[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9446-9449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4822]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5123]
RIN 2127-AH55
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Light Vehicle Brake
Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Lucas Varity Light Vehicle Braking Systems (LVBS), a
subsidiary of Lucas Varity Automotive of Livonia, MI, submitted a
petition for reconsideration and for certain other modifications to the
hydraulic brake standard. The petitioner first asked NHTSA to delay the
compliance date of the antilock brake system (ABS) malfunction
indicator lamp (MIL) activation protocol of the standard until
September 1, 2002. The protocol is currently scheduled to become
mandatory on and after March 1, 1999. Second, the petitioner asked
NHTSA to continue in effect the existing lamp activation protocol and
extend that protocol to all hydraulically-braked vehicles.
LVBS argued that the new lamp activation protocol presents
significant compliance problems both for manufacturers and original
equipment (OEM) customers. LVBS was also concerned about what it
perceived as lack of coordination between the hydraulic brake standard
and the light vehicle braking systems standard.
In order to provide LVBS and other manufacturers similarly situated
sufficient time to design and test systems that will comply with the
MIL activation protocol set forth in the recent amendments to the
hydraulic brake standard, NHTSA has decided to delay the mandatory
compliance date of the new MIL activation requirements from March 1
until September 1, 1999. This amendment is being issued as an interim
final action given the short time remaining before the current March 1,
1999 compliance date. NHTSA also solicits comments on this amendment.
DATES: Effective date: The amendment made by this interim final rule is
effective February 26, 1999.
Comments: Submit your comments on this interim final rule early
enough so that they will be received in Docket Management on or before
April 27, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Refer in your comments to the docket number noted in the
heading and submit your comments to: Docket Management, Room PL-401,
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. The docket room is open
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues: Mr. Jeffrey Woods, Safety Standards Engineer,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Vehicle Dynamics Division,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-6206; fax (202) 493-2739.
For legal issues: Mr. Walter Myers, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992; fax
(202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 10, 1995 NHTSA published a final rule amending Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) Nos. 105, Hydraulic and
electric brake systems and 121, Air brake systems (60 FR 13216)
(hereinafter referred to as the ``ABS final rule.'').1 The
ABS final rule requires medium and heavy hydraulic and air-braked
vehicles to be equipped with an ABS that directly controls the wheels
of at least one front axle and the wheels of at least one rear axle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA published 3 final rules on that date that amended the
brake standards for medium and heavy vehicles. In addition to the
ABS final rule, one reinstates stopping distance requirements for
air-braked heavy vehicles and the other establishes stopping
distance requirements for hydraulic-braked heavy vehicles (60 FR
13286 and 13297 respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ABS final rule amended Standard No. 105 to require, among other
things, that each vehicle with a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) of over
10,000 pounds (lbs) (4,536 kilograms (kg)) be equipped with an ABS MIL.
Paragraph S5.3.3(a) of Standard No. 105, as amended, requires the MIL
to activate when a condition specified in S5.3.1 exists and remain
activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition switch
is in the ``on'' position, whether or not the engine is running. The
lamp must not activate, however, when the system is functioning
properly, except as a check of lamp function whenever the ignition is
first turned to the ``on'' position.
Paragraph S5.3.3(b) of Standard No. 105, as amended, requires that
each message of a malfunction in the ABS be stored after the ignition
switch is turned to the ``off'' position and automatically reactivated
when the ignition switch is again turned to the ``on'' position. That
activation is in addition to the required check of lamp function
whenever the ignition is turned to the ``on'' position.
The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), the Truck
Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA), the American Trucking
Association (ATA), and brake manufacturers Rockwell WABCO and Midland-
Grau, among others, submitted petitions for reconsideration of the ABS
final rule. They requested in pertinent part that the agency define a
pre-existing malfunction as a malfunction that existed when the
ignition was last turned to the ``off'' position. The agency granted
that request and amended paragraph S5.3.3(b) accordingly (60 FR 63965,
December 13, 1995).
NHTSA received 13 petitions for reconsideration of the December 13,
1995 final rule, including those from Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Kelsey-Hayes (now LVBS), and the Recreational Vehicle Industry
Association addressing the MIL activation protocol. In its January 1996
petition for reconsideration, Kelsey-Hayes requested that NHTSA
reconsider the MIL activation protocol. Kelsey-Hayes requested that the
MIL be allowed to remain activated until a low-speed drive away allows
the system to verify that the vehicle's wheel speed sensors were
functioning properly. NHTSA responded to those petitions for
reconsideration by final rule of March 16, 1998 (63 FR 12660) declining
to amend the activation lamp protocol. The agency stated that the
standardized protocol would enable Federal and state safety inspectors
to determine the operational status of a vehicle's ABS without the
vehicle moving; would preclude confusion among drivers as to how the
MIL functions; and would be consistent with Economic Commission for
Europe (ECE) requirements, thereby promoting international
harmonization.
The Petition
On October 16, 1998, LVBS, formerly Kelsey-Hayes, submitted a
petition for reconsideration,2 asking NHTSA to
[[Page 9447]]
extend the compliance date of the MIL activating protocol specified in
the amendments to Standard No. 105 (referred to by LVBS as the ``New
105''), currently scheduled to become mandatory on March 1, 1999, to
coincide with the mandatory compliance date of September 1, 2002 for
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles to which Standard
No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems, is applicable. LVBS stated that
this would allow NHTSA and industry representatives to work together to
establish a coordinated lamp activation protocol. LVBS also asked NHTSA
to continue in effect the current lamp activation protocol in Standard
No. 105 pending future rulemaking to standardize the lamp activation
protocols on all hydraulic braked vehicles and, further, that the
current lamp activation protocol be extended to all hydraulically
braked vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although LVBS styled its petition as a petition for
reconsideration, in the text of the petition LVBS stated that it
petitions the Administrator of NHTSA ``pursuant to the provisions of
49 CFR, Part 552.'' Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and
Noncompliance Orders, contains procedures for the submission and
disposition of petitions for rulemaking or for a decision that a
motor vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with an
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard or contains a
defect relating to motor vehicle safety. Moreover, 49 CFR
Sec. 553.35, Petitions for reconsideration, provides that any
petition for reconsideration must be ``received not later than 45
days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register.''
Petitions submitted after that date will be treated as petitions
submitted under Part 552. In view of these provisions, NHTSA is
treating the LVBS petition as a petition for rulemaking under Part
552 rather than as a petition for reconsideration under Part 553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LVBS asserted that the new lamp activation protocol presents
significant compliance problems for manufacturers and OEM customers
that can be avoided by relatively modest changes to Standard No. 105.
LVBS is also concerned about the ``lack of coordination'' between the
``new'' Standard No. 105 and Standard No.135. Specifically, LVBS stated
that the lamp activation protocols in Standard Nos. 105 and 135,
although similar, differ in subtle but material respects. Thus, LVBS
argued that unless Standard No. 105 is coordinated with Standard No.
135, when the latter becomes mandatory on September 1, 2002, many
vehicle platforms may be covered by as many as three different lamp
activation protocols. This in turn will give rise to serious
engineering, manufacturing, maintenance, and product liability
problems. This is particularly true with vans, since their
configurations vary so widely within the same platforms.
Navistar International Transportation Corporation (Navistar), by
letter dated October 27, 1998, expressed support for the changes LVBS
asked for in its petition, ``in the interest of clarity and
coordination.'' Navistar stated that it is desirable to have common ABS
lamp illumination requirements for air and hydraulic braked vehicles so
that everyone, including drivers, mechanics, fleet operators and
inspectors know what illumination of the lamp means. Accordingly,
Navistar supports a technical review by NHTSA and other interested
parties to develop ABS lamp illumination protocols for all vehicles
equipped with ABS.
The AAMA also sent NHTSA a letter supporting the LVBS petition.
AAMA stated that LVBS requested a delay in the March 1, 1999 compliance
date for the new Standard No. 105 requirements for two reasons. The
first is to allow LVBS additional time for full validation of the
software it has developed to bring its ABS into compliance with the
amendments to Standard No. 105. AAMA explained that its member
companies purchase ABS from LVBS and are concerned that without full
validation of the LVBS process, unintended problems could result. AAMA
asserted that the second reason for the LVBS petition is to give NHTSA
time to resolve the inconsistencies in the lamp activation protocols
among the various brake standards. AAMA urged NHTSA to provide a quick
response to the petition, acknowledging that such an extraordinary
request is necessitated by ``a failure on industry's part,'' but again
expressed concern over the unintended malfunctions that could result
from LVBS not having the additional time to identify and resolve such
inconsistencies.
Agency Decision
It is apparent that, although the amendments to Standard No. 105
were first published on March 10, 1995 and the last petition for
reconsideration was resolved by final rule on March 16, 1998, LVBS, a
major supplier of ABS for the automotive industry, has not completed
the design or redesign of its ABSs in time to comply with the new MIL
activation protocol requirements of Standard No. 105. NHTSA understands
that LVBS can program the necessary software, but would not be able to
fully test its systems and equipment and resolve any unanticipated
problems before the March 1, 1999 deadline. Since this situation
affects not only LVBS but vehicle manufacturers as well, the agency has
tentatively decided to extend the compliance date of paragraph
S5.3.3(b) of Standard No. 105, as amended, from March 1, 1999 until
September 1, 1999. While LVBS asked for approximately three years to
complete the testing, NHTSA believes three years is far in excess of
what is needed for an expedited testing program. This would seem
especially true since the vehicle manufacturers can assist in the
testing and validation. Accordingly, as stated above, NHTSA is
extending the compliance date for S5.3.3(b) of Standard No. 105 for six
months, that is from March 1, 1999 to September 1, 1999.
In addition, the agency will examine the differences between the
MIL activation protocols in its different braking standards. Contrary
to the assertions in the LVBS petition, however, NHTSA does not believe
any action is needed in this rulemaking. There are no inconsistencies
among the different requirements and no other brake manufacturers have
reported any difficulties in simultaneously meeting these requirements.
The agency will consider addressing these differences in a separate
rulemaking.
NHTSA finds that the issuance of this interim final rule without
prior opportunity for public comment is necessary because LVBS, a major
ABS manufacturer, has stated that it is having considerable difficulty
in meeting the March 1, 1999 compliance date of the new MIL activation
protocol of paragraph S5.3.3(b), Standard No. 105. This could have an
adverse effect on a significant part of the automotive industry since
LVBS supplies a large percentage of the ABSs currently installed on
hydraulic-braked vehicles with GVWRs greater than 10,000 lb. This
amendment imposes no new costs or requirements, but rather provides
brake manufacturers additional time and flexibility to comply with the
new requirements and thereby provide complying systems to their vehicle
manufacturer customers.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
(a) Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This document has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review.
NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this rulemaking action and has
determined that it is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the
DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This action tentatively
extends the compliance date of the antilock brake system malfunction
indicator lamp activation protocol of paragraph S5.3.3(b), Standard No.
105, from March 1, 1999 until September 1, 1999. This action does not
impose any new requirements or costs on automotive or brake
manufacturers. Rather, it gives them more time and additional
flexibility in meeting the new
[[Page 9448]]
requirements. Thus, the agency concludes that the impacts of this
action are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not
required. For a discussion of the costs of implementing the amendments
to Standard No. 105, including the malfunction indicator lamp
requirements of paragraph S5.3.3(b), see the ABS final rule of March
10, 1995 (60 FR 13216, at 13253).
(b) Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. I hereby certify
that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following is
NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the foregoing
certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
This interim final rule would primarily affect the manufacturers of
brake systems and medium and heavy vehicle manufacturers. 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)).
SBA's size standards are organized according to Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes. Under that classification system, SIC No.
3711, ``Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies,'' has a small business
size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer. SIC code No. 3714, ``Motor
Vehicle Parts and Accessories,'' has a small business size standard of
750 employees or fewer. NHTSA believes that brake system manufacturers
would fall within SIC code No. 3714 and may include both large and
small businesses. On the other hand, NHTSA believes that medium and
heavy vehicle manufacturers would fall within SIC code No. 3711 and are
primarily large businesses.
As pointed out in (a) above, this interim final rule does not
impose any new requirements but simply extends the compliance date of
one requirement of the amendments to Standard No. 105 for 6 months,
from March 1 until September 1, 1999. NHTSA also notes that the cost of
brake systems and new medium and heavy vehicles would not be affected
by this interim final rule.
(c) Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-
511, as amended, there are no information collection requirements
associated with this interim final rule.
(d) National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this interim final rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and has determined that this rule will not
have a significant impact on the human environment.
(e) Executive Order 12612, Federalism
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule will not have significant federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
(f) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4, requires
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. This interim final rule does not meet the
definition of a Federal mandate because it merely extends the
compliance date of an pending requirement. It creates no new
requirements nor involves any additional costs. Annual expenditures
will not exceed the $100 million threshold.
(g) Civil Justice Reform
This 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 that 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 own use. Section 30161 of Title 49, U.S.C. 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 suit in court.
Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this document.
It is requested but not required that any such comments be submitted in
duplicate (original and 1 copy).
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in concise fashion. Necessary attachments, however, may be
appended to those comments without regard to the 15-page limit.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete submission, including the
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address noted in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above. One copy from which the purportedly
confidential business information has been deleted should be submitted
to Docket Management (see ADDRESSES above). A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information called for in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business
Information.
All comments received on or before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above for this interim final rule will
be considered, and will be available to the public for examination in
the docket at the above address, both before and after the comment
closing date. To the extent possible, comments received after the
closing date will be considered. Comments received too late for
consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered as
suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on today's interim
final rule will be available for public inspection in the docket. NHTSA
will continue to file relevant information in the docket after the
comment closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to monitor the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rule docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving those
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49, CFR, continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
[[Page 9449]]
2. Section 571.105 is amended by revising S5.3.3(b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.105 Standard No. 105; Hydraulic and electric brake systems.
* * * * *
S5.3.3 (a) * * *
(b) For vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1999 with
GVWRs greater than 10,000 lbs, each message about the existence of a
malfunction, as described in S5.3.1(c), shall be stored in the antilock
brake system after the ignition switch is turned to the ``off''
position and the indicator lamp shall be automatically reactivated when
the ignition switch is again turned to the ``on'' position. The
indicator lamp shall also be activated as a check of lamp function
whenever the ignition is turned to the ``on'' (run) position. The
indicator lamp shall be deactivated at the end of the check of lamp
function unless there is a malfunction or a message about a malfunction
that existed when the key switch was last turned to the ``off''
position.
* * * * *
Issued on: February 23, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-4822 Filed 2-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
