Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Antilock Brake Systems
Federal RegisterMay 4, 1998
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[FHWA Docket No. MC-94-31; FHWA-97-2318]
RIN 2125-AD42
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Antilock
Brake Systems
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) to require that air-braked truck tractors
manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, and air-braked single-unit
trucks, buses, trailers,
[[Page 24455]]
and converter dollies manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, be
equipped with antilock brake systems (ABSs) that meet the requirements
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121. The FHWA is
also requiring hydraulic-braked trucks and buses manufactured on or
after March 1, 1999, to be equipped with ABSs that meet the
requirements of FMVSS No. 105. In addition, the agency is requiring
motor carriers to maintain the ABSs on these vehicles. This rulemaking
is intended to ensure that the in-service brake standards of the FMCSRs
are consistent with the FMVSSs. The rulemaking would also improve the
safety of operation of commercial motor vehicles by reducing the
incidence of accidents caused by jackknifing and other losses of
directional stability and control during braking. With regard to
commercial motor vehicles manufactured prior to the dates previously
mentioned, the FHWA is not requiring motor carriers to retrofit such
vehicles with ABSs.
DATES: This rule is effective June 3, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor
Carrier Research and Standards, HCS-10, (202) 366-4009; or Mr. Charles
E. Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-20, (202) 366-1354,
Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and
help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the Federal Register
Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may
reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/nara/
fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs.
Background
Section 4012 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2157) directs the
Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking concerning methods
for improving the braking performance of new commercial motor vehicles,
\1\ including truck tractors, trailers, and their dollies.
Congress specifically directed that the rulemaking examine antilock
systems, means of improving brake compatibility, and methods of
ensuring effectiveness of brake timing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of section 4012, the term ``commercial
motor vehicle'' means any self-propelled or towed vehicle used on
highways to transport passengers or property if such vehicle has a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 11,794 kilograms (kg) (26,001
pounds) or more. The NHTSA's final rule on ABS applies to medium and
heavy vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Rulemaking
In response to the ISTEA, the NHTSA published a final rule amending
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake
Systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to require that medium
and heavy vehicles be equipped with an ABS to improve the lateral
stability (i.e., traction) and steering control of these vehicles
during braking (60 FR 13216, March 10, 1995). For truck tractors, the
ABS requirement is supplemented by a 48.3 kilometer per hour (30-mph)
braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface using
a full brake application. By improving lateral stability and control,
these requirements will significantly reduce jackknifing and other
losses of control during braking, as well as the deaths and injuries
caused by those control problems.
In addition, the NHTSA final rule requires all powered heavy
vehicles to be equipped with an in-cab lamp to indicate ABS
malfunctions. Truck tractors and other trucks equipped to tow air-
braked trailers are required to be equipped with two separate in-cab
lamps: one indicating malfunctions in the towing vehicle ABS and the
other in the trailer ABS. The requirement for the in-cab lamp to alert
the driver of malfunctions in the trailer ABS applies to trucks and
truck tractors manufactured on or after March 1, 2001 (61 FR 5949,
February 15, 1996). Trailers produced during an initial 11-year period
(March 1, 1998 through March 1, 2009) must also be equipped with an
external malfunction indicator that is visible to the driver of the
towing tractor (61 FR 5949).
The amendments to FMVSS No. 105 become effective on March 1, 1999.
With the exception of the in-cab indicator for trailer ABS
malfunctions, the amendments to FMVSS No. 121 became effective on March
1, 1997, for truck tractors, and on March 1, 1998, for air-braked
trailers, converter dollies, single unit trucks, and buses.
FHWA Notice of Intent
On March 10, 1995, the FHWA published a notice of intent to
initiate a rulemaking concerning requirements for ABSs on commercial
motor vehicles operating in interstate commerce (60 FR 13306). The
notice of intent included an extensive discussion of the NHTSA's ABS
fleet study conducted between 1988 and 1993. Copies of the reports from
the fleet study have been placed in the docket.\2\ The NHTSA
tracked the maintenance performance histories of 200 truck tractors and
50 semitrailers equipped with ABSs, as well as the histories of a
comparison group of 88 truck tractors and 35 semitrailers that were not
equipped with ABSs to determine the incremental maintenance costs and
patterns associated with installing ABSs on these heavy vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``An In-Service Evaluation of the Reliability,
Maintainability, and Durability of Antilock Braking Systems (ABS)
for Heavy Truck Tractors,'' DOT Report No. 807 846, March 1992, and
``An In-Service Evaluation of the Reliability, Maintainability, and
Durability of Antilock Braking Systems (ABS) for Semitrailers,'' DOT
Report No. 808 059, October 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors concluded that, based upon the data collected during
the fleet study, currently available ABSs are reliable, durable, and
maintainable. While an ABS is not a zero-cost maintenance item, its
presence on a vehicle did not substantially increase maintenance costs
(less than one percent for tractors, less than two percent for
trailers) or decrease vehicle operational availability.
The NHTSA data indicate that ABSs are neither difficult nor unduly
expensive to maintain. The fleet test results do not indicate that the
level of maintenance required to keep an ABS functional is unreasonable
relative to the safety benefits that will result from the use of these
systems.
The FHWA concluded that a rulemaking should be initiated to propose
amending the FMCSRs to include ABS requirements and solicited comments
on this decision.
FHWA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
On July 12, 1996, the FHWA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking that would require motor carriers to maintain the ABSs on
commercial motor vehicles manufactured on or after the effective dates
of the NHTSA requirements (61 FR 36691). The NPRM discussed the
comments received in response to the
[[Page 24456]]
notice of intent and the FHWA's responses to the comments. The comments
covered a range of issues including: Interpretation of 49 CFR 396.3--
certain commenters believed an amendment to part 393 was not necessary
and that Sec. 396.3 could be used to assure that motor carriers provide
appropriate maintenance for ABSs; research on ABS operation and failure
modes; retrofitting; inspection procedures; and applicability to
Canada-and Mexico-based motor carriers. The FHWA did not propose an
exemption for commercial motor vehicles operated in the United States
by Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers, but specifically requested
comments from such motor carriers and original equipment manufacturers
that sell vehicles for the Canadian and Mexican markets.
Discussion of Comments
The FHWA received 8 comments in response to the July 12, 1996,
NPRM. The commenters were: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (the
Advocates); the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA); Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS); the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters (the Teamsters); Midland-Grau Heavy Duty Systems; Rockwell
WABCO Vehicle Control Systems (Rockwell WABCO); the Texas Department of
Transportation (Texas DOT); and, the Truck Manufacturers Association
(TMA).
Generally, the commenters were in favor of the FHWA establishing
requirements for motor carriers to maintain the ABSs. However, the ATA
expressed concerns about the FHWA's proposed cross-reference to FMVSS
Nos. 105 and 121, and certain aspects of the proposed regulatory
language that the ATA considered design restrictive. The Texas DOT
supported the proposed requirements for ABSs, but expressed concern
about radio frequency interference (RFI) problems with current
generation ABSs. The specific concerns or issues raised by the
commenters are discussed below.
Retrofitting
The ATA, Teamsters, Midland-Grau, Rockwell WABCO, and the TMA
supported the FHWA's decision not to propose an ABS retrofitting
requirement for vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of
the NHTSA requirements. None of the remaining commenters expressed
views concerning retrofitting. Rockwell WABCO stated:
Rockwell WABCO agrees with the FHWA's position that it is
inappropriate to require ABS to be retrofitted on commercial
vehicles built prior to the effective date of the NHTSA regulation.
Rockwell WABCO believes antilock braking systems (ABS) represent the
best and most reliable technology available to improve the stability
and control of medium and heavy vehicles during braking. However,
for the systems to function as designed, they must be properly
installed. Rockwell WABCO believes it would be extremely difficult
to achieve quality installations if a nation-wide retrofit program
were mandated on commercial vehicles built prior to the effective
date of the regulation.
Today, commercial vehicle OEMs (original equipment
manufacturers) are installing ABS in a reliable manner. With proper
documentation and attention to harness design, wire routing,
component mounting and quality control procedures, reliable ABS
installations have become routine. However, without the
infrastructure available at the OEM level, significant difficulties
could result if ABS retrofitting was mandated.
It would be extremely difficult for ABS manufacturers to provide
the necessary support to the large number of retrofit centers that
would be required to perform a task of this magnitude. Because of
the variety and configurations of vehicles involved, a significant
amount of engineering would be required to accomplish a major
retrofit program. As the NHTSA research has shown, even with the
cooperation of a variety of suppliers, it potentially is difficult
to achieve defect free tractor/truck ABS installations during a
retrofitting process.
The TMA is an organization of truck manufacturers, including the
Ford Motor Company, Freightliner Corporation, General Motors
Corporation, Mack Trucks, Inc., Navistar International Transportation
Corporation, PACCAR Inc. (manufacturers of Kenworth and Peterbilt
trucks) and Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation. The TMA stated:
TMA does not support the concept of ABS retrofit. The FHWA is not
proposing that motor carriers be required to retrofit vehicles
manufactured prior to the dates previously mentioned, however, the FHWA
requested comments on this subject. Kits for retrofit have not been
designed and are, therefore, not commercially available.
The Teamsters stated:
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters agrees that
retrofitting ABS for CMV's (commercial motor vehicles) currently in
service would not be advisable. It would be extremely difficult and
expensive to properly retrofit all the vehicles which are now in
service. As the NHTSA Fleet Study proved, the technology is not
currently available to allow a smooth retrofitting process. Many
technical problems would be faced during the retrofitting process:
pieces of equipment would have to be fabricated, and workers would
have to be trained to install and service these ``new'' brake
systems. According to the requirements of Sec. 396.25, these workers
would need to obtain one year of experience before working on ABS.
There would be no guarantee that the retrofitted brakes would
operate properly and it might be possible to damage or disable the
original brake system thus making it impossible to stop the vehicle
within a safe distance. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters
is inclined to agree with the FHWA assumption that the percentage of
malfunctions of the retrofitted ABS would be ``* * * much greater if
motor carriers were required to attempt retrofitting the innumerable
configurations of air-braked vehicles.'' (61 FR 36695) For these
reasons which could negatively impact on CMV safety the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters believes it would not be
prudent to require motor carriers to retrofit ABS at this time.
If, in the future, retrofit kits were developed which adequately
addressed these safety concerns, then requiring retrofitting would
be wise. These kits, provided by the manufacturers, could be
designed for specific vehicles and provide detailed instructions to
assist in their installation. Should these kits become available,
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters would recommend that
retrofitting be required.
The FHWA agrees with the commenters; statements about the
difficulties the motor carrier industry would have retrofitting
commercial motor vehicles with ABS. The FHWA believes the NHTSA
research provides a strong indication of the types of technical
problems that would be expected if motor carriers were required to
retrofit vehicles with ABS.
As the FHWA noted in the preamble to the NPRM, at the time the
NHTSA conducted its research, only one heavy truck manufacturer offered
ABS as a fully-engineered production option on its line of trucks. In
contrast, most of the remaining truck tractor manufacturers had only
limited experience installing small numbers of ``current-generation''
ABSs and, therefore, had not worked out many of the detailed design
aspects of installing the systems. The retrofitting of ABSs on truck
tractors required teamwork on the part of ABS suppliers, truck
manufacturers, wheel and hub suppliers, and wiring harness suppliers.
Even with this team effort, some of the test vehicles were delivered to
the participating motor carriers with pre-existing problems that, for
one reason or another, prevented the ABS from functioning properly.
In all, 116 out of the 200 truck tractors (58 percent) experienced
installation/pre-production design-related problems. The researchers
indicated that the relatively high percentage is indicative of the
``newness'' of the systems in North American applications. Table 1
[[Page 24457]]
summarizes the types of problems that were experienced in the truck
tractor portion of the fleet study. Table 2 summarizes installation-
related problems in the semitrailer portion of the fleet study.
Table 1.--Truck Tractor ABS Installation/Pre-Production Design-Related
Problems by System Component Needing Work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trucks
requiring Number of trucks
inspections, requiring
ABS component adjustments or replacements of
repairs of this this component
component
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiring Cables..................... 12 \2\ 23
Wiring Connectors................. 29 10
Sensors and Related Parts......... 5 10
Modulator Valves and Related Parts 13 \3\ 50
Electronic Control Units (ECUs)... 17 \2\ 20
Others \1\........................ 7
Total Number of Trucks per Column. 57 102
Overall Number of Trucks Involved
in Installation/Pre-Production
Design Related Problems..........
(1) 116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Others include: rewiring due to installation oversights; two
miscellaneous wire resecurements; and the addition of one ground strap
to adjust the ECU.
\2\ One problem represented all of these replacements.
\3\ One problem involved 40 of these trucks, while another involved 10
trucks.
Note: Individual column numbers are not additive since specific trucks
may have needed maintenance on more than one component.
Table 2.--Semitrailer ABS Installation/Pre-Production Design-Related
Problems by System Component Needing Work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
semitrailers Number of
requiring semitrailers
ABS component inspections, requiring
adjustments or replacements of
repairs of this this component
component
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiring Cables..................... 0 2
Wiring Connectors................. 11 0
Sensors and Related Parts......... \2\ 3 10
Modulator Valves and Related Parts ................. .................
Electronic Control Units (ECUs)... ................. 5
Others \1\........................ ................. 26
Total Number of Semitrailers per
Column........................... 14 31
Overall Number of Semitrailers
Involved in Installation/Pre-
Production Design-Related
Problems.........................
(1)31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Others include: Isolation diode installation and replacement of ECU
grommets.
\2\ Sensor adjustment resulted from incorrectly adjusted wheel bearings
on new semitrailers.
Note: Individual column numbers are not additive since specific
semitrailers may have needed maintenance on more than one component.
The NHTSA report on the truck tractor portion of the fleet study
indicates the percentage of installation-related problems is similar to
that observed by many of the participating fleets when they receive
newly-built vehicles. However, the FHWA believes the percentage of
malfunctions would be much greater if motor carriers were required to
attempt retrofitting innumerable configurations of air-braked vehicles.
The FHWA considers NHTSA's fleet study to be a best-case scenario for
retrofitting ABS in that the vehicle and brake manufacturers (as well
as wheel and hub manufacturers) worked together to complete the
installations of the ABS. Even with this collaborative effort of
experienced engineers, numerous problems related to the retrofitting
process surfaced during the fleet study.
Although many motor carriers have excellent maintenance programs
and talented engineering staff, the FHWA believes that the majority of
motor carriers could not retrofit their vehicles without a substantial
amount of technical assistance from vehicle and component
manufacturers. Without this technical assistance, it is more likely
than not that many of the retrofitted ABS installations would not be
performed correctly, thereby creating the potential for a degradation
of the CMV's braking performance. It is unrealistic to expect
manufacturers to be able to help more than 300,000 motor carriers
complete the retrofitting of several million vehicles while working on
the design and installation of ABSs on newly manufactured vehicles.
The comments submitted by Rockwell WABCO, Midland-Grau, and the TMA
suggest that brake system and vehicle manufacturers would not have the
resources to assist motor carriers in complying with a retrofitting
requirement. Even if there were a collaborative effort between vehicle
and component manufacturers and the motor carriers, it is unlikely that
the quality of the ABS installations would be better than those
performed for the NHTSA fleet study.
Although none of the commenters to the NPRM specifically discussed
the costs of retrofitting, the FHWA believes it is important to note
that the cost of retrofitting a commercial motor vehicle with an ABS is
likely to be higher than original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
installations because the vehicle will have to be removed from revenue
service during the retrofitting process. This is not the case for brand
new vehicles. Also, repeated adjustments or repairs of the type
described in the
[[Page 24458]]
NHTSA research reports would mean more down time for the retrofitted
vehicles.
The FHWA agrees with the Teamsters' interpretation of Sec. 396.25
of the FMCSRs, Qualifications of brake inspectors. As the agency
indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, Sec. 396.25 prohibits motor
carriers from allowing their employees to be responsible for ensuring
that brake-related inspection, repair, and maintenance tasks are
performed correctly unless the employee has at least one year of
training and/or experience. This requirement was issued in response to
section 9110 of the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of
1988 (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)). Therefore, motor carriers
that lack sufficient staff with at least one year of training and/or
experience at retrofitting ABSs prior to the effective date of a
retrofitting requirement, would have to rely on commercial garages or
similar facilities to fulfill a retrofitting requirement. Since many of
these facilities would also have very little, if any, experience
retrofitting ABSs, there is no assurance that they could do a better
job than the motor carriers' employees. Therefore, most motor carriers
could not allow their employees to attempt the retrofitting of ABSs,
and would not have a practical means to satisfy a retrofitting
requirement.
Roadside Inspection Procedures
Rockwell WABCO commented on the importance of having standardized
roadside inspection procedures for the various ABSs. Rockwell WABCO
stated:
As stated in our earlier response to FHWA (after the agency's
March 10, 1995, notice of intent), Rockwell WABCO would like to
emphasize that the procedure must be short, simple and
straightforward. The inspections should provide meaningful
information about the condition of the ABS and take advantage of the
self-diagnostic system capabilities required by (the NHTSA)
rulemaking. Rockwell WABCO recommends that FHWA adopt a common
inspection procedure for all ABS systems regardless of manufacturer
or vehicle type.
If FHWA decides that roadside inspections are necessary and
effective to ensure ABS is properly maintained, Rockwell WABCO
recommends the inspection consist of (1) a basic bulb check of the
ABS indicator lamp to be conducted when the ignition switch is
turned from the ``off'' to the ``on'' position followed by (2)
verification that the ABS indicator lamp deactivates at the end of
the check of lamp function.
In order to pass the inspection, the bulb must illuminate during
the bulb check and then deactivate. This will indicate the lamp is
functioning properly and there are no current or pre-existing
malfunctions present in the ABS. If the ABS indicator lamp does not
activate at all when the ignition key is turned from the ``off'' to
the ``on'' position, a potential bulb or indicator lamp circuit
problem exists. If the indicator lamp does not deactivate after the
bulb check, a current or pre-existing malfunction potentially exists
in the ABS, requiring diagnosis and possible repair and/or
adjustment.
The FHWA appreciates the information provided by Rockwell WABCO.
The agency provided members of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's
3 (CVSA) Vehicle Committee with copies of the July 12, 1996,
notice of proposed rulemaking which included a detailed discussion of
the inspection procedures recommended by the brake manufacturers
commenting to the docket. The FHWA will work with the appropriate
committees within the CVSA to assist in the development of training
material to help inspectors identify ABS components and determine if
the ABSs are working properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) is an
organization of Federal, State and Provincial government agencies
and representatives from private industry in the United States,
Canada and Mexico dedicated to improvement of commercial vehicle
safety. State agencies responsible for conducting roadside
inspections are members of the CVSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA, through a contract with the Trucking Research Institute
(TRI) 4, has developed videotapes to familiarize commercial
motor vehicle drivers and maintenance personnel with ABSs. The FHWA has
also developed an ABS brochure for drivers (``Truck Drivers Guide to
Antilock Braking Systems,'' FHWA-MC-98-006, March 1998) and an ABS
handbook for maintenance personnel (``Technician Guidelines for
Antilock Braking Systems: Air-Braked Trucks, Tractors and Trailers,''
FHWA-MC-98-008, March 1998). The videotapes (``Antilock Braking
Systems: What Every Driver Needs to Know'' and ``Technician Guidelines
for ABS'') and driver brochure are available free of charge from the
FHWA. Copies may be requested by contacting the Office of Motor Carrier
Research and Standards at the address or telephone number listed at the
beginning of this final rule. The technicians booklet will be available
in July 1998 and may be purchased from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The telephone number for
ordering publications from the NTIS is 703-605-6000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Conference Committee report on the 1993 Department of
Transportation Appropriations Act (Pub.L. 102-388, October 6, 1992)
directed the FHWA to follow the instructions of the House report on
obligating certain research funds, including funding research on
means to improve the training of heavy truck brake mechanics. H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 102-924, at 35 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA believes the information included in the videotapes and
publications can be used by the CVSA to help train employees of State
agencies responsible for conducting roadside inspections within a
relatively short period of time.
Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance Procedures
Two commenters discussed the need for inspection, repair, and
maintenance procedures for motor carriers. The Teamsters stated:
While the International Brotherhood of Teamsters agrees with the
FHWA that specific roadside inspection procedures should not be
included in the FMCSR there is a need to specify within the
regulations the methodology of vehicle inspections for motor
carriers. The vehicle inspections should include a review of the ABS
malfunction indicator lamp, as well as any other appropriate
inspection procedures. It is logical that specific language
detailing the systematic inspection, maintenance, and repair of ABS
should be included in part 396, appendix G, subpart B.
Midland-Grau stated:
Regarding the need to add detailed systematic, inspection,
repair, and maintenance requirements in part 396 of the FMCSRs,
MIDLAND-GRAU believes this is not necessary. MIDLAND-GRAU along with
other ABS suppliers and vehicle manufacturers, will continue their
efforts to support the industry with the necessary product,
inspection, repair, and service information. MIDLAND-GRAU believes
there are already more effective methods to develop and distribute
the subject information. The FHWA has in this notice defined clearly
the appropriate sources for this information.
The FHWA does not agree with the Teamsters' argument that the
FMCSRs should include detailed inspection procedures for motor carriers
to maintain ABSs. The FMCSRs do not currently contain detailed
inspection procedures for systems and components on commercial motor
vehicles. The regulations provide inspection criteria and minimum
qualifications for individuals performing the periodic or annual
inspection, and motor carrier employees responsible for brake-related
inspection, repair, and maintenance tasks. The FHWA believes this
approach is more effective than trying to develop a single set of
procedures to cover all types of ABSs, including present and future
designs. As noted earlier, the agency has developed videotapes and
publications to familiarize drivers and maintenance personnel with
ABSs. The agency believes the videotapes and publications will provide
the industry
[[Page 24459]]
with basic information to effectively maintain ABSs and advice on when
to seek expert assistance from vehicle and/or brake system
manufacturers.
The FHWA appreciates the information provided by Midland-Grau. The
agency notes that the TRI has worked with Midland-Grau and the other
brake manufacturers in developing the ABS videotapes and publications
for the FHWA. This cooperative effort between the private sector and
the government to provide non-regulatory technical guidance to the
industry is an effective alternative to prescriptive regulations
concerning ABS maintenance procedures.
Applicability to Canadian and Mexican Vehicles
The Advocates, Teamsters, and TMA expressed support for the FHWA's
proposal not to provide an exemption for commercial motor vehicles
operated in the United States by Canada- and Mexico-based motor
carriers. None of the other commenters expressed an opinion concerning
this issue.
The Teamsters stated:
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters strongly agrees with
the FHWA that it `` * * * is appropriate to require ABS on foreign-
based vehicles manufactured on or after the effective dates of the
NHTSA requirements if those vehicles are operated within the United
States.'' (61 FR 36696) This requirement would ensure that ``* * *
all CMVs operating in interstate or foreign commerce within the
United States are required to meet the same safety standards.''
(Ibid)
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters encourages the strict
enforcement of these requirements as it is currently known that a
large percentage of those vehicles crossing the Mexican-United
States border are not in compliance with the United States FMCSRs.
The Advocates stated:
Advocates strongly supports this initiative by the FHWA and
applauds the agency's determination not only to improve domestic
commercial vehicle operating safety, but also to set an example for
international harmonization that increases medium and heavy vehicle
safety for Canadian and Mexican motor carriers. This rulemaking
proposal is a textbook example of regulating in the public interest.
We commend the agency for its resolve to move forward on this major
safety policy despite adverse comments filed in response to the
FHWA's March 10, 1995, notice of intent to initiate the instant
rulemaking. Advocates endorses this proposal and, in light of the
lead time for compliance that duplicates the calendars set forth for
FMVSSs Nos. 105 and 135, asks that the agency promulgate a final
rule as soon as possible that is effective on the date of
publication.
The TMA stated:
TMA feels that only commercial motor vehicles that meet all of
the applicable requirements of part 393, including the proposed
Sec. 393.55 requirements that addresses ABS, should be allowed to
operate in the U.S. Therefore, we support the FHWA proposal to not
grant an exception for commercial motor vehicles operated in the
U.S. by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers. Truck
manufacturers, however, need timely resolution of the following
questions so that they can appropriately advise their Canadian and
Mexican motor carrier customers on ABS purchases.
1. When is the enforcement of this requirement going to
commence?
2. When will the inspection procedures and criteria be
finalized?
3. How will this requirement be enforced? Will it be handled at
the border by U.S. Customs officials? By FHWA officials? By State
officials? Or will it be enforced during random roadside
inspections?
The FHWA agrees with the commenters. Although the NPRM explicitly
requested comments from foreign carriers that would be subject to the
proposed requirements, the agency did not receive any comments from
Canada- or Mexico-based motor carriers operating within the United
States. The agency is not aware of any technical or economic reasons
why these carriers could not comply with the ABS requirements.
Therefore, the final rule is applicable to CMVs operated in the United
States by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers. The FHWA notes that
this decision is consistent with the applicability of all of the
agency's equipment-related regulations.
Currently, subpart C of part 393 cross-references FMVSS No. 105
(Hydraulic Brake Systems), FMVSS No. 106 (Brake Hoses), and FMVSS No.
121 (Air Brake Systems), as well as several other CMV-related FMVSSs.
The FHWA's cross-references have the net effect of requiring that
vehicles operated by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers be
equipped with safety features and equipment that are compatible with
the NHTSA requirements irrespective of where the vehicle was originally
manufactured, or whether the vehicle was manufactured for sale or use
in the United States. Commercial motor vehicles that do not meet all of
the applicable requirements of part 393 cannot be operated in the
United States. As such, commercial motor vehicles operated by foreign-
based motor carriers are currently required by the FHWA to have, at a
minimum, brake systems that comply with the applicable provisions of
FMVSS Nos. 105, 106, and 121 in effect on the date of manufacture.
Although the FHWA does not have data on the extent to which CMVs
manufactured for sale in Canada and Mexico comply with the current
brake-related FMVSSs and FMCSRs, it is unlikely that there are
technical reasons that would preclude manufacturers of these vehicles
from offering ABS as an option. As previously mentioned, foreign-based
motor carriers are currently required to operate commercial motor
vehicles that comply with all of the applicable requirements of part
393 while in the United States.
Prior to issuing the NPRM, the FHWA contacted the TMA to determine
the availability of ABS on air braked vehicles sold in Canada and
Mexico.
The TMA indicated that five of the manufacturers that sell medium
and heavy-duty trucks in Canada install ABSs as standard equipment.
Another manufacturer offers ABSs as optional equipment for the Canadian
market.
With regard to the Mexican market, none of the TMA's members
install ABSs as standard equipment. Only two of the TMA's members offer
ABSs as optional equipment. However, another member indicated it would
make ABSs available on units manufactured in Mexico in the near future.
The FHWA also contacted Dina, a Mexican manufacturer of heavy
trucks, and determined that ABSs are offered as optional equipment.
Based upon the information obtained from the TMA and Dina, and the
docket comments received in response to the NPRM, the FHWA believes
that requiring ABSs on Canadian and Mexican CMVs manufactured on or
after the effective dates of NHTSA's ABS requirements, and operated in
the United States, is appropriate. The FHWA notes that ABS is not yet
commercially available for hydraulically-braked medium and heavy
vehicles in the United States, Canada or Mexico. However, given the
March 1, 1999, effective date of the FMVSS No. 105 requirements for
ABSs, the FHWA believes these systems will be commercially available in
time for motor carriers to comply with the FMCSRs.
In response to the TMA's questions about enforcement, the FHWA and
the States may cite motor carriers for violations of the ABS
requirements at any time after the final rule becomes effective. The
ABS requirements will be enforced primarily through roadside
inspections conducted by the States. Checking the status of the ABSs
will be one of many items (e.g., brake adjustment and the condition of
major brake system components; steering, suspension, and fuel systems;
tires, wheels, and rims; axles and axle positioning components; lamps
and reflectors; cargo securement) inspectors examine during roadside
inspections.
[[Page 24460]]
The agency does not expect the recommended inspection procedures that
may be used by the States to be complex or time consuming. The brake
manufacturers' comments provided in response to the agency's March 10,
1995, notice of intent, and the July 12, 1996, NPRM include
straightforward inspection procedures that could be used by the States
at any time after the effective date of the final rule.
Cross-Referencing the FMVSSs
The ATA opposed the manner in which the FHWA cross-referenced FMVSS
Nos. 105 and 121 and presented two possible alternative ways of writing
Sec. 393.55. The ATA stated:
By referencing FMVSSs (Nos.) 105 and 121 in this proposed FMCSR,
the agency is placing a burden on motor carriers to show compliance
with new vehicle requirements which were written for manufacturers.
Carriers cannot do this without help.
While we agree with the FHWA/OMC's (Office of Motor Carriers)
intent, we are concerned with the language of the regulation. The
problem comes from the reference to the FMVSSs in the FMCSRs.
FMVSSs are standards directed at manufacturers who have the
personnel, facilities, and test equipment necessary to test their
products. By requiring vehicle users to assure that replacement
parts meet the FMVSSs, FHWA/OMC is requiring that consumers create
the technical expertise of manufacturers for themselves. Virtually
no motor carrier has either the staff, facilities or equipment with
which to test products for compliance to FMVSS type requirements.
If the agency wants vehicle users to purchase repair parts and
components which meet FMVSSs, then it must work with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assure that new
parts and components are labeled with compliance information or a
code. This is already done in FMCSR Sec. 393.67(f) for fuel tanks.
Consumers, on their own, are incapable of certifying that
replacement parts and components meet new vehicle or component
standards. Consumers can ask suppliers to provide certifications,
however, they cannot go beyond such an importune.
The ATA indicated that this issue was raised in its comments to the
FHWA's notice of proposed rulemaking concerning automatic brake
adjusters and brake adjustment indicators (59 FR 39518, August 3,
1994). The ATA quoted the FHWA's response to its comments. The agency's
response, presented in the preamble to the final rule, indicated an in-
use requirement for a commercial motor vehicle part or accessory that
references an FMVSS does not place a burden on motor carriers (60 FR
46236, September 6, 1995). The agency also indicated motor carriers
have ample experience in obtaining replacement parts for vehicle
subsystems. The ATA believes the FHWA's response to its comments
``explicitly places in focus the problem which exists in this area.''
The ATA stated:
Carriers face little difficulty acquiring replacement parts for
lighting and illuminating systems, in compliance with FMCSR 393.11,
because (paragraph 5.8), Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS 108
requires such parts to carry appropriate identification markings.
The same is true for tires (S6.5 of FMVSS 119) and wheels (S5.3 of
FMVSS 120). In the case of brake components like ABS parts, however,
no such labeling is required.
The ATA also stated:
Part of the concern which drives us to the conclusion that parts
need to be marked in a manner that enables carriers to show
continued compliance with FMVSSs stems from the fact that component
systems are becoming obsolete at an unprecedented pace. It is not at
all unusual for a carrier wanting to repair a system to find that it
is better to upgrade than repair. Two important considerations in
the decision are whether replacement parts identical to the original
exist and whether the upgraded system will out-perform its
forerunner.
The FHWA does not believe the ATA's concerns about cross-
referencing FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121 are warranted. The regulatory
language proposed did not include a requirement for motor carriers to
conduct certification testing of ABSs in order to verify vehicles were
equipped with an ABS that meets the NHTSA requirements.
Motor vehicle manufacturers must certify that the vehicles they
manufacture for sale and use in the United States meet all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by the NHTSA. In certain
cases, the vehicle safety standards require motor vehicle equipment to
be marked by the equipment manufacturer to certify that the product
meets the applicable safety standard (e.g., retroreflective sheeting
for use on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, are
marked with DOT-C2, DOT-C3, or DOT-C4, depending on the width of the
tape). During roadside inspections of commercial motor vehicles,
Federal and State officials look for certification markings on
components, such as, retroreflective sheeting, tires, brake hoses, fuel
tanks, windshields, etc., because there are no other practical means to
verify that such components or items meet the testing requirements
specified in the Federal regulations. The certification markings for
these components or items also help motor carriers identify products
that meet applicable Federal requirements.
Through cross-references to the FMVSSs, the FHWA places upon motor
carriers the responsibility for being knowledgeable about the Federal
manufacturing standards that are applicable to heavy trucks, buses, and
trailers. Motor carriers have the responsibility of purchasing vehicles
and components from manufacturers that are able to certify that the
products they sell meet the applicable Federal manufacturing standards.
If the commercial motor vehicle is damaged during its service-life, or
components wear out and require replacement, motor carriers are
required to have the vehicle properly repaired by knowledgeable and
capable maintenance personnel. Maintenance personnel should recognize
that there are Federal safety standards and be capable of determining
whether the repairs being performed will restore the vehicle to its
previous condition.
Looking specifically at the cross-references to FMVSS Nos. 105 and
121, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the ABSs
installed in new commercial motor vehicles meet the applicable
requirements. The FHWA acknowledges that individual ABS components are
not required to be marked or labeled by the manufacturer. However,
there is no readily apparent reason why the ECU, sensors, modulator
valves, tone rings and connectors would need certification markings in
order for motor carriers to determine the appropriate replacement
components for the ABSs. Motor carriers need only know that a specific
component in the ABS needs to be replaced, locate the appropriate
replacement part and ensure that it is properly installed in accordance
with the vehicle or ABS manufacturer's recommendations. Generally, this
will ensure that the ABS continues to perform as required.
With regard to the assertion that the regulatory language would
prevent carriers from upgrading their ABSs in the future, the ATA has
misinterpreted the proposed ABS requirements, as well as the current
FMCSRs. The agency does not prohibit motor carriers from modifying
their vehicles to meet the latest Federal safety standards. Motor
carriers must, at a minimum, ensure that their vehicles meet the cross-
referenced FMVSSs in effect at the time the commercial motor vehicle
was manufactured, but may modify their vehicles to meet any subsequent
version of the applicable safety standards.
Motor carriers who want to go beyond routine inspection, repair and
maintenance tasks and attempt major upgrades of the ABSs on their
commercial motor vehicles, are responsible for ensuring that the
modified brake systems meet the
[[Page 24461]]
minimum performance requirements specified by the NHTSA. However, this
does not mean that motor carriers cannot exceed those requirements or
that they must conduct testing. Carriers may rely on installation
instructions and other information from the ABS manufacturer to
determine whether the upgraded ABS meets the NHTSA's performance
requirements.
The argument by the ATA that motor carriers would be required to
understand, in whole or in part, the test procedures that manufacturers
are required to follow, or conduct testing in order to ensure
compliance with the cross-referenced standards, is without basis. For
more than 25 years, the FMCSRs have included cross-references to the
FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, with an apparently clear understanding by the
vast majority of the regulated industry that motor carriers are not
required to conduct certification testing. Although motor carriers and
vehicle manufacturers have requested interpretations on numerous
aspects of part 393 of the FMCSRs, the cross-references to the FMVSSs
do not appear to have raised a discernible level of confusion or
concern. Therefore, the FHWA has retained the cross-references to FMVSS
Nos. 105 and 121.
Flexibility to Disconnect ABSs if Manufacturing or Design Defects are
Suspected
The ATA expressed concerns that ABSs may fail in ways that could
adversely impact the service brake system on commercial motor vehicles.
The ATA believes the FHWA should allow carriers to disconnect ABSs if
defects are suspected. The ATA stated:
The agency implies that consumers need not worry about ABS
failing unsafe. Based on NHTSA's FMVSS 121 demonstration work
(previously referenced) this problem does, however, remain a serious
concern.
In our comments to the FHWA Notice of Intent in this docket, we
raised the issue of carriers being able to disconnect ABSs if,
``because of existing circumstances, doing so is the safest
policy.'' This Notice attempts to discount this concern on the basis
that NHTSA will correct any serious failures through a safety-defect
related recall and that ``* * *, there is no documentation of an ABS
defect or malfunction contributing to an accident as the ATA
suggests may occur in the future.''
A major and growing concern that carriers have with government is
that it is not structured to react as fast as necessary given the ever
increasing rate at which technology continues to change. While a
suspect bolt in a system can be checked in a laboratory rather quickly,
and a consensus on the results of that test rapidly formed, an unwanted
transient system response, caused by a flaw in a microchip, is much
harder to positively identify and diagnose. There is no way that NHTSA
can respond with a safety recall program fast enough to assure a faulty
ABS controller or modulator component does not lead to several
accidents.
Past experience with many truck systems, including ABS, has taught
motor carriers that certain product designs occasionally incorporate
critical components that fail and that such failure will repeat across
the fleet. This is not like a person with one automobile where the
situation can be quickly assessed, the driver made aware of the problem
and a repair made at the owner's convenience.
A fleet of hundreds or thousands of vehicles in many locations
requires time to find the involved equipment and make the required
repairs before the adverse effects of a defect can be mitigated. In the
meantime, the fleet must be operated as safely as possible. This can
call for quick temporary measures, to assure no further accidents
happen, while solutions are developed, procedures and/or parts made
available, and corrections made. What has been proposed in this docket
should not be allowed to become a regulation which keeps fleets from
quickly taking the most prudent course of safe action in dealing with a
product defect.
While FHWA/OMC (Office of Motor Carriers) contends that no
accidents caused by an ABS which did not fail-safe are yet documented,
the fact is that a latent failure can exist in an ABS which will not
surface until the systems have been in use for a number of years, in
many different applications. For example, the situation that developed
after air bags were in widespread use, i.e., injuring, sometimes
fatally, young children and old people, is now being addressed.
A review of NHTSA's defect files will illustrate this point. We
cite the heavy truck steering gear box failure which occurred several
years ago that caused a major disruption in fleet operations. The
manufacturer of the gear assembly asked owners of trucks all over the
country to immediately stop their trucks until they could positively
identify the problem and replace suspect gear boxes. This manufacturer-
generated recall cost the industry many millions of dollars in vehicle
downtime. If a defect surfaces in an ABS component which can cause it
to malfunction in an unsafe way, e.g., unintentional release of the
brakes, the involved vehicles should not be stopped until the problem
is identified and corrected, when a simple ABS disconnect will allow
them to operate safely.
Users of ABS not only have to be concerned about mechanical
failures, like the one that occurred with the gear box, but, also with
electrical failures and faulty algorithms programmed in the ECU, which,
under certain circumstances, make a vehicle less safe. A prime example
of this is the reduction in stopping capability caused when ABS
equipped vehicles operate on unpaved roads. This discovery caused the
logging truck tested in Canada to be equipped with a switch to disable
the ABS when the truck was operated off of the paved highway (Forest
Engineering Research Institute of Canada's report SR-97 (TP 11815E)
entitled Evaluation of an Antilock Braking System and Automatic Slip
Regulation on a Log-Hauling Truck).
The FHWA disagrees with the ATA's arguments and has not adopted
regulatory language that would allow motor carriers to disconnect ABSs.
Based upon the information presented in the NHTSA's research reports,
and the preamble to the NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule concerning
ABSs, the FHWA does not foresee the development of problems such as
those anticipated by the ATA.
In the event an ABS or vehicle manufacturer, or the NHTSA
determines that there is a safety-related defect, the manufacturers are
responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and
remedying the problem free of charge (49 CFR part 577, Defect and
Noncompliance Notification). If a manufacturer or the NHTSA indicates
there is an ABS defect of the severity alluded to by the ATA, the FHWA
would immediately notify all Federal officials responsible for
enforcing the FMCSRs and State officials responsible for enforcing
compatible State regulations to ensure that carriers are not unfairly
penalized for inoperable ABSs. However, in the absence of notification
from a vehicle or ABS manufacturer or the NHTSA, the FHWA does not
intend to allow motor carriers to disconnect the ABSs.
The preamble to NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule included a
response to the ATA's concerns about alleged safety problems with
current-generation ABSs. The NHTSA indicated that during the two-year
evaluation of 200 ABS-equipped truck tractors, a total of 421 incidents
were recorded involving in-service wear related ABS malfunctions. The
vast majority (99.8 percent) of these malfunctions were benign. When
the ABSs became inoperative, the vehicle reverted to a normally-braked
vehicle
[[Page 24462]]
without ABS protection and remained fully operational until the
malfunction was remedied. Similarly, during the two-year evaluation of
50 ABS-equipped semi-trailers, 44 such incidents were noted. All (100
percent) were benign.
The NHTSA indicated that only two ABS malfunction incidents
occurred during the tractor fleet study that resulted in the vehicle
having reduced braking performance. The first incident involved a
manufacturing defect with the surface coating of a piston slide valve
in the modulator section of a drive-axle-only ABS and only affected one
truck-tractor. When the ABS manufacturer found the cause of this
failure, a design change was made to rectify the problem and all the
other test units in the fleet study were retrofitted with the improved
components.
The second incident was discussed in the research report concerning
the evaluation of trailer ABSs and involved a leaking relay valve. The
motor carrier experienced periodic problems with leaking relay valves
which were part of the ABS relay valve/modulator assemblies on their
ABS-equipped tractors. The ABS modulator valves and relay valves were
combined into one unit which serves the left and right brake chambers
of the steer or drive axles on the tractor. In one of these cases, the
supply air was found to be leaking to the relay valve exhaust port, a
problem that had reportedly occurred on several previous occasions. The
leaking valves were returned to the ABS manufacturer to determine the
cause of this malfunction.
The ABS manufacturer disassembled the valves and determined that
rust and oil sludge in the tractors' air systems were causing the relay
valve's intake and exhaust seats to not seal properly, resulting in the
air leakage. Therefore the problem was related to improper maintenance
by the motor carrier and not the design, manufacture or installation of
the ABS.
In responding to the ATA's descriptions of ABS problems experienced
by motor carriers that were not involved in the NHTSA fleet study, the
NHTSA stated:
Contrary to ATA's allegations that existing ABSs have
significant safety problems, most commenters, including vehicle and
brake manufacturers, appear to agree with NHTSA's assessment that
current generation ABSs are safe and reliable. Unlike the 1970's
when several vehicle and brake manufacturers objected to the
rulemaking, and ATA, TEBDA (Truck Equipment and Body Distributors
Association), and PACCAR challenged the antilock standard in court,
comments to the September 1993 NPRM indicate that vehicle and brake
manufacturers now generally believe that the proposal was
appropriate and today's antilock systems provide significant safety
benefits. (60 FR 13216, 13242, March 10, 1995)
The NHTSA indicated that neither the vehicle nor brake manufacturers
expressed concern that today's ABSs would fail in such a way as to
compromise basic braking performance, as ATA alleges.
Although the ATA argues that the NHTSA cannot respond fast enough
with a safety recall to assure a faulty ABS does not lead to accidents,
the FHWA notes that vehicle and ABS manufacturers are responsible for
notifying vehicle owners if there is a defect which relates to motor
vehicle safety, or the product fails to conform to applicable Federal
safety standards. If the manufacturer is aware of a defect relating to
motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer must take action. The NHTSA has
the authority (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(b)) to order a manufacturer
to provide notification of a defect or noncompliance in the event a
manufacturer disputes complaints about the existence of a safety-
related defect or noncompliance.
The FHWA believes the ATA has overlooked manufacturers'
responsibilities and focused on the amount of time it would take the
NHTSA to force a manufacturer to take action. The FHWA does not intend
to penalize motor carriers for inoperative ABSs when there is an
acknowledged dispute between manufacturers and the NHTSA. The FHWA
would notify enforcement officials about potential ABS problems
irrespective of whether there was a NHTSA-ordered notification to
ensure that motor carriers are not unfairly penalized. The FHWA's
actions would not have any bearing on the NHTSA's procedures concerning
defect and noncompliance notification, but would serve only as an
advisory to enforcement officials that there could be a defect or
noncompliance in certain ABSs and that motor carriers operating the
vehicles in question should not be cited for the specific defect or
noncompliance while the matter was being resolved by the NHTSA.
With regard to the ATA's reference to the NHTSA's handling of the
air bag issue, the FHWA considers the comment inappropriate in the
context of this rulemaking. The ATA has provided no information to
support its comparison between the NHTSA's air bag and antilock brake
system rulemakings. The FHWA has carefully reviewed all of the NHTSA's
rulemaking notices and research reports relevant to ABSs and supports
the NHTSA's decision to require that commercial motor vehicles be
equipped with ABSs. Therefore, the FHWA is requiring motor carriers to
maintain the ABSs.
ABS Malfunction Signals
The ATA believes the FHWA should establish performance-based
requirements for ABS malfunction indicators, rather than use what the
ATA considers to be design-restrictive standards specified by the
NHTSA. The ATA stated:
By referencing ``electrical circuit'' in the sections of the
regulation applying to ABS malfunction signals, the agency is
unnecessarily limiting the options of future designers. The final
regulation should be performance, not design oriented.
A major concern that commercial vehicle users have about FMVSS
121 is that it contains sections which are design rather than
performance requirements. These sections contain design requirements
because of the difficulty in writing performance standards. Specific
design requirements can discourage the development of more effective
designs. When FHWA/OMC (Office of Motor Carriers) incorporates
design requirements into its regulations, then more effective
components/systems cannot even be installed on used vehicles. And,
if FMVSS 121 is changed to permit them, they still can't be used on
older vehicles because they have to comply with FMVSS 121 as it was
when the vehicle was built.
An implicit assumption evidently made in all portions of the
proposal dealing with malfunction signals is that they need to be
transmitted through wires. While this is true today, some of the
advanced concept ABSs and EBSs (electronically-controlled braking
systems), which we have been privileged to see, use other
technology. Fiber optics, infra-red, and radio frequency
technologies can all be used to transmit malfunction signals and
there is good reason to believe that, in the future, they will be.
The proposed regulation needs to be changed to embrace such
technology by deleting references to ``circuits'' and ``electrical
circuit'' and refer instead to the generic ``system.'' This will
make the proposal performance oriented, still require working
malfunction systems, and preclude the need for modifications to the
regulation to accommodate new technology.
Also, because the proposed FMCSR incorporates NHTSA requirements
for malfunction lamps, the proposed (Section 393.55(d)) contains
requirements for ABS malfunction lamps on combination vehicles which
are unnecessarily difficult for commercial vehicle users to
understand and do not appear to comply with FHWA's zero-based
rulemaking objectives.
The FHWA disagrees with the ATA's arguments against the use of the
terms ``malfunction circuit'' and ``electrical circuit'' in the
proposed ABS requirements. The FHWA believes the ATA has mistakenly
associated the requirements for ABSs to be capable of detecting certain
malfunctions and
[[Page 24463]]
transmitting the information to the driver, with the methods for
transmitting the signals.
The NHTSA requires that each truck tractor manufactured on or after
March 1, 1997, and each single-unit vehicle manufactured on or after
March 1, 1998, be equipped with an electrical circuit that is capable
of signaling a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission
of response or control signals in the vehicle's ABSs. Each of these
vehicles is also required to have an indicator lamp, mounted in front
of, and in clear view of, the driver. The indicator lamp is activated
whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation or
transmission of the response or control signals in an ABS. The
indicator lamp must remain activated as long as the malfunction exists,
whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the ``on'' (run) position,
irrespective of whether the engine is running. Each message about the
existence of a malfunction in an ABS must be stored after the ignition
switch is turned to the ``off'' position and automatically reactivated
when the ignition switch is turned to the ``on'' position. The
indicator lamps also must be activated as a check of lamp function
whenever the ignition is turned to the ``on'' or ``run'' position. The
indicator lamp must be deactivated at the end of the check of lamp
function, unless there is a malfunction or a message about a pre-
existing malfunction. (49 CFR 571.121, paragraph S5.1.6.2(a))
Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, and each
single-unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, that is
equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle must be equipped with an
electrical circuit that is capable of transmitting a malfunction signal
from the antilock brake system(s) on one or more towed vehicle(s)
(e.g., trailer(s) and converter dolly(ies)) to the trailer ABS
malfunction lamp in the cab of the towing vehicle, and must have a
means for connecting the electrical circuit to the towed vehicle. Each
truck tractor and single-unit vehicle must also be equipped with an
indicator lamp (separate from the indicator lamp used to alert the
driver of malfunctions in the truck tractor or single unit vehicle's
ABS) mounted in front of, and in clear view of, the driver, which is
activated whenever the malfunction signal circuit in the towing vehicle
receives a signal indicating an ABS malfunction on one or more towed
vehicle(s). The indicator lamp must remain activated as long as an ABS
malfunction signal from one or more towed vehicle(s) is present,
whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the ``on'' (``run'')
position, irrespective of whether the engine is running. The indicator
lamp must also be activated as a check of lamp function whenever the
ignition is turned to the ``on'' (``run'') position. The indicator lamp
shall be deactivated at the end of the check of lamp function unless a
trailer ABS malfunction signal is present. (49 CFR 571.121, paragraph
S5.1.6.2(b))
Section 571.121, paragraphs S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 provide
requirements for ABS malfunction signals and indicators on trailers,
respectively.
The FHWA believes the NHTSA requirements provide functional
specifications for malfunction circuits and indicators, but do not
limit manufacturers to the use of wires for transmitting signals
between circuits or components. The FHWA has discussed the ABS
requirements with the NHTSA and confirmed that the regulations do not
prohibit the use of fiber optics, infra-red or radio-frequency
technologies for the transmission of signals. The FHWA notes that with
all of these alternative means of transmitting signals, electrical
circuits are needed to generate and receive the signals. Therefore, the
agency believes the use of the terms ``malfunction circuit'' and
``electrical circuit'' is appropriate and is retaining those terms in
the regulatory language.
Radio-Frequency Interference (RFI)
The Texas DOT discussed problems with ABSs installed on some of its
vehicles. The State believes the operational problems were caused by
radio-frequency interference. Radio-frequency interference (RFI) is
electrical interference from sources of energy outside a system(s), in
contrast to electromagnetic interference generated inside systems. The
Texas DOT stated:
TxDOT's interests lie with the current state of technology in
ABS systems, and potential problems involving this technology with
regards to radio frequency interference (RFI).
While we support the installation of ABS brakes, we believe that
FHWA should take into account potential problems with this emerging
technology. We have experienced sporadic RFI problems affecting the
ABS systems on our light duty equipment fleet, thus our reason for
concern on the larger and more complex equipment.
Most carriers, like TxDOT, may have high power (100
watt) commercial two-way radios onboard their vehicles. TxDOT has
shown over the last several years that the complex, heavily
computerized environment which exists in modern vehicles is not
conducive to such near-field radio frequency (RF) emissions. Radio
transmissions can and do cause onboard system failures. Additional
shielding and equipment design changes have been required in order
for all systems to co-exist synergistically. TxDOT is currently
working closely with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in
promoting new standards for RFI protection in these areas.
The FHWA has reviewed the preamble to NHTSA's final rule on ABSs
and the NHTSA's research reports (referenced previously in this
document and available in the docket) on the in-service evaluation of
ABSs. The preamble and the research reports suggest RFI problems are
the exception and not the rule for current-generation ABSs. The
preamble states:
In the 1970s, there were several highly publicized incidents in
which radio frequency interference (RFI) problems caused the ABS to
cycle continuously during a brake application, thereby greatly
diminishing braking power by venting brake system air pressure. The
agency notes that manufacturers have completely eliminated the
potential for RFI problems since current generation ABSs have been
designed with shielded wiring systems and more sophisticated
electronics that are better able to recognize spurious signals. No
RFI problems have been reported with current-generation ABSs. (60 FR
13216, 13243, March 10, 1995)
The FHWA notes that the Texas DOT did not provide details on the
year, make, and model of the vehicles in question or identify the
manufacturer of the ABSs. In addition, the State did not indicate
whether the RFI problems were reported to the NHTSA for appropriate
action.
The FHWA considers the problems described by the Texas DOT to be
serious, but emphasizes that the purpose of this rulemaking is to
require motor carriers to maintain the ABSs on commercial motor
vehicles subject to the NHTSA's requirements. The NHTSA, through
notice-and-comment rulemaking, has provided all interested parties with
the opportunity to discuss alleged safety problems with ABSs. The
preamble to the NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule includes an
extensive discussion of alleged safety problems with ABSs and the
NHTSA's responses. The FHWA does not believe this rulemaking is the
proper forum for debating such issues and has forwarded the Texas DOT's
comments to the NHTSA.
Discussion of the Final Rule
Section 393.55
The FHWA is amending the FMCSRs by adding a new Sec. 393.55,
Antilock brake systems. This section is being added to subpart C,
Brakes, of part 393. The provisions of paragraph (a) require that
hydraulic braked trucks and buses manufactured on or after March 1,
1999, be equipped with an ABS that meets the requirements of FMVSS No.
105.
[[Page 24464]]
Paragraph (b) requires indicator lamps on hydraulic-braked vehicles to
alert the driver of ABS malfunctions. Paragraph (c) requires that each
air-braked truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, be
equipped with an ABS that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 121.
Paragraph (c) also covers air braked trucks, buses, trailers, and
converter dollies manufactured on or after March 1, 1998. The
requirement for ABS malfunction indicators on air braked vehicles is
covered under paragraph (d). Paragraph (e) covers the requirement for
the external indicator lamp on trailers and converter dollies
manufactured between March 1, 1998, and March 1, 2009.
Applicability to Canadian and Mexican Vehicles
As discussed previously, the final rule is applicable to CMVs
operated in the United States by Canada-and Mexico-based motor
carriers. Although the Federal governments of Canada and Mexico have
not indicated whether they intend to require ABSs for CMVs operating in
their countries, the FHWA believes that it is appropriate to require
ABS on foreign-based vehicles manufactured on or after the effective
dates of the NHTSA requirements if those vehicles are operated within
the United States.
Driveaway-Towaway Operations Exemption
The FHWA has revised the language for the final rule to include an
exemption for commercial motor vehicles engaged in driveaway-towaway
operations (as defined in Sec. 390.5). This action was taken in
response to recent telephone calls from vehicle manufacturers and
letters from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and the
Canadian Transportation Equipment Association (CTEA). The TTMA and the
CTEA asked whether the ABS requirements would be applicable to vehicles
built in the United States and exported to Canada or other countries.
The TTMA also asked about the applicability of the ABS requirements to
vehicles manufactured for the military. The FHWA has advised vehicle
manufacturers, the TTMA and the CTEA that it would consider these
issues in developing the final rule. Copies of the TTMA and the CTEA's
letters are in the docket along with the FHWA's responses.
The FHWA believes that an exemption is appropriate for vehicles
that are manufactured exclusively for use outside of the United States.
Although these vehicles are operated on public roads in the United
States when they are being transported from the point of manufacture to
the Canadian or Mexican border, or to railroad or shipping yards for
subsequent movement to foreign destinations, the economic burden
associated with requiring these vehicles to be equipped with ABSs for
the one-way trip out of the United States would certainly exceed the
potential benefits.
The driveaway-towaway exemption would also be applicable to
vehicles being delivered to the Armed Forces of the United States.
Therefore, motor carriers delivering new vehicles from manufacturers to
the military cannot be penalized if the military purchases vehicles
without ABSs. Vehicles operated by the military are exempt from the
FMCSRs under Sec. 390.3(f)(2).
The FHWA notes that the driveaway-towaway exemption provided in
Sec. 393.55 is consistent with exceptions provided by the NHTSA.
Section 571.7(c) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards provides
an exception for vehicles and items of equipment manufactured for, and
sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity
with contractual specifications. Section 571.7(d), through a cross-
reference to the United States Code, indicates the FMVSSs do not apply
to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment intended only for export,
labeled for export on the vehicle or equipment and on the outside of
any container of the vehicle or equipment, and exported (49 U.S.C.
30112(b)(2)). The FHWA believes that it is important to ensure, to the
greatest extent practicable, consistency between the FMVSSs and the
FMCSRs.
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. No
serious inconsistency or interference with another agency's actions or
plans is likely to result, and it is unlikely that this regulatory
action would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. The FHWA's regulation only requires maintenance of ABSs; the
NHTSA final rule published on March 10, 1995, is the regulation which
actually requires installation of ABSs. The data collected by NHTSA
indicates that the level of maintenance required to keep an ABS
functional would only increase incrementally and would not be
unreasonable relative to the safety benefits that would result from the
use of these systems. Therefore, it is anticipated that the economic
impact of this rule will be minimal.
The preamble to NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule included
estimates of the increased costs of operating heavy vehicles equipped
with ABS. Three categories of operating costs were examined: lifetime
maintenance costs; lifetime fuel costs due to the additional weight of
the ABSs; and lifetime revenue loss due to payload displacement. The
range of the increase in total lifetime operating costs related to
equipping vehicles with ABS is from $201 for single-unit trucks and
buses to $787 for truck tractors. The increase in total lifetime
operating costs for trailers equipped to tow other trailers (i.e., used
in multi-trailer combinations) is $524 while the increase in operating
costs for non-towing trailers is $360. The increase in operating costs
for trailer converter dollies is $687. The NHTSA indicated that the
total estimated increase in lifetime vehicle operating costs associated
with ABSs for all commercial motor vehicles will be $232 million per
year when the majority of these vehicles are equipped with ABSs. A copy
of the NHTSA's final economic assessment is included in the docket.
In addition, the FHWA has determined that this action is not a
significant regulatory action under the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures because it does not concern a matter
about which there is substantial public controversy, it will not have a
substantial effect on State and local governments, or initiate a
substantial regulatory program or change in policy.
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
and has determined that it will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA finds that this
rule will not significantly increase costs for motor carriers because
FHWA regulations only require maintenance of brake systems and the data
collected by the NHTSA shows that the presence of an ABS on a vehicle
would not substantially increase maintenance costs (less than one
percent for tractors and less than two percent for trailers) or
decrease vehicle operational availability. The range of the increase in
total lifetime operating costs related to having ABSs on a commercial
motor vehicle (e.g., lifetime maintenance costs; lifetime fuel costs
due to the additional weight of the ABSs; and lifetime revenue loss due
to
[[Page 24465]]
payload displacement) is from $201 for single-unit trucks and buses to
$787 for truck tractors. The increase in total lifetime operating costs
for trailers equipped to tow other trailers (i.e., used in multi-
trailer combinations) is $524 while the increase in operating costs for
non-towing trailers is $360. The increase in operating costs for
trailer converter dollies is $687.
For a small entity operating a newly purchased truck tractor and
semitrailer, the increase in total lifetime operating costs for each of
the vehicles would be spread over the useful service-life of the
vehicle. If, for example, the useful service-life for the truck tractor
is seven years, and the useful service-life for the semitrailer is 14
years, the small entity would expect to spend $787 during the useful
service-life of the truck tractor and $360 during the useful service-
life of the semitrailer. The small enitity would spend an additional
$787 in increased total lifetime operating costs during the service-
life of the replacement truck tractor. This would result in
approximately $1,934 in increased total lifetime operating costs during
a 14-year period in which the small entity purchases two new truck
tractors and one semitrailer.
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 rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. These new safety
requirements do not directly preempt any State law or regulation, and
no additional costs or burdens would be imposed on the States as a
result of this action. Furthermore, the State's ability to discharge
traditional State governmental functions will not be affected by this
rulemaking.
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 do not apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501-3520.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates on State, local, or
tribal governments as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532-1538).
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 contained 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
Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety.
Issued on: April 17, 1998.
Gloria J. Jeff,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, as follows:
PART 393--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues 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. Section 393.5 is amended by adding the definition of antilock
brake system, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 393.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Antilock Brake System or ABS means a portion of a service brake
system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip
during braking by:
(1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels;
(2) Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular
rotation to one or more controlling devices which interpret those
signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and
(3) Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more
modulators which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those
signals.
* * * * *
3. In subpart C, Sec. 393.55 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 393.55 Antilock brake systems.
(a) Hydraulic brake systems. Each truck and bus manufactured on or
after March 1, 1999 (except trucks and buses engaged in driveaway-
towaway operations), and equipped with a hydraulic brake system, shall
be equipped with an antilock brake system that meets the requirements
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105 (49 CFR
571.105, S5.5).
(b) ABS malfunction indicators for hydraulic braked vehicles. Each
hydraulic braked vehicle subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section shall be equipped with an ABS malfunction indicator
system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 (49 CFR 571.105,
S5.3).
(c) Air brake systems. (1) Each truck tractor manufactured on or
after March 1, 1997 (except truck tractors engaged in driveaway-towaway
operations), shall be equipped with an antilock brake system that meets
the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.1(b)).
(2) Each air braked commercial motor vehicle other than a truck
tractor, manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 (except commercial
motor vehicles engaged in driveaway-towaway operations), shall be
equipped with an antilock brake system that meets the requirements of
FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.1(a) for trucks and buses, S5.2.3
for semitrailers, converter dollies and full trailers).
(d) ABS malfunction circuits and signals for air braked vehicles.
(1) Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, and each
single-unit air braked vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998,
subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, shall be
equipped with an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a
malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of response or
control signals to the vehicle's antilock brake system (49 CFR 571.121,
S5.1.6.2(a)).
(2) Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, and
each single-unit vehicle that is equipped to tow another air-braked
vehicle, subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section,
shall be equipped with an electrical circuit that is capable of
transmitting a malfunction signal from the antilock brake system(s) on
the towed vehicle(s) to the trailer ABS malfunction lamp in the cab of
the
[[Page 24466]]
towing vehicle, and shall have the means for connection of the
electrical circuit to the towed vehicle. The ABS malfunction circuit
and signal shall meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR
571.121, S5.1.6.2(b)).
(3) Each semitrailer, trailer converter dolly, and full trailer
manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, and subject to the requirements
of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, shall be equipped with an
electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a malfunction in the
trailer's antilock brake system, and shall have the means for
connection of this ABS malfunction circuit to the towing vehicle. In
addition, each trailer manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, subject
to the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, that is
designed to tow another air-brake equipped trailer shall be capable of
transmitting a malfunction signal from the antilock brake system(s) of
the trailer(s) it tows to the vehicle in front of the trailer. The ABS
malfunction circuit and signal shall meet the requirements of FMVSS No.
121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.2.3.2).
(e) Exterior ABS malfunction indicator lamps for trailers. Each
trailer (including a trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after
March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2009, and subject to the requirements
of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, shall be equipped with an ABS
malfunction indicator lamp which meets the requirements of FMVSS No.
121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.2.3.3).
[FR Doc. 98-11775 Filed 5-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.