition stated that, overall, since the 

time of the June 5, 2002 final rule, ‘‘the 

different versions of the [required 

owner’s manual] text differ only in 

detail, and not in substance or intent.’’

As a result, the Alliance argued that 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53091 

such differences do not justify hindering 

manufacturers’ ability to introduce 

TPMSs in an expedited fashion. For the 

above reasons, the Alliance 

recommended delaying the effective 

date for all TPMS-related owner’s 

manual requirements until September 1, 

2006. 

The AIAM’s petition raised many of 

the same arguments regarding the need 

for lead time for the owner’s manual 

requirements, both for vehicles that 

manufacturers intend to earn carryforward credits, as well as for other 

vehicles. However, the AIAM’s petition 

differed in that it asked NHTSA to delay 

the standard’s compliance date for 

TPMS-related owner’s manual 

requirements until September 1, 2007. 

Because that is the date for mandatory 

compliance with the standard’s 

malfunction detection requirements, the 

AIAM reasoned that such date would 

allow all required owner’s manual 

language related to the TPMS to be 

incorporated at the same time. 

After careful consideration of these 

petitions, we have decided to delay the 

compliance date for the TPMS owner’s 

manual requirement, thereby granting 

petitions’ request for additional lead 

time to incorporate the required 

language into the vehicle owner’s 

manual. We have decided to postpone 

compliance with the owner’s manual 

requirement until September 1, 2006, 

and we are modifying S4.5(a) of the 

standard accordingly. (We note that the 

compliance date for incorporation of the 

required language related to the TPMS 

MIL is has not changed (i.e., September 

1, 2007).) We believe that this request 

can be granted without negatively 

impacting vehicle safety. First, delay of 

the owner’s manual requirements would 

not impact the functioning of the TPMS 

or the warnings that it provides. 

Furthermore, we expect that even before 

that date, TPMS-equipped vehicles 

would have some owner’s manual 

statement presenting relevant 

information to the consumer. This 

change should facilitate vehicle 

manufacturers’ ability to earn carryforward and carry-backward credits for 

TPMSs that otherwise comply with 

FMVSS No. 138 since publication of the 

April 8, 2005 final rule. 

We specifically note that delay in the 

compliance date for the standard’s 

owner’s manual requirements does not 

impact vehicle manufacturers’

responsibility to provide TPMSs 

complying with FMVSS No. 138 on a 

schedule consistent with the phase-in 

commencing on October 5, 2005, as set 

forth in the April 8, 2005 final rule. 

We are denying the AIAM’s request to 

extend the vehicle owner’s manual 

requirements until September 1, 2007. 

Based upon our analysis, we believe 

that a September 1, 2006 compliance 

date is practicable, so we do not see any 

reason to further delay presentation of a 

standardized message to consumers 

regarding the presence and function of 

TPMSs. 

2. Content of Required Statement 

In its petition, ETRTO argued that the 

provisions in the April 8, 2005 final rule 

dealing with the owner’s manual 

language may be inadequate to warn 

consumers regarding potential TPMS 

shortcomings. Accordingly, ETRTO 

recommended that S4.5 of the standard 

be amended to: (1) Clearly explain the 

precautions that the consumer must take 

to ensure proper functioning of the 

TPMS for systems equipped with a 

manual reset feature (e.g., to prevent 

recalibration at an incorrect inflation 

level); (2) explicitly state that the TPMS 

may not alert the driver for a 20-minute 

period immediately after a malfunction 

occurs, until such time as the TPMS can 

detect the malfunction, and (3) require, 

rather than permit, vehicle 

manufacturers to provide the 

information specified under S4.5(b). 

SRI recommended amending S4.5(a) 

by supplementing the required 

statement in the vehicle owner’s manual 

with the following additional language 

to make consumers aware that other 

anomalous situations may exist: 

When illuminated, the malfunction 

warning light indicates that the TPMS is not 

receiving a signal from the inflation pressure 

or wheel sensors. However, even if the 

malfunction warning light is not illuminated 

there can be conditions that can cause the 

system to be less sensitive to the tire pressure 

loss. It is the driver’s responsibility to 

maintain correct tire pressure even if both 

TPMS and malfunction indicator lamps are 

not illuminated. 

SRI argued that its recommended 

owner’s manual language is necessary 

because it is not possible to anticipate 

all problems that would cause 

inaccuracies in a TPMS’s functioning, 

some of which may not be capable of 

being detected by the TPMS 

malfunction indicator. 

After careful review, we have decided 

that no further modifications to the 

vehicle owner’s manual requirements 

are required as a result of the ETRTO 

and SRI petitions. We believe that the 

language set forth in the April 8, 2005 

final rule provides a clear message to 

the consumer regarding the presence 

and function of the TPMS installed in 

the vehicle, as well as its supporting 

role to the vehicle operator’s ongoing 

responsibility for regular tire 

maintenance. We believe that the 

required owner’s manual statement 

accomplishes its purpose, so it is not 

necessary to require the additional 

language recommended by ETRTO and 

SRI. 

Furthermore, we have decided to 

deny ETRTO’s request to make 

mandatory the other TPMS-related 

topics addressed in S4.5(b). Again, 

because we believe that the required 

statement under S4.5(a) provides a clear 

and simple explanation about the TPMS 

to the consumer, we believe the optional 

topics listed in S4.5(b) may be 

beneficial, but are not necessarily 

critical. In addition, some of those 

topics may not apply to all vehicles, 

depending upon the type of TPMS 

technology installed. 

3. Other Owner’s Manual Issues 

The Alliance recommended moving 

the requirements currently contained in 

S4.5, Written Instructions, from 49 CFR 

part 571 (i.e., FMVSS No. 138) to 49 

CFR part 575, Consumer Information, 

the locus of other owner’s manual 

requirements involving specific 

language. According to the Alliance, 

other safety standards under part 571 

with requirements for the owner’s 

manual generally provide manufacturers 

discretion to include their own 

descriptions of certain required 

information or elements (e.g., FMVSS 

Nos. 108, 202, 205, 208, 210). 

The Alliance expressed concern that 

retention of the owner’s manual 

requirement in part 571 could 

unnecessarily trigger the recall and 

remedy provisions under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120. The Alliance argued 

that even a typographical error, no 

matter how minor or insignificant, 

would at the very least require the 

manufacturer to notify NHTSA that a 

noncompliance exists by filing a report 

under 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Reports, and to petition 

for a determination of 

inconsequentiality. 

Furthermore, the Alliance argued that 

movement of the TPMS-related owner’s 

manual requirements to part 575 would 

not have any impact upon vehicle 

manufacturers’ compliance, because 

even with such a change, manufacturers 

would still be subject to the penalty 

provisions of part 578, Civil and 

Criminal Penalties, for violations of the 

part 575 regulations. In addition, 

Alliance stated that there is already 

sufficient incentive for manufacturers to 

communicate effectively regarding 

safety issues, because vehicle 

manufacturers have a strong incentive to 

satisfy customers, to protect corporate 

reputation, and to avoid litigation. 

53092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

The Alliance argued that reassigning 

the TPMS-related owner’s manual 

requirements to part 575 would alleviate 

any carry-forward credit concerns 

associated with text that does not 

precisely conform to that adopted in 

FMVSS No. 138. That is because under 

S7.4(a) of FMVSS No. 138 and subpart 

G of part 585 (TPMS Phase-in Reporting 

Requirements), a manufacturer must 

report compliance with all TPMS 

requirements, except for S4.4 which 

deals with the TPMS MIL, in order to 

earn carry-forward credits. 

The Alliance’s petition also stated 

that the required owner’s manual 

language presented in the agency’s 

TPMS Laboratory Test Procedure (TP–

138–00) does not match that set forth in 

S4.5(a). The Alliance asked the agency 

to reconcile this conflicting language. 

Upon consideration, we have decided 

to deny the Alliance request to move the 

requirement under S4.5(a) for the 

specific owner’s manual statement to 49 

CFR part 575. We believe that the 

required statement describing the TPMS 

and its role is a fundamental aspect of 

the standard, and accordingly, we 

believe that it should remain an integral 

part of FMVSS No. 138. Although it is 

true that errors in printing the owner’s 

manual statement could trigger 

manufacturer responsibilities under the 

recall and remedy provisions of 49 

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, we believe that 

such instances would be rare and easily 

avoidable. Careful proofreading of prepublication owner’s manual statements 

should ensure that the standard’s 

required language is faithfully executed, 

and in rare instances where 

typographical errors arise, those 

situations can be readily corrected 

through a petition for determination of 

inconsequential noncompliance. 

As to the Alliance’s point regarding 

the discrepancy between the required 

owner’s manual language in S4.5(a) of 

the standard and the TPMS Laboratory 

Test Procedure (TP–138–00), we have 

since corrected the latter document to 

remedy this inadvertent error (see 

http://nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/ 

menuitem.b166d5602714f9a73baf

3210dba046a0/). 

F. Test Procedures 

The test conditions for the TPMS may 

be found under S5 of the standard, and 

the corresponding test procedures may 

be found at S6 of the standard. Specific 

aspects of these test conditions and 

procedures are outlined below, along 

with focused issues raised in petitions 

for reconsideration. 

However, the petition submitted by 

ETRTO raised the issue of the adequacy 

of the test procedures generally, so that 

topic will be discussed and responded 

to as an initial matter. Specifically, 

ETRTO argued that the final rule’s test 

procedures represent a step backward 

from the NPRM in terms of ensuring 

that drivers are warned promptly when 

a vehicle’s tires are 25-percent underinflated or reach the minimum 

activation pressure. ETRTO expressed 

concern that ‘‘comparison of an underinflation level checked while tyres are 

warm with a placard inflation level 

relative to cold tyres may be seriously 

misleading.’’ The petitioner provided 

data intended to demonstrate the 

inconsistent results that may be 

presented, depending upon the tire and 

when it is tested under the test 

procedures of FMVSS No. 138. ETRTO 

stated that the final rule’s arguments 

related to the vehicle cool-down period 

(discussed at section IV.C.4.d of the 

final rule) are not pertinent because they 

are not supported by experimental 

evidence. Furthermore, ETRTO argued 

that the final rule does not take into 

account measurement uncertainties and 

capabilities of TPMSs, and that 

measurement quality assurance 

principles have not been met. ETRTO 

also asserted that modifications are 

necessary because manometers at gas 

station air pumps are seriously 

inaccurate, something which could 

contribute to the above problems. For 

these reasons, ETRTO recommended 

reverting to the test procedures set forth 

in S6 of the NPRM, because it believes 

that those procedures are more likely to 

result in closer compliance with the 

standard’s 25-percent under-inflation 

detection requirement. 

In response, we note that the test 

procedure for low tire pressure 

detection was modified in the final rule 

to eliminate the one-hour cool-down 

period after system calibration, because 

that provision required that the tires be 

cycled from cool to warm during the 

test. That would have introduced 

temperature and pressure uncertainties 

during the test procedure, and there 

would have been the possibility that tire 

pressure would rise to a level above the 

activation threshold for the low tire 

detection telltale. Elimination of the 

one-hour cool-down period allows the 

low pressure test to be conducted with 

minimal temperature and pressure 

change. 

We believe that the arguments in the 

April 8, 2005 final rule related to the 

vehicle cool-down period (see section 

IV.C.6.d) are supported by the data in 

the ETRTO petition. That is, the tire 

pressure in the deflated tire remains 

below the TPMS telltale activation level 

while the vehicle is driven. With regard 

to the argument that the test procedure 

in the final rule allows the test pressure 

in the under-inflated tire to be 30 

percent or more below placard pressure, 

the compliance tests must be conducted 

at an under-inflation level of 25 percent 

or more below placard or at the MAP. 

We believe that the test procedures, as 

amended in this final rule, will result in 

TPMS testing with an under-inflation 

level of 25–30 percent below placard for 

the test tire(s), which we also believe is 

sufficiently accurate when variations in 

ambient temperature, tire temperature, 

tire geometry, and test instrumentation 

are considered. The example offered by 

ETRTO in which tire pressure errors at 

service stations are calculated based on 

a pressure gauge with 90 percent 

accuracy, is not representative of the 

level of accuracy experienced in 

compliance or certification testing. For 

these reasons, we believe that the test 

procedures, as amended in response to 

the petitions, are appropriate. 

1. Test Conditions 

The final rule included provisions 

under S5, Test Conditions, to specify the 

conditions under which the agency 

would conduct compliance testing 

under S6, Test Procedures. Specifically, 

S5 provided that during testing, the 

ambient temperature would be between 

0° C (32° F) and 40° C (104° F) (see S5.1, 

as contained in the April 8, 2005 final 

rule). The road test surface will be any 

portion of the Southern Loop of the 

Treadwear Test Course defined in 

Appendix A and Figure 2 of 49 CFR 

575.104, and the road surface will be 

dry during testing (see S5.2, as 

contained in the April 8, 2005 final 

rule). 

The vehicle will be tested at any 

weight between its lightly loaded 

vehicle weight and its gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) without 

exceeding any of its gross axle weight 

ratings (see S5.3.1, as contained in the 

April 8, 2005 final rule). The vehicle’s 

TPMS will be calibrated and tested at 

speeds between 50 km/h (31.1 mph) and 

100 km/h (62.2 mph) (see S5.3.2, as 

contained in the April 8, 2005 final 

rule). The vehicle’s rims may be 

positioned at any wheel position, 

consistent with any related instructions 

or limitations in the vehicle owner’s 

manual (see S5.3.3, as contained in the 

April 8, 2005 final rule). The final rule 

also specifies that the vehicle’s tires will 

be shaded from direct sun when the 

vehicle is parked (see S5.3.4, as 

contained in the April 8, 2005 final rule) 

and that driving time shall not 

accumulate during application of the 

service brake (see S5.3.5, as contained 

in the April 8, 2005 final rule). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53093 

The RMA petitioned the agency to 

amend the test conditions in the TPMS 

standard to ensure that the system 

operates under all conditions that 

would represent the real-world driving 

environment. Although the RMA’s 

petition did not set forth these 

recommended changes in detail, it did 

reference the same recommendations 

from the organization’s earlier petition 

for rulemaking and its comments on the 

September 2004 NPRM for TPMS. In 

those earlier submissions, the RMA 

argued that the temperature range for 

testing should be expanded to include 

ambient temperatures below freezing 

(32° F) and above 104° F. The RMA also 

advocated testing under slippery road 

conditions, increasing the range for the 

driving speed to include speeds over 

100 kmh for low tire pressure detection, 

and testing during braking maneuvers. 

ETRTO made a similar argument in its 

petition, seeking changes to the 

standard’s test condition to comport 

with the organization’s suggestions 

presented at an earlier stage of the 

rulemaking. In its earlier submissions, 

ETRTO made comments similar to those 

provided by the RMA (discussed 

immediately above) on this issue, except 

that ETRTO also recommended testing 

at speeds below 31 mph. According to 

ETRTO, unless such modifications are 

made to better reflect actual driving 

environments, the standard will not 

maximize consumer safety, as required 

by the TREAD Act. 

The petition of VW/Audi argued that 

the Southern Loop of the Tread Wear 

Test Course may not represent a 

reasonable or practicable means of 

evaluating real-world TPMS usage, as 

would meet the objective of establishing 

a standard that would both enhance 

motor vehicle safety and also be 

practicable for compliance purposes. 

For this reason, VW/Audi recommended 

that S6(d) and (f) of the standard’s test 

procedures should be revised to permit 

up to 60 minutes of driving time for 

certification purposes. Specifically, VW/ 

Audi recommended that S6(d), the 

system calibration/learning phase, 

should permit a cumulative total of 60 

minutes of driving with a minimum of 

10 minutes in at least three vehicle 

speed ranges (e.g., 50–70 kmh, 70–85 

kmh, and 85–100 kmh (or some other 

sets of speed ranges with limits of ±10 

kmh)). VW/Audi also stated that the 

detection time in S6(f)(2) should be 

increased to a total cumulative time of 

60 minutes, and that the drive time in 

S6(f)(3) should be the lesser of 60 

minutes or the time at which the low 

tire pressure telltale illuminates. 

After considering the petitioners’

comments regarding test conditions, we 

have decided that no further 

modifications to the test conditions in 

S5 are necessary. The agency’s intention 

in developing the test procedure for 

TPMS-equipped vehicles was not to test 

the TPMS at every conceivable vehicle 

operating condition, but to instead 

evaluate the system at operating 

conditions that are typically 

encountered during normal driving. The 

RMA and ETRTO did not present any 

new data or arguments regarding the 

adequacy of the final rule’s test 

conditions, nor did they specify any 

recommendations for test parameters 

that they believe would be more 

reflective of real world driving 

conditions. 

Consistent with the approach 

discussed above, the agency decided to 

specify the Southern Loop of the Tread 

Wear Test Course, a public roadway, for 

the compliance test, rather than using a 

test facility. We do not agree with the 

argument in the VW/Audi petition that 

the Southern Loop of the Tread Wear 

Test Course is not a reasonable or 

practicable means of evaluating realworld TPMS usage. We believe that a 

public roadway is highly representative 

of the real world conditions that may be 

encountered by drivers, and we further 

believe that, in light of the fact that this 

particular course has been used for 

several years for testing under our 

Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 

(UTQGS), there is not any reason to 

believe that the course would not 

similarly be suitable for TPMS testing. 

We are not adopting the suggestion of 

VW/Audi to specify that portions of the 

test be conducted in three ±10 kmh 

subsets of the overall speed range 

specified in S5.3.2. The VW/Audi 

petition did not provide any data to 

demonstrate why these narrower speed 

range categories are necessary, and 

because vehicle operators are unlikely 

to observe such strictures during normal 

driving, we have decided to retain the 

final rule’s speed range of 50–100 kmh 

(31.1–62.2 mph) without additional 

refinement. Furthermore, we do not 

believe that VW/Audi’s argument 

related to extending the time periods for 

TPMS calibration and low tire pressure 

detection is directly related to the 

standard’s test conditions; accordingly, 

this issue is being addressed elsewhere 

in this notice. 

For these reasons, we continue to 

believe that the test conditions specified 

in the final rule will result in robust 

TPMSs that will function normally over 

a wide range of operating conditions. 

Accordingly, we do not believe that 

additional specifications related to 

temperature, weather, or speed would 

appreciably change the TPMS’s 

performance. Furthermore, it is unlikely 

that design changes yielding greater 

safety benefits would result because 

vehicle manufacturers are aware of the 

temperature, weather, vehicle speed, 

and other conditions that their vehicles 

are exposed to and typically design to 

meet or exceed those conditions. 

2. Vehicle Cool-Down Period 

Under S6, Test Procedures, the final 

rule states that the vehicle will be 

driven within five minutes after 

reducing the inflation pressure in the 

tire(s) as part of the low tire pressure 

detection phase (see S6(f)(1), as 

contained in the April 8, 2005 final 

rule), and, for vehicles in which the 

TPMS successfully detected low tire 

pressure, it also requires the vehicle’s 

ignition to be turned off for five 

minutes, after which time the ignition 

locking system is reactivated to 

determine whether the system continues 

to detect the under-inflation condition 

(see S6(g), as contained in the April 8, 

2005 final rule). Under S6(h), the next 

sequential step in the test procedure, the 

vehicle is to be kept stationary for a 

period of up to one hour with the engine 

off, after which time the vehicle’s tires 

are re-inflated and the TPMS should 

recognize that the low tire pressure 

situation has been resolved. The vehicle 

may be driven in order to allow the 

TPMS to check the tire pressure and to 

extinguish the low tire pressure telltale. 

In their petitions, ETRTO and 

SmarTire objected to the agency’s 

decision in the April 8, 2005 final rule 

to eliminate the vehicle ‘‘cool down’’

period in S6(e) and S6(f)(1), for the 

following reasons. With reference to the 

calibration/learning phase in S6(d), 

SmarTire argued that a 20-minute 

driving interval (especially at high 

speeds and high ambient temperatures) 

may increase tire pressure by 5–6 psi 

over placard pressure. SmarTire 

expressed concern that this pressure 

build-up of 5–6 psi would still be 

present when the pressure in the tire(s) 

is reduced to the test pressure. 

SmarTire provided data indicating 

that as presently worded, the FMVSS 

No. 138 test procedure would permit a 

TPMS with only a 50-percent underinflation detection capability, rather 

than the required 25-percent underinflation detection capability. SmarTire 

asserted that this situation could lead to 

irreparable structural damage to the tire, 

which could possibly lead to tire failure, 

so the petitioner recommended 

amending the final rule to restore the 

one-hour cool down period to the test 

procedure. 

ETRTO also provided tire pressure 

data obtained by driving a vehicle, 

53094 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

deflating the warm tires, and measuring 

tire pressure at various time intervals 

after tire deflation. The ETRTO data 

indicated that, under most deflation 

conditions, the warm tires that were 

deflated to 25 percent below placard 

pressure minus 2 psi maintained a tire 

pressure of 30 percent or more below 

placard pressure. 

For the reasons that follow, we have 

decided against reinstating the one-hour 

cool-down period proposed in the 

NPRM. However, we are also sensitive 

to petitioners’ arguments that the 

pressure during testing should be kept 

as close as possible to the standard’s 25- 

percent under-inflation activation 

threshold. 

Our understanding of the relevant 

positions on the cool-down period is as 

follows. Vehicle manufacturers 

expressed concern that if a vehicle is 

permitted to cool down for one hour 

after the calibration phase of testing, 

once the vehicle is driven, the tires will 

warm up, and tire pressure would be 

expected to rise by several psi. Thus, 

vehicle manufacturers are concerned 

that the tires may warm up to a point 

above the TPMS low tire activation 

threshold (i.e., less than 25 percent 

below placard pressure), thereby 

causing the low tire pressure telltale to 

extinguish after illumination or not 

illuminate at all. Accordingly, the 

vehicle manufacturers favor both a short 

cool-down period (e.g., five minutes or 

less) and a larger temperature 

compensation adjustment (e.g., 2 psi). 

In contrast, tire manufacturers are 

concerned that there would be a 30- 

percent or greater difference in pressure 

between: (a) A cold tire inflated to 

placard pressure and then heated up by 

driving and (b) a warm tire that has been 

deflated to 25 percent below placard 

pressure. Under real world driving 

conditions, this would increase the 

potential for tire damage and failure. 

Accordingly, tire manufacturers favor a 

longer cool-down period (e.g., one hour) 

and a smaller temperature 

compensation adjustment. 

In response to public comment from 

vehicle manufacturers at the NPRM 

stage, the agency reduced the cool-down 

period in S6(f)(1) from the NPRM’s 

proposed one hour to the final rule’s 

five minutes, in order to conduct the 

low pressure test without significant 

temperature variation. We agree with 

the vehicle manufacturers that 

elimination of the one-hour cool-down 

period will help maintain the underinflated tire’s pressure and allow it to 

remain below the TPMS activation 

threshold during testing. Although the 

pressure difference between the fullyinflated tires and the under-inflated 

tire(s) may be somewhat larger without 

the one-hour cool-down, the actual 

pressure of the under-inflated tire(s) 

would not be expected to be 

significantly above the standard’s low 

tire pressure activation threshold. The 

SmarTire and ETRTO petitions did not 

provide any data to document the tire 

damage expected to occur as a result of 

the final rule’s reduction in the time of 

the cool-down period, and they did not 

provide any alternative solution to the 

problem of tire pressure and 

temperature rising during vehicle 

operation. Accordingly, we have 

decided to retain the provisions in S6 

related to vehicle cool-down as 

presented in the final rule without 

change. 

3. 2-psi Adjustment (Temperature 

Correction) 

Under S6(e) of the final rule, any 

combination of one to four tires is 

deflated to 14 kPa (2 psi) below the 

inflation pressure at which the TPMS is 

required to illuminate the low tire 

pressure warning. This provision sets 

the stage for the test procedures’ low 

pressure test (i.e., the system detection 

phase). This adjustment provides some 

margin in compliance testing to ensure 

that a warm tire does not cause a tire 

deflated by 25 percent below placard 

pressure to again rise slightly above the 

25-percent TPMS warning threshold. 

The issue of the 2 psi adjustment in 

S6(e) of the test procedures was among 

the most frequently raised issues in the 

petitions for reconsideration (i.e., topic 

addressed by the Alliance, Michelin, the 

RMA, and SmarTire). The RMA stated 

that the final rule modified the test 

procedure to include a ¥14 kPa (¥2 

psi) adjustment in tire pressure during 

testing, rather than the ¥7 kPa (¥1 psi) 

adjustment proposed in the NPRM, but 

it did not provide any independent 

testing data or other verification to 

support this change. 

To address this point, a number of 

RMA member companies conducted 

testing, and these data, provided with 

the RMA petition, suggested that this 

change to the test procedures could 

permit testing of the TPMS with tires 

under-inflated by 32 percent or more 

below placard pressure, rather than the 

required 25 percent. Furthermore, the 

RMA stated that its testing showed that 

by controlling the deflation rate, it 

would be possible to eliminate any 

increase in tire pressure that occurs after 

rapid tire deflation. 

The RMA offered the following 

recommended solution to this perceived 

problem, which it characterized as a 

minor modification of S6(e) of the 

standard’s test procedures, but which it 

believes would produce consistent and 

objective results. Specifically, the 

RMA’s petition called for a pressure recheck and reset after deflation through 

the following modified language 

(bracketed text is deleted text): 

Stop the vehicle and deflate any 

combination of one to four tires until the 

deflated tire(s) is (are) at [14 kPa (2 psi) 

below] the inflation pressure at which the 

tire pressure monitoring system is required to 

illuminate the low tire pressure warning 

telltale. After two minutes, re-check the tire 

pressure and adjust the pressure as 

necessary. 

Michelin reiterated the RMA’s point 

that a ¥14 kPa (¥2 psi) adjustment to 

the TPMS activation threshold could 

result in a TPMS being tested at 32 

percent under-inflation, rather than the 

required level of 25 percent, and it 

incorporated the reasoning set forth in 

the RMA submission by reference. 

Michelin also provided an attachment to 

its petition intended to demonstrate the 

variability of the pressure increase for 

warm tires after deflation depending 

upon tire size and deflation technique. 

SmarTire also objected to the 

provision in the test procedures that sets 

the tire pressure at 14 kPa (2 psi) below 

the 25-percent-below-placard level, 

because it argued that this approach 

could result in a TPMS being tested at 

30-percent under-inflation. SmarTire 

stated that if a 14 kPa (2 psi) tolerance 

on test pressure setting is necessary for 

test consistency, then the agency should 

modify the standard to require the 

TPMS to illuminate the low tire 

pressure warning telltale at some point 

above the 25-percent under-inflation 

threshold, such that 25-percent underinflation remains the minimum 

requirement. 

The Alliance did not object to the 

level of the pressure adjustment 

provided in S6(e), but it did request 

further changes to S6 to account for the 

fact that environmental factors (e.g., 

ambient temperature, wind), road test 

surface temperature (i.e., heat transfer 

from road to tire), and sun load on the 

tires (during driving and when 

stationary) can impact tire temperature 

and tire pressure. According to the 

Alliance, unless the standard carefully 

controls for these factors, there is a 

significant risk that a vehicle will be 

mistakenly determined to be out of 

compliance. 

Therefore, the Alliance also 

recommended additional verification in 

order to provide an objective 

determination of noncompliance, which 

it believes may be accomplished by 

modifying S6(f) and (g) of the standard 

as follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53095 

37 Docket No. NHTSA–2003–15400–9. 

38 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–21. 

39 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–29. 

(f) If the low tire pressure telltale did not 

illuminate, stop the vehicle. Check the 

inflation pressure of the tire(s) deflated in 

S6(e). 

(i) If the pressure in the deflated tire(s) is 

below the inflation pressure at which the 

TPMS is required to illuminate the low tire 

pressure telltale, discontinue the test. 

(ii) If the pressure in the deflated tire(s) is 

above the inflation pressure at which the 

TPMS is required to illuminate the low tire 

pressure telltale, repeat procedure from S6(e). 

(g) If the low tire pressure telltale 

illuminated during the procedure in 

paragraph S6(f), turn the ignition locking 

system to the ‘‘Off’’ or ‘‘Lock’’ position. After 

a 5-minute period, turn the vehicle’s ignition 

locking system to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. 

The telltale must illuminate and remain 

illuminated as long as the ignition locking 

system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. If the 

telltale does not illuminate or turns off 

during this procedure, check the inflation 

pressure of the tire(s) deflated in S6(e). If the 

pressure in the deflated tire(s) is below the 

inflation pressure at which the TPMS is 

required to illuminate the low tire pressure 

telltale, discontinue the test. 

After careful consideration of the 

petitioners’ arguments related to the 2- 

psi pressure adjustment, we have 

decided to reduce that adjustment to 1 

psi. However, we have decided that it is 

not necessary to incorporate the 

additional pressure checks 

recommended by the Alliance and the 

RMA. The following explains our 

rationale. 

In response to public comments 

submitted by NIRA Dynamics and VW/ 

Audi on the NPRM, we added the 2-psi 

pressure adjustment to the low tire 

pressure detection test in S6(f). 

However, given that the vehicle cooldown period has been significantly 

reduced and that the low tire pressure 

test is to be conducted without 

significant tire temperature variation, 

we are concerned that a 2-psi pressure 

adjustment may actually represent an 

under-inflation level closer to 30 

percent, rather than the standard’s 

stated activation threshold of 25-percent 

under-inflation. Assuming that a tire’s 

inflation pressure typically rises 2–3 psi 

during normal vehicle operations, we 

believe that this is a valid concern. We 

believe that amending the standard to 

provide a 1-psi adjustment under S6(f) 

would significantly reduce the amount 

of under-inflation deviation from the 

threshold level articulated in the 

standard. 

The Alliance recommended revising 

the test procedure in a manner that 

would eliminate the standard’s current 

five-minute cool-down period because it 

believes that even a small delay could 

allow the tires to cool slightly, thereby 

resulting in a pressure decrease that 

could once again allow the pressure to 

increase above the detection threshold 

level, once the vehicle is driven again 

during the low pressure detection 

phase. According to the Alliance, the 2- 

psi adjustment helps ensure that any 

pressure increase as the vehicle is 

driven will not result in the pressure 

rising above the activation level. We 

have considered the Alliance’s 

concerns, but we have decided that it is 

not necessary to eliminate the fiveminute cool-down period and that it is 

possible to limit the pressure 

adjustment to 1 psi without triggering 

testing problems. 

Test data submitted by the RMA in 

August 2003 demonstrated that a tire’s 

temperature and inflation pressure do 

not begin to decrease immediately 

following the end of the road wheel test 

(conducted under FMVSS No. 139), but 

instead, the tire maintains its 

operational temperature and pressure 

for a few minutes before beginning to 

slowly decrease to its initial test 

pressure.37

Data from studies of the relationship 

between tire pressure and time were 

submitted by the RMA 38 and 

Michelin 39 along with their petitions. 

These studies, which involved deflating 

tires at different rates and monitoring 

the pressure after deflation, indicated 

that tire pressure rose several psi above 

the pressure at which the deflation was 

ended when the deflation rate was 

rapid. However, for slower deflation 

rates, the pressure tended to remain 

very close to the value attained 

immediately after the deflation 

procedure was completed. Therefore, 

based upon the available information, 

we do not believe that it is necessary to 

eliminate the five-minute cool-down 

period or that it is critical to maintain 

a 2-psi pressure adjustment in the test 

procedure. We also do not believe that 

additional modifications are necessary 

to compensate for the ‘‘environmental 

effects’’ mentioned by the Alliance; the 

Alliance did not provide data 

demonstrating the extent of these 

alleged effects, and we believe that the 

standard accounts for such effects as 

promulgated. 

Instead, we believe that the Alliance’s 

concerns can be accommodated by 

careful, deliberate administration of the 

test, as reflected in our more detailed 

Laboratory Test Procedure for TPMS 

(TP–138–00). For example, in the 

Laboratory Test Procedure, we specify 

use of a pressure gauge with an accuracy 

of ± 0.5 percent, which we believe 

would ensure that the tire pressure is 

close to the intended value when 

measured. Use of an accurate gauge is 

important so as to reduce the number of 

measurements needed to obtain an 

accurate reading. That is because each 

time a pressure measurement is taken 

from an inflated tire, there is a slight 

loss of inflation pressure, so fewer 

checks should result in fewer 

adjustments and less pressure loss. We 

do not believe that S6 requires 

amendment to incorporate additional 

pressure checks during testing to ensure 

that the pressure is at the correct value, 

because we believe that the existing 

procedures are adequate. We are also 

denying the RMA’s recommendation to 

eliminate the pressure adjustment 

entirely, because we believe that such 

action would unnecessarily complicate 

our testing. 

Furthermore, we believe that deflating 

the tire to 1 psi below the 25-percent 

under-inflation threshold, as opposed to 

2 psi, would not change the stringency 

of the performance requirements 

specified in S4.2, but it would ensure 

that the pressure in the under-inflated 

tire(s) remains closely tied to the low 

tire pressure activation threshold. This 

adjustment was included to facilitate 

the vehicle test, not to relieve 

manufacturers’ responsibility to provide 

a TPMS that can detect when a tire is 

25-percent below placard pressure. 

Given the difficultly involved with 

allowing an extended tire cool-down 

period during the low pressure 

detection phase, we believe that 

amending the standard to provide a 1- 

psi pressure adjustment is a reasonable 

approach that should prevent actual 

under-inflation values that are 

significantly below the standard’s 25- 

percent activation value. 

4. Calibration Time 

Under the April 8, 2005 final rule, the 

standard’s test procedures provide a 

cumulative time period of up to 20 

minutes for TPMS calibration. During 

this system ‘‘learning phase,’’ the 

vehicle is driven for up to 15 minutes 

of cumulative time (not necessarily 

continuously) along any portion of the 

test course. Direction of travel on the 

test course is then reversed, and the 

vehicle is driven for an additional 

period of time, for a total cumulative 

time of 20 minutes. (See S6(d), as 

contained in the April 8, 2005 final 

rule.) 

As noted above, the petitions of NIRA 

Dynamics and VW/Audi asked that the 

standard be amended to provide a onehour time period for TPMS calibration. 

The petitioners argued that effective 

calibration of their TPMSs requires up 

to one hour of time over a range of 

53096 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

40 In a June 28, 2005 letter submitted to the 

docket, SRI suggested that additional calibration 

time would be beneficial in terms of system 

accuracy, although it is not absolutely necessary. 

(See Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–37). 

speeds. In addition, the petitioners 

asserted that in light of the mechanism 

through which multiple-tire underinflation occurs (i.e., through slow 

diffusion), calibration within 20 

minutes is unnecessary. 

After careful consideration, we have 

decided to deny the petitioners’ requests 

to increase calibration time from the 

current 20 minutes to one hour. Even 

though the agency is committed to 

developing a standard that is as 

technology-neutral as possible, we 

believe that a 60-minutes time period 

for TPMS calibration is too long. Were 

we to adopt a calibration time period 

consistent with the petitioners’

recommendations, the average 

consumer might require several trips for 

the TPMS to be properly calibrated. 

While calibrating, the TPMS is 

unavailable to provide its important 

warning about low tire pressure. 

Furthermore, we note that TPMS 

calibration and under-inflation 

detection are sequential events, so those 

time periods must be added to properly 

reflect the amount of time that may 

elapse before the TPMS may provide a 

warning to the driver. This fact argues 

against extending calibration time in the 

manner the petitioners have suggested, 

particularly because situations exist 

where the low pressure condition may 

arise for reasons other than slow 

diffusion. 

Since there is no indication as to 

when the TPMS calibration process is 

complete, most consumers are likely to 

assume that calibration is complete 

shortly after the system reset button is 

activated, for systems that use a reset 

feature. We believe that such 

expectation brings about a false sense of 

security to consumers who may believe 

that once the reset button is activated, 

the system is again ready to detect low 

inflation pressure in any of the vehicle’s 

tires. (Because the issue of calibration 

time is closely linked to the issue of low 

tire pressure warning activation, please 

see section IV.A of this notice for 

additional explanation regarding the 

need for the TPMS to provide its 

warnings promptly.) 

Depending upon how often there is a 

need to reset the system, there is the 

potential for the TPMS to be unavailable 

to provide a low tire pressure warning 

with some degree of frequency, which 

would add to our concern about 

extending the calibration time in S6(d). 

Furthermore, we note that Sumitomo 

Rubber Industries, a manufacturer of 

indirect TPMSs, currently produces a 

system that can calibrate within 20 

minutes, thereby demonstrating the 

practicability of a 20-minute calibration 

requirement.40 We expect that with 

additional time and development, other 

systems could satisfy this requirement 

as well. For these reasons, we continue 

to believe that requiring TPMS 

calibration within 20 minutes is 

appropriate. 

G. TPMS Reprogrammability 

Under the final rule, vehicle 

manufacturers are permitted, but not 

required, to provide a TPMS 

reprogrammability feature. However, the 

final rule made clear that the agency 

will conduct compliance testing with 

the tires installed on the vehicle at the 

time of initial sale and will follow any 

manufacturer instructions in the 

owner’s manual related to resetting the 

TPMS. (See 70 FR 18136, 18146 (April 

8, 2005)) 

According to SEMA, replacement tires 

for a vehicle may require higher 

inflation pressure than the vehicle’s 

original equipment tires, and unless the 

TPMS is reprogrammed to reflect this 

new placard pressure, those 

replacement tires may become more 

than 25 percent under-inflated by the 

time the TPMS low tire pressure 

warning telltale illuminates. SEMA 

argued that this situation would both 

defeat the purpose of the rule and also 

give drivers a false sense of security, 

although SEMA acknowledged that it 

does not have specific information to 

demonstrate how significant this 

problem currently is or will be in the 

future. SEMA recommended that the 

standard be amended to require TPMS 

reprogrammability. 

We have decided to deny SEMA’s 

request that we amend FMVSS No. 138 

to require TPMS reprogrammability, 

because there is no evidence to 

demonstrate an actual problem in this 

area. We believe that vehicle 

manufacturers installing TPMSs that 

may require reprogramming in certain 

situations are well aware of this issue 

and will provide this feature, as 

necessary. Thus, in the final rule, we 

expressly stated that TPMSs are 

permitted to be reprogrammable. Once 

again, although we are uncertain as to 

the exact details of system 

reprogrammability, we assume that it 

will be fairly easy for the service 

industry to reprogram TPMSs to 

accommodate different tires and rims. 

H. Sharing of TPMS Servicing 

Information 

The April 8, 2005 final rule stated that 

the agency does not believe it necessary 

to mandate vehicle manufacturers to 

report repair and servicing information 

to the aftermarket sales industry and the 

service industry. As stated in the 

preamble to the final rule, NHTSA has 

not received any consumer complaints 

regarding the serviceability of existing 

TPMSs, and the agency expects that the 

marketplace will make sufficient 

information available to permit 

convenient sales, maintenance, and 

repair of such systems. (See 70 FR 

18136, 18175 (April 8, 2005)) 

In its petition, SEMA reiterated the 

argument made in its comments on the 

NPRM that the agency should require 

vehicle manufacturers to share 

sufficient information to allow thirdparty servicing of TPMSs. SEMA stated 

that it has heard complaints that the 

service and repair industry and the 

aftermarket sales industry have been 

denied access to TPMS service 

information from both sensor 

manufacturers as well as vehicle 

manufacturers. However, SEMA did not 

provide any information to substantiate 

these anecdotal complaints, nor did it 

provide any facts to ascertain how large 

a problem there may be regarding access 

to service information. To resolve these 

concerns, SEMA recommended that the 

standard be amended to include a 

requirement that any TPMS servicing 

information must be made available to 

the vehicle owner, to the extent that 

such information is available to other 

parties. 

SEMA further argued that unless this 

recommendation and the other 

recommendations contained in its 

petition are followed, the rule may have 

a significant negative impact upon its 

small business members, because they 

may be unable to install their products 

if the TPMS MIL cannot be 

extinguished. 

We have decided to deny SEMA’s 

request that we compel vehicle 

manufacturers to share TPMS servicing 

information with the service and repair 

industry. SEMA has not provided any 

evidence to demonstrate that vehicle 

manufacturers would not make 

necessary repair and servicing 

information available to the aftermarket 

sales industry and to the service 

industry, and its claims of a significant 

negative impact on its members are also 

speculative. 

As noted in the final rule, we have not 

received any consumer complaints 

regarding the serviceability of existing 

TPMSs. Vehicles currently include 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53097 

41Under 49 CFR 585.64, the term ‘‘production 

year’’ is defined as ‘‘the 12-month period between 

September 1 of one year and August 31 of the 

following year, inclusive.’’

42 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20586–2. 

many complex systems, and although 

dealer involvement may be necessitated 

in some cases, the marketplace has 

generally made available sufficient 

information to permit convenient 

maintenance and repair of such systems. 

We do not believe that TPMS 

technologies will prove any different in 

this regard. 

Furthermore, we are not requiring 

vehicle manufacturers to share TPMS 

servicing information with the vehicle 

owner. We believe that such a 

requirement would be unnecessary for 

the reasons discussed above and also 

because consumers are likely to find 

such highly technical information to be 

confusing and of little direct usefulness. 

I. Phase-In Calculations 

Under S7, Phase-in Schedule, the 

final rule sets forth the requirements for 

vehicle manufacturer implementation of 

the TPMS standard. Specifically, under 

S7.1, for vehicles manufactured on or 

after October 5, 2005 and before 

September 1, 2006, the number of 

vehicles complying with the standard 

(other than the TPMS malfunction 

provisions of S4.4) must not be less than 

20 percent of either: (a) The 

manufacturer’s average annual 

production of vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2002 and before 

October 5, 2005, or (b) the 

manufacturer’s production on or after 

October 5, 2005 and before September 1, 

2006. 

Under S7.2, vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2006 and before 

September 1, 2007 are subject to a 70 

percent phase-in of either: (a) The 

manufacturer’s average annual 

production of vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2003 and before 

September 1, 2006, or (b) the 

manufacturer’s production on or after 

September 1, 2006 and before 

September 1, 2007. 

As required by S7.3, all vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2007 must comply with all requirements 

of the standard, including the TPMS 

malfunction requirements of S4.4. 

However, S7.7 provides an exception for 

vehicles manufactured by final-stage 

manufacturers and alterers, entities that 

are not subject to the phase-in and for 

which the final rule provides an 

additional year for compliance (i.e., 

until September 1, 2008). 

The final rule provides carry-forward 

credits for vehicles that comply with the 

requirements of the standard and which 

are in excess of the compliance 

requirement for the phase-in reporting 

period in question (see S7.4(a), as 

contained in the April 8, 2005 final 

rule). In addition, the final rule provides 

carry-backward credits, through which a 

vehicle manufacturer is permitted to 

reduce its compliance responsibility 

during the first period of the phase-in, 

provided that it increases compliance by 

a corresponding number of vehicles 

during the second period of the phasein (see S7.4(c), as contained in the April 

8, 2005 final rule). 

The AIAM argued that the final rule 

is inconsistent regarding its articulation 

of the compliance requirement for the 

initial period of the phase-in (i.e., from 

October 5, 2005 to September 1, 2006). 

Its petition stated that the final rule’s 

preamble calls for a 20 percent of a 

vehicle manufacturer’s production to be 

equipped with TPMSs that are 

compliant with FMVSS No. 138 during 

that roughly eleven-month period. 

However, in the regulatory text, one of 

the options for calculating the number 

of vehicles that must comply during that 

period is based upon a full year of 

production (i.e., S7.1(a)). According to 

the AIAM, that provision of the final 

rule effectively requires a compliance 

rate of approximately 22 percent during 

the initial phase-in period (rather than 

20 percent). 

To remedy this situation, the AIAM 

recommended revising S7.1(a) to read, 

‘‘The manufacturer’s total production of 

vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2002, and before October 

5, 2005, divided by 3.414.’’

Furthermore, the AIAM urged the 

agency to adopt a separate reporting 

requirement under 49 CFR 585.66(b) for 

the first phase-in period, which would 

require vehicle manufacturers to submit 

the following information: (1) The 

number of complying vehicles for the 

period from October 5, 2005, to August 

31, 2006, and (2) total light vehicle 

production for that period, or total light 

vehicle production for the period from 

September 1, 2002, to October 5, 2005, 

depending upon the compliance option 

that is selected. 

After carefully considering AIAM’s 

argument, we have decided to retain the 

phase-in requirement in S7 for the 

initial period of the phase-in without 

change. Under S7.1, a vehicle 

manufacturer has two options for 

calculating the number of FMVSS No. 

138-compliant vehicles that must be 

produced during the initial period of the 

phase-in from October 5, 2005 to 

September 1, 2006. Consistent with the 

discussion in the preamble of the final 

rule, one of those options is 20 percent 

of the manufacturer’s actual production 

during that period. Alternatively, the 

manufacturer may choose 20 percent of 

a three-year average as the basis for 

calculating the required number of 

complying vehicles. The manufacturer 

is free to choose whichever of these two 

options it considers to be the most 

advantageous. 

We do not believe that the difference 

between the shortened initial 

production period and the slightly 

lengthened three-year average will have 

a significant effect on the number of 

vehicles that will be required to comply 

with the standard in MY 2006. Given 

our understanding of vehicle 

manufacturers’ production plans as 

reflected in their responses to the 

agency’s September 9, 2003 Special 

Orders, we tentatively decided in the 

NPRM that 50 percent compliance 

during the first year of the phase-in 

would be reasonable; thus, the final 

rule’s phase-in requirement of 20 

percent for the initial period should be 

achievable under either method of 

calculation. Furthermore, carrybackward credits are available under 

S7.4(c) of the standard to further ease 

implementation in the event the 

difference between the two methods of 

calculation under S7.1 somehow proves 

problematic. 

However, we are granting the AIAM’s 

request that we modify 49 CFR 585.66, 

Reporting Requirements, to differentiate 

the reports to be submitted to the agency 

for each of the two phase-in periods. As 

currently drafted, section 585.66(b)(1), 

Basis for Statement of Compliance, and 

section 585.66(b)(2), Production, require 

manufacturers to report values for the 

full production year,41 without mention 

of the period corresponding to the first 

period of the phase-in (i.e., from 

October 5, 2005 to September 1, 2006), 

which is the relevant total production 

value for calculation under S7.1(b) of 

FMVSS No. 138. Because the reporting 

of this information directly relates to 

determining compliance with the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 138, we 

have decided to revise 49 CFR 

585.66(b)(1) and (2) to clearly 

differentiate between the two phase-in 

periods. 

V. Benefits and Costs 

Section VI of the April 8, 2005 final 

rule summarized the costs associated 

with the TPMS standard, as more fully 

described in the Final Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (FRIA) 42

accompanying the final rule. The FRIA 

addresses the full range of anticipated 

costs related to TPMSs, including the 

cost of different TPMS technologies, 

53098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

43 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

44 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 

45 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 

46 Id. 

47 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50. 

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 petitions 

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.43 These motor vehicle 

safety standards set a minimum 

standard for motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment performance.44

When prescribing such standards, the 

Secretary must consider all relevant, 

available motor vehicle safety 

information.45 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.46 The 

responsibility for promulgation of 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

has been delegated to NHTSA.47

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. Most of these 

petitions raised issues involving 

technical modifications and correction. 

In this final rule 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 

petitions for reconsideration. In 

responding to the issues raised in these 

petitions, the agency considered all 

relevant motor vehicle safety 

information. In preparing this 

document, the agency carefully 

evaluated 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 petitions’ 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 

resulting from this final rule involve 

relatively minor modifications to the 

April 8, 2005 final rule for TPMS. In 

sum, we believe that this final rule 

responding to petitions for 

reconsideration is practicable and will 

maintain the benefits of the April 8, 

2005 final rule, including prevention of 

deaths and injuries associated with 

significantly under-inflated tires, 

increased tread life, fuel economy 

savings, and savings associated with 

avoidance of property damage and 

travel delays (i.e., from crashes 

prevented by the TPMS). 

Third, the regulatory text following 

this preamble is stated in objective 

terms in order to specify precisely what 

performance is required and how 

performance will be tested to ensure 

compliance with the standard. 

Specifically, this final rule makes minor 

modifications to the performance 

requirements for operation of the TPMS, 

both in terms of detecting and providing 

warnings related to low tire pressure 

and system malfunction. 

The final rule also discusses test 

requirements for TPMS calibration, low 

tire pressure detection, and TPMS 

malfunction. This test involves driving 

the vehicle under a defined set of test 

conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, 

road test surface, test weight, vehicle 

speed, rim position, brake pedal 

application) on a designated road course 

in San Angelo, Texas. The test course 

has been used for several years by 

NHTSA and the tire industry for 

uniform tire quality grading testing. The 

standard’s test procedures carefully 

delineate how testing will be conducted. 

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 

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 one or 

more tires become significantly underinflated, thereby permitting the driver to 

take corrective action in a timely 

fashion and potentially averting crashrelated injuries. 

Finally, we believe that this final rule 

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: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53099 

(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 8, 2005 final rule 

was determined to be economically 

significant, this final rule responding to 

petitions for reconsideration involves 

only relatively minor technical 

amendments to the FMVSS No. 138. 

Accordingly, it was determined that this 

final rule is not significant under either 

Executive Order 12866 or 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 8, 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 responding to petitions for 

reconsideration only makes technical 

modifications and corrections to the 

safety standard for TPMS. As discussed 

in detail in the April 8, 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) 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires 

NHTSA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

NHTSA also may not issue a regulation 

with federalism implications and that 

preempts a State law unless the agency 

consults with State and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

Although statutorily mandated, this 

final rule responding to petitions for 

reconsideration of the TPMS standard 

was analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria set forth in 

Executive Order 13132, and the agency 

determined that the rule would not have 

sufficient Federalism implications to 

warrant consultations with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

This final rule is not expected to have 

any substantial effects on the States, or 

on the current distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various local 

officials. 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996), the agency has 

considered whether this rulemaking 

would have any retroactive effect. This 

final rule does not have any retroactive 

effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever 

a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

is in effect, a State may not adopt or 

maintain a safety standard applicable to 

the same aspect of performance which 

is not identical to the Federal standard, 

except to the extent that the State 

requirement imposes a higher level of 

performance and applies only to 

vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49 

U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for 

judicial review of final rules 

establishing, amending, or revoking 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file a 

suit in court. 

F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April 

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

Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

the agency has reason to believe may 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets 

both criteria, the agency must evaluate 

the environmental health or safety 

effects of the planned rule on children, 

and explain why the planned regulation 

is preferable to other potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the agency. 

This final rule responding to petitions 

for reconsideration is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, 

and furthermore, the problems 

associated with under-inflated tires 

equally impact all persons riding in a 

vehicle, regardless of age. Consequently, 

this final rule does not involve 

decisions based upon health and safety 

risks that disproportionately affect 

53100 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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 8, 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 has approved the 

collection of information ‘‘Phase-In 

Production Reporting Requirements for 

Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems,’’

assigning it Control No. 2127–0631 

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

given OMB clearance to collect a total 

of 42 hours a year (2 hours per 

respondent) for the TPMS phase-in 

reporting. At an appropriate point, 

NHTSA may ask OMB for an extension 

of this clearance for an additional 

period of time. 

However, the present final rule 

responding to petitions for 

reconsideration does not contain any 

additional information collection 

requirements beyond those contained in 

the April 8, 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 $112 million in 

2001 dollars)). Before promulgating a 

NHTSA rule for which a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires the agency to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows the agency 

to adopt an alternative other than the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the agency 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation of why that alternative was 

not adopted. 

As discussed in that notice, the April 

8, 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 $112 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. 

In contrast, the present final rule 

responding to petitions for 

reconsideration only makes technical 

modifications and corrections 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 Parts 571 and 

585 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is amending 49 CFR parts 571 

and 585 as follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

of Title 49 continues to read as follows: 

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 571.138 is amended by 

revising paragraphs S4.3.1(b), S4.4(b)(2) 

and (3), S4.4(c)(2), S4.5(a), S6(e), and 

S6(k) to read as follows: 

§ 571.138 Standard No. 138; Tire pressure 

monitoring systems. 

* * * * * 

S4.3 Low tire pressure warning 

telltale. 

S4.3.1 * * * 

* * * * * 

(b) Is identified by one of the symbols 

shown for the ‘‘Low Tire Pressure’’

Telltale in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 

(49 CFR 571.101); and 

* * * * * 

S4.4 TPMS malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(b) Dedicated TPMS malfunction 

telltale. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) Is identified by the word ‘‘TPMS’’

as described under the ‘‘Tire Pressure 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53101 

Monitoring System Malfunction’’

Telltale in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 

(49 CFR 571.101); 

(3) Continues to illuminate the TPMS 

malfunction telltale under the 

conditions specified in S4.4(a) for as 

long as the malfunction exists, 

whenever the ignition locking system is 

in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position; and 

* * * * * 

(c) Combination low tire pressure/ 

TPMS malfunction telltale * * * 

* * * * * 

(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. 

S4.5 Written instructions. 

(a) Beginning on September 1, 2006, 

the owner’s manual in each vehicle 

certified as complying with S4 must 

provide an image of the Low Tire 

Pressure Telltale symbol (and an image 

of the TPMS Malfunction Telltale 

warning (‘‘TPMS’’), if a dedicated 

telltale is utilized for this function) with 

the following statement in English: 

* * * 

* * * * * 

S6 Test procedures. 

* * * * * 

(e) Stop the vehicle and deflate any 

combination of one to four tires until 

the deflated tire(s) is (are) at 7 kPa (1 

psi) below the inflation pressure at 

which the tire pressure monitoring 

system is required to illuminate the low 

tire pressure warning telltale. 

* * * * * 

(k) Simulate one or more TPMS 

malfunction(s) by disconnecting the 

power source to any TPMS component, 

disconnecting any electrical connection 

between TPMS components, or 

installing a tire or wheel on the vehicle 

that is incompatible with the TPMS. 

When simulating a TPMS malfunction, 

the electrical connections for the telltale 

lamps are not to be disconnected. 

* * * * * 

PART 585—PHASE-IN REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for Part 585 

of Title 49 continues to read as follows: 

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 4. Part 585 is amended by revising 

585.66(b)(1) and (2) of Subpart G as 

follows: 

Subpart G—Tire Pressure Monitoring 

System Phase-in Reporting 

Requirements 

* * * * * 

§ 585.66 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Report content. (1) Basis for 

statement of compliance. Each 

manufacturer must provide the number 

of passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses 

with a gross vehicle weight rating of 

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, 

except those vehicles with dual wheels 

on an axle, manufactured for sale in the 

United States for each reporting period 

as follows: 

(i) Period from October 5, 2005 to 

August 31, 2006. The number shall be 

either the manufacturer’s average 

annual production of vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2002, and before October 5, 2005, or, at 

the manufacturer’s option, it shall be the 

manufacturer’s production on or after 

October 5, 2005 and before September 1, 

2006. A new manufacturer that has not 

previously manufactured these vehicles 

for sale in the United States must report 

the number of such vehicles 

manufactured during the production 

period on or after October 5, 2005 and 

before September 1, 2006. 

(ii) Period from September 1, 2006 to 

August 31, 2007. The number shall be 

either the manufacturer’s average 

annual production of vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2003, and before September 1, 2006, or, 

at the manufacturer’s option, it shall be 

the manufacturer’s production on or 

after September 1, 2006 and before 

September 1, 2007. A new manufacturer 

that has not previously manufactured 

these vehicles for sale in the United 

States must report the number of such 

vehicles manufactured during the 

production period on or after September 

1, 2006 and before September 1, 2007. 

(2) Production. Each manufacturer 

must report for the production period 

for which the report is filed: the total 

number of passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses 

with a gross vehicle weight rating of 

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less 

that meet Standard No. 138 (49 CFR 

571.138). 

* * * * * 

Issued: August 31, 2005. 

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–17661 Filed 9–1–05; 10:32 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 041126332–5039–02; I.D. 

082305C] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackerel in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closures and 

openings. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Atka mackerel with gears 

other than jig in the Eastern Aleutian 

District and the Bering Sea subarea of 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area (BSAI). This action is 

necessary to prevent exceeding the 2005 

total allowable catch (TAC) of Atka 

mackerel in these areas. NMFS is also 

announcing the opening and closure 

dates of the first and second directed 

fisheries within the harvest limit area 

(HLA) in Statistical Areas 542 and 543. 

These actions are necessary to prevent 

exceeding the HLA limits established 

for the Central (area 542) and Western 

(area 543) Aleutian Districts pursuant to 

the 2005 Atka mackerel TAC. 

DATES: The effective dates are provided 

in Table 1 under the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this temporary 

action. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh 

Keaton, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

BSAI exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP) prepared by the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council under 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. Regulations governing fishing by