Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3387]

RIN 2127-AF96

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of

Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking

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

ACTION: Final rule; petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of

final rules that amended Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to

require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake

system (ABS). In response to the petitions, this document permits

hydraulically-braked vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)

greater than 10,000 pounds but less than 19,501 pounds to be equipped

with a single wheel speed sensor in the driveline to control wheel

[[Page 12661]]

slip at the drive axle and permits rear tag axles to lock up.

Additionally, this document allows motor homes with a GVWR of 22,500

pounds or less to use a single rear drive axle wheel speed sensor if

they are manufactured before March 1, 2001, after which date new motor

homes must meet the same ABS requirements as other hydraulically-braked

trucks and buses.

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments to 49 CFR 571.105 are effective

March 1, 1999. Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petition for

reconsideration of this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than

April 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this rule should refer to

the above referenced docket numbers and should be submitted to:

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Samuel Daniel, Jr., Office of

Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590;

Telephone (202) 366-4921, Fax (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Petitions for Reconsideration of the December 1995 Final Rule

III. NHTSA's Response to Petitions for Reconsideration Related to

Standard No. 105

A. Control of Rear Wheel Slip

B. Application of ABS to Non-Powered, Rear Tag Axles

C. ABS Malfunction Lamp Activation Protocol

I. Background

Section 4012 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1991 1 directed

the Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking concerning

methods for improving the braking performance of new commercial motor

vehicles, including trucks, tractors, trailers, and dollies. Congress

specifically directed that such a rulemaking examine antilock systems,

means of improving brake compatibility, and methods of ensuring

effectiveness of brake timing. The Act required that the rulemaking be

consistent with the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 31136)

and be carried out pursuant to, and in accordance with the National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.2

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

\1\ The Motor Carrier Act is part of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, Pub. L. 102-240.

\2\ Now codified as 49 U.S.C 30101 et seq. (Safety Act)

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

On March 10, 1995, NHTSA issued final rules requiring medium and

heavy vehicles 3 to be equipped with an antilock brake

system (ABS) to improve their directional stability and control during

braking. (60 FR 13216, 60 FR 13297) These final rules also reinstated

stopping distance requirements for air-braked heavy vehicles and

established stopping distance requirements for hydraulically-braked

heavy vehicles. In addition to the ABS requirement, the March 1995

final rule specified requirements about the electrical powering of

trailer ABS and ABS malfunction indicators. In response to petitions

for reconsideration of these requirements, NHTSA published a final rule

that affirmed its decision to require these features. (60 FR 63965,

December 13, 1995).

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

\3\ The document uses the term heavy vehicles to refer to medium

and heavy vehicles.

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

II. Petitions for Reconsideration of the December 1995 Final Rule

NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the December 1995

amendments to the final rule from the American Trucking Associations

(ATA), which represents trucking fleets, the National Private Truck

Council (NPTC), which represents private trucking fleets, the Truck

Manufacturers Association (TMA) 4, which represents truck

manufacturers, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA),

which represents trailer manufacturers, the Heavy Duty Brake

Manufacturers Council (HDBMC) 5, which represents heavy duty

brake component manufacturers, Midland-Grau, Kelsey-Hayes, Rockwell

WABCO, Vehicle Enhancement Systems (VES), AlliedSignal, General Motors

(GM), Ford, and the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA).

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

\4\ TMA member companies include Ford, Freightliner, General

Motors, Mack Trucks, Navistar International, PACCAR, and Volvo GM

Heavy Truck.

\5\ HDBMC member companies include Abex, AlliedSignal, Eaton,

Midland-Grau, Ferodo America, Haldex, Lucas, MGM Brakes, Motion

Control/Carlisle, Rockwell, Rockwell WABCO, and Spicer/Dana.

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

Most of the petitions focused on issues associated with Standard

No. 121's requirements on the electrical powering of trailer ABS and

the in-cab display of trailer ABS malfunctions. Those issues were

addressed in a final rule published on February 15, 1996. (61 FR 5949)

Petitions submitted by Ford, GM, Kelsey-Hayes, and RVIA addressed

issues associated with Standard No. 105, including the control of rear

wheel slip, the application of ABS to non-powered rear tag axles, and

the ABS malfunction lamp protocol. The February 1996 final rule stated

that it was deferring a response to these petitions because they

addressed issues associated with Standard No. 105. Today's notice

addresses the concerns raised by those petitioners.

III. NHTSA's Response to Petitions for Reconsideration Related to

Standard No. 105

A. Control of Rear Wheel Slip

In the March 1995 final rule, NHTSA required that each

hydraulically-braked vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds be

``equipped with an antilock brake system that directly controls the

wheels of at least one front axle and the wheels of at least one rear

axle of the vehicle.''

In the December 1995 final rule that responded to petitions for

reconsideration from Chrysler, Kelsey-Hayes, and the American

Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), NHTSA amended Section

S5.5.1 by adding the following provision: ``On each vehicle with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 pounds but not greater than 12,000 pounds, the

antilock brake system may also directly control the wheels of the drive

axle by means of a single sensor in the driveline.'' Chrysler stated

that all its pickup trucks in the 10,000-12,000 pound GVWR class had

successfully used the driveline wheel speed sensor arrangement.

Notwithstanding NHTSA's decision to allow this sensing arrangement on

hydraulically-braked trucks up to 12,000 pounds, the agency emphasized

that such an arrangement would not be appropriate for heavier air-

braked trucks, because greater braking efficiency is typically required

at the rear wheels of such air-braked vehicles than on medium vehicles.

This is because air-braked vehicles typically are heavier and have

greater load carrying capacity.

In response to the December 1995 final rule, GM, Ford, and Kelsey-

Hayes asked NHTSA to revise section S5.5.1 of Standard No. 105. Ford

first requested that the 12,000-pound limit allowing driveline wheel

speed sensors be raised to 17,500 pounds and then to 20,500 pounds.

Kelsey-Hayes requested a 17,500-pound limit for driveline sensors. GM

requested a 16,500-pound limit; that company also cited the April 1995

AAMA petition for reconsideration requesting that the agency either

exempt all hydraulically-braked vehicles from the requirement for two

independent rear wheel sensors, or exempt all hydraulically-braked

vehicles under

[[Page 12662]]

16,500 pounds GVWR from the ABS mandate.

Each petitioner stated that the 12,000-pound limit for allowing

driveline sensors was not high enough to include their medium trucks

that have the same type of driveline sensor as Chrysler's sensor. Ford

stated that its F-Series chassis, including the F-350, the E-350, and

the E-Super duty vehicles have GVWRs up to 11,000, 12,500, and 14,050

pounds, respectively. GM stated that its GMC Sierra 3500 HD chassis cab

and the Chevrolet 3500 HD chassis cab can be configured to GVWRs up to

15,000 pounds, while its P-30 forward control chassis will soon be

available up to 16,500 pounds GVWR. Kelsey-Hayes stated that it has

supplied a single driveline sensor to GM since 1992 for use on trucks

with GVWRs up to 17,500 pounds.

In June 1996, GM and Ford 6 supplemented their January

1996 petitions for reconsideration, with additional information about

driveline sensors. They asked that the upper GVWR limit be eliminated

completely and that all ABS-equipped hydraulically-braked vehicles,

regardless of GVWR, be allowed to have a single sensor in the driveline

to control wheel slip at both rear wheels. In support of their

position, GM and Ford tested a light duty truck that was configured and

equipped to have a 20,500 pound GVWR. The truck was fitted with a

three-sensor, three-modulator (3S/3M) ABS that uses a single driveline

rear wheel speed sensor. The vehicle was lightly loaded to 8838 pounds

(the worst case condition) and subjected to a 30-mph brake-in-a-curve

test similar to, but more stringent than Standard No. 121's brake-in-a-

curve test for air-braked truck tractors. The petitioner's testing was

more stringent given that it was conducted on a curve with a lower

radius of curvature ( a 420-foot radius curve rather than a 500-foot

one), and on a slippier road surface (a surface with a 0.39 peak

friction coefficient (PFC) rather than a 0.50 PFC one). The testing

indicated that the single driveline sensor provided an acceptable

reading of the individual rear wheel speeds, resulting in the vehicle

remaining stable and within the lane throughout the test.

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

\6\ Kelsey-Hayes and RVIA have stated their concurrence with

this position.

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

NHTSA agrees with the petitioners that these test results

demonstrate that a 3S ABS with a single rear driveline sensor provides

satisfactory safety performance for medium duty hydraulically-braked

vehicles. The agency has added the term ``rear'' to the sentence in

S5.5.1 addressing ABS requirements to assure that a single drive axle

sensor is not installed on a front driveline axle. However, the agency

is not willing to eliminate the GVWR limit since there are

hydraulically-braked trucks with a GVWR in excess of 26,000 pounds and

the petitioners provided no 3S ABS braking stability and control test

data to support the allowance of 3S ABS for these trucks. The

petitioners' test results indicate that the braking stability and

control of hydraulically-braked trucks with relatively high GVWRs, up

to 20,500 pounds, is not compromised if a manufacturer uses an ABS

control strategy that employs a single rear driveline wheel speed

sensor in lieu of a control strategy employing direct control of each

individual rear wheel.

Accordingly, this rule permits 3S ABS on hydraulically-braked

vehicles up to 19,500 pounds GVWR, a breakpoint in the existing vehicle

weight class system used by State vehicle inspectors and the trucking

industry generally. A GVWR of 19,500 pounds, the upper limit of Class

5, will avoid introducing a unique breakpoint for this 3S ABS

requirement that differs from the breakpoints used for other regulatory

requirements. The 19,500-pound GVWR limit chosen for this requirement

is also slightly less than the test weight of the vehicle used in

braking stability and control tests cited by the petitioners.

By allowing 3S ABS on hydraulically-braked vehicles up to 19,500

pounds GVWR, NHTSA has addressed almost all the concerns expressed by

the petitioners. However, the American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA) provided additional information in a letter and

videotape forwarded to the agency on July 29, 1997. The tape shows a

motor home with a GVWR of 22,500 pounds ballasted to 26,000 pounds (the

breakpoint for Class 6 vehicles) successfully completing braking-in-a-

curve testing similar to the braking stability and control testing

required in Standard No. 121 for truck tractors. This testing was

performed on dry asphalt and wet jennite by Kelsey-Hayes at its vehicle

development center. NHTSA staff followed this up by attending a

supplementary demonstration of motor home stability and control during

braking at General Motors' test track in November 1997.

The AAMA originally asked that these test results be used to permit

extending 3S ABS to all Class 6 hydraulically-braked vehicles (GVWR of

up to 26,000 pounds). However, when NHTSA asked for information about

what difficulties were posed by using the generally-required 4S ABS for

Class 6 vehicles, AAMA responded that the problems were for motor homes

only, not other Class 6 vehicles. GM provided information for its P-

chassis, which is used for 9,000 to 10,000 motor homes annually. The P-

chassis, which currently uses a 3S ABS, can be used to manufacture a

completed motor home with a 22,500-pound GVWR. GM will modify this

chassis to use a 4S ABS system, but the modifications won't be ready

for production chassis for a few years. In the meantime, GM would have

to stop offering this chassis for use by the motor home industry. Since

there are no substitute motor home chassis in this GVWR range that

offer 4S ABS, these vehicles would in effect be temporarily forced out

of the market. RVIA argued that this would be an unfair burden, because

these motor homes are produced in very limited quantities (9,000-10,000

per year) by small businesses. RVIA also argued that these vehicles are

generally driven only for vacationing and camping.

In response to these arguments and information, NHTSA believes it

is appropriate to allow motor homes with a GVWR greater than 19,500

pounds to use a 3S ABS system. To prevent the economic hardship of

forcing motor home manufacturers to discontinue production for a few

years until appropriate 4S ABS chassis are available, the agency will

allow 3S ABS motor homes for a limited period of time. However, NHTSA

has no information indicating any difficulties for vehicles other than

motor homes in the 19,500 to 26,000 pound GVWR range (Class 6 vehicles)

in meeting the 4S ABS requirements. Hence, all Class 6 vehicles other

than motor homes will be required to provide 4S ABS.

For the purposes of this 3S ABS rulemaking, NHTSA is defining the

term ``motor home'' the same way that term has been defined in Standard

No. 208. Thus, a ``motor home'' for purposes of Standard No. 105 will

mean ``a motor vehicle with motive power that is designed to provide

temporary residential accommodations, as evidenced by the presence of

at least four of the following facilities: cooking; refrigeration or

ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/or air conditioning; a

potable water supply system including a faucet and a sink; and a

separate 110-125 volt electric power supply and/or an LP gas supply.''

NHTSA believes it can accommodate the needs of motor home

manufacturers while assuring that these vehicles will transition

quickly to the same braking systems as other vehicles in their GVWR

[[Page 12663]]

range for the following reasons. First, the GM P-chassis, with a GVWR

of 22,500 pounds, is the largest hydraulically-braked motor home

chassis to use a 3S ABS. Any greater capacity motor home chassis would

be newly designed. NHTSA believes it is reasonable to require newly

designed Class 6 chassis to use a 4S ABS system. Second, the motor home

industry needs a transition period to move from 3S ABS on Class 6

vehicles to 4S ABS on those vehicles. GM, the manufacturer of the P-

chassis, has stated to NHTSA that GM will move to install 4S ABS on

this vehicle in the next few years. Given these circumstances, NHTSA

will permit motor homes with a GVWR between 19,501 pounds and 22,500

pounds to use a 3S ABS system on vehicles manufactured before March 1,

2001. This will give GM and other motor home chassis manufacturers

three years to develop and install 4S ABS, thus minimizing the burden

on both vehicle chassis and motor home manufacturers. All new motor

homes manufactured on or after March 1, 2001 with a GVWR of more than

19,500 pounds will be required to provide the 4S ABS system required on

other vehicles.

Since 3S ABS will be allowed on motor homes with a GVWR between

19,500 pounds and 22,500 pounds, it is important that the incomplete

vehicle manufacturer of a chassis equipped with 3S ABS include in the

statement of specific conditions of final manufacturer (Part

568.4(a)(7)(ii)) that only if the completed vehicle is a motor home,

will it conform to the standard. Completed vehicles in the specified

GVWR range, other than motor homes, will not conform to the standard,

if the incomplete chassis is equipped with a 3S ABS.

B. Application of ABS to Non-Powered, Rear Tag Axles

In its January 29, 1996 petition, RVIA requested that the ABS

requirement not apply to hydraulically-braked motor homes with tag

axles and GVWRs greater than 10,000 pounds. Tag axles are non-liftable,

non-powered axles that are fitted, either in front of or behind the

rear axle of the vehicle, by the second-stage vehicle manufacturer. Tag

axles improve a vehicle's balance and increase its carrying capacity.

RVIA stated that there is no way to apply antilock capability to tag

axles added to a vehicle chassis by second-stage vehicle manufacturers,

such as RVIA members. RVIA stated that less than 3000 vehicles per

model year have a tag axle. It further stated that brake and tag axle

manufacturers are reluctant to design, develop, and test ABS systems

for such a limited application.

In its June 24, 1996 supplement to its original petition, RVIA

stated that it would support a requirement for ABS on hydraulically-

braked motor homes, provided that a single driveline rear wheel speed

sensor is permitted and that the no-wheel-lockup requirement did not

apply to tag axles. With respect to tag axles, RVIA cited tests

conducted by GM and Kelsey/Hayes on a GM P-30 motor home chassis with a

GVWR of 19,500 pounds. In the tests, the vehicle was lightly loaded

(16,500 pounds), and driven at a speed of 25 mph (75 percent of the

vehicle's maximum drive-through speed) through a 500-foot radius curve

on a wetted jennite surface. The vehicle was also tested fully loaded,

on a high to low coefficient of friction transition test (asphalt to

ice). While the vehicle's tag axle (which was not controlled by ABS)

locked when brakes were applied, the vehicle's ABS modulated the brakes

and wheel speeds on the vehicle's powered drive axle and its steering

axle. The vehicle remained stable and under control throughout both

stops, despite the fact that the tag axle's wheels were locked.

The agency has received many requests for clarification of the ABS

requirements for heavy-duty, single unit vehicles with regard to the

number of axles that require ABS sensors. For heavy-duty single unit

vehicles, the standard requires ABS control on only one rear axle,

regardless of the number of rear axles and regardless of whether the

axles are installed as a tag or pusher axle by a final stage

manufacturer. To clarify this, the agency has added a definition for

the term ``tandem axle,'' which means an arrangement of axles, drive or

non-drive, in close proximity to each other. Hence, if a manufacturer

chooses to install ABS on the drive axle of a tandem but not on the

non-drive (tag or pusher) axle, the wheel lock restrictions would still

be able to be met without ABS on the tag or pusher axle. The current

wheel lock restrictions allow any two wheels on a tandem axle

(including two wheels on the tag axle) to lock-up for any duration.

Based on the foregoing, and on the test results mentioned by RVIA, the

agency has determined that it is not necessary to equip a tag axle with

ABS to comply with the wheel lock restriction requirements. The agency

notes that, even though the tag axle wheels locked when the motor

home's brakes were applied, the vehicle remained stable within the

travel lane throughout the stopping maneuvers. As RVIA stated, tag

axles that are added to these type vehicles typically do not carry a

significant portion of the vehicle's overall weight. These

considerations indicate that there are no negative stability

consequences if such axles lock-up.

C. ABS Malfunction Lamp Activation Protocol

In its January 1996 petition for reconsideration, Kelsey-Hayes

requested that NHTSA reconsider the final rule's activation protocol

requirements for ABS malfunction warning lamps. That company requested

that the malfunction warning lamp be allowed to remain activated (i.e.,

``on'' or lighted) during a low speed drive away to verify that the

vehicle's wheel speed sensors were properly functioning.

NHTSA has decided not to amend the ABS activation lamp protocol.

The agency notes that in support of its request, Kelsey-Hayes did not

provide any new data or reasoning, beyond that which was available to

the agency prior to the issuance of the March 10, 1995 final rule. At

that time, the agency noted that it had considered all the information

available on this issue, and had concluded that standardization of the

activation protocol was warranted for the following reasons. First, a

standardized protocol would enable Federal and State safety inspection

personnel to determine the operational status of ABSs without having to

move the vehicle. Second, it would preclude confusion among heavy

vehicle drivers relative to how this type of lamp functions. Third,

standardization would be consistent with ECE requirements on this

subject and would, therefore, be consistent with the goal of

international harmonization. Given that there is no new information to

reverse its previous decision, the agency has decided not to modify the

activation protocol requirements.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.

NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action and

determined that it is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the

Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. In

connection with the March 1995 final rules, the agency prepared a Final

Economic Assessment (FEA) describing the economic and other effects of

this rulemaking action. Summary discussions of those effects were

provided in the ABS final rule. For persons wishing to examine the full

analysis, a copy is in the docket.

[[Page 12664]]

The amendments in today's final rule do not make those effects any

more stringent, and in some respects, they make it easier for a

manufacturer to comply with them. Specifically, by allowing the use of

a single driveline sensor to control rear wheel speeds and allowing

wheels on tag axles to lock during testing, vehicle manufacturers will

have more flexibility to comply with the requirements of this rule and,

as a result, costs could be reduced.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the effects of both this final rule and

the original final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that it will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not

prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis.

NHTSA concluded that the March 1995 final rule had no significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, today's final

rule, which could potentially reduce costs associated with the March

1995 final rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that

implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on

the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this action under the principles and criteria in

Executive Order 12612. The agency has determined that this notice does

not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws will be affected.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber

products, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, the agency is amending Standard

No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems in Title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations at Part 571 as follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166,

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.105 is amended by adding the definitions of ``motor

home'' and ``tandem axle'' in S4 and by revising S5.5.1, to read as

follows:

Sec. 571.105 Standard No. 105; Hydraulic and electric brake systems.

* * * * *

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Motor home means a motor vehicle with motive power that is designed

to provide temporary residential accommodations, as evidenced by the

presence of at least four of the following facilities: cooking;

refrigeration or ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/or air

conditioning; a potable water supply system including a faucet and a

sink; and a separate 110-125 volt electric power supply and/or an LP

gas supply.

* * * * *

Tandem axle means a group of two or more axles placed in close

arrangement one behind the other with the center lines of adjacent

axles not more than 72 inches apart.

* * * * *

S5.5.1 Each vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, except

for any vehicle with a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 33

mph, shall be equipped with an antilock brake system that directly

controls the wheels of at least one front axle and the wheels of at

least one rear axle of the vehicle. On each vehicle with a GVWR greater

than 10,000 pounds but not greater than 19,500 pounds and motor homes

with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds but not greater than 22,500

pounds manufactured before March 1, 2001, the antilock brake system may

also directly control the wheels of the rear drive axle by means of a

single sensor in the driveline. Wheels on other axles of the vehicle

may be indirectly controlled by the antilock brake system.

* * * * *

Issued on: February 23, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98-6522 Filed 3-13-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P