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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5119; Notice 01]

RIN No. 2127-AH57

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Hydraulic and Electric

Brake Systems; Air Brake Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is considering whether to grant a petition to amend

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic and

Electric Brake Systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to

require that school buses be equipped with a parking brake warning

system that activates when the school bus engine is turned off, the

transmission is in neutral, and the parking brake has not been applied.

The petition was submitted by Schmitty and Sons School Buses, a school

bus operator that is concerned about the possibility of school bus roll

away crashes due to the driver not applying the parking brake. The

petitioner cited several instances in which this has occurred. This

request for comments notice seeks to obtain information to help the

agency determine the magnitude of the problem and the potential

effectiveness of the proposed warning system.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited

at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Management,

Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is

requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be

provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m.

must be received on or before April 30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited

at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Management,

Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is

requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be

provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Jeff Woods,

Office of Safety Performance Standards (NPS-22), NHTSA, 400 Seventh

St., SW, Washington, DC, 20590. Mr. Woods' telephone number is (202)

366-6206; facsimile (202) 366-4329.

For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Rulemaking Division, Office

of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC, 20590.

Ms. Nakama's telephone number is (202) 366-2992 and her facsimile

number is (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A petition was submitted to NHTSA on June 23, 1998, by Schmitty and

Sons School Buses, a school bus operator. The petition cited several

crashes in Minnesota involving school buses in which the parking brake

was not set and the bus rolled into another vehicle. In one instance,

it was reported that an empty school bus rolled into another school bus

that was unloading students during a practice emergency exit drill, and

as a result, several students were injured.

The petitioner believes that a warning system should be

incorporated on school buses to provide a warning buzzer and/or light

to indicate to the driver that the parking brake has not been applied

when the engine has been turned off and the transmission has been

placed in the ``neutral'' position. The petitioner contacted Blue Bird

Body Company, a school bus manufacturer, to determine if such a system

could be made available. A copy of the response letter from the

manufacturer was enclosed with the petition. Blue Bird indicated that

the warning system concept appears to have merit

ied

when the engine has been turned off and the transmission has been

placed in the ``neutral'' position. The petitioner contacted Blue Bird

Body Company, a school bus manufacturer, to determine if such a system

could be made available. A copy of the response letter from the

manufacturer was enclosed with the petition. Blue Bird indicated that

the warning system concept appears to have merit. However, the

manufacturer cited several concerns with the concept. The primary

concern was that incorporation of the warning system on some (newer)

vehicles would result in inconsistencies in the fleet, whereby some

vehicles would prompt the driver to apply the parking brake and other

vehicles would not. Blue Bird suggested that if a driver became used to

being prompted to applying the parking brake in a vehicle equipped with

the warning system, then that driver may forget to apply the parking

brake when operating a vehicle not equipped with the warning system.

Other concerns cited by Blue Bird included the proliferation of

warning devices, which could result in driver dependence and/or

confusion, issues on integrating this system with other warning devices

and systems, and the need to deactivate the system after some preset

time to prevent battery drain.

Blue Bird stated that if such a warning system were to be

implemented, then it would recommend unilaterally applying it to all

medium and heavy vehicles to avoid the situation of some vehicle types

being equipped with the warning system and others not being equipped

with the warning system. In Blue Bird's view, implementation of the

warning system would also need to be accompanied by an extensive

publicity and driver training program to familiarize drivers with the

new system.

Blue Bird stated that because of these concerns, it would not make

such a warning system available as standard equipment or as optional

equipment

em and others not being equipped

with the warning system. In Blue Bird's view, implementation of the

warning system would also need to be accompanied by an extensive

publicity and driver training program to familiarize drivers with the

new system.

Blue Bird stated that because of these concerns, it would not make

such a warning system available as standard equipment or as optional

equipment. Blue Bird suggested that the school bus operator petition

NHTSA to require such a system on all medium and heavy vehicles, so

that appropriate research, study, and public comment could be addressed

prior to such a system being introduced. The school bus operator,

Schmitty & Sons School Buses, subsequently petitioned NHTSA to require

such a warning system on a nationwide basis.

NHTSA decided to publish this request for comments prior to making

a determination on whether to grant or deny the petition. If NHTSA

determines that the petition should be granted, based on indications

that there is a significant safety need, then it would begin the

rulemaking process to propose amendments to the Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards (FMVSSs), in this case, FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and

Electric Brake Systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The

rulemaking process, if it proceeds, will provide ample opportunity for

concerned parties to further comment on all aspects of any proposed

changes to the FMVSSs.

Parking Brake Requirements

rulemaking process to propose amendments to the Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards (FMVSSs), in this case, FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and

Electric Brake Systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The

rulemaking process, if it proceeds, will provide ample opportunity for

concerned parties to further comment on all aspects of any proposed

changes to the FMVSSs.

Parking Brake Requirements

FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, requires each

vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs. (4536

kg) or less and each school bus with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs. to

be equipped with a friction-type parking brake system, with a solely

mechanical means to retain engagement (S5.2).

The standard requires the parking brake for a passenger car or a

school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less to hold the vehicle on a

30 percent grade (up to the limit of traction on the braked wheels).

As an option, the standard permits a passenger car or school bus

with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, equipped with a transmission that

includes a parking mechanism, to use the parking mechanism in meeting

the 30 percent grade holding requirement for the vehicle, if the

parking mechanism must

be engaged to enable the ignition key to be removed (S5.2.2.1). If this

option is used, there is a separate requirement for such vehicles to

meet a 20 percent grade holding requirement with the parking brakes

engaged and the parking mechanism disengaged (S5.2.2.2). The

transmission parking mechanism is then subjected to a 2\1/2\-mph

barrier impact test on level ground, which requires that the parking

mechanism not become disengaged or fractured. In the context of these

tests and requirements, the parking mechanism is a supplemental parking

aid and is not the primary source of grade holding ability.

The parking brake system on a school bus with a GVWR greater than

10,000 lbs. must be capable of holding the vehicle stationary for five

minutes on a 20 percent grade (S5.2.3)

that the parking

mechanism not become disengaged or fractured. In the context of these

tests and requirements, the parking mechanism is a supplemental parking

aid and is not the primary source of grade holding ability.

The parking brake system on a school bus with a GVWR greater than

10,000 lbs. must be capable of holding the vehicle stationary for five

minutes on a 20 percent grade (S5.2.3). This grade holding requirement

also applies to trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or buses other

than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

There is a supplemental requirement in FMVSS No. 114, Theft

Protection, that requires passenger cars, trucks, and buses with a GVWR

of 10,000 lbs. or less, equipped with an automatic transmission with a

park position, to meet a 10 percent grade holding test (S4.2.1(b)) when

the key has been removed and the transmission is locked in the park

position.

FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, which becomes effective

for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of

7,716 lbs. (3500 kg) or less, manufactured on or after September 1,

2002, requires a 20 percent grade holding ability using the parking

brake with the vehicle at GVWR, and does not address the use of

transmission parking mechanisms.

FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, which applies to trucks, buses

(including school buses), and trailers equipped with air brakes,

requires a 20 percent grade holding ability with the vehicle both empty

and at GVWR, or optionally, a static retardation force test may be used

which incorporates requirements based on GVWR or gross axle weight

rating (GAWR) depending on vehicle type. This standard also does not

address the use of transmission parking mechanisms.

Additional requirements are included in FMVSS Nos

air brakes,

requires a 20 percent grade holding ability with the vehicle both empty

and at GVWR, or optionally, a static retardation force test may be used

which incorporates requirements based on GVWR or gross axle weight

rating (GAWR) depending on vehicle type. This standard also does not

address the use of transmission parking mechanisms.

Additional requirements are included in FMVSS Nos. 105 and 135 for

visual warning indicators (brake light) to indicate that the parking

brake is engaged, and both standards include requirements for maximum

force levels in applying the parking brake mechanism for the grade

holding tests. FMVSS No. 121 includes requirements for a parking brake

application control that is separate from the service brake control,

and includes parking brake application and release timing requirements.

It also specifies parking brake performance requirements with certain

system failures.

Automatic Transmission Shift Sequence and Parking Functions

FMVSS No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter

Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, requires that, if a park

position is included in the automatic transmission shift lever

sequence, the park position shall be located at the end of the shift

lever sequence adjacent to the reverse drive position (S3.1.1). This

shift pattern is provided universally on light vehicles equipped with

automatic transmissions, either using a steering column shifter or a

shifter located on the floor console.

On some medium vehicles and most, if not all, heavy vehicles

equipped with automatic transmissions, a park position is not included

in the automatic transmission shift sequence. A transmission parking

mechanism in a heavy vehicle would be subjected to a very high loading

that makes such a mechanism impractical

either using a steering column shifter or a

shifter located on the floor console.

On some medium vehicles and most, if not all, heavy vehicles

equipped with automatic transmissions, a park position is not included

in the automatic transmission shift sequence. A transmission parking

mechanism in a heavy vehicle would be subjected to a very high loading

that makes such a mechanism impractical. Hence, to park such a vehicle,

the driver places the transmission in the neutral position and then

applies the parking brakes, either using the dash-mounted valve for

air-braked vehicles or the parking brake lever for hydraulically-braked

vehicles.

The lack of a parking position in certain medium and heavy vehicles

equipped with automatic transmissions should provide a cue to the

driver that the vehicle is not in park. As the vehicle can only be

shifted into the neutral position, the shift sequence is substantially

different than for a vehicle in which the shift lever is moved from

either a forward or reverse drive position to the park position located

at the end of the shift sequence. The cue to a driver that the vehicle

has only been shifted to the neutral position is intended to help the

driver realize that the parking brake must be engaged to park the

vehicle. The absence of this awareness could result in roll away

incidents.

A Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) technical paper, Allison

Transmission's New Family of Transmissions: The 1000/2000 Series (ref.

SAE technical paper 973278, Nov. 1997), includes market research

indicating that customer preference for heavy duty automatic

transmissions incorporating a park position/parking pawl mechanism

resulted in developing standard and optional (depending on transmission

model and GVWR) parking features into that company's new line of

automatic transmissions for vehicles with GVWRs up to 26,000 lbs.

(11,800 kg)

paper 973278, Nov. 1997), includes market research

indicating that customer preference for heavy duty automatic

transmissions incorporating a park position/parking pawl mechanism

resulted in developing standard and optional (depending on transmission

model and GVWR) parking features into that company's new line of

automatic transmissions for vehicles with GVWRs up to 26,000 lbs.

(11,800 kg). NHTSA requests comments on trends to incorporate parking

mechanisms in heavy duty automatic transmissions, especially in the

GVWR range of typical school buses.

NHTSA is also aware that systems are available which automatically

apply the parking brake when the transmission shift lever is moved to

the ``park'' position. In this configuration, the automatic

transmission does not incorporate a parking pawl, but a switch located

on the transmission activates a mechanism that automatically applies

the parking brake. NHTSA requests comments on the availability of such

systems, in particular for school buses, equipped with either air or

hydraulic braking systems.

Driver Training and Skill

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires certain

operators of commercial motor vehicles to have a commercial driver's

license (CDL). The FHWA's definition (49 CFR 383.5) of a commercial

motor vehicle includes: vehicles with a GVWR or gross combination

weight rating (GCWR) of 26,001 lbs. (11,794 kg) or more; vehicles

designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver; and

vehicles of any size used to transport hazardous materials in a

quantity sufficient to require placarding. The definition covers

commercial motor vehicles operated in interstate, intrastate, and

foreign commerce, and also includes vehicles that are controlled and

operated by Federal, State, or local government agencies. Therefore, a

driver who operates a school bus with 16 or more seating positions

(including the driver) must have a CDL

us materials in a

quantity sufficient to require placarding. The definition covers

commercial motor vehicles operated in interstate, intrastate, and

foreign commerce, and also includes vehicles that are controlled and

operated by Federal, State, or local government agencies. Therefore, a

driver who operates a school bus with 16 or more seating positions

(including the driver) must have a CDL.

Since April 1, 1992, drivers of commercial motor vehicles have been

required to obtain a CDL issued by their State of residence in

accordance with minimum Federal requirements. The State must administer

knowledge and skill tests of CDL applicants to ensure the driver has

the ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle. The knowledge

and skills test provisions in Subpart G of 49 CFR part 383 require that

each driver demonstrate proficiency in performing a pre-trip

inspection, using the vehicle's controls and emergency equipment,

operating the vehicle in traffic, and proper braking procedures.

Operators of passenger-carrying vehicles must obtain a passenger

endorsement on their licenses for which the driver must have

demonstrated knowledge of the proper procedures for loading and

unloading

passengers, proper use of emergency exits, and proper responses to

emergency situations such as fires and unruly passengers. The FHWA's

CDL requirements are intended to help reduce or prevent truck and bus

crashes, fatalities, and injuries by requiring drivers to have a single

CDL and by disqualifying drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles

in an unsafe manner.

Subpart G--Required Knowledge and Skills, of the CDL standards,

includes a reference to vehicle controls in S383.111(c)(1), which

states that the driver shall be familiar with the purpose and function

of the controls and instruments commonly found on commercial motor

vehicles. A similar reference is included in the appendix to subpart G

in the sample requirements provided for a State to use in its CDL

licensing program

e and Skills, of the CDL standards,

includes a reference to vehicle controls in S383.111(c)(1), which

states that the driver shall be familiar with the purpose and function

of the controls and instruments commonly found on commercial motor

vehicles. A similar reference is included in the appendix to subpart G

in the sample requirements provided for a State to use in its CDL

licensing program. There are also specific references in Subpart G to

air brake system operation for drivers qualifying on air-braked

vehicles. There are no specific references to the use of parking brake

controls.

Since the parking brake and transmission controls can vary among

different types of commercial motor vehicles, including school buses,

it may not be appropriate to address this issue in specific detail at

the federal or state regulatory (CDL requirements) level. NHTSA

believes that this is most appropriately addressed at the fleet level,

that is, each fleet is responsible to ensure that each driver is

trained in the proper use of the controls of the vehicles in that

fleet. NHTSA is soliciting input on this issue in the Questions for

Comment section below, specifically, if other countermeasures to a

warning system, such as additional driver training, should be

considered.

Problem Discussion

The school bus incidents reported in the petition could be

attributable to the school bus drivers' regular use of both light

vehicles and medium/heavy vehicles, and the differences in transmission

controls between these vehicle groups when they are equipped with

automatic transmissions. In practice, light vehicles, including

passenger cars, light trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and

many small buses, include a ``park'' position in the transmission

position selections, when these vehicles are equipped with automatic

transmissions

y vehicles, and the differences in transmission

controls between these vehicle groups when they are equipped with

automatic transmissions. In practice, light vehicles, including

passenger cars, light trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and

many small buses, include a ``park'' position in the transmission

position selections, when these vehicles are equipped with automatic

transmissions. A park position is not required by any FMVSS, but is

provided universally as a convenience feature in light vehicles

equipped with automatic transmissions, so that the parking brakes do

not always need to be applied. The driving habits of passenger car

drivers vary, with some drivers always applying the parking brakes in

addition to selecting the transmission parking position, while others

may not apply the parking brakes or may do so only when parked on steep

grades. Furthermore, passenger cars equipped with manual transmissions

require drivers to use the parking brakes for grade holding ability,

with some drivers also leaving the transmission in a gear position and

some with the transmission in neutral.

While some medium trucks with automatic transmissions include a

park position in the automatic transmission shift sequence, especially

those with GVWRs slightly above 10,000 lbs., many medium and heavy

truck automatic transmissions do not have a parking mechanism/shift

position. It would be impractical for such a parking mechanism to

provide substantial grade holding ability, especially in higher GVWR

applications. As a result, all grade holding ability is provided by the

parking brakes. The problem referred to by the school bus operator

appears to be that some drivers are used to having a park position with

an automatic transmission in a light vehicle, while no such park

position is provided in the medium and heavy vehicles equipped with

heavy-duty automatic transmissions

in higher GVWR

applications. As a result, all grade holding ability is provided by the

parking brakes. The problem referred to by the school bus operator

appears to be that some drivers are used to having a park position with

an automatic transmission in a light vehicle, while no such park

position is provided in the medium and heavy vehicles equipped with

heavy-duty automatic transmissions. In the instances cited by the

petitioner, the drivers may have mistakenly believed that the bus was

held in ``park'', while in fact the parking brake still needed to be

applied.

NHTSA also believes that school bus drivers may not be as familiar

with the operation of their school buses compared to drivers of typical

commercial vehicles. Many school bus drivers are employed on an hourly

or part-time basis, as well as on a seasonal basis, compared with many

truck drivers that drive commercial vehicles on a much more regular

basis and therefore may be more familiar with the operation, equipment,

and controls of their vehicles.

Safety Problem Size Assessment

The petitioner referenced several accidents in Minnesota in which

roll-away buses struck another vehicle. In a telephone conversation

with the petitioner, it was learned that two of the cases occurred in

the petitioner's organization, and one other school bus operator in

Minnesota had experienced this problem.

A search of the Office of Defects Investigation complaints database

was made to determine if problems with parking brakes have been

reported by vehicle owners or operators. The search included medium and

heavy trucks and school buses, with coverage from model years 1991

through 1998. The search revealed complaints on one heavy truck, one

medium truck, two buses (one of these known to be a school bus), and

five motorhomes

cts Investigation complaints database

was made to determine if problems with parking brakes have been

reported by vehicle owners or operators. The search included medium and

heavy trucks and school buses, with coverage from model years 1991

through 1998. The search revealed complaints on one heavy truck, one

medium truck, two buses (one of these known to be a school bus), and

five motorhomes. The reported complaints included one instance of

parking brakes automatically applying on an axle, one complaint on the

parking brake control due to an accidental release of the parking

brakes, five complaints of parking brakes failing or not holding on an

incline, and two complaints of broken components in the parking brake

system. There were no complaints related to vehicle roll away due to a

driver failing to engage the parking brakes.

The coding schemes for General Estimates Systems (GES) and Fatality

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) databases of property damage and

injury- or fatality-producing crashes were determined to not be

suitable for identifying roll-away crashes due to failure to apply the

parking brakes. If there are any such cases, the cause may be noted on

a police accident report, but the data base coding would not indicate

this. Also, a check of the special crash investigations program for

school buses did not indicate that any such cases had occurred,

although it should be noted that only a limited number (less than a ten

percent sample) of school bus crashes are investigated each year. There

is one known instance of a crash resulting from the release of a school

bus parking brake, which resulted in two fatalities. However, this

crash is related to the location of the parking brake controls and

protection from inadvertent release.

There may be instances in which a school bus (or other medium or

heavy vehicles) rolled away but no crash or injury resulted

estigated each year. There

is one known instance of a crash resulting from the release of a school

bus parking brake, which resulted in two fatalities. However, this

crash is related to the location of the parking brake controls and

protection from inadvertent release.

There may be instances in which a school bus (or other medium or

heavy vehicles) rolled away but no crash or injury resulted. The main

purpose of this request for comments is to determine the magnitude of

the problem and whether the petitioner's reported incidents are

isolated occurrences or are indicative of a more widespread problem.

Effectiveness of a Warning System

NHTSA requests comments on the potential effectiveness of a warning

system that activates when the engine is turned off, the transmission

is in neutral, and the parking brakes have not been engaged. At this

time, NHTSA is considering such a system only for vehicles equipped

with automatic transmissions without a parking position, but welcomes

comments on application of such a system for vehicles equipped with

manual transmissions as well.

Assuming that the warning is sufficiently loud and/or visible to

effectively warn the driver under the specified condition, NHTSA also

requests comments on situations in which the warning system would not

activate and thus the vehicle could still roll away. If a driver were

to park the bus without turning off the engine, such as during a short

break while keeping the heat on in cold weather, or while having minor

service performed at a maintenance facility, the warning system would

not be activated. Likewise, if the driver had to leave the driver's

seat momentarily (while leaving the engine running) to check on a

situation on the bus or outside of the bus, the warning system would

not be activated. Finally, a driver could, for some reason, turn the

bus off without putting the transmission in neutral, in which case the

warning would not activate

the warning system would

not be activated. Likewise, if the driver had to leave the driver's

seat momentarily (while leaving the engine running) to check on a

situation on the bus or outside of the bus, the warning system would

not be activated. Finally, a driver could, for some reason, turn the

bus off without putting the transmission in neutral, in which case the

warning would not activate.

NHTSA also requests comments on potential negative effects of a

warning system. While the warning system is envisioned only as a device

to warn the driver in rare occasions in which the parking brake had not

been applied, it is possible that a driver could come to rely on the

warning system as a prompt to apply the parking brake. Under such a

scenario and given any of the situations cited above, the driver would

not be prompted to apply the parking brake. Other points that were also

raised by Blue Bird, which should be considered, include drivers

switching between buses that are equipped with the warning system and

buses not equipped with the warning system, and the proliferation of

warning systems (e.g., emergency exit door alarm and starter interlock

requirements in FMVSS No. 217, low air pressure warnings, etc.) that

could cause confusion among drivers.

Questions for Comment

Prior to making a determination on whether to grant or deny the

petition from Schmitty and Sons School Buses, NHTSA requests additional

information relative to the parking brake warning system proposed for

school buses and its potential application to other medium and heavy

vehicles.

1. Can data be provided on bus roll away instances to assist NHTSA

in determining the problem size? Any information on bus roll away

crashes, resulting injuries or property damage, and whether such

incidents occurred during student loading/unloading operations or in

other circumstances, such as in bus parking areas, are requested. The

focus of these data should be instances in which the parking brake was

not applied.

2

s roll away instances to assist NHTSA

in determining the problem size? Any information on bus roll away

crashes, resulting injuries or property damage, and whether such

incidents occurred during student loading/unloading operations or in

other circumstances, such as in bus parking areas, are requested. The

focus of these data should be instances in which the parking brake was

not applied.

2. In lieu of hard data on roll away incidents that have occurred,

NHTSA requests comments regarding to what extent the trend from

equipping school buses with manual transmissions to equipping them with

automatic transmissions without a park position has on the increased

likelihood for roll away incidents.

3. Of all school buses produced by a manufacturer, or purchased by

a school bus operator, what are the current and projected trends on

switching from manual to automatic transmissions, specifically in the

higher weight classes in which automatic transmissions do not have a

park position?

4. What are the trends in incorporating parking pawls in heavy duty

automatic transmissions, especially in the GVWR range of typical school

buses? What is the availability of automatic parking brake application

systems for air- and hydraulic-brakes school buses? In the foreseeable

future, what is the likelihood that all school buses will be equipped

with either of these systems, or have them available to those

purchasers that desire such features?

5. Are differences in driver familiarity with vehicle operation

considered to be a factor for school buses versus other commercial

vehicles, considering that many school bus drivers are employed on a

part-time or seasonal basis?

6

what is the likelihood that all school buses will be equipped

with either of these systems, or have them available to those

purchasers that desire such features?

5. Are differences in driver familiarity with vehicle operation

considered to be a factor for school buses versus other commercial

vehicles, considering that many school bus drivers are employed on a

part-time or seasonal basis?

6. Would the petitioner's proposed system that activates when the

engine is turned off, the bus is in neutral, and the parking brake is

not applied, be considered an effective warning system in light of the

issues raised in the section Effectiveness of a Warning System above?

Are there other consequences of the warning system to consider? Would

it be appropriate to consider a warning system for school buses also

equipped with manual transmissions?

7. Would it be appropriate to expand the petitioner's request and

consider a warning system that activates when a school bus' engine is

turned off, the parking brake is not applied, and the transmission is

in any position other that ``park?'' This would address situations

where the school bus is left in gear and the parking brake is not

applied. Are there known instances of school buses rolling away in

these circumstances?

8. Should other countermeasures (either within or excluding the

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, or the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Regulations) be considered, such as additional driver training,

warning labels, informational campaign, etc.?

9. For the warning system described (an audible warning when the

specified conditions are met), will drivers be confused by another

audible warning on school buses? Would it be helpful to supplement the

audible warning with a visual warning (e.g., the brake warning lamp on

the instrument panel could flash)?

10

such as additional driver training,

warning labels, informational campaign, etc.?

9. For the warning system described (an audible warning when the

specified conditions are met), will drivers be confused by another

audible warning on school buses? Would it be helpful to supplement the

audible warning with a visual warning (e.g., the brake warning lamp on

the instrument panel could flash)?

10. Would a system that automatically applies the parking brake on

school buses (for air- or hydraulic-braked vehicles) whenever the

ignition is turned to ``lock'' or the key is removed be acceptable to

drivers, fleets, and school bus manufacturers? Would an override switch

be necessary for towing, maintenance, or other situations?

11. Should NHTSA consider expanding the application of the proposed

(or an alternate) warning system to include vehicles other than school

buses, for example, all buses, or all medium and heavy vehicles?

Procedures for Filing Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this request

for comment. It is requested but not required that two copies be

submitted.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to

the Docket Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied

by a cover letter setting forth the information specified in the

agency's confidential information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the docket at the above address

both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be considered

in the

agency's confidential information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the docket at the above address

both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be considered. NHTSA will continue to

file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after

the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons

continue to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped

postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: February 23, 1999.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 99-4947 Filed 2-26-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P