[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51064-51070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25907]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket 85-06; Notice 13]
RIN 2127-AG35
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Hydraulic Brake Systems;
Passenger Car Brake Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document extends the requirements of Federal motor
vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems,
to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less.
Manufacturers of such vehicles have the option of complying with either
FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, or FMVSS No. 135 for an interim
period of five years, after which all such vehicles with a GVWR of
3,500 kilograms or less must comply with FMVSS No. 135. This amendment
is consistent with the agency's policy of achieving international
harmonization whenever such harmonization is also consistent with the
statutory authority to ensure motor vehicle safety.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments of this final rule are effective
December 1, 1997. As of this date, manufacturers have the option of
complying with either FMVSS No. 105 or FMVSS No. 135. Compliance with
FMVSS No. 135 becomes mandatory on September 1, 2002.
Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petition for reconsideration of
this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than November 14, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should be submitted to:
Administrator,
[[Page 51065]]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street
S.W., Washington D.C. 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Samuel Daniel, Jr., Office of
Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington D.C. 20590 (202)
366-4921.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. History of FMVSS No. 135
B. Harmonization of U.S. and European Braking Regulations
C. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Summary of Comments
A. Gross vehicle weight limit for FMVSS No. 135 Applicability
B. Brake standard for Light Trucks and Vans (LTV) above FMVSS
No. 135 gross weight limit
III. NHTSA Decision
A. Overview
B. Application
IV. Leadtime
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. National Environmental Policy Act
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
E. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reforms)
I. Background
A. History of FMVSS No. 135
On February 2, 1995, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (60 FR
6411) a final rule (Docket 85-06, Notice 8) to establish Federal motor
vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.
The intent of the new standard is to provide international
harmonization of light passenger vehicle brake system test procedures
and requirements. Although Standard No. 135 currently applies to
passenger cars only, the agency stated in the final rule preamble that
it would consider applying FMVSS No. 135 to additional light vehicles
at a later date. A petition for reconsideration filed by General Motors
(GM) in response to the final rule included the recommendation that the
standard be extended to cover light trucks and vans (LTVs). GM
indicated that the harmonized European light vehicle standard, Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation, R13-H, is applicable to
passenger cars and vehicles that are analogous to LTVs in this country.
In this final rule, after considering the public comments to the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice 11 of Docket 85-06, NHTSA
has extended the applicability of FMVSS No. 135 to LTVs with a GVWR of
3,500 kilograms or less. This document explains the changes
incorporated in the final rule and the reasons for the agency's
decision.
B. Harmonization of U.S. and European Braking Regulations
In order to eliminate any unnecessary non-tariff barriers to trade
in accordance with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
the United States has participated in discussions held within the
Meeting of Experts on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). As a result of these
discussions, NHTSA has developed and published FMVSS No. 135 for
passenger cars, and the GRRF has also developed and published a new
Regulation, R13-H, which would be compatible with FMVSS No. 135.
NHTSA has emphasized throughout the rulemaking that any
requirements it adopts must also be consistent with the need for safety
and the Safety Act. The agency repeats that safety will not be
compromised in its efforts to harmonize the FMVSS with ECE Regulations.
C. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On May 2, 1996, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (61 FR
19602) an NPRM (Docket 85-06, Notice 11) proposing to apply FMVSS No.
135 to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of
4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. The NPRM further proposed that
manufacturers of such vehicles have the option of complying with either
FMVSS No. 105 or FMVSS No. 135 for an interim period of five years,
after which time all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less
would be required to comply with Standard No. 135. Notice 11 stated
that the extension of the applicability of Standard No. 135 to LTVs
would be consistent with the agency policy of achieving international
harmonization whenever possible and consistent with the agency's
statutory mandate to ensure motor vehicle safety.
II. Summary of Comments (Docket 85-06, Notice 11)
The agency received eight written comments in response to the NPRM,
five from vehicle manufacturers, two from vehicle trade associations,
and one from a safety advocacy group. In general, the vehicle
manufacturers and the trade associations conditionally supported the
rulemaking for LTVs up to 8,000 pounds GVWR while the safety advocacy
group opposed it.
A. Gross Vehicle Weight Limit for FMVSS No. 135 Applicability
Notice 11 proposed to extend Standard No. 135 to passenger vehicles
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg) or less, including trucks,
buses, and multipurpose vehicles (LTVs).
GM indicated that it participated in the development of the
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) response to this
NPRM. The AAMA submission requested that the requirements of Standard
No. 135 be applied to vehicles with a GVWR of 8000 pounds (3,629
kilograms) or less. According to GM, AAMA believes the 500-Newton pedal
force specified in Standard No. 135 is inappropriate for vehicles with
a GVWR above 8,000 pounds.
The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) supported
the extension of Standard No. 135 to LTVs, but was concerned that
adoption of the requirements as proposed would not further
international harmonization, a goal stated by the agency in the
preamble. JAMA recommended that NHTSA consult further with the ECE and
JAMA before moving ahead with the proposed amendment. JAMA contended
that extending Standard No. 135 to LTVs with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less would decrease the similarity between Standard No. 135 and R13-H.
R13-H is applicable to the ``M1'' vehicle category in the European
classification scheme, which includes all types of passenger vehicles
with a maximum capacity of eight. A table in the JAMA submission shows
that the test conditions and requirements in No. 105 and ECE R13 are
similar and are applicable to vehicles of similar weight. The table
also highlights the differences between test conditions and
requirements in Standard No. 135 and the conditions and requirements
for LTVs in Standard No. 105 and ECE R13.
Chrysler indicated that it was an active participant in the
discussions that culminated in the publication of FMVSS No. 135, which
Chrysler contends was intended for passenger cars. Chrysler pointed out
that the proposed extension of the applicability of Standard No. 135 to
LTVs up to 10,000 pounds GVWR would result in the standard being
applicable to some of the vehicles in four different categories of the
European vehicle classification system. These four categories include
passenger vehicles with a capacity of eight or less, passenger vehicles
with a capacity greater than eight and a GVWR of 11,023 pounds (5,000
kilograms) or less, non-passenger vehicles with a GVWR of
[[Page 51066]]
7,716 pounds (3,500 kilograms) or less, and non-passenger vehicles with
a GVWR up to 26,455 pounds (12,000 kilograms). Vehicles in the latter
three categories are not currently required to meet R13-H, the European
counterpart of No. 135.
Nissan does not support the application of FMVSS No. 135 to LTVs
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Nissan stated that the proposed
rule would decrease the similarity between Standard No. 135 and ECE
R13-H, resulting in a negative impact on international harmonization.
Nissan indicated that LTVs with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less could
fall into one of four European categories, ``M1'', ``M2'', ``N1'', or
``N2'', which would make harmonization of the R13 very difficult.
Nissan also stated that there is no apparent activity among ECE members
to apply the harmonized light duty passenger vehicle standard, R13-H,
to vehicles in the M2, N1, or N2 classes.
AAMA stated that its member companies would support extending
Standard No. 135 to LTVs with a GVWR of 8,000 pounds (3,629 kilograms)
or less. An 8,000-pound weight limit would better harmonize No. 135
with the requirements of ECE R13-H, which applies to category ``M1''
vehicles.
Ford supported the extension of Standard No. 135 to LTVs with a
GVWR of 8,000 pounds or less in the interest of international
harmonization. In its initial comments to this rulemaking proposal,
Ford indicated that several of that company's vehicles with a GVWR
below 8,000 pounds would require substantial redesign to meet all
applicable Standard No. 135 requirements. In a supplemental submission,
however, Ford indicated that the Standard No. 135 requirements could be
met by all its vehicles with a GVWR of 8,000 pounds or less, within the
proposed leadtime, without major modification or economic burden.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) did not
specifically address the weight range issues cited by most commenters.
Advocates is opposed to extending No. 135 to cover LTVs, regardless of
vehicle weight, stating that the agency failed to demonstrate the
desirability of extending No. 135 applicability to LTVs. Advocates
cited a lack of actual cost or safety benefits data in the proposed
rule and further indicated that the organization believes No. 135
represents a decrease in the overall brake system safety level when
compared to No. 105. For example, Advocates points out that the pre-
burnish, water, and dynamic emergency brake tests of No. 105 are not
included in No. 135 and longer stopping distances are permitted in No.
135 than in No. 105.
B. Brake Standard for Light Trucks and Vans With GVWR Above Standard
No. 135 Limit
GM indicated that AAMA recommended that the Notice 11 proposal be
modified for LTVs with a GVWR between 8,000 and 10,000 pounds to allow
a maximum pedal force of 700 Newtons. GM believes the brake systems on
its vehicles in this weight range would meet all requirements with a
500-Newton maximum pedal force and that company supports rulemaking as
proposed in Notice 11.
JAMA supported the rulemaking proposal, but recommended that NHTSA
consult further with the ECE and JAMA to enhance international
harmonization of Standard No. 135 and ECE R13-H before proceeding with
the proposed amendment.
Chrysler recommended that Standard No. 135 requirements be extended
to include LTVs with a GVWR up to 8,000 pounds. Chrysler also
recommended that a pedal force limit of 700 Newtons be allowed for
vehicles with a GVWR between 8,000 pounds and 10,000 pounds vehicles,
consistent with the ECE Regulations and Standard No. 105.
Nissan did not support the application of Standard No. 135 to LTVs
with a GVWR below 10,000 pounds. Nissan stated that there is no
apparent activity among ECE members to apply R13-H, which is harmonized
with Standard No. 135, to vehicles in this class.
Volkswagen supported the proposed rule as written.
AAMA supported the extension of the applicability of Standard No.
135 to vehicles with a GVWR above 8,000 pounds provided the pedal force
limit is raised from 500 Newtons to 700 Newtons for vehicles with a
GVWR between 8,000 and 10,000 pounds.
Ford stated that the agency should include two provisions in the
rulemaking for vehicles with a GVWR over 8000 pounds (3,629 kilograms).
Ford requested that a provision be included in Standard No. 135 to
allow a maximum pedal force of 700 Newtons for vehicles with a GVWR
above 8,000 pounds and also requested that the stopping distance be
increased for the ``Engine Off'' tests. Ford indicated that Standard
No. 105 specifies unique performance requirements for vehicles with a
GVWR between 8,000 and 10,000 pounds. Application of the No. 105 test
conditions and requirements to vehicles with a GVWR between 8,000
pounds and 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms) would more closely align the
proposed rulemaking with ECE R13-H, the harmonized European braking
standard.
III. NHTSA Decision
A. Overview
A1. Lighter Vehicles
The U.S. automobile manufacturers and the AAMA indicated that many
LTVs with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds are currently being used as
passenger vehicles (small trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles) and
should meet passenger car brake system requirements. According to
Ward's Automotive Yearbook, an average of about 9.4 million passenger
cars and 5.6 million LTVs with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds have been
sold annually in the U.S. in recent years.
Most commenters recommended that the cut-off GVWR for an extension
of No. 135 applicability to LTVs be substantially less than 10,000
pounds, the value proposed in Notice 11. GM, Chrysler, Ford, and AAMA
indicated that brake performance requirements are more stringent in No.
135 than in No. 105. These commenters indicated that the heavier
vehicles in the weight range may not meet the performance requirements
of No. 135 without substantial brake system redesign. These commenters
also indicated that brake systems for vehicles with a GVWR above 8,000
pounds may have undesirable consumer characteristics such as increased
noise, wear, and pedal travel, if these systems are designed to meet
No. 135 requirements.
Advocates opposed the rulemaking proposed in Notice 11, stating
that No. 135 represents a reduction in the safety level of brake
systems when compared with Standard No. 105. Advocates made arguments
in their comments to Notice 8 of Docket 85-06, the final rule
establishing Standard No. 135, that are similar to its Notice 11
comments. Advocates stated in response to Notice 8 that No. 135 was
less stringent than Standard No. 105 since Standard No. 135 did not
include several Standard No. 105 test procedures and allowed longer
stopping distances. Advocates' comparison of stopping distances is
based on a simplistic conversion of stopping distances from English to
metric units, which indicates that the allowed stopping distances in
No. 135 are longer than No. 105 stopping distances for comparable test
speeds. Advocates' evaluation, however, did not consider the
conditioning of the brakes prior to a given test, which is an important
factor in determining the stringency of brake performance requirements.
More importantly, the
[[Page 51067]]
current extension of No. 135 will require LTVs to meet the same levels
of braking performance required for passenger cars, something that is
not required currently under No. 105. NHTSA believes that No. 135
should be applied to LTVs despite Advocates' objections. The final rule
for No. 135, which did not quantify the safety benefits associated with
the rulemaking, was issued over the objections of Advocates and others.
Vehicle manufacturers and the AAMA also stated that the rulemaking
proposed in Notice 11 would decrease the harmonization between Standard
No. 135, and the European standard for light duty passenger vehicles,
ECE R13-H. Most of the vehicles covered by R13-H have a loaded weight
below 8,000 pounds (3,629 kilograms), whereas the NPRM proposed
extending No. 135 to LTVs with a GVWR up to 10,000 pounds (4,536
kilograms).
GM indicated that the vehicles manufactured by that company could
meet the requirements of No. 135 within the 5-year leadtime proposed.
However, Chrysler, Ford, and AAMA recommended that No. 135 be applied
only to vehicles with a GVWR below 8,000 pounds. Based on the comments
on this issue, NHTSA believes that the maximum GVWR for the application
of No. 135 to LTVs should be below 8,000 pounds.
The agency estimates, based on Ward's Automotive Yearbook figures,
that about 75 percent of the 5.6 million LTVs with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less sold annually in the US are Class 1 vehicles with a GVWR
below 6,000 pounds (2,722 kilograms). NHTSA further estimates the
annual sales of LTVs with a GVWR between 8,000 and 10,000 pounds to be
0.5 to 0.7 million vehicles, or about 10 to 13 percent of all LTVs with
a GVWR below 10,000 pounds. The agency believes, therefore, that brake
system redesign for these vehicles alone could be particularly
burdensome. Also, any safety benefit that would result from the
application of the Standard No. 135 requirements to this group of LTVs
would be limited by the low sales volume.
The agency believes that there are two values that should be
considered for the maximum weight of No. 135 applicability to LTVs.
Standard No. 135 would be consistent with Standard No. 105 if the
extension to LTVs covered vehicles with a maximum GVWR up to 8,000
pounds, since Standard No. 105 contains unique braking performance
requirements for vehicles with a GVWR between 8,000 and 10,000 pounds.
As previously stated, an 8,000-pound GVWR limit for the extension is
supported by the AAMA, Ford, and Chrysler and would cover 85 to 90
percent of all LTVs with a GVWR below 10,000 pounds.
The agency believes the effects on international harmonization that
would result from the extension of Standard No. 135 as proposed in
Notice 11 (10,000 pound cut-off) should be considered. The European
equivalent of Standard No. 135, ECE R13-H, is applicable to vehicles in
the M1 category, passenger vehicles with a passenger capacity of eight.
Although there is no weight limit specified for the M1 class, these
vehicles rarely have a weight capacity above 7,000 pounds. The proposed
10,000-pound GVWR limit would extend the applicability of Standard No.
135 to vehicles in three European vehicle classes not covered by R13-H.
The standard that applies to these classes, R13, is not consistent with
No. 135 with regard to test conditions and performance requirements;
hence harmonization of Standard No. 135 and ECE R13 would be difficult.
The agency believes that 3,500 kg is a logical value for the
maximum applicable GVWR for No. 135 extension to LTVs since this value
is used in the European system as the maximum GVWR for vehicles in the
``N1'' class, or light duty non-passenger vehicles. Therefore,
harmonization of Standard No. 135 and R13 would not affect all European
light duty vehicles. Also, since 3,500 kilograms (7716 pounds) and
3,629 kilograms (8,000 pounds) are similar quantities, the number of
vehicles affected by either choice is similar.
A2. Heavier Vehicles
The brake test specifications in No. 135 allow a maximum pedal
force during braking of 500 Newtons for most of the performance test
series including, Cold Effectiveness, Hot Performance, Power Brake Unit
or Brake Power Assist Unit Inoperative. Most manufacturers indicated
that 500 Newtons is insufficient pedal force for vehicles with a GVWR
above 8,000 pounds and inconsistent with the pedal force requirements
in No. 105 and ECE R13 for these vehicles.
GM indicated that it participated in the development of the AAMA
response to Notice 11 of Docket 85-06 and acknowledged the reasons AAMA
requested that the maximum allowable pedal force in No. 135, 500
Newton, be increased to 700 Newton for vehicles with a GVWR above 8,000
pounds. However, GM indicated vehicles manufactured by that company
could meet the current No. 135 requirements over the five-year leadtime
period proposed in the NPRM. GM cited several reasons for supporting
Notice 11 including the following: LTVs are being widely used to
transport people; the proposed five-year leadtime should be sufficient
to make necessary LTV brake changes; and, M1 class European vehicles
are analogous to the vehicles that would be covered by adoption of the
NPRM.
JAMA submitted a table highlighting brake test conditions and
performance requirements for FMVSS No. 135, FMVSS No. 105, and ECE R13,
the European standard for light weight commercial vehicles. According
to the table, Standard No. 105, and R13, which applies to light duty
vehicles not covered by R13-H, allow a maximum pedal force of 680
Newtons and 700 Newtons, respectively, whereas No. 135 allows a maximum
pedal force of 500 Newtons. JAMA suggested that NHTSA consult further
with Europe and Japan before proceeding with rulemaking based on the
NPRM since the proposed rule would represent a significant divergence
between the US and European light duty vehicle brake standards.
Chrysler believes that the pedal force limit of 500 Newtons
specified in No. 135 is appropriate for vehicles up to 8,000 pounds
GVWR. That company recommended, however, that the standard be modified
to allow a pedal force of 700 Newtons for vehicles with a GVWR between
8,000 and 10,000 pounds. Chrysler indicated that a 500-Newton pedal
force limit for vehicles with a GVWR above 8,000 pounds could result in
braking systems that have a negative impact on customer satisfaction.
Compliant braking systems for such vehicles could require higher
friction linings and higher brake pedal ratios resulting in increased
brake noise, wear, and pedal travel.
Nissan opposed the NPRM, claiming that the harmonization of No. 135
and R13-H would be adversely affected. According to Nissan, Notice 11
proposes applying No. 135 to vehicles in this country, that are
equivalent to European M2, N1, and N2 vehicles, which are not covered
by the harmonized standard, R13-H.
VW supported issuance of a final rule based on the NPRM.
AAMA stated that it would support the Notice 11 NPRM if the No. 135
test conditions were changed to allow for a 700-Newton maximum pedal
force for vehicles with a GVWR above 8,000 pounds. AAMA cited several
reasons to justify the change including the following: improved
harmonization of No. 135 with the European standard (R13-H), since the
standard covering
[[Page 51068]]
most European vehicles that are comparable to LTVs in this country,
allows a 700-Newton pedal force; the 700-Newton pedal force would
affect mostly commercial, non-passenger vehicles; most sport utility
vehicles and other small trucks would be required to meet the more
stringent No. 135 requirements.
Ford requested that a provision be included in No. 135 to allow a
maximum pedal force of 700 Newtons for vehicles with a GVWR above 8,000
pounds. Allowance of a 700-Newton pedal force is consistent with ECE
R13 requirements, according to Ford, for light passenger vehicles and
would more closely align and harmonize the US and European
requirements.
Several vehicle manufacturers and the AAMA requested that the
agency apply No. 135, modified to allow a 700-Newton peak pedal force,
to LTVs with a GVWR above 8,000 pounds, instead of No. 135 as currently
written, which limits pedal force to 500 Newtons.
International harmonization was cited by the commenters as a major
reason for requesting that the maximum allowable pedal force be raised
to 700 Newtons for vehicles with a GVWR above 8,000 pounds. The
European equivalent of Standard No. 135, R13-H, applies to passenger
vehicles with maximum passenger capacity of eight and allows a maximum
pedal force of 500 Newtons. Although a maximum GVWR is not specified
for these M1 class vehicles, their loaded weight rarely exceeds 7,000
pounds (3,175 kilograms). Other light duty vehicle classes in the
European system are allowed a maximum pedal force of 700 Newtons during
brake performance testing. The commenters also stated that No. 105
allows a maximum pedal force of 680 Newtons (150 pounds) for all
vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Additionally, Ford,
Chrysler, and AAMA indicated that a 500-Newton brake pedal force limit
for vehicles in the 8,000 to 10,000-pound range could result in brake
systems with low customer satisfaction due to increased noise, lining
and rotor wear, and brake pedal travel.
The agency notes that GM stated that No. 135 requirements could be
met by that company's LTVs, including those in the 8,000 to 10,000-
pound GVWR range. GM cited several reasons for supporting Notice 11
including the observation that M1 class European vehicles are analogous
to the vehicles in this country that would be covered if the NPRM were
adopted. NHTSA disagrees with GM regarding the international
harmonization issue. As noted above, M1 vehicles rarely exceed 7,000
pounds GVWR. Most commenters argued that vehicles with a loaded weight
above 8,000 pounds are not analogous to M1 vehicles and are not subject
to the same braking requirements as M1 vehicles.
The comments and analytical data provided by Ford indicate that
several of that company's 8,000 to 10,000-pound vehicles may not be
able to comply with No. 135, based on computer simulations. NHTSA
believes that the data provided by Ford indicate that the five-year
leadtime would be adequate to obtain compliance with No. 135 (500-
Newton pedal force) for its vehicles in this weight class, without a
major cost burden.
The agency does not have data relating to the Chrysler and AAMA
observation that brake systems meeting the No. 135 requirements for
vehicles with a GVWR above 8,000 pounds would have low customer
satisfaction. There is the potential for systems with low customer
satisfaction, but NHTSA believes that sufficient leadtime will avoid
this problem.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) objected to the
proposed rulemaking stating that the agency had not addressed the
associated costs and benefits. The agency has no data specifically
addressing the incremental cost associated with the application of No.
135 to LTVs with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. NHTSA believes the
cost of LTV compliance with No. 135 will be similar to the cost
incurred for passenger cars, especially for the smaller LTVs. Although
several manufacturers indicated that substantial brake system redesign
would be necessary for vehicles with a loaded weight above 8,000 pounds
to meet No. 135, none provided cost information. Additionally, the
agency has not attempted to quantify the benefits that would be
realized if these vehicles were in compliance with No. 135.
Currently, Standard No. 105 utilizes 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) as the maximum GVWR for light duty vehicles and the braking
test conditions, procedures, and requirements are different for
vehicles with a GVWR above 4536 kilograms. The agency will continue to
use 4,536 kilograms to separate light and heavy duty vehicles with
regard to brake system standards. This would ensure continued
consistency with FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers, which also utilizes
10,000 pounds as the GVWR to separate light and heavy duty vehicles for
application of that agency's safety regulations.
There are several options when considering the appropriate brake
system standard for vehicles with a GVWR between 3,500 and 4536
kilograms. Both Standards No. 105 and No. 135 could be applied to these
vehicles as well as Standard No. 135 modified to allow a 700-Newton
brake pedal force, as requested by several commenters. The provisions
in No. 135 specify wheel lock sequence performance, to address
directional stability during braking, whereas No. 105 has no related
requirements. The pre-burnish test, water test, and dynamic emergency
brake test are provisions in Standard No. 105 that are not included in
Standard No. 135. The agency believes that Standard No. 105 should be
applied to vehicles with a GVWR above 3,500 kg for continuity with
present requirements. Specifying Standard No. 105 compliance for these
vehicles would provide most of the benefits of Standard No. 135 while
alleviating the manufacturer concerns about significant brake system
redesign if Standard No. 135 were applied to these vehicles.
In response to Notice 11, most vehicle manufacturers and the AAMA
recommended that the agency issue a final rule in which No. 135,
modified to allow 700 Newtons pedal force, be applied to vehicles with
a GVWR between 3,500 and 4536 kilograms. The agency is conducting brake
system testing/analyses on vehicles in this weight range in addition to
reviewing the testing data from Ford. After it finishes these testing/
analyses, NHTSA will publish a separate notice for the brake systems of
LTVs with a GVWR between 3,500 and 4,536 kilograms.
B. Application
B1. Lighter Vehicles
After considering the public comments to the NPRM (Notice 11), the
agency has decided, with this final rule, to extend the applicability
of No. 135 to LTVs with a maximum GVWR of 3,500 kilograms (7,716
pounds) instead of the 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) proposed in
Notice 11 of Docket 85-06. Accordingly, the title of No. 135 will be
modified to reflect the extension to LTVs, as proposed in Notice 11,
and the applicability section of No. 135 proposed in Notice 11 will be
modified.
B2. Heavier Vehicles
Notice 11 of Docket 85-06 proposed to extend the applicability of
Standard No. 135 to LTVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds)
or less. Most motor vehicle manufacturers objected to the proposal as
written, indicating that compliance with No. 135 may require major
brake system modifications for vehicles with a GVWR above 3,629
[[Page 51069]]
kilograms (8,000 pounds). After considering the public comments to the
NPRM (Notice 11), NHTSA has decided not to extend the applicability of
Standard No. 135 to LTVs with a GVWR between 3,500 kilograms (7,716
pounds) and 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). The agency has further
decided that No. 105 will still be applicable to LTVs with a GVWR
between 3,500 and 4536 kilograms at this time.
IV. Leadtime
The five-year leadtime for the application of FMVSS No. 135 to LTVs
is consistent with the leadtime provided for No. 135 applicability to
passenger cars in the final rule for No. 135 (Docket 85-06, Notice 8).
As is the case with passenger car applicability of No. 105, compliance
with FMVSS No. 105 is optional between December 1, 1997 and September
1, 2002. It is anticipated that this leadtime is sufficient to allow
manufacturers of LTVs with a GVWR of 3,500 kilograms and below to
complete any required brake system modifications during scheduled
redesign periods so that the economic burden will be minimal.
As previously stated, the agency is reviewing data submitted by
Ford and data from recently conducted brake testing to assess the
performance of vehicles with a GVWR between 3,500 and 4,536 kilograms
relative to FMVSS No. 135. The agency will publish a separate notice on
these vehicles in the future. If the agency determines that these
vehicles should be covered by FMVSS No. 135, sufficient leadtime will
be provided to ensure vehicle modifications will not cause significant
burden.
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action and
determined that it is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The
agency believes that application of FMVSS No. 135 to LTVs with a GVWR
of 3,500 kilograms or less will ensure an equivalent level of safety
for those aspects of performance covered by FMVSS No. 105. This final
rule will add brake performance and offer safety benefits in areas not
addressed in FMVSS No. 105.
In the final rule for FMVSS No. 135 (60 FR 6411), the agency
indicated that the incremental cost of passenger car compliance with
No. 135 as compared to No. 105 compliance would be minor. These minor
incremental costs are associated with differences in the actual
compliance testing costs and minor brake system redesign for some
marginal brake systems. Compliance testing costs were estimated to be
slightly less for No. 135 testing than for No. 105 testing since the
No. 135 procedures are shorter. The agency also believes the Adhesion
Utilization (AU) properties of LTVs may be different from the AU
properties of most passenger cars. The NHTSA estimates that some brake
system adjustments will be required for LTVs to comply with the AU, or
directional stability test in Standard No. 135. The agency stated in
the Notice of proposed rulemaking (61 FR 19603) that the application of
Standard No. 135 to LTVs would not impose significant costs on vehicle
manufacturers. The agency further stated that the cost impacts are so
minimal as not to warrant a full regulatory evaluation and NHTSA
believes that the impact assessment in the NPRM is still valid. The
substantial lead time proposed for mandatory LTV compliance should
enable manufacturers to incorporate necessary changes as part of model
change over, in phases if necessary.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the effects of both this proposal under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it would not have
a substantial economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
NHTSA concluded that the FMVSS No. 135 final rule had no
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. That
conclusion is also valid for this final rule since most of the vehicles
affected by this rulemaking are manufactured by entities that also
manufacture passenger cars. Accordingly, the incremental cost would be
small and would not likely affect vehicle sales.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant effect on
the quality of human environment. This final rule will result in no
changes to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment production or
disposal processes.
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this action under the principles and criteria in
Executive Order 12612. The agency believes that this rulemaking action
will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. There are no State laws
affected by this final rule.
E. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rulemaking will have no 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 produced for
use in that State. The 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for
judicial review of rulemakings 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 suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency amends Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 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 571.105 is amended by revising S3, to read as follows:
Part 571.105--Standard No. 105; Hydraulic Brake Systems
* * * * *
S3. Application. This standard applies to hydraulically-braked
vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds). This
standard applies to hydraulically-braked passenger cars manufactured
before September 1, 2000, and to hydraulically-braked multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 3,500 kilograms or
less that are manufactured before September 1, 2002. At the option of
the
[[Page 51070]]
manufacturer, hydraulically-braked passenger cars manufactured before
September 1, 2000, and hydraulically-braked multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 3,500 kilograms (7,716
pounds) or less manufactured before September 1, 2002, may meet the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Light
Vehicle Brake Systems instead of this standard.
* * * * *
3. Section 571.135 is amended by revising the heading and section
S3 to read as follows:
Part 571.135--Standard No. 135; Light Vehicle Brake Systems
* * * * *
S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars
manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and to multi-purpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less, manufactured on or
after September 1, 2002. In addition, at the option of the
manufacturer, passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2000, and
multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 3,500
kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less, manufactured before September 1,
2002, may meet the requirements of this standard instead of Federal
Motor Vehicle No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.
* * * * *
Issued on: September 18, 1997.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-25907 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
