Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Automatic Brake Adjusters and Brake Adjustment Indicators

[[Page 46236]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[FHWA Docket No. MC-94-9]

RIN 2125-AD37

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Automatic

Brake Adjusters and Brake Adjustment Indicators

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is adopting a final rule requiring the use of

automatic brake adjusters (ABAs) on hydraulically-braked commercial

motor vehicles (CMVs) and air-braked CMVs manufactured on or after

October 20, 1993, and October 20, 1994, respectively. This rulemaking

is intended to: Ensure that the operational standards for brakes in the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) are consistent with

the manufacturing standards in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards (FMVSSs), Nos. 105 and 121, which now require the

installation of automatic brake adjusters and adjustment indicators on

certain CMVs manufactured on or after these dates; and improve the

safety of operation of CMVs by reducing the incidence of brakes that

are out of adjustment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Office of Motor

Carrier Standards, (202) 366-2981, or Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of

the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway Administration,

Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 3, 1994, the FHWA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking in the Federal Register (59 FR 39518) to require the use of

ABAs on hydraulically-braked CMVs manufactured on or after October 20,

1993, and air-braked CMVs manufactured on or after October 20, 1994.

These were the effective dates of the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration's (NHTSA) amendments to its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 105 and 121. The FHWA also proposed a

requirement for brake adjustment indicators (BAIs) on air-braked CMVs

with external adjustment mechanisms manufactured on or after October

20, 1994.

Because the FHWA also believed there were opportunities for

improvements to the operational safety of CMVs manufactured prior to

the effective dates of the amendments to FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, the

agency requested information regarding the potential impacts of

requiring CMVs subject to the FMCSRs to be retrofitted with ABAs, and

of requiring air-braked CMVs with external adjustment mechanisms to be

retrofitted with BAIs. The FHWA requested comments on eight questions

specifically concerning the issue of retrofits:

1. Should air-braked CMVs manufactured before the effective date of

NHTSA's rule be required to be retrofitted with ABAs?

2. Should all air-braked CMVs with external brake adjustment

mechanisms be required to be retrofitted with brake adjustment

indicators?

3. If certain CMVs are to be retrofitted, how much time should be

allowed for installation of the new equipment?

4. Are there certain types or configurations of air-braked vehicles

that cannot be equipped with ABAs because of space limitations around

the axles and wheels?

5. Should different periods be specified for retrofitting single-

unit trucks, tractors, converter dollies, and trailers?

6. The requirements proposed by this NPRM would exclude air-braked

vehicles that were not subject to FMVSS No. 121 on the date of

manufacture. (Vehicles not subject to the requirements are listed under

paragraph S3 of Sec. 571.121, and include certain types of limited- or

specialized-use vehicles such as wide trailers, vehicles equipped with

an axle with a gross axle weight rating of 13,154 kilograms (29,000

pounds) or more, any truck or bus that has a speed attainable in 3.2

kilometers (2 miles) of not more than 53 km/hr (33 mph), heavy hauler

trailer sets, and load divider dollies.) Should specific types of CMVs,

or CMVs used in unique operations, (i.e., CMVs that are not subject to

the requirements of FMVSS 121, but are subject to the FMCSRs) be exempt

from a requirement to be retrofitted with ABAs? Should these specific

types of air-braked CMVs manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, be

required to be equipped with ABAs prior to being placed in operation in

interstate commerce? Please provide details.

7. What are the costs associated with retrofitting an ABA compared

to replacement of a manual brake adjuster (MBA)? Please include the

cost of the device, the time required to complete the installation, and

a representative hourly salary of the mechanic performing the

installation. Please also include a ``loss of use'' cost figure if a

CMV were to be taken out of revenue service for retrofitting at some

time other than a time when a brake adjuster would normally be due for

replacement. How often do tractors and trailers visit a facility where

retrofitting could take place?

8. Should the FHWA consider a retrofitting requirement for

hydraulically-braked CMVs? Please address the cost questions asked in

Question 7.

Discussion of Comments

Twenty-seven commenters responded to the notice: The Heavy Duty

Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBMC), an association of 10 heavy duty

brake component manufacturers; 3 manufacturers of brake components

(Rockwell International, Haldex Corporation, Midland-Grau Heavy Duty

Systems); a manufacturer of brake adjustment indicators (Tattle-Tale);

a motor carrier using a brake adjustment indicator of its own design

(Sebring Container Corporation); a private motor carrier (Wilbur-

Ellis); a manufacturer of trucks and truck-tractors (Volvo GM Heavy

Truck Corporation); a manufacturer of heavy construction equipment

(Cedarapids Inc.); 6 national transportation and trade associations

(Steamship Operators Intermodal Committee (SOIC), American Trucking

Associations (ATA), National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA),

National Private Truck Council (NPTC), National School Transportation

Association (NSTA), Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA);

2 CMV leasing companies (Riteway Leasing Company and XTRA Corporation);

a drivers' organization (the Owner Operator Independent Drivers

Association (OOIDA)); a public transportation authority (Metro-Dade

Transit Authority); an intermodal transportation provider (Union

Pacific Railroad Company); the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

(CVSA), an association of Federal, State, and Provincial officials

responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier

safety regulations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico; the

European Union, which submitted its comments via the European

Commission General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Enquiry Point;

2 State highway safety enforcement agencies (Maine State Police, State

of

[[Page 46237]]

Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles); 2 highway safety

organizations (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS)); and 1 private

individual.

In-Use Requirement

Almost without exception, commenters who addressed the proposed

requirement to adopt rules parallel to the NHTSA's recent amendments to

FMVSSs Nos. 105 and 121 responded favorably. These commenters included

the Maine State Police, the State of Connecticut Department of Motor

Vehicles; HDBMC; Wilbur-Ellis; IIHS, NPTC, AHAS, OOIDA, NSTA, and

Midland-Grau. Haldex and Rockwell International limited their comments

to air-braked vehicles.

The ATA noted that manufacturers have provided, and motor carriers

voluntarily used, automatic brake adjusters for a number of years, and

that, even in the absence of Federal regulations, the marketplace is

adopting this technology on its merits. Although it generally favored

the proposed in-use requirement, the ATA raised several arguments

concerning ABAs and brake maintenance. It stated that out-of-adjustment

brakes are a maintenance problem that ``can be compounded if the

addition of such equipment causes fleets to determine that they will no

longer need to look at their brakes as frequently and if the automatic

adjusters are not serviced.'' The ATA also quoted a NHTSA study, which

noted that carefully-maintained manual brake adjusters (MBAs) can keep

strokes within tolerances comparable to ABAs. The ATA added that MBAs

``can be set to a closer adjustment'' than ABAs because ABAs ``must

provide extra stroke to prevent over-adjustment when brake drums are

hot.''

The FHWA generally agrees with this portion of the ATA's comment;

however, the cited research performed by the NHTSA (``Automatic Brake

Adjusters for Heavy Vehicle Air Brake Systems,'' February 1991, report

DOT-HS-807-724 (PB 91-215814)) and the National Transportation Safety

Board (``Heavy Vehicle Airbrake Performance,'' April 29, 1992, report

NTSB/SS-92/01 (PB 92-917003)) has demonstrated that not all MBAs are

well maintained. (Copies of both of these reports have been placed in

the docket.) The preambles to the FHWA's NPRM and the NHTSA's

rulemakings on ABAs clearly stated that ``automatic'' brake adjusters

do not in any way imply that they are ``maintenance-free'' devices.

Nevertheless, the FHWA continues to believe that ABAs can reduce

instances of brakes out-of-adjustment, and CMVs being declared out-of-

service, due to this condition.

The ATA asserted that ABAs ``are not mandatory for safety.'' It

argued that, should a regulation be imposed prohibiting the replacement

of an ABA with an MBA, the vehicle should not be placed out of service

because of the substitution unless the vehicle's brakes are found to be

out of adjustment.

The FHWA's intent in issuing this rulemaking is to require an ABA

installed in accordance with the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 105 or 121

to be replaced in kind, so the vehicle continues to perform as

originally manufactured. Motor carriers have considerable experience

selecting replacement parts; the replacements must be chosen to ensure

that the systems in which they are installed continue to operate

safely.

Regarding the ATA's concern about a CMV equipped with an MBA (where

an ABA is required by the FMVSSs and the FMCSRs) being placed out of

service, the FHWA notes that, under the current provisions of the

CVSA's North American Uniform Out-of-Service Criteria, the presence of

an MBA would not be a cause for placing a CMV out-of-service unless the

condition of the brake, or its state of adjustment, were such that it

would be likely to cause an accident or a breakdown. The FHWA notes

that the CVSA's comments to this docket did not address changing the

criteria with respect to the presence or absence of ABAs.

Finally, while the ATA agreed with the intent of the NPRM, it

expressed concern that the proposed language would specifically

reference an FMVSS. The ATA stated that, by requiring vehicle users to

ensure that replacement parts meet the FMVSS, the FHWA would, in

effect, require consumers [motor carriers, CMV operators] to ``create

the technical expertise of manufacturers for themselves.'' The ATA

asserted that, if the FHWA wants CMV users to purchase parts which meet

the FMVSS, then the FHWA must work with the NHTSA to assure that new

parts are labeled with compliance information or a code, similar to the

requirements for fuel tanks under Sec. 393.67(f) of the FMCSRs.

An in-use requirement for a CMV part or accessory that references

an FMVSS does not place any unique burden on the CMV's operator. For

example, Sec. 393.11 provides an in-use standard for lighting devices

and reflectors; it states that CMVs must meet the requirements of 49

CFR 571.108 (FMVSS 108) in effect at the time of manufacture of the

vehicle. Commercial motor vehicle operators have ample experience in

obtaining replacement parts for vehicle subsystems. In fact, at least

one ABA manufacturer (Gunite) provides cross-reference lists to show

appropriate replacements for original equipment manufacturers' devices.

In closing, the ATA recommended that the FHWA and the NHTSA work

together to focus the FMVSSs and the FMCSRs on CMV maintenance

difficulties. The ATA stated that such items as wear indicators,

component identification, and access for inspection have been largely

ignored in the Federal standards, yet they play a major role in

equipment operation and ease of inspection. The FHWA takes these

concerns into account to the greatest extent practicable, and will

continue to do so as the agency works to develop performance-based

regulations through its Zero-Base Regulatory Review Program.

The CVSA did not take a position on the proposed in-use

requirements. It noted that most inspectors are familiar with ABAs,

although they may need some minimal ``recognition'' training for new or

different systems. The CVSA was concerned that BAIs provide consistent

information to motor carrier personnel throughout the BAI's service

life. The CVSA made the observation that some BAIs use paint on the

pushrod to indicate adjustment status, and that, when the paint wears,

it may give a false reading.

The FHWA has consulted with the NHTSA regarding this matter. Some

manufacturers use epoxy and baked-on coatings for marking/color-coding

pushrods, but it is possible that some may use paint. If a BAI is not

maintained to provide an accurate reading of brake adjustment status,

the motor carrier will be in violation of the FMCSRs.

Sebring Container Corporation commented on their favorable

experience with BAIs. Two commenters noted that many buses are equipped

with ABAs: the NSTA indicated that its members who responded to a small

survey all used ABAs, and Metro-Dade Transit Authority buses all have

ABAs. Union Pacific Railroad Company favored the in-use rule. The

European Commission expressed a concern that the FMVSS requirement was

more restrictive than European requirements.

Volvo and the ATA addressed the wording of the proposed rule. Volvo

suggested the language be modified to define more clearly the class of

vehicles subject to the requirement, specifically CMVs with air brake

systems that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49

[[Page 46238]]

CFR 571.121, paragraph S5.1.8) at the time of manufacture. It pointed

out that FMVSS No. 121 exempts some vehicles, such as those with gross

axle weight ratings in excess of 13,154 kg (29,000 lbs.), and that the

language originally proposed would have required ABAs on all CMVs,

irrespective of the FMVSS No. 121 requirements. This would necessitate

retrofitting for which components may not exist.

The FHWA has revised the language of Sec. 393.53(a) and

Sec. 393.53(b) to clarify their applicability to CMVs that are subject

to the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, respectively, at the

time of their manufacture.

The ATA also offered alternative language for the proposed rule:

``Each commercial motor vehicle manufactured with a hydraulic brake

system on or after October 20, 1993, and equipped with an automatic

means of brake adjustment to comply with FMVSS 105, shall remain

equipped with an automatic brake adjustment system.'' Similarly for

CMVs equipped with air brakes: ``Each commercial motor vehicle

manufactured with an air brake system on or after October 20, 1994, and

equipped with an automatic means of brake adjustment to comply with

FMVSS 121, shall remain equipped with an automatic brake adjustment

system.''

The FHWA disagrees with the ATA's suggested rewording because it

could be interpreted to permit devices that do not comply with the ABA

requirements of FMVSSs Nos. 105 and 121 at the time when the CMV was

manufactured to be used as replacement parts. The agency's intent, in

proposing an in-use rule, was to require that replacement ABAs continue

to conform to the FMVSSs, much as replacement lighting devices and

reflectors must continue to conform to the requirements of FMVSS No.

108.

Retrofitting ABAs on Hydraulically-Braked CMVs

The following commenters addressed the questions concerning a

potential retrofitting requirement, but did not address the proposed

in-use requirement: Riteway Leasing Company, SOIC, Tattle-Tale, NADA,

PMAA, Cedarapids, Michael J. Meyer, and XTRA Corporation.

With two exceptions, those who commented on this issue were

strongly opposed to a retrofitting requirement for these vehicles. Most

cited potential major engineering changes that would be required for

axles as well as brakes. For example, HDBMC stated that hydraulic disc

brakes inherently provide automatic adjustment. It added that

automatically-adjusted hydraulic drum brakes have internal adjustment

mechanisms, and retrofitting would, in most cases, require replacement

of the entire brake assembly. In some cases, the hub and drum, or even

the entire axle, would have to be replaced. The HDBMC noted that, since

the 1983 model year, all class 6, 7, and 8 hydraulic brake trucks

1 manufactured by major U.S. manufacturers have had automatic

adjustment features. Mandating a retrofit would therefore be

superfluous except for a very few vehicles, and their retrofitting

costs would be exorbitant.

\1\ Class 6: 8,446-11,794 kg (19,501-26,000 lbs); Class 7:

11,795-14,969 kg (26,001-33,000 lbs); and Class 8: over 14,969 kg

(33,000 lbs).

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

Both Rockwell International and Wilbur-Ellis noted that

hydraulically-braked CMVs provide the driver an indication of brake

adjustment through the brake pedal travel.

The ATA's comments reiterated many of the points made by others. It

noted that adjustment systems for hydraulic drum brakes are internal to

the brakes, integral to their design, and cannot practically be

retrofitted.

The NADA and the NPTC were opposed to a retrofit for hydraulically-

braked CMVs. Haldex stated that retrofit is impractical for hydraulic

brakes. The NSTA was concerned with potential retrofitting problems,

including safety and voiding of the FMVSS certification applicable at

the time of manufacture. It also questioned whether retrofit kits would

be available for older buses in fleets, some of which are over 20 years

old, and whether they could be installed and made to operate properly.

Midland-Grau Heavy Duty Systems noted that the majority of

hydraulically-braked CMVs already are equipped with ABAs. Union Pacific

Railroad Company recommended against retrofits for hydraulically-braked

CMVs because of the high costs involved. It noted that hydraulically-

braked vehicles have had self-adjusting brakes on most units for many

years, and that relatively few CMVs currently in service are not so

equipped. The CVSA commented that hydraulic brake systems are not

disassembled to inspect their component parts during the course of

inspecting a CMV, and that a decision regarding hydraulic brake systems

would not affect inspection procedures.

Commenting in favor of a retrofit requirement for hydraulically-

braked CMVs, the AHAS stated that ABAs are necessary for all CMVs. The

AHAS was ``convinced that the benefits gained by retrofitting ABAs and

BAIs to the entire existing commercial fleet would far outweigh any

costs to industry, especially if a reasonable phase-in program was put

in place.'' The AHAS did not, however, provide any figures to

substantiate this statement. The AHAS also stated that it was unsure of

the benefits of BAIs for hydraulic or air-over-hydraulic systems, and

that it did not know how BAIs could be retrofitted.

The Maine State Police (Maine) also stated that retrofits should be

required, without differentiating between air-braked and hydraulically-

braked CMVs. It recommended effective dates of October 20, 1996, for

tractors and trucks, and October 20, 1997, for trailers, semitrailers,

and converter dollies. Maine also recommended that limited- or

specialized-use vehicles also be subject to a retrofitting requirement,

but it provided no additional information or technical material to

support this viewpoint.

The FHWA acknowledges the concerns expressed by the commenters over

retrofitting hydraulically-braked CMVs. The engineering work required

to accomplish this retrofit would be complex and costly. The

engineering complexity of designing and installing a retrofitted system

would potentially go beyond the maintenance capabilities of all but the

most sophisticated organizations. Because the design of hydraulic

brakes is generally not amenable to this type of modification, an

engineering retrofit, if done improperly, could actually degrade the

performance of the brake system, or render it inoperative. Therefore,

in view of the possible adverse safety impacts, the FHWA has decided

not to require retrofitting for hydraulically-braked CMVs.

Questions Concerning Retrofitting of ABAs and BAIs on Air-Braked CMVs

The remaining questions posed by the NPRM covered retrofitting ABAs

and BAIs on air-braked CMVs. While few commenters expressed strong

opinions for or against retrofitting, nearly all voiced concerns.

Commenters cited the current limited production capacity of ABA

manufacturers, potential engineering modifications required for brake

system component mountings because of the limited space around brake

chambers on some vehicles, and potential difficulty in locating the

vehicles and taking them out of revenue service to retrofit ABAs.

Specific comments on each of the numbered questions asked in the NPRM

follow, along with the FHWA's response:

1. Should air-braked CMVs manufactured before the effective date of

NHTSA's rule be required to be retrofitted with ABAs?

[[Page 46239]]

In Favor

The AHAS stated it would strongly support such an initiative as an

appropriate complement to the FMVSSs. The AHAS strongly believes that

the FHWA should not consider mandating ABAs without also requiring (1)

the use of BAIs, and (2) submissions of certifications by interstate

carriers of their preventive maintenance programs which ensure optimal

maintenance and operation of ABAs.

Maine believed that retrofits should be required.

Metro-Dade stated it would support an ABA retrofit proposal, noting

that its urban bus fleet is equipped with ABAs.

Sebring stated that it will install ABAs as replacements for manual

brake adjusters, as needed.

Opposed

Wilbur-Ellis opposed retrofitting because the cost would not

justify the safety benefit, and ABAs must still be maintained and brake

clearances checked. It recommended aggressive roadside enforcement.

The ATA opposed mandatory retrofit for existing equipment,

reasoning that motor carriers lack technical expertise to assure

replacement parts comply with the FMVSSs; this is the responsibility of

the manufacturer. It stated that hydraulic brakes and some air brakes

cannot be retrofitted, and that motor carriers are ``unable to redesign

equipment which was built not having to comply * * *.'' The ATA stated

that most tractors manufactured since the late 1980s have ABAs, but

that ABAs have not been standard equipment on most trailers. It

contended that the current rule requiring brakes to be kept in

adjustment is ``actually more comprehensive'' than a retrofit

requirement, because the mere presence of ABAs does not guarantee that

brakes will be kept in adjustment. The ATA added that retrofits should

not be required because many installations lack the space to make the

substitution; there may be design limitations within the initial

system; and current systems operate safely but may not do so after

retrofitting. It stated that consumer reworking of vehicles could

create legal liability issues: an example would be a retrofit that

could require removing brackets from heat-treated axles, potentially

leading to a structural failure. Finally, the ATA asserted that the

record demand for ABAs for new CMVs subject to FMVSS No. 121 has

rationed aftermarket supply.

The NADA believed the requirements would be unduly burdensome to

the motor carrier industry.

The NPTC stated ``There is still some concern surrounding the

effectiveness of ABAs * * *. (T)he technology still has room for

improvement * * *.'' While it opposed retrofitting, the NPTC proposed

that vehicles that had already been retrofitted be required to maintain

their ABAs.

The OOIDA stated that it was adamantly opposed to a retrofit

requirement. ``Time and cost are not justified by the marginal safety

benefit that would result.'' It believed that retrofitting would be

cost-prohibitive ``for a vast portion of the trucking industry,

especially owner-operators,'' and that the FHWA should defer to the

opinion and expertise of the NHTSA.

Haldex was concerned that retrofitted ABAs might not be able to

keep air chambers operating within allowable limits due to wear and

lack of maintenance of other brake components. It stated that

``Improvement in overall operational safety of these retrofitted

vehicles may be less than expected unless other brake maintenance is

performed at the time of the retrofit.'' Haldex also stated that,

although the company would benefit from a requirement to retrofit all

CMVs, it could not enthusiastically support such a proposal because of

the potential high costs to the trucking industry and because it

believed that past maintenance histories would lead to uncertain future

benefits from the devices.

The NSTA was concerned that retrofitting could affect safety and

potentially void the FMVSS certification applicable at time of

manufacture. It questioned whether retrofit kits would be available for

older buses (up to 20 years old), and whether the ABAs could be

installed and made to operate properly.

The PMAA cited safety and economic concerns, particularly for small

businesses. The PMAA believed that current regulations requiring brake

inspection and adjustment were sufficient.

Union Pacific cited an extremely high cost burden, and added that

the time during which vehicles would be out of revenue service would

jeopardize the transportation system's ability to move the Nation's

freight on a timely basis.

Mr. Michael J. Meyer, a mechanic with 14 years of experience and 14

additional years as an owner-operator, believed a retrofitting

requirement would lead drivers to ignore brakes, as well as to miss

other potential equipment problems, because they would take shortcuts

in performing under-vehicle inspections.

XTRA Corporation cited cost, possible customer non-awareness of the

applicability of a retrofitting requirement to leased trailers, and the

difficulty of customers in ``obtaining adequate compliance with the

technical aspects of retrofitting.'' It added that a substantial number

of its trailers are not used in long-distance hauls, but are drayed to

and from intermodal ramps. It also noted that many of its trailers are

leased for storage and for use as offices, and should not be required

to be retrofitted.

Other Commenters' Concerns

The HDBMC believed that the FHWA should consider air-braked CMV ABA

retrofits ``when physically possible and economically feasible.'' While

the HDBMC declared that consideration of retrofitting ``is laudable,''

it cautioned that many concerns would need to be addressed; for

example, not all automatic slack adjusters interchange with manual

slack adjusters.

Volvo echoed the HDBMC's view, stating that retrofits will, in some

cases, require more than a one-for-one replacement. Volvo noted that

design changes go ``forward'' to new products, and that not all are

backward-compatible for use as service replacements with older

equipment.

Midland-Grau stated that a complete analysis of all combinations of

ABAs and foundation brake set-ups must be made. It urged an evaluation

of the risk of incomplete or incorrect installation against potential

safety benefits, and advised the FHWA to review past experiences with

retrofit requirements, such as that for steering axle brakes. Midland-

Grau also recommended that the FHWA include requirements to use devices

that meet the appropriate SAE Recommended Practices, and to perform

technical evaluations to prevent safety degradation for incomplete or

incorrect retrofits.

The State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles supported a

retrofit proposal, provided confirmation of compatibility could be made

in advance.

Rockwell believed that ABAs ``do not function in exactly the same

manner and that adjustment rate and clearance can affect brake

certification,'' although it stated that it did not have data to

validate its concern. Rockwell asserted it would be prudent to

recommend that replacement ABAs and BAIs be of the same type with which

the brake was originally equipped. Rockwell contended that ``new,

small, unproven suppliers'' may introduce devices designed to conform

to ``somewhat ambiguous NHTSA requirements,'' and

[[Page 46240]]

that their lack of knowledge and experience may result in the

introduction of ineffective and non-conforming devices. If retrofitting

were to be mandated, Rockwell asks the FHWA to consider (1) production

capabilities and parts availability, (2) expense and inconvenience to

CMV owners, and (3) such technical and performance issues as fit,

possible mechanical incompatibility, and mixing of different types of

ABAs on a single vehicle.

The CVSA questioned whether there would be a sufficient supply of

ABAs over a short retrofit period. It suggested that ``[o]ne

alternative to consider is the discontinuance of the manufacture of

non-ABAs and when replacing systems, replace them with ABAs.''

Agency's Response to These Comments

It is certainly not the FHWA's intent to force CMV operators to

attempt to redesign brake systems or axles in order to accommodate

ABAs. If a motor carrier is considering retrofitting ABAs, it should

consult with appropriate technical experts (such as the original-

equipment manufacturers of the vehicle and the brake system) to ensure

that the CMV and its brakes will continue to operate safely.

As for the AHAS' recommendation for certification of preventive-

maintenance programs, it should be noted that Sec. 396.3(a)(1) of the

FMCSRs requires that: ``Parts and accessories shall be in safe

operating condition at all times'' (emphasis added). Preventive

maintenance is a central element of a CMV maintenance program, and FHWA

compliance reviews include an assessment of motor carrier maintenance

records. Furthermore, CMVs are subject to roadside inspection programs,

using uniform CVSA inspection procedures, and to the periodic

inspection requirement of Sec. 396.17. In addition, Sec. 396.25

requires brake inspectors to be capable of performing brake service or

inspection tasks through brake-related training, experience, or a

combination thereof totaling at least one year. The FHWA believes that

an additional program to ``certify'' motor carriers' preventive

maintenance programs would achieve little.

The agency disagrees with CVSA's comment that the manufacture of

MBAs should be halted. The FHWA does not have the regulatory authority

to place such a requirement on manufacturers. Also, as other commenters

have pointed out, some CMVs were never designed to accept ABAs, even as

an option. Replacing MBAs with ABAs could require engineering

modifications to the affected CMVs.

In view of the potential adverse safety impact of a retrofit rule,

should it be performed incorrectly, and the significant costs of such a

rule, the FHWA will not require retrofitting ABAs on air-braked CMVs.

2. Should all air-braked CMVs with external brake adjustment

mechanisms be required to be retrofitted with brake adjustment

indicators?

In Favor

The HDBMC stated it would support BAI retrofit when it is

physically possible and economically feasible. It asked that the FHWA

consider specifying SAE standards designating BAI markings and

identification. It also suggested that replacement brake chambers with

SAE-marked BAIs be mandated.

Connecticut would strongly support BAI retrofit for air brakes to

ease pretrip inspections and reduce the time necessary for maintenance

and roadside inspections.

Riteway recommended that all tractors, trailers, trucks, and buses

be equipped with ``air brake stroke indicators.'' It noted that the

company has used indicators ``for some time'' and has not had a BAI-

equipped unit cited for out of adjustment brakes.

Lindy's Enterprise Inc., manufacturer of Tattle-Tale, a visual

brake stroke indicator, enclosed product literature and a partial list

of customers. ``Our products have been on many over-the-road tractors,

trailers, and trucks with great success. We not only feel that our

product could save annual inspection costs but help achieve safety

results as well.''

Sebring developed a BAI for its own fleet. It believes that its

brake maintenance and adjustment programs have improved.

Wilbur-Ellis recommended BAI retrofit for s-cam brakes.

The NPTC stated it would support a BAI retrofit requirement, but

that the method used to indicate brake out-of-adjustment status should

not be specified.

Metro-Dade supported a BAI retrofit requirement.

The CVSA stated that retrofit of BAIs would be desirable as it

would aid in recognizing brake adjustment problems.

Opposed

Maine opposed BAI retrofitting because benefits would be very

limited.

Rockwell believed that the benefit of BAIs is marginal compared to

ABAs. It cited factors such as the expense of the devices, control of

the placement accuracy of retrofit marks/indicators, safety issues from

owners improperly disassembling or assembling a brake chamber, and the

production capability of established suppliers.

The ATA believed that internal system BAIs using air chamber

assemblies incorporating marked pushrods are the most satisfactory

arrangement. It feared that required retrofitting might involve

replacing brake chambers to achieve a proper match of size and brake

stroke. It was also concerned that aftermarket BAIs may be easily

knocked out of position by road debris, dirt, snow, and physical

contact with other vehicle parts.

The NADA opposed BAI retrofitting for the same reasons it opposed

ABA retrofitting.

The AHAS believed that ABAs will not correct chronic problems with

out-of-adjustment air brakes unless used with easily-seen adjustment

indicators and ``vigorous educational campaigns by Federal and State

authorities.'' It stated that the FHWA should not consider mandating

ABAs without also requiring the use of BAIs. The AHAS expressed

particular concern on retrofitting CMVs with ``boot-covered'' air brake

pushrods, because it believed that BAIs were probably not feasible for

that design. The AHAS added that ``this proprietary approach to air

brake chamber design can permanently forswear the considerable

additional benefits of supplementing ABAs with BAIs on air brakes,''

and recommended that the FHWA coordinate with the NHTSA.

The OOIDA opposed any requirement for retrofitting of brake

components. It believed that, given the ``typical useful life'' of

Class 7 or 8 motor vehicles, and allowing for ``any reasonable'' amount

of time fully to implement a retrofit rule, a manufacturing standard

would achieve virtually the same result.

Haldex cited fleet turnover in its opposition to BAI retrofit. It

believed that a mandate for stroke indicators could be made without one

for ABAs, but that an ABA retrofit without including BAIs could create

a false sense of security due to maintenance concerns on older

vehicles.

Midland-Grau cautioned that a complete brake system analysis would

be required, as for an ABA retrofit.

Union Pacific and XTRA Corporation would oppose retrofit of BAIs

for the same reasons that they would oppose ABA retrofit.

Agency's Response to These Comments

As several of the brake manufacturers pointed out, the original

design of the brake system must be considered in

[[Page 46241]]

determining whether or not a retrofitted item would function properly.

The accuracy, precision, and, most notably, the durability of most

retrofitted BAIs is questionable. While marked pushrods on replacement

air chamber assemblies might prove the most durable, it is not

reasonable to expect a motor carrier to replace an air chamber in

proper operating condition for that sole purpose.

The FHWA has consulted with the NHTSA on the matter of BAIs on

boot-covered pushrods. Very few CMVs use boot-covered pushrods. Those

CMVs that are so equipped are generally used for operations where the

brake chambers could be contaminated with dust and debris. They are

exempt from the FMVSS BAI requirement because they do not have an

exposed pushrod. This is not a loophole for manufacturers, but a

recognition that certain operating environments require enclosed

pushrods.

3. If certain CMVs are to be retrofitted, how much time should be

allowed for installation of the new equipment?

Comments

Commenters suggested phase-in periods ranging from one to seven

years. Metro Dade suggested that only one year would be necessary to

retrofit a transit fleet. The NPTC suggested a minimum two-year

retrofit period for hydraulically-braked CMVs and a minimum of a five-

year retrofit for air-braked CMVs. The OOIDA and Union Pacific

recommended at least three years, while the ATA and the AHAS

recommended four years. The SOIC and Haldex recommended at least five

years. XTRA Corporation stated that the responsibility to retrofit

would fall upon their customers because it has relinquished control to

the lessee. It noted that most leases run five to six years, so its

commercial situation dictated against requiring retrofitting in a

shorter period than seven years.

Midland-Grau commented that retrofit time required would be a

function of the specific products selected, and any vehicle

modifications needed, such as brake chamber pushrod length changes to

fit a new ABA and clevis, interference rework, and brake chamber

modifications to fit stroke indicator components.

Other factors cited by commenters that would affect a phase-in

period included the ability of manufacturers to meet the demands for

new CMVs as well as retrofitted ones, time lags in distribution

channels, scheduling of vehicles for retrofit, and costs to CMV

operators. In particular, Haldex and the ATA contended that ABA

manufacturers currently have inadequate capacity to simultaneously

supply ``record levels'' of new CMVs and a large retrofit demand.

The AHAS recommended two alternative phased-in schedules. In the

first, 10 percent of the entire existing commercial fleet would be

retrofitted beginning one year following the promulgation of the final

rule, followed by 25 percent in the second year, 60 percent in the

third year, with 100 percent compliance by the end of the fourth year.

The AHAS also suggested, as an alternative choice for motor carriers, a

two-year implementation delay after a final rule was issued, followed

by a requirement for 100 percent compliance in the third year.

Agency Response to These Comments

Since the agency has decided not to require retrofitting of any

kind, a discussion of these comments is unnecessary.

4. Are there certain types or configurations of air-braked vehicles

that cannot be equipped with ABAs because of space limitations around

the axles and wheels?

Comments

Rockwell, Haldex, the PMAA, and the ATA stated that space

limitations can prevent installation of ABAs, and have in fact done so.

Rockwell added that an improperly installed ABA may impair brake

performance by limiting brake chamber stroke, and that use of long

stroke chambers may influence performance as well.

Haldex noted that, in the last five years, most U.S.-built CMVs

offered ABAs at least as an option, but, because of design differences,

not all manufacturers' ABAs fit each application. Haldex stated that

some vehicles built over 15 years ago, as well as some Japanese

vehicles, use a ``camshaft spline'' with uncommon dimensions which is

not currently available from any ABA manufacturer. (Haldex did not

provide specifics on the design.) Haldex stated that it has had

difficulties retrofitting other Japanese vehicles which were not

originally designed to offer ABAs as an option.

The ATA commented that slack adjusters, which it believes comprise

at least 95 percent of the adjustment mechanisms used for air brakes,

must fit into cramped quarters between brake, axle, suspension, and

frame components. ``This problem is particularly difficult on tractors

but also occurs with trailers, especially those of a specialty

nature.'' The OOIDA repeated this concern, adding that ``[t]he

modifications that would be necessary to accommodate ABAs on such

vehicles vary from relatively small machining operations to outright

wheel replacement.''

The PMAA also expressed concerns about space and necessary

clearances for retrofitted ABAs to work effectively. The PMAA believes

that ``[w]hile a newly-designed vehicles could easily accommodate the

variety of components on the market, older vehicles would not be able

to follow suit. This is primarily due to the fact that the brake and

structural system of the existing vehicle or trailer is already fixed

in place during the manufacturing process. Adding adjusters to these

vehicles and trailers would require extensive alterations requiring

cutting welded bracket anchors from the brake system and engineering a

completely redesigned brake system.'' The PMAA believed that such

redesign is beyond the technical capabilities of operators like

petroleum marketers and truck/trailer service facilities. It believed

that a leading cause of ABA failure is improper installation, and that,

even when performed by factory-trained personnel, many units still

fail. ``It is reasonable to surmise that the more technically-difficult

retrofit by untrained personnel would yield a higher rate of brake

failure * * *.''

The NADA and the NPTC also believed that some CMVs cannot be

equipped with ABAs. XTRA Corporation stated that it owned approximately

1,000 older remanufactured trailers which cannot be converted.

Several commenters did not view a potential retrofitting

requirement as a problem. Sebring believed that all its tractors and

trailers could be easily equipped. Union Pacific stated that it was not

aware of any type of trucks, tractors, or trailers that cannot be

equipped due to space limitations. The HDBMC, Midland-Grau, Metro Dade,

and the CVSA recommended that the FHWA defer to the judgement of CMV

manufacturers.

While it opposed the notion of a retrofitting requirement, the ATA

suggested that the requirement only apply to those CMVs which, when

new, had ABAs offered as a substitute option for MBAs. The ATA stated

that it recognized that there may be problems identifying those

vehicles.

Agency's Response to These Comments

The FHWA agrees with the commenters' concerns regarding the

difficulty of making engineering modifications (relocation of welded

brackets, replacement of atypical components, reconfiguration of

components in tight quarters) to permit

[[Page 46242]]

some CMVs originally equipped with MBAs to retrofit ABAs. With the

exception of Haldex, none of the commenters provided information on

specific classes of CMVs that could be readily identified as presenting

unique retrofit challenges.

As discussed in the agency's response to the comments to Question

1, it has never been the FHWA's intent to promulgate a rule which would

force CMV operators to attempt to redesign brake systems or axles in

order to accommodate an ABA. The FHWA will not prohibit retrofitting of

ABAs. Nevertheless, motor carriers considering retrofitting ABAs when

MBAs are replaced should consult the appropriate technical experts to

ensure that the brake system of the affected CMV will continue to

operate safely.

5. Should different periods be specified for retrofitting single-

unit trucks, tractors, converter dollies, and trailers?

Comments

Maine recommended that trucks and tractors be retrofitted by

October 20, 1996, and that trailers, semitrailers, and converter

dollies be retrofitted by October 20, 1997.

Rockwell suggested that the FHWA might set priorities for vehicle

types based on model years and benefit-risk analysis.

The HDBMC and Haldex advised that any retrofitting requirement be

phased-in by vehicle type and year of manufacture. Haldex believed that

trailers should have priority over tractors because they have longer

useful lives, but receive less maintenance during their lives. Haldex

cautioned that combination vehicles are susceptible to jackknife

accidents if the tractor brakes are in better working order than

trailer brakes. Haldex also noted that new vehicles accumulate more

miles, and older vehicles would be retired from service before a

retrofit were to be required.

While the NADA indicated that its survey respondents were

universally opposed to retrofits, it requested that the time-frame for

a potential requirement consider limitations in labor, parts, and shop

facilities.

The AHAS believed that its recommended phase-in period discussed

earlier should apply simultaneously to tractors, trailers, and single-

unit tankers that carry hazardous materials. It suggested that

additional lead time be provided for other CMVs and non-air-braked

CMVs.

While opposing retrofitting, the OOIDA maintained that different

periods should not be specified because they would lead to confusion,

needless enforcement activity, and penalties for mistakes of fact.

Sebring said that different periods may be needed but did not

elaborate on that statement.

Midland-Grau believed that different periods should be specified

according to potential installation problems, but it did not elaborate.

Metro-Dade stated that this issue was not applicable to transit

agencies.

Union Pacific opposed the notion of different retrofit periods for

different types of CMVs because it would require excessive management

to enforce.

The CVSA asked that the FHWA consider a phase-in period and the

need for mechanic training.

XTRA Corporation urged that no retrofitting requirements be imposed

on intermodal containers, trailers, or chassis, or on remanufactured

trailers, or on mobile storage trailers.

Agency's Response to This Comment

As stated earlier in this notice, retrofitting requirements will

not be imposed.

6. Should specific types of CMVs, or CMVs used in unique

operations, (i.e., CMVs that are not subject to the requirements of

FMVSS 121, but are subject to the FMCSRs) be exempt from a requirement

to be retrofitted with ABAs? Should these specific types of air-braked

CMVs manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, be required to be

equipped with ABAs prior to being placed in operation in interstate

commerce?

Comments

Maine and Sebring believed that limited or specialized use vehicles

not subject to the FMVSS No. 121 requirements should be subject to a

requirement for retrofit of ABAs. Neither provided elaboration. The

CVSA recommended that CMVs currently equipped with slack adjusters be

required to have ABAs unless there is a specific retrofitting problem

for that type of vehicle. Those situations should be handled as

exceptions.

The HDBMC, Rockwell, Haldex, Midland-Grau, and the ATA recommended

against including CMVs not subject to the FMVSSs. Rockwell believed it

``might be awkward'' to require ABAs on vehicles ``not subject to other

federal braking requirements.'' Haldex argued that there was

insufficient justification for ABAs on limited- and specialized-use

vehicles, noting that there is little industry experience with ABAs on

these vehicles, and that retrofitting might be impractical because of

installation difficulties.

The ATA stated that specialized vehicles which are exempt from

FMVSS No. 121 requirements have been given this status by the NHTSA

``based on the facts that doing so will not compromise public safety

and that these vehicles cannot be constructed in a manner consistent

with more `normal' equipment.'' The ATA added that these vehicles could

not have been readily built with ABAs, that retrofit should not be

considered, and that these vehicles must still meet the FMCSR's

requirements for inspection and safe operation.

The NADA stated that its members support ``maximum possible

grandfathering'' of non-FMVSS 121 CMVs as part of their universal

opposition to a retrofit mandate.

The NPTC stated that a member had suggested that trucks and

trailers over 8,165 kg (18,000 lbs) GVW, which have been equipped with

ABAs, be required to maintain the ABAs or improve them, but that any

retrofitting requirement exempt trucks under 8,165 kg (18,000 lb) GVW

because the benefits of ABAs on those vehicles are not clear. The NPTC

did not elaborate on that comment.

The AHAS believed that no vehicle or load-carrying dolly should be

exempted if it can sustain highway speeds. However, it allowed that

low-speed vehicles that usually operate for short distances and under

special permit can be considered as long as the FHWA ``will avoid the

creation of a loophole for exploitation.''

The OOIDA opposed retrofitting of any air-braked vehicles, and

stated that the FHWA ``should defer to NHTSA'' on this issue.

Union Pacific stated that certain vehicles should be excluded.

Cedarapids opposed retrofitting construction equipment, citing an

economic impact without an increase in highway safety. It was concerned

that ABAs could exacerbate brake problems because dirt and dust would

cause high failure rates of ABAs while providing a false sense of

security to construction equipment operators. However, ``[f]or normal

highway vehicles, we agree and applaud your efforts to increase highway

safety.''

XTRA Corporation urged that no retrofitting requirements be imposed

on intermodal containers, trailers, or chassis, or on remanufactured

trailers, or on mobile storage trailers.

Agency's Response to This Comment

As noted above, this final rule does not require retrofitting of

any kind.

[[Page 46243]]

Some of the comments nonetheless deserve a brief response.

The FHWA agrees with the ATA's and Cedarapids' comments. The NHTSA

is responsible for determining compliance with, or exemptions from,

FMVSS No. 121. The definition of off-road construction equipment is to

be narrowly construed and limited to equipment which, by its design,

appearance, and function, is obviously not intended for use on a public

road. The FHWA has provided regulatory guidance (58 FR 60734, November

17, 1993) concerning the applicability of the FMCSRs to ``off road''

motorized construction equipment, i.e., motor scrapers, backhoes,

compactors, excavators, tractors, trenchers, and bulldozers (Question 6

to Sec. 390.5, Definitions), as follows:

Such equipment is routinely found at construction sites and is

operated by personnel requiring specialized skills. Occasionally,

such equipment is moved to or from construction sites by ``driving''

the ``vehicles'' short distances on public highways. Their

appearance on the highway is only incidental to their primary

function, they are not designed to operate in traffic, and their

mechanical manipulation often requires a different set of knowledge

and skills. The types of construction equipment discussed above do

not come within the definition of a ``CMV'' and hence the operators

and equipment are not subject to the FMCSRs.

As for the NPTC's comment concerning an exemption for CMVs under

8,165 kg (18,000 lbs) GVWR, the general applicability of the FMCSRs to

CMVs over 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) GVWR is required by statute (49 U.S.C.

31132(1)).

The FHWA cannot ``defer to NHTSA'' on operational standards for

CMVs, as OOIDA suggested, because that agency's regulatory authority is

limited to manufacturing standards. However, the FHWA and the NHTSA

work closely together on regulations of common interest to both

agencies.

7. What are the costs associated with retrofitting an ABA compared

to replacement of an MBA? Include: the cost of the device, installation

time, mechanic's hourly salary, and a ``loss of use'' cost figure if a

CMV were to be taken out of revenue service for retrofitting at some

time other than a time when a brake adjuster would normally be due for

replacement. How often do tractors and trailers visit a facility where

retrofitting could take place?

Comments

The HDBMC stated that detailed answers to this question would be

furnished in individual responses from HDBMC member companies.

The SOIC estimated a range of labor and materials costs for each

intermodal chassis from $185 to $275, averaging around $220. It

estimated a cost of $48 million for its members to retrofit, and

questioned the ``indeterminate reductions in traffic accidents'' that

would result. The SOIC stated that it anticipated no technical problems

related to a retrofitting requirement, but that administrative

difficulties of locating, capturing, and transporting chassis to repair

facilities may be significant and difficult to quantify. It suggested a

program of conversion ``in association with annual inspections required

by the FMCSRs.''

Sebring estimated that in 1990 a local repair shop needed one hour

per wheel to install four automatic slack adjusters (ASAs). Labor

charges were $25 per hour, and the ASAs cost approximately $55 each.

The first retrofit of a BAI of Sebring's own design took 30 minutes,

and others took 10 minutes/wheel.

Rockwell estimated the cost of parts and labor to replace MBAs at

$50 per wheel; to retrofit an ABA, $100 per wheel.

Wilbur-Ellis estimated costs at around $80 for an ASA, installation

time of 0.75 to one hour each, and a labor rate of $45 to $50 per hour.

Downtime was estimated at one day per truck, and perhaps more. The

total retrofitting cost for three-axle delivery truck would be

approximately $700. Most of Wilbur-Ellis' locations are in rural areas

where air brake repair facilities are not readily available.

The ATA believed that ``re-engineering'' systems to accommodate

ABAs on CMVs not originally designed for them would be a major cost

element of retrofitting. The ATA stated that, ``in many instances, the

vehicle would have to be either scrapped or sold somewhere else in the

world where it could be used, since the retrofit could not be

economically justified.'' The ATA estimated the following costs for

retrofit of vehicles originally designed to accommodate ASAs: One hour

per brake, assuming no severe corrosion or other interfering factor;

labor, $25 per hour (different in various parts of the country); $65

for an ABA, $12.50 for an MBA. If brake chambers needed to be replaced

to accomplish a BAI retrofit, they would cost an additional $55 each.

The ATA believed that costs for parts and labor alone would make

retrofit cost-prohibitive; it did not include costs of vehicle down-

time in these figures. The ATA estimated that 3.8 million trailers

would require 12 million ABAs to be retrofitted ``within the given

period'' at a cost of $108 million.

The NADA estimated costs at from $75/brake to $250/tandem and

believed there would be considerable CMV-to-CMV variation.

The NPTC estimated costs at $200 to $750 for straight trucks and

single axle trailers, and $900 to $1000 for tandem-axle tractors.

While the AHAS was ``convinced that the benefits gained by

retrofitting ABAs and BAIs to the entire existing commercial fleet

would far outweigh any costs to industry, especially if a reasonable

phase-in program was put in place,'' it did not provide any figures to

substantiate this statement.

The OOIDA stated that costs can vary considerably, depending on

application, configuration of foundation brake mounting, make and type

of ABA, and where the work is performed. It provided the following

information, based on discussions with several midwest truck

dealerships: ABAs, $35 to $75; hourly shop rates from $47 to $49.50;

time to simply remove brake adjusters and install ABAs, from 20 to 90

minutes. The OOIDA added that retrofit may require replacement of other

system components to conform to ABA design and various mounting

configurations. The OOIDA asserted that owner-operators are already

operating on thin profit margins, and that any that any loss of use of

a CMV would be an unjustifiable burden.

Haldex stated that ABAs retail for approximately 4 to 5 times the

cost of an MBA; aftermarket prices range from $50 to $75. It estimated

installation time at around 15 minutes per wheel; however, the

potential need to change air chamber pushrod length could double that

time. ``On the average, a vehicle would be out of [revenue] service for

no less than 90 minutes for an ABA retrofit.'' Haldex also stated that

data available to the company indicated that major fleets generate an

average of approximately $100 to $150 per hour in revenue, so each

vehicle undergoing retrofit would also cost the motor carrier $150 to

$225 in revenue foregone.

Metro-Dade stated that the ``Cost to retrofit would be

insignificant if done in conjunction with a brake rebuild.''

The PMAA believed that costs might include re-engineering of brake

and structural systems to provide additional space needed for

installation. It believed that, in many cases, retrofitting may not be

economically feasible because of the complexity of the redesign. In

other cases, redesign would not be technically possible. It stated ``In

cases such as these, the cost of compliance would equal the cost of the

vehicle and

[[Page 46244]]

trailer.'' The PMAA estimated the following costs for CMVs that could

be retrofitted: $65 for ABAs; labor, $40 per hour; 6 hours for

installation if there is no extensive corrosion; total: $670. For a

complex brake system redesign, it estimated costs up to $2300 per

vehicle. The PMAA estimated costs for its industry segment at

$14,740,000.

Midland-Grau stated that it was difficult to estimate a typical

cost, and that an evaluation was needed.

Union Pacific provided the following cost estimates. Tandem

tractors: material, $400; labor, 2 hours at $60 per hour; total $520.

Tandem trailers: material, $300; 3 hours labor at $60 per hour; total

$480.

XTRA Corporation estimated direct costs of approximately $300/unit

for its entire fleet of trailers and chassis, including materials and

an average of 2.5 hours of labor. It noted that additional costs that

needed to be considered included loss of revenue, recordkeeping, and

customers' costs resulting from temporary removal of their trailers

from service. Logistical considerations would be XTRA Corporation's

time to locate the CMV and to plan and schedule its retrofit, and their

customers' cooperation in accomplishing it.

Agency's Response to This Comment

The ABAs were estimated to cost between $35 and $75; most

commenters estimated a range of $50 to $75. They might take from 20

minutes to 1.5 hours to install; 45 minutes to one hour was the most

common range noted. Mechanics' hourly salaries were figured at $25 to

$60, with $40 to $45 most commonly noted.

At the low end of the range, a $50 ABA that takes a mechanic

earning $40 per hour 0.75 hour to install would cost the motor carrier

$80. At the high end, a $75 ABA that takes a $45 per hour mechanic one

hour to install would cost the motor carrier $120. For purposes of

estimating, the FHWA will use a rounded average of $100 per ABA

installed, excluding the motor carrier's revenue loss for the time the

CMV is not in service.

Estimates of the numbers of registered CMVs from the FHWA's 1993

edition of Highway Statistics are as follows: Commercial and private

trucks (excluding truck tractors, and light and farm trucks), 2.4

million; truck tractors, 1.3 million; private and commercial trailers

and semitrailers, 3.9 million; and private and commercial buses,

115,000. However, many of these 7.6 million CMVs are not in interstate

commerce. The FHWA estimated in 1993 that there were 3.6 million CMVs

operating in interstate commerce. The agency believes that the ATA's

estimate of 3.8 million CMVs potentially subject to a retrofitting

requirement may be somewhat high because single-unit trucks and buses

with hydraulic brake systems would not have been included in such a

proposal. The ATA estimated slightly more than three retrofitted ABAs

per vehicle (12 million ABAs/3.8 million CMVs=3.15 ABAs/CMV). This also

might be a low estimate: Most semitrailers would need 4 ABAs, and one-

axle semitrailers would need two ABAs, but tractors would need up to 6.

However, using the ATA's estimate of 12 million ABAs, the cost for

parts and labor would be $1.2 billion, rather than the $108 million

figure stated in its docket comment. If we were to exclude tractors and

air-braked single-unit CMVs, some 2.7 million trailer retrofits (two-

thirds of the U.S. trailer and semitrailer fleet), requiring four ABAs

each, would cost an estimated $1.08 billion for parts and labor.

Some commenters noted, and the FHWA agrees, that the logistical

costs of locating a CMV for retrofitting and removing it from revenue

service could exceed the costs of labor and materials. On the other

hand, the cost of retrofitting ABAs probably would not exceed the value

of the CMV unless the vehicle was at or past the end of its useful

life. In general, however, the data and cost estimates show that

retrofitting ABAs would involve significant expense to the motor

carrier industry.

While ABAs have real advantages over MBAs, the FHWA has determined

that the costs associated with a retrofitting requirement do not

clearly exceed the benefits that could be anticipated. This is

especially true given that the estimated $1 billion retrofit cost would

only apply to trailers, and semitrailers, not to truck-tractors or air-

braked single-unit trucks. Even with several years of lead time, the

annual cost to the motor carrier industry would be several hundred

million dollars. None of the commenters that favored a retrofit

requirement provided an analysis or estimate of its expected impact on

CMV accidents. The FHWA, therefore, will not require retrofitting.

Discussion of Final Rule

Proper brake adjustment is critical to safe CMV operation. The

NHTSA has estimated that nearly 4,000 CMV accidents per year are caused

by out-of-adjustment brakes. The NTSB's review of 97 serious heavy

truck accidents investigated from 1969 to 1981 cited out-of-adjustment

brakes as a causal or contributing factor in 28 percent of those

accidents. Out-of-adjustment brakes are also the primary equipment-

related cause for CMVs to be placed out of service during roadside

inspections; for Fiscal Year 1992, 36.2 percent of vehicles placed out-

of-service were cited for this deficiency.

Aside from the clear safety benefits of maintaining proper brake

adjustment, ABAs can have a positive benefit on motor carrier

productivity by preventing CMVs from being placed out of service,

reducing roadside service calls and the resulting delays to

transportation operations.

Virtually all commenters to the NPRM who responded to the in-use

requirement were in favor of it. The ATA noted that manufacturers have

provided, and motor carriers voluntarily have been using, ABAs for a

number of years. Even in the absence of Federal regulations, the

marketplace was adopting the technology on its merits.

Finally, the FHWA strives to maintain consistency between the

manufacturing standards for commercial motor vehicles contained in the

NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), and the

operations and maintenance regulations contained in the FMCSRs.

The FHWA has concluded that both motor carriers and the traveling

public may derive substantial operational and safety benefits from the

use of automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators.

The final rule, therefore, amends the FMCSRs by adding a new

Sec. 393.53, Automatic Brake Adjusters and Brake Adjustment Indicators,

to Subpart C, Brakes.

The provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) require that

automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators installed on

newly manufactured CMVs to comply with the requirements of FMVSS Nos.

105 and 121 be maintained by the motor carriers operating those CMVs.

These provisions will apply to all CMVs operated in the United

States, irrespective of the country where the CMV is based. Canadian

and Mexican vehicles manufactured on or after the effective dates of

the NHTSA rules will be required to conform to this regulation.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant

regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or

significant within the meaning of Department of

[[Page 46245]]

Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This rule makes the

operational standards for brakes in the FMCSRs consistent with the

manufacturing standards in the FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. It requires

automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators installed on

newly manufactured CMVs in accordance with those manufacturing

standards to be maintained by the motor carriers operating those

vehicles. The FHWA believes that promulgation of this final rule is

necessary to assure that the safety benefits of the NHTSA rule are

fully realized. Based on the NHTSA's research, the FHWA believes that

operation and maintenance costs of the automatic brake adjusters and

adjustment indicators required under the new FMVSSs will be lower than

costs of the devices previously required. It is anticipated that the

economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a full

regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-

612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small

entities. This rule modifies the operational standards for brakes in

the FMCSRs to make them consistent with the manufacturing standards in

the FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, which now require the installation of

automatic brake adjusters and adjustment indicators on certain newly-

manufactured CMVs. Under this final rule, motor carriers are only

required to maintain these devices. The final rule does not impose a

retrofitting requirement for vehicles manufactured prior to the

effective date of the NHTSA's rules. This is consistent with other

requirements linking the FMCSRs to the FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. The FHWA

believes that operation and maintenance costs of the vehicles equipped

with automatic brake adjusters and adjustment indicators will be lower

than costs of the manual devices previously required. Therefore, the

FHWA hereby certifies that this action would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined

that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

To be eligible for Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funds, a

State's regulations for interstate transportation must be the same as

the FMCSRs and Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations. Regulations for

intrastate transportation may be at variance only so long as they fall

within the parameters of the Tolerance Guidelines in 49 CFR part 350,

Appendix C.

The FHWA intends to provide training and informational materials to

the States to aid them in this process. The FHWA works with the

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance on training and enforcement issues,

and will continue to do so.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain a collection of information

requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has

determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of

the environment.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor

Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and

activities apply to this program.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned 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. The RIN in the heading of this

document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified

Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

Freight transportation, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Motor

carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 49,

Code of Federal Regulations, part 393, as follows:

PART 393--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 393 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914,

1993 (1991); 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; 49 CFR 1.48.

2. In subpart C, Sec. 393.53 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 393.53 Automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators.

(a) Automatic brake adjusters (hydraulic brake systems). Each

commercial motor vehicle manufactured on or after October 20, 1993, and

equipped with a hydraulic brake system, shall meet the automatic brake

adjustment system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 105 (49 CFR 571.105, S5.1) applicable to the vehicle at the time it

was manufactured.

(b) Automatic brake adjusters (air brake systems). Each commercial

motor vehicle manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, and equipped

with an air brake system shall meet the automatic brake adjustment

system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121

(49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.8) applicable to the vehicle at the time it was

manufactured.

(c) Brake adjustment indicator (air brake systems). On each

commercial motor vehicle manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, and

equipped with an air brake system which contains an external automatic

adjustment mechanism and an exposed pushrod, the condition of service

brake under-adjustment shall be displayed by a brake adjustment

indicator conforming to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.8) applicable to the

vehicle at the time it was manufactured.

Issued on August 30, 1995.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-22077 Filed 9-5-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P