Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Hydraulic Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake Systems

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