[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9961-9965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4947]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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. 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. 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
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
[[Page 9962]]
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). 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. 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. 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). 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.
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
[[Page 9963]]
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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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.
[[Page 9964]]
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
[[Page 9965]]
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
