Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Air Brake Systems, 9202-9205 [E9-4491]
Download as PDF
9202
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
[FR Doc. E9–4449 Filed 2–26–09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0038]
RIN 2127–AK44
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard;
Air Brake Systems
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: This document proposes to
extend by 18 months a requirement that
trailers with antilock brake systems be
equipped with an external antilock
malfunction indicator lamp. It also
considers making the requirement
permanent. The indicator lamp
requirement, which is included in the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
that governs vehicles equipped with air
brakes, was originally scheduled to
sunset on March 1, 2009, but has been
extended to September 1, 2009 in an
interim final rule published in today’s
Federal Register. Under our proposal,
the sunset date would be extended until
March 1, 2011. This rulemaking is in
response to a petition from the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA), which has asked that this
requirement be made permanent.
Extending the sunset date for an
additional 18 months would enable the
agency to fully analyze CVSA’s request
that the requirement be made
permanent, and avoid a potential
confusing time gap in the vehicles
subject to the requirement.
DATES: You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
the Docket receives them not later than
April 2, 2009. Comments may be
combined with ones on the
accompanying interim final rule, which
is being published today using the same
docket number.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
to the docket number identified in the
heading of this document by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:19 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Public Participation heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78) or you may visit https://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
George Soodoo, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202–366–
4931; FAX: 202–366–7002). For legal
issues, you may call Mr. Ari Scott,
Office of the Chief Counsel (Phone: 202–
366–2992; FAX: 202–366–3820). You
may send mail to these officials at:
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of the CVSA Petitions
III. Agency Analysis and Proposal
IV. Shortened Comment Period
V. Public Participation
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
The final rule requiring antilock brake
systems (ABS) on truck tractors, other
air-braked heavy vehicles including
trailers, and hydraulic-braked trucks
was published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 13216) on March 10, 1995. As
amended by that final rule, FMVSS No.
121, Air Brake Systems, required two
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
separate in-cab ABS malfunction
indicator lamps for each truck tractor,
one for the tractor’s ABS (effective
March 1, 1997) and the other for the
trailer’s ABS (effective March 1, 2001).
The final rule also required air-braked
trailers to be equipped with an
externally mounted ABS malfunction
lamp (effective March 1, 1998) so that
the driver of a non-ABS equipped
tractor or a pre-2001 ABS-equipped
tractor towing an ABS-equipped trailer
would be alerted in the event of a
malfunction in the trailer ABS.
The requirement for the trailermounted ABS malfunction indicator
lamp was originally scheduled to expire
on March 1, 2009. The agency
established this sunset date in light of
the fact that, after this eight-year period,
many of the pre-2001 tractors without
the dedicated trailer ABS malfunction
indicator lamp would no longer be in
long-haul service. The agency based its
decision on the belief that the typical
tractor life was five to seven years, and
therefore decided on an eight-year
period for the external ABS malfunction
indicator lamp requirement. We further
stated our belief that there would be no
need for a redundant ABS malfunction
lamp mounted on the trailer after the
vast majority of tractors were equipped
with an in-cab ABS malfunction
indicator lamp for the trailer.
II. Summary of the CVSA Petitions
CVSA is an international not-forprofit organization comprised of local,
state, provincial, territorial and federal
motor carrier safety officials and
industry representatives from the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. The
CVSA promotes commercial vehicle
safety and sponsors vehicle inspections
by partnering with the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, Canadian Council of
Motor Transport Administrators,
Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of
Communications and Transportation
(Mexico).
On October 22, 2007, CVSA
petitioned the National Highway Traffic
safety Administration (NHTSA) to
amend FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake
Systems, to make the requirement for
the external antilock malfunction
indicator lamp permanent instead of
allowing it to expire, as originally
intended, on March 1, 2009 (and is
subsequently being modified to
September 1, 2009, by an accompanying
interim final rule). CVSA included in its
petition suggested regulatory text along
with its rationale for why the extension
should be permanent. Since receiving
the petition, the agency has received
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
letters of support for the CVSA petition
from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers
Association, the Owner Operator
Independent Drivers Association, and
the Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers
Council.
On October 15, 2008 CVSA again
petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS
No. 121, requesting that the agency
issue a ‘‘stay’’ of the sunset date of
March 1, 2009 for the external ABS
warning lamp. CVSA stated that a
‘‘stay’’ would prevent a time gap in the
regulation, while NHTSA continues to
evaluate its 2007 petition. CVSA stated
that the vehicle inspection process has
already been complicated by the
phased-in ABS and ABS malfunction
indicator lamp requirements and a gap
would further complicate the inspection
process and cause additional confusion
for drivers and maintenance personnel.
III. Agency Analysis and Proposal
The CVSA petitions raise two main
issues that the agency will address. The
first issue relates to ensuring that a
driver or inspector can determine the
operational status of a trailer ABS, if the
trailer is not equipped with an external
ABS lamp or the tractor is a pre-2001
tractor without the trailer in-cab ABS
warning lamp. The second issue relates
to the use of the external trailer ABS
warning lamp for diagnostic purposes.
We note that CVSA did not provide data
indicating the number of pre-2001 truck
tractors it believed to still be in long
haul service.
The agency wants to ensure that
drivers and inspectors can determine if
a ABS trailer system is functioning, and
we also want to avoid imposing
unnecessary burdens on trailer
manufacturers. Moreover, NHTSA is
also concerned about the complications
and confusion that could arise for
drivers and inspectors, if the ABS
warning lamp requirement sunsets and
then NHTSA decides to extend it, either
permanently or for some fixed period of
time.
While we are continuing to evaluate
whether a permanent or long-term
extension would be appropriate, we
have tentatively concluded that a twoyear extension is in the interests of
motor vehicle safety. This extension
would prevent a potential gap in the
regulation and allow the agency
additional time to evaluate all the
arguments raised in the CVSA petitions.
Given the imminence of the March 1,
2009 sunset, it is not possible for us to
complete notice and comment
rulemaking prior to that time. We are
therefore publishing two related
documents in today’s Federal Register.
We are publishing an interim final rule
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:19 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
that extends the sunset date for six
months, to September 1, 2009, as well
as this proposed rule which would
extend the sunset date for an additional
18 months, to March 1, 2011. The
interim final rule will prevent the lamp
requirement from sunsetting prior to our
making a decision on the NPRM.
Accordingly, NHTSA is granting the
petitions in part and is proposing to
extend the sunset date by an additional
18 months, from September 1, 2009 to
March 1, 2011. NHTSA expects to be
able to fully analyze the issues raised by
the petitions within this time frame and
further address the issues raised by the
CVSA petitions prior to March 1, 2011.
Furthermore, depending on the
comments received in response to this
document, if the agency is able to fully
resolve the outstanding issues, the
agency may in a final rule based on this
NPRM decide to remove the sunset
provision entirely and make the
requirement for the indicator lamp
permanent.
IV. Shortened Comment Period
Given the short time before the sunset
of the lamp requirement, even with the
six-month extension provided in the
interim final rule, we are providing a
30-day comment period. Because the
full duration of the extension is only six
months, we believe this shortened
comment period is appropriate. We also
note that the subject of the proposal is
the extension of a longstanding existing
requirement. Therefore, there has been
considerable experience with the
requirement at issue.
V. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
Your comments must not be more
than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We
established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a
concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents
to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your
comments, including the attachments,
to Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to
the docket electronically by logging onto
the Docket Management System Web
site at https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9203
Please note that pursuant to the Data
Quality Act, in order for substantive
data to be relied upon and used by the
agency, it must meet the information
quality standards set forth in the OMB
and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.
Accordingly, we encourage you to
consult the guidelines in preparing your
comments. OMB’s guidelines may be
accessed at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s
guidelines may be accessed at https://
dms.dot.gov.
How can I be sure that my comments
were received?
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business
information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you
have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket
Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a
comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business
information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR Part
512.)
Will the agency consider late
comments?
We will consider all comments that
Docket Management receives before the
close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments that Docket
Management receives after that date. If
Docket Management receives a comment
too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is
issued), we will consider that comment
as an informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted
by other people?
You may read the comments received
by Docket Management at the address
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
9204
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
given above under ADDRESSES. The
hours of the Docket are indicated above
in the same location. You may also see
the comments on the Internet. To read
the comments on the Internet, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the Docket for new
material.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This action was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866. The agency has considered
the impact of this action under the
Department of Transportation’s
regulatory policies and procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has
determined that it is not ‘‘significant’’
under them.
This document proposes to delay the
sunset date of the antilock malfunction
indicator lamp requirement from
September 1, 2009 to March 1, 2011.
Since trailers manufactured after March
1, 1998 have already been complying
with the requirement and the agency is
merely proposing to extend the
requirement for an additional two years,
the impact on costs is not significant.
Not supplying a lamp could result in a
trailer that could be made for a few
dollars less. We estimate the costs to be
so minimal that preparation of a full
regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on
small entities. I hereby certify that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposal
would merely extend a sunset provision
in FMVSS No. 121. No other changes
are being proposed in this document.
Small organizations and small
government units would not be
significantly affected since this
proposed action would not affect the
price of new motor vehicles. Trailer
manufacturers would not be required to
install new systems but rather continue
to install the systems they are already
installing for two additional years.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s
proposed rule pursuant to Executive
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:19 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local
governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The agency has concluded that
the proposed rule does not have
federalism implications because it does
not have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
Further, no consultation is needed to
discuss the preemptive effect of today’s
proposed rule. NHTSA’s safety
standards can have preemptive effect in
at least two ways. First, the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
contains an express preemption
provision: ‘‘When a motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect under this chapter,
a State or a political subdivision of a
State may prescribe or continue in effect
a standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment only if the
standard is identical to the standard
prescribed under this chapter.’’ 49
U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that unavoidably preempts
State legislative and administrative law,
not today’s rulemaking, so consultation
would be unnecessary.
Second, the Supreme Court has
recognized the possibility of implied
preemption: State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers, including sanctions
imposed by State tort law, can stand as
an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of a NHTSA safety standard.
When such a conflict is discerned, the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes the State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American
Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
NHTSA has considered today’s
proposed rule and does not currently
foresee any potential State requirements
that might conflict with it. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption.
promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) clearly specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. This document is consistent
with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes
as follows. The preemptive effect of this
proposed rule is discussed above.
NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue
other administrative proceeding before
they may file suit in court.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
With respect to the review of the
promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996) requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies
the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, while
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the agency
to evaluate and use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless doing so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or is otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April
23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1)
Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health, or safety risk that
the agency has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation
is preferable to other potentially
effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the agency.
This proposed rule is not expected to
affect children and it is not an
economically significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
Consequently, no further analysis is
required under Executive Order 13045.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. There is not any information
collection requirement associated with
this NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA
directs us to provide Congress (through
OMB) with explanations when we
decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards. There are no voluntary
consensus standards developed by
voluntary consensus standards bodies
pertaining to this NPRM.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 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
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This NPRM would not result in
expenditures by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking
action for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has determined that implementation of
this action will not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be
economically significant as defined
under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have
a significantly adverse effect on the
supply of, distribution of, or use of
energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. This
rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the
President’s memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all
rules in plain language. Application of
the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following
questions:
• Have we organized the material to
suit the public’s needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that isn’t clear?
• Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:19 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections
be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments on this proposal.
Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://www.regulations.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part
571 as set forth below.
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 571.121 is amended by
revising S5.2.3.3(a) to read as follows:
§ 571.121;
systems.
Standard No. 121; Air brake
*
*
*
*
*
S5.2.3.3 Antilock malfunction
indicator.
(a) In addition to the requirements of
S5.2.3.2, each trailer and trailer
converter dolly manufactured on or after
March 1, 1998, and before March 1,
2011, shall be equipped with an
external antilock malfunction indicator
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9205
lamp that meets the requirements of
S5.2.3.3 (b) through (d).
*
*
*
*
*
Issued: February 26, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–4491 Filed 2–27–09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R2–ES–2009–0004; 92210–1111–
0000–B3]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Initiation of Status Review
for the Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta)
in the Lower Colorado River Basin
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; initiation of status
review and solicitation of new
information.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
initiation of a status review for the
roundtail chub (Gila robusta) in the
lower Colorado River basin. Through
this action, we encourage all interested
parties to provide us information
regarding the status of, and any
potential threats to, the roundtail chub.
We request information on the status of
roundtail chub throughout the range of
the species, in order to evaluate a
petition to list a distinct population
segment (DPS) in the lower Colorado
River basin.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct this review, we request that we
receive information on or before April 2,
2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–
ES–2009–0004; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all information on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Information Solicited section below for
more information).
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9202-9205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4491]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0038]
RIN 2127-AK44
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Air Brake Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to extend by 18 months a requirement
that trailers with antilock brake systems be equipped with an external
antilock malfunction indicator lamp. It also considers making the
requirement permanent. The indicator lamp requirement, which is
included in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that governs
vehicles equipped with air brakes, was originally scheduled to sunset
on March 1, 2009, but has been extended to September 1, 2009 in an
interim final rule published in today's Federal Register. Under our
proposal, the sunset date would be extended until March 1, 2011. This
rulemaking is in response to a petition from the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance (CVSA), which has asked that this requirement be made
permanent. Extending the sunset date for an additional 18 months would
enable the agency to fully analyze CVSA's request that the requirement
be made permanent, and avoid a potential confusing time gap in the
vehicles subject to the requirement.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the
Docket receives them not later than April 2, 2009. Comments may be
combined with ones on the accompanying interim final rule, which is
being published today using the same docket number.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
George Soodoo, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-
4931; FAX: 202-366-7002). For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari Scott,
Office of the Chief Counsel (Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX: 202-366-3820).
You may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of the CVSA Petitions
III. Agency Analysis and Proposal
IV. Shortened Comment Period
V. Public Participation
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
The final rule requiring antilock brake systems (ABS) on truck
tractors, other air-braked heavy vehicles including trailers, and
hydraulic-braked trucks was published in the Federal Register (60 FR
13216) on March 10, 1995. As amended by that final rule, FMVSS No. 121,
Air Brake Systems, required two separate in-cab ABS malfunction
indicator lamps for each truck tractor, one for the tractor's ABS
(effective March 1, 1997) and the other for the trailer's ABS
(effective March 1, 2001). The final rule also required air-braked
trailers to be equipped with an externally mounted ABS malfunction lamp
(effective March 1, 1998) so that the driver of a non-ABS equipped
tractor or a pre-2001 ABS-equipped tractor towing an ABS-equipped
trailer would be alerted in the event of a malfunction in the trailer
ABS.
The requirement for the trailer-mounted ABS malfunction indicator
lamp was originally scheduled to expire on March 1, 2009. The agency
established this sunset date in light of the fact that, after this
eight-year period, many of the pre-2001 tractors without the dedicated
trailer ABS malfunction indicator lamp would no longer be in long-haul
service. The agency based its decision on the belief that the typical
tractor life was five to seven years, and therefore decided on an
eight-year period for the external ABS malfunction indicator lamp
requirement. We further stated our belief that there would be no need
for a redundant ABS malfunction lamp mounted on the trailer after the
vast majority of tractors were equipped with an in-cab ABS malfunction
indicator lamp for the trailer.
II. Summary of the CVSA Petitions
CVSA is an international not-for-profit organization comprised of
local, state, provincial, territorial and federal motor carrier safety
officials and industry representatives from the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. The CVSA promotes commercial vehicle safety and sponsors
vehicle inspections by partnering with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators,
Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of Communications and
Transportation (Mexico).
On October 22, 2007, CVSA petitioned the National Highway Traffic
safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake
Systems, to make the requirement for the external antilock malfunction
indicator lamp permanent instead of allowing it to expire, as
originally intended, on March 1, 2009 (and is subsequently being
modified to September 1, 2009, by an accompanying interim final rule).
CVSA included in its petition suggested regulatory text along with its
rationale for why the extension should be permanent. Since receiving
the petition, the agency has received
[[Page 9203]]
letters of support for the CVSA petition from the Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, and the Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Council.
On October 15, 2008 CVSA again petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No.
121, requesting that the agency issue a ``stay'' of the sunset date of
March 1, 2009 for the external ABS warning lamp. CVSA stated that a
``stay'' would prevent a time gap in the regulation, while NHTSA
continues to evaluate its 2007 petition. CVSA stated that the vehicle
inspection process has already been complicated by the phased-in ABS
and ABS malfunction indicator lamp requirements and a gap would further
complicate the inspection process and cause additional confusion for
drivers and maintenance personnel.
III. Agency Analysis and Proposal
The CVSA petitions raise two main issues that the agency will
address. The first issue relates to ensuring that a driver or inspector
can determine the operational status of a trailer ABS, if the trailer
is not equipped with an external ABS lamp or the tractor is a pre-2001
tractor without the trailer in-cab ABS warning lamp. The second issue
relates to the use of the external trailer ABS warning lamp for
diagnostic purposes. We note that CVSA did not provide data indicating
the number of pre-2001 truck tractors it believed to still be in long
haul service.
The agency wants to ensure that drivers and inspectors can
determine if a ABS trailer system is functioning, and we also want to
avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on trailer manufacturers. Moreover,
NHTSA is also concerned about the complications and confusion that
could arise for drivers and inspectors, if the ABS warning lamp
requirement sunsets and then NHTSA decides to extend it, either
permanently or for some fixed period of time.
While we are continuing to evaluate whether a permanent or long-
term extension would be appropriate, we have tentatively concluded that
a two-year extension is in the interests of motor vehicle safety. This
extension would prevent a potential gap in the regulation and allow the
agency additional time to evaluate all the arguments raised in the CVSA
petitions.
Given the imminence of the March 1, 2009 sunset, it is not possible
for us to complete notice and comment rulemaking prior to that time. We
are therefore publishing two related documents in today's Federal
Register. We are publishing an interim final rule that extends the
sunset date for six months, to September 1, 2009, as well as this
proposed rule which would extend the sunset date for an additional 18
months, to March 1, 2011. The interim final rule will prevent the lamp
requirement from sunsetting prior to our making a decision on the NPRM.
Accordingly, NHTSA is granting the petitions in part and is
proposing to extend the sunset date by an additional 18 months, from
September 1, 2009 to March 1, 2011. NHTSA expects to be able to fully
analyze the issues raised by the petitions within this time frame and
further address the issues raised by the CVSA petitions prior to March
1, 2011. Furthermore, depending on the comments received in response to
this document, if the agency is able to fully resolve the outstanding
issues, the agency may in a final rule based on this NPRM decide to
remove the sunset provision entirely and make the requirement for the
indicator lamp permanent.
IV. Shortened Comment Period
Given the short time before the sunset of the lamp requirement,
even with the six-month extension provided in the interim final rule,
we are providing a 30-day comment period. Because the full duration of
the extension is only six months, we believe this shortened comment
period is appropriate. We also note that the subject of the proposal is
the extension of a longstanding existing requirement. Therefore, there
has been considerable experience with the requirement at issue.
V. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at https://dms.dot.gov.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address
[[Page 9204]]
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under E.O. 12866. The agency has considered the impact of this action
under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has determined that it
is not ``significant'' under them.
This document proposes to delay the sunset date of the antilock
malfunction indicator lamp requirement from September 1, 2009 to March
1, 2011. Since trailers manufactured after March 1, 1998 have already
been complying with the requirement and the agency is merely proposing
to extend the requirement for an additional two years, the impact on
costs is not significant. Not supplying a lamp could result in a
trailer that could be made for a few dollars less. We estimate the
costs to be so minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation
is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. I
hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposal would
merely extend a sunset provision in FMVSS No. 121. No other changes are
being proposed in this document. Small organizations and small
government units would not be significantly affected since this
proposed action would not affect the price of new motor vehicles.
Trailer manufacturers would not be required to install new systems but
rather continue to install the systems they are already installing for
two additional years.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the proposed rule does not have federalism
implications because it does not have ``substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's proposed rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive
effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: ``When a
motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State
or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that unavoidably preempts
State legislative and administrative law, not today's rulemaking, so
consultation would be unnecessary.
Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption: State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers,
including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When
such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda
Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has considered today's proposed
rule and does not currently foresee any potential State requirements
that might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be
any implied preemption.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental,
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
This proposed rule is not expected to affect children and it is not
an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive
Order 13045.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not
any information collection requirement associated with this NPRM.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business
[[Page 9205]]
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers. The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by
voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this NPRM.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This NPRM would not
result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in
your comments on this proposal.
Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
https://www.regulations.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as set forth below.
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 571.121 is amended by revising S5.2.3.3(a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.121; Standard No. 121; Air brake systems.
* * * * *
S5.2.3.3 Antilock malfunction indicator.
(a) In addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.2, each trailer and
trailer converter dolly manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, and
before March 1, 2011, shall be equipped with an external antilock
malfunction indicator lamp that meets the requirements of S5.2.3.3 (b)
through (d).
* * * * *
Issued: February 26, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-4491 Filed 2-27-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P