Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, Air Brake Systems, 28939-28944 [E7-9944]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28939-28944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9944]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15227]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Hydraulic and Electric 
Brake Systems, Air Brake Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for reconsideration of 
our 2003 final rule establishing a braking-in-a-curve performance 
requirement for single unit trucks and buses. The braking-in-a-curve 
requirement has applied to air-braked truck tractors since 1997 and we 
determined that the requirement should also apply to single-unit trucks 
and buses. The requirement ensures that a vehicle's antilock brake 
system (ABS) maintains adequate stability and control during a hard 
stop on a curved, slippery road surface. A petition for reconsideration 
was received from the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), 
which seeks to exclude vehicles built in two or

[[Page 28940]]

more stages and altered vehicles from the braking-in-a-curve 
requirement if such vehicles are manufactured or altered by a final 
stage manufacturer or alterer that builds no more than 250 affected 
vehicles per year. The agency is denying the petitioner's request for 
the reasons discussed in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Jeff Woods, Office of Crash Avoidance Safety Standards at (202) 366-
2720. For legal issues, you may contact Rebecca Schade, Office of Chief 
Counsel, at (202) 366-2992. You may send mail to these officials at the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petition for Reconsideration and Agency Response
    A. Pass Through Certification
    1. Auxiliary Axles
    2. Wheelbase Modifications
    B. Testing Costs and Alternatives to Testing
    C. New Temporary Exemption Procedure in Part 555
III. Conclusion

I. Background

    A braking-in-a-curve performance requirement was added for single-
unit trucks and buses in a final rule published on August 11, 2003 (68 
FR 47485; Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15277). The agency determined that such 
a requirement is necessary to ensure the safe performance of an 
antilock braking system (ABS), which is required equipment on these 
vehicles. Testing by the agency and information provided by industry 
indicated that the braking-in-a-curve test specified previously for 
truck-tractors could be applied to single-unit trucks and buses. The 
requirement ensures that an ABS installed on a vehicle helps the driver 
maintain vehicle control and stability during a hard stop on a curved, 
slippery road surface.
    In the final rule, the agency specified that the braking-in-a-curve 
is only conducted with these vehicles at lightly loaded vehicle weight 
(LLVW). The LLVW condition was determined to be the worst-case loading 
condition for ABS performance testing on single unit trucks. Test data 
indicated that testing a vehicle fully loaded to its gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) did not provide for additional benefits in vehicle 
safety when compared to the testing in the LLVW condition. Therefore, a 
requirement for single-unit trucks and buses to comply when tested at 
GVWR was not included in the final rule. Limiting the requirement to 
the LLVW condition also had the additional benefit of reducing the 
certification cost.
    As we stated in the final rule, the braking-in-a-curve performance 
test is necessary to ensure that the benefits of ABS are realized. 
Merely requiring ABS does not ensure that an ABS system will provide an 
acceptable level of performance. The added performance test provides 
such an assurance.
    As established in the final rule, vehicles built in two or more 
stages must meet the braking-in-a-curve performance requirements on and 
after July 1, 2006.

II. Petition for Reconsideration and Agency Response

    The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) submitted a 
petition for reconsideration asking NHTSA to exclude vehicles built in 
two or more stages and altered vehicles from the braking-in-a-curve 
requirement if such vehicles are manufactured or altered by a final 
stage manufacturer or alterer that builds no more than 250 affected 
vehicles per year. NTEA did not assert that such vehicles are unable to 
comply, but instead stated that it is not practicable for small final 
stage manufacturers and alterers to certify compliance with the 
requirement. NTEA argued that contrary to the agency's determination in 
the final rule, final stage manufacturers and alterers are unable to 
rely on guidance from incomplete vehicle manufacturers in order to 
certify to the braking-in-a-curve performance requirement. 
Specifically, the petitioner stated that the agency failed to 
appropriately consider the impact of aftermarket axles and 
modifications to a vehicle's wheelbase on the ability of final stage 
manufacturers and alterers to rely on guidance from incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers. Further, NTEA stated that the agency's cost estimates 
were too low and that the agency failed to provide sufficient guidance 
on alternatives to testing that would constitute due care for purposes 
of certification of compliance with the requirement.

A. Pass-Through Certification and Compliance Envelopes

    Final stage manufacturers complete the manufacture of incomplete 
vehicles and alterers perform modifications to completed and certified 
vehicles. Manufacturers of incomplete vehicles and original vehicle 
manufacturers often provide guidance on how a vehicle may be completed 
or altered to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Guidance from 
incomplete manufacturers may permit an incomplete vehicle to be 
completed in a manner that permits a final-stage manufacturer or 
alterer to rely on pass-through certification. Incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers provide this information in incomplete vehicle documents 
(IVD). 49 CFR 568.5 requires incomplete vehicle manufacturers to 
provide IVDs to final stage manufacturers. Manufacturers of completed 
vehicles may provide alterers with a ``compliance envelope,'' i.e., 
guidance as to the modifications that can be made to a vehicle that 
will not remove the vehicle from compliance under the original 
certification. NHTSA stated in its final rule that the occurrences 
where final stage manufacturers may not rely on pass-through 
certification, or on data provided by incomplete vehicle manufacturers, 
will be rare and would represent a significantly smaller percentage of 
the affected vehicles than the 20 percent claimed by NTEA in its 
comments to the NPRM.
    In its petition for reconsideration, NTEA provided additional 
clarification that the 20 percent value it cited represents vehicles 
for which no pass-through certification exists.\1\ NTEA stated that 
when considering the number of vehicles that are completed or altered 
outside the guidelines for pass-through certification or the compliance 
envelope, the number of incomplete and altered vehicles for which 
certification guidance is not available may perhaps be as high as 60 
percent. NTEA stated that incomplete vehicle manufacturers and original 
vehicle manufacturers have an incentive to keep pass-through 
certification guidance narrow in order to limit potential liability 
from non-compliant final stage manufacture and alteration. The 
petitioner provided several IVDs that it argued demonstrated that final 
stage manufacturers and alterers effectively cannot rely on these 
documents for certification of compliance with the braking-in-a-curve 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It was not clear to NHTSA from the petition whether NTEA was 
referring to pass-through certification for all FMVSSs, or was 
limiting its comments to pass-through certification to the braking 
standards, FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has reviewed the IVDs provided by NTEA in its petition for 
reconsideration, and also obtained additional IVDs for other types of 
chassis. We found no instance of an incomplete chassis-cab for which 
pass-through certification for FMVSS Nos. 105 or 121 was unavailable to 
final stage manufacturers and alterers. The typical incomplete vehicle 
configuration, a

[[Page 28941]]

single-unit truck equipped with a completed cab, had pass-through 
certification for the braking standards so long as a final stage 
manufacturer completed the vehicle without modifying the brake system 
and followed other routine measures.
    Aside from the IVDs provided by the petitioner, NHTSA reviewed the 
IVD for a Ford F 53 basic stripped chassis \2\ without a cab or any 
exterior bodywork. Page 9 of the Ford IVD specifies that if the chassis 
is completed within the guidelines identified for system or component 
modification, minimum body weight, vertical and longitudinal center-of-
gravity specifications, and axle and gross vehicle weight ratings, it 
will conform to FMVSS No. 105. The IVD also provides a table of all 
U.S. and Canadian motor vehicle safety standards which show that this 
chassis can be completed as a bus (other than a school bus) or a 
multipurpose vehicle and still utilize pass-through certification for 
the hydraulic brake system requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The IVD for the 2003 F-Super Duty Class A Motorhome Chassis 
is available from the Ford Web site at https://www.fleet.ford.com/
truckbbas/topics/incomp.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, NHTSA was unable to identify an IVD for which no pass-
through certification was provided for the brake standards. Moreover, 
the petitioner did not provide examples of incomplete vehicles for 
which no pass-through certification was provided in general.
    NTEA did cite two vehicle modifications for which it stated that 
pass-through certification was not sufficient, installation of 
auxiliary axles and modifications to a vehicle's wheelbase.\3\ The 
issues raised by these types of modifications are addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NTEA did not specify whether auxiliary axle and wheelbase 
modifications account for the 60 percent of vehicles that are unable 
to rely on a pass-through certification, or if other modifications, 
including those not related to braking, also contribute to this 
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Auxiliary Axles
    A common modification to air-braked trucks is the installation of 
one or more auxiliary axles to increase the GVWR to provide for 
increased cargo-carrying capacity. NTEA estimated that 25,000 auxiliary 
axles are installed annually by final stage manufacturers and alterers. 
The petitioner stated that incomplete vehicle manufacturers typically 
do not provide compliance information to final stage manufacturers with 
regard to the installation of such axles, and noted that the agency did 
not test vehicles configured with auxiliary axles for the August 2003 
final rule.
    We note that auxiliary axles can be configured as either liftable 
or non-liftable axles. A liftable axle can be raised and lowered by 
means of an air suspension system operated by a control switch provided 
for the driver. Whether an auxiliary axle is liftable or non-liftable 
relates to how the vehicle is tested in the braking-in-a-curve test. 
The braking-in-a-curve test procedure specified in the final rule 
states that single-unit trucks and buses are tested only in a LLVW 
condition. S6.1.12 of FMVSS No. 121 states that when a vehicle with a 
liftable axle is tested at lightly loaded vehicle weight, the liftable 
axle is to be raised. Thus, the wheels on a liftable axle would not be 
in contact with the pavement during the test, and would have no 
appreciable impact on the ability of a straight truck or bus to comply 
with the braking-in-a-curve test procedure. As noted in the final rule, 
lighter vehicle weights typically perform worse than heavier vehicle 
weights during the braking-in-a-curve test. The axle would add weight 
to a vehicle, but so long as the installation of the axle did not place 
the vehicle outside the envelope for weight distribution or center of 
gravity requirements in the IVD, a liftable axle (when raised) may even 
improve a vehicle's performance in the braking-in-a-curve test.
    Installations of non-liftable axles could affect the braking-in-a-
curve test performance for a modified vehicle, because the wheels of 
these axles would be in contact with the pavement during the braking-
in-a-curve test. Therefore, if a non-liftable axle is installed on a 
vehicle outside the scope of the pass-through certification, the party 
performing the installation must certify that the altered vehicle does 
comply with FMVSS No. 121. The costs to perform a certification test 
and alternatives to conducting the braking-in-a-curve test are 
discussed below.
    The agency estimates that a majority of auxiliary axles are 
liftable axles. Information provided by a major supplier of truck 
suspensions indicated that 99 percent of the auxiliary axle suspensions 
it sells are the liftable type.\4\ Based on NTEA's estimates of the 
number of auxiliary axles installed annually and on the distribution of 
axles between liftable and non-liftable, if each non-liftable axle were 
installed on a separate vehicle, the number of affected vehicles would 
be approximately 250 a year. However, vehicles can be equipped with 
more than one auxiliary axle. Therefore, the number of vehicles with 
non-liftable axles is likely lower, which suggests to the agency that 
this is a less serious problem than NTEA implies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See memo regarding conversation with Hendrickson Int'l., 
Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15277-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Wheelbase Modifications
    NTEA also asserted that with regard to the braking-in-a-curve test, 
``no certification pass-through is available for any vehicle with a 
wheelbase modification.'' NTEA stated that under the previous 
regulations, if a final stage manufacturer or alterer stayed within the 
chassis manufacturers' wheelbase range for a given model, it could be 
reasonably assured that the brake system was designed to perform within 
this range for stopping distance requirements. Additionally, NTEA 
stated that if a final stage manufacturer or alterer completes or 
alters a vehicle such that the wheelbase is modified outside the scope 
of an IVD, compliance with the brake standards should be assured if:
     The GVWR and gross axle weight rating are not re-rated;
     Tire or other suspension components are not changed or 
modified;
     Added brake lines meet the requirements of FMVSS 106, 
brake hoses; and
     Modifications are consistent with design guidelines from 
the chassis manufacturer.
    However, because of the new braking-in-a-curve test, NTEA argued 
that ``wheelbase changes will nullify both the hydraulic and air brake 
system conformity statements of the chassis manufacturer, and place the 
full burden of compliance with the [final stage manufacturer].''
    We disagree with the petitioner that wheelbase changes will 
necessarily ``nullify'' chassis manufacturers'' conformity statements. 
Data reviewed by the agency indicates that final stage manufacturers 
and alterers can modify wheelbases such that the vehicle continues to 
comply with the braking-in-a-curve test. For example, data provided by 
the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) in response to the NPRM 
indicated that for 31 trucks tested by TMA's member companies with a 
wheelbase range of 152 to 300 inches, each vehicle successfully passed 
the braking-in-a-curve test (Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6550-13). The agency 
has also observed that typical hydraulic-braked and air-braked ABS 
electronic control units (ECU) will perform satisfactorily on several 
types of hydraulic-braked or air-braked vehicles,

[[Page 28942]]

respectively, including trucks, tractors, and buses.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, the Body Builder's Book Bulletin BB-2, Rev. A, 
states that ``When lengthening the wheelbase on vehicles with Anti-
lock Brake Systems (ABS), the wiring for the wheel speed sensors and 
ABS components cannot and should not be altered, cut, spliced, or 
repaired. The use of approved ABS extension cables is recommended 
whenever a wheelbase is lengthened. Whenever the wheelbase is 
shortened, ensure that excess ABS cables are securely tied to the 
inside of the frame rail to prevent interference. Refer to UD Parts 
Bulletin UD99-116 for ABS extension cable information.'' Based on 
the thoroughness of this explanation of necessary steps for 
preserving ABS when changing a wheelbase, we believe it is 
reasonable to assume that no changes to the ECU are necessary. Body 
Builder's Book Bulletin BB-2, Rev. A, Nissan Diesel America Inc. 
(September 20, 2004), available at https://www.udtrucks.com/Q_Tech_
Notes/BBB2%20Rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, no alterations are needed to the ECU: it functions properly 
regardless of the wheelbase that is used. There are data available for 
a variety of vehicle configurations that a final stage manufacturer or 
alterer may be able to rely on for purposes of certification (e.g., the 
range of available wheelbases that are offered by the chassis 
manufacturer). We further note that final stage manufacturers and 
alterers may obtain technical support from the ABS suppliers or from 
the body builder advisory service that is available from many chassis 
manufacturers.
    However, if a final stage manufacturer or alterer were to modify a 
vehicle outside the scope of the IVD and for which no compliance data 
were available, such as a very short wheelbase beyond the range of what 
is offered by a chassis manufacturer, such a modification could degrade 
the vehicle's handling characteristics beyond the performance 
capabilities of the vehicle's ABS. A very short wheelbase could result 
in extreme weight transfer during the stopping distance tests on dry 
pavement and failure to stay within the 12-foot wide lane if, for 
example, the rear wheels lifted off the ground during the stop. In such 
a case, there would be problems complying with the both the braking-in-
a-curve test and the stopping distance test. In such cases, the final 
stage manufacturer or alterer would be responsible for ensuring that 
the vehicle's ABS performed as necessary to comply with the braking-in-
a-curve test.

B. Testing Costs and Alternatives to Testing

    In the NPRM, NHTSA estimated the cost of conducting a braking-in-a-
curve test at $1,500, if performed as a stand-alone test, or $1,000, if 
performed as part of a complete FMVSS No. 105 or 121 certification 
test.\6\ In its petition, NTEA commented that because currently other 
braking requirements can be certified without testing, as discussed 
above, the braking-in-a-curve test would likely be a stand-alone test. 
In addition to the cost of the test itself, NTEA argued that final 
stage manufacturers and alterers would be faced with the cost of 
transporting the vehicle to the testing site, as well as the loss in 
value of the tested vehicle as it could not be sold as new.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In response to the NPRM, the TMA provided an upper range 
estimate for the stand-alone test of $6,000. However, the TMA 
provided no data in support of the estimate. TMA stated that this 
cost included the cost of transporting a vehicle and conducting the 
brake burnish specified in the standard. However, TMA did not 
itemize these costs. See 68 FR at 47491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NTEA also stated its concern of the cost on the industry as a 
whole. NTEA again argued that based on the number of auxiliary axle 
installations and wheelbase modifications, 35,000 vehicles will be 
produced for which there is no pass-through certification available. 
The petitioner further stated that because of the competitive nature of 
the industry and the number of vehicle configurations in the market 
place, consortium testing as a means to reduce certification costs for 
individual businesses is not a practical option.
    In response, as discussed above, some vehicle configurations will 
indeed require a final stage manufacturer or alterer to certify a 
vehicle's compliance with the braking-in-a-curve test. However, the 
agency does not believe that this test will be prohibitive relative to 
the total vehicle cost. We estimate that the cost of a specialized 
heavy duty truck with auxiliary axles, an altered wheelbase, and custom 
body and work equipment may be in the range of $100,000 to $500,000, so 
the additional cost of a braking-in-a-curve test, in the range of 
$1,000 to $6,000, should not be hugely consequential. Also, we note 
that FMVSS No. 105 or 121 certification testing (e.g., the braking-in-
a-curve test) is non-destructive to the vehicle. A vehicle can still be 
sold even if testing is required.
    The agency recognizes that there may be a small loss in the value 
of a new vehicle that requires certification testing for the braking-
in-a-curve requirements, but reiterates that some highly-specialized 
vehicles may require actual testing, even though the majority of 
vehicles may not. We are aware that custom heavy vehicles sometimes 
need brake system certification testing prior to delivery to the 
customer, and that manufacturers and alterers are able to accommodate 
such situations. The brake burnish specifications in FMVSS Nos. 105 and 
121 both specify 500 brake snubs from 40 mph to 20 mph at 1 mile 
intervals, which would add 500 miles to the odometer of a test vehicle, 
with the remaining portions of the brake system certification test 
under each standard adding several more miles. Thus, if a vehicle 
intended for a customer were tested for certification, it would 
accumulate slightly over 500 miles prior to delivery. Heavy vehicles 
often travel several hundreds of thousands of miles over their 
lifetime, and NHTSA believes that adding 500 miles of use to a vehicle 
for a brake system certification test only occasionally necessary would 
not appreciably devalue it.
    However, the agency believes that the vast majority of vehicles 
completed by final stage manufacturers and alterers will continue to 
use pass-through certification and will not need to be individually 
tested. As stated above, auxiliary lift installations and wheelbase 
modifications can be made such that a final stage manufacturer or 
alterer can rely on the IVD or engineering analysis to certify 
compliance with FMVSS No. 121. Additionally, we note that many chassis 
manufacturers offer chassis with many non-standard configurations of 
axles. Promotional information from Kenworth, Peterbilt, Oshkosh, and 
Western Star truck manufacturers indicates that these chassis 
manufacturers can provide a wide range of axle configurations, 
including lift axles, dual-steering front axles, all-wheel drive, 
tridem drive axles, and bridge-formula tag axles. NTEA did not provide 
data indicating how many of the vehicle configurations offered by their 
member final stage manufacturers are so specialized that these 
configurations are not available from a chassis manufacturer with full 
brake system certification.
    Additionally, while NTEA stated that consortium testing would not 
be a practical solution for the industry, such testing is currently 
being performed by the industry in Canada. Consortium testing is an 
approach in which a parent organization or group of member companies 
develops and conducts certification testing and provides the results to 
each member company. This lowers testing costs per unit produced, sold, 
or manufactured, as compared to each company performing its own 
certification tests. Consortium testing is being used by the Canadian 
Transportation Equipment Association (CTEA) to compile certification 
data for Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety

[[Page 28943]]

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems,\7\ on axles that are installed by 
manufacturers in Canada. CTEA also sponsors testing on altered 
vehicles, as described in the report Stability and Handling 
Characteristics of a Straight Truck with a Self-steering Pusher Axle 
(Centre for Surface Transport Technology, National Research Council 
Canada, Technical Report CSTT-HVC-TR-057, August 9, 2002).\8\ Thus the 
Canadian industry is able to provide consortium testing that results in 
reduced certification testing costs and offers valuable information on 
the alteration of heavy vehicles to consortium member companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We note that Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 
is virtually identical to FMVSS No. 121.
    \8\ Available for public inspection in NHTSA's Office of 
Rulemaking, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency notes that a consortium of individual final stage 
manufacturers and alterers might also develop engineering modeling or 
installation guidelines that could permit, for certain vehicles, 
certification without the need for performance testing of each 
individual vehicle. We suggest that a vehicle dynamics simulation 
program could be enhanced to include elements such as auxiliary axles. 
However, we recognize that an auxiliary axle component of the model 
would need to be developed and likely validated through road testing. A 
braking-in-a-curve testing program could explore several parameters to 
determine if there are limits at which the braking-in-a-curve test 
performance becomes unacceptable with a particular auxiliary axle 
configuration (e.g., minimum curb weight), and describe conditions 
under which appropriate countermeasures such as installing an ABS 
system on the auxiliary axle(s) are appropriate.

C. New Temporary Exemption Procedure in Part 555

    On February 14, 2005, the agency published in the Federal Register 
(70 FR 7414) a final rule which, among other things, created new 
procedures under which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more 
stages and alterers could obtain temporary exemptions from certain 
dynamic performance requirements. These procedures were established as 
Subpart B of Part 555.
    The new procedures streamline the temporary exemption process by 
allowing an association or another party representing the interests of 
multiple manufacturers to bundle exemption petitions for a specific 
vehicle design, thus permitting a single explanation of the potential 
safety impact and good faith attempts to comply with the standards. The 
procedures specify that each manufacturer seeking an exemption is 
required to demonstrate financial hardship and good faith efforts to 
comply with applicable requirements. Exemptions based on financial 
hardship are available to companies manufacturing fewer than 10,000 
vehicles per year, and any single exemption cannot apply to more than 
2,500 vehicles per year.
    On May 15, 2006, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
28168) a final rule in response to a petition submitted by NTEA 
requesting reconsideration of the February 2005 final rule. See Docket 
No. NHTSA-2006-24664. While the agency had limited the new procedures 
to FMVSS requirements that incorporate dynamic crash tests, NTEA argued 
that they should apply to all standards that are based on dynamic 
testing and not just dynamic crash testing.
    In response to NTEA's petition, the agency reconsidered its 
previous position with respect to scope of relief available under 
Subpart B. On reconsideration, in the May 2006 final rule, it amended 
Part 555 to permit the manufacturers of multistage vehicles to petition 
for temporary exemption from requirements that incorporate various 
dynamic tests and not exclusively dynamic crash tests. This would 
include the braking-in-a-curve test.
    In the May 2006 final rule, the agency observed that small volume 
manufacturers were already able to petition the agency for temporary 
exemptions from all Federal standards under Subpart A. Therefore its 
reconsideration as to the scope of Subpart B related to the 
availability of the more streamlined procedures rather than to the 
possibility of a manufacturer obtaining an exemption in appropriate 
circumstances.
    Second, NHTSA noted that under Sec.  555.13(a) and (b) of Subpart 
B, in order to petition for an exemption, the petitioner must show why 
the test requirements of a particular standard would cause substantial 
economic hardship. This showing must include detailed financial 
information, and a complete description of each manufacturer's good 
faith efforts to comply with the standards. Specifically, the 
petitioner must explain the inadequacy of the IVD document furnished by 
an incomplete vehicle manufacturer or by a prior intermediate-stage 
manufacturer pursuant to Part 568. The petitioner must also show why 
generic or cooperative testing is impracticable. Finally, the 
petitioner must explain the difficulty in procuring goods and services 
necessary to conduct dynamic tests. We also noted that, in addition to 
showing of hardship, each petitioner is required to explain under Sec.  
555.13(c) why the requested temporary exemption would not unreasonably 
degrade safety.
    In the May 2006 final rule, we also stated that for both dynamic 
crash tests and other dynamic tests, we believe that given the other 
relief provided in the February 2005 final rule, including greater 
ability to use pass-through certification, we expect that the number of 
cases for which exemptions are needed will be relatively small.
    For purposes of this response to NTEA's petition concerning the 
braking-in-a-curve test, we note that the new streamlined temporary 
exemption procedures will be available for this test requirement. Thus, 
this relief will be available should it be necessary and appropriate.
    Moreover, the agency provided a considerable amount of information 
and analysis in its May 2006 document in connection with arguments 
raised by NTEA concerning multistage manufacturers and alterers. In 
addition to issues related to the new Part 555 temporary exemption 
procedures, the agency included extensive discussion as to why the 
current multistage vehicle certification scheme is workable. Because 
many of the issues we discussed in that document are relevant to the 
issues raised by NTEA in connection with the braking in a curve test, 
we refer the reader to that document and its supporting record. See 71 
FR 28196 (May 15, 2006) and Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24664.

III. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, the agency is denying the petition 
for reconsideration from the NTEA to exclude certain small volume final 
stage manufacturers and alterers from certifying to the braking-in-a-
curve performance requirements. Other than auxiliary axle and wheelbase 
modifications, NTEA did not provide any data showing specifically what 
modifications or deviations to IVD guidelines are occurring to 
incomplete or complete vehicles such that they cannot use pass-through 
certification for the brake system requirements. With regard to 
wheelbase modifications, the agency has determined that IVDs typically 
provide guidance on how such modifications can be performed while 
maintaining pass-through certification. Moreover, final stage 
manufacturers and alterers have considerable choice in purchasing 
chassis with different wheelbases and configuration of axles

[[Page 28944]]

certified as complying by the original vehicle manufacturer.
    We recognize that pass-through certification is not available for 
all modifications, including the addition of some types of auxiliary 
axles. However, these types of modifications would not necessarily 
result in the need for certification testing. For example, with the 
addition of a lift axle, a manufacturer or final stage manufacturer may 
be able to rely on engineering analysis to certify compliance with the 
requirements of FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121.
    In the rare cases in which certification testing may be required, 
the testing is non-destructive and the industry has options available 
to minimize the cost of any testing that is required. While the agency 
recognizes that some modifications might be beyond the envelope of 
pass-through certification, final stage manufacturers and alterers must 
certify that vehicles with such modifications continue to comply with 
FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, to ensure that purchasers and other motorists 
have the full benefit of the required ABS.
    Finally, as discussed earlier, the new streamlined exemption 
procedures are available for this test requirement, providing relief if 
it is necessary and appropriate.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166: 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: May 18, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-9944 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P