[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13297-13305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5412]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 93-07; Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AE21
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stopping Distance
Requirements for Vehicles Equipped With Hydraulic Brake Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes stopping distance performance
requirements in Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, for trucks,
[[Page 13298]] buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) that
have a gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) over 10,000 pounds and that
are equipped with hydraulic brake systems. The requirements specify the
distances in which different types of medium and heavy vehicles must
come to a complete stop from a speed of 60 mph on a high coefficient of
friction surface. The requirements are designed to reduce the number
and severity of crashes involving these vehicles.
This notice is one part of the agency's comprehensive effort to
improve the braking ability of medium and heavy vehicles. In another
final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, the agency
is adopting identical stopping distance requirements for medium and
heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brake systems. In a third
final rule, that responds to the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the agency is requiring medium and
heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) to
improve the lateral stability and control of these vehicles during
braking.
DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments become effective on March 1,
1999.
Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of
this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than April 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this rule should refer to
Docket 93-07; Notice 3 and should be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Soodoo, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-5892).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Brake Related Crashes
B. Braking Devices
II. NHTSA Activities
A. Regulatory History
B. Agency Research
C. Heavy Vehicle Safety Report to Congress
III. Agency Proposal
IV. Comments to the Proposal
V. Agency Decision
A. Overview
B. Stopping Distance Requirements
C. First Effectiveness Test
D. Second Effectiveness Test
E. Leadtime
F. Costs
I. Background
A. Brake Related Crashes
Medium and heavy vehicles1 are involved in thousands of motor
vehicle crashes each year. One of the most important factors that
contributes to these crashes is brake system performance. Crashes in
which braking is a contributory factor can be further subdivided into
(1) crashes due to brake failures or defective brakes, (2) runaways on
downgrades, due to maladjusted or overheated brakes, (3) crashes in
which vehicles are unable to stop in time, and (4) loss-of-control
crashes due primarily to locked wheels during braking.
\1\Hereafter, these vehicles which have a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more are referred to as heavy
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule amending Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems,
to establish stopping distance requirements for hydraulically braked
vehicles,2 and the companion final rule amending Standard No. 121,
Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121), to reinstate stopping distance
requirements for air braked heavy vehicles, will reduce the severity of
or prevent crashes attributable to a vehicle's inability to stop in
time.3 In these crashes, the heavy vehicle's brakes function, but
do not stop the vehicle quickly enough to avoid a crash. One way to
reduce the severity or number of such crashes is to improve heavy
vehicle stopping performance by reducing the distance needed to stop a
vehicle. Even if crashes of this type were not totally prevented,
improvements in stopping distance performance reduce collision impact
speeds, and thus reduce crash severity.
\2\Hydraulic brake systems are used on most single unit vehicles
with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) of 26,000 pounds or less
and on many medium and heavy trucks and buses with GVWRs between
26,000 pounds and 33,000 pounds. Hydraulic brakes are available on
single unit vehicles with GVWRs up to 46,000 pounds, but are used to
a lesser degree with such vehicles. Heavy vehicles not equipped with
hydraulic brakes are equipped with air brake systems.
3Today's companion final rule to require heavy vehicles to
be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS) will prevent braking-
induced loss-of-control crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following estimates regarding heavy vehicle crashes are from
NHTSA's 1992 General Estimates System (GES) which is based on data
transcribed from a nationally representative sample of state police
accident reports (PARs) and the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS).
NHTSA estimates that in 1992 there were about 168,000 crashes involving
heavy combination vehicles (excluding truck tractors when operating
bobtail, i.e., without a trailer). These crashes resulted in about
13,600 injuries and 387 fatalities to truck occupants and about 51,500
injuries and 2452 fatalities to occupants of other involved vehicles.
For bobtail truck tractors alone, the agency estimates that there were
about 8,400 crashes resulting in about 1,200 injuries and 39 fatalities
to truck occupants and about 2,600 injuries and 178 fatalities to
occupants of other involved vehicles. For heavy single-unit trucks, the
agency estimates that there were about 192,600 crashes resulting in
about 15,700 injuries and 165 fatalities to truck occupants and about
48,300 injuries and 891 fatalities to occupants of other involved
vehicles. In addition, crashes involving heavy vehicles result in more
expensive and severe property damage than crashes involving light
vehicles.
It is very difficult to quantify the number of crashes in which a
vehicle's brakes are unable to stop the vehicle in time. NHTSA
estimates that in 1992 there were about 18,000 crashes involving heavy
combination vehicles (excluding bobtail truck tractors). These crashes
resulted in about 1,800 injuries and 57 fatalities to truck occupants
and about 8,400 injuries and 754 fatalities to occupants of other
involved vehicles. For bobtail truck tractors alone, the agency
estimates that there were about 260 crashes resulting in about 100
injuries and 7 fatalities to truck occupants and about 240 injuries and
48 fatalities to occupants of other involved vehicles. For heavy
single-unit trucks, the agency estimates that there were about 30,100
crashes resulting in about 4,200 injuries and 17 fatalities to truck
occupants and about 15,000 injuries and 276 fatalities to occupants of
other involved vehicles. The Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) provides
greater detail about how today's final rules will reduce injuries and
fatalities resulting from such crashes.
The agency emphasizes that not all inability-to-stop-in-time
crashes are preventable. Nevertheless, improvements to heavy vehicle
brake systems should prevent or reduce the severity of a significant
number of these crashes.
B. Brake Designs and Equipment
In order to understand the discussion of braking in this preamble,
it is necessary to be familiar with several devices employed in braking
systems. As explained in greater detail in the companion final rules
about stopping distances for air-braked vehicles and about lateral
control and stability, manufacturers have developed several devices
related to the braking of hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles,
[[Page 13299]] including load proportioning valves (LPVs) and antilock
brake systems (ABS). LPVs change the brake proportioning to the drive
axle after mechanically sensing the vehicle's load, and ABSs
automatically control the amount of braking pressure applied to a wheel
so as to prevent wheel lockup, thus increasing stability and control in
emergency stops. As explained in the companion notices, these devices
can also reduce stopping distances.
II. NHTSA Activities
A. Regulatory History
As initially promulgated, Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems
(49 CFR 571.105), set performance requirements for motor vehicles with
hydraulic service brakes. (37 FR 17970, September 2, 1972.) The 1972
rule required, among other things, that heavy vehicles stop from 60 mph
within 245 feet when in the lightly loaded condition and within 553
feet under partial failure conditions. Some petitions for
reconsideration challenged the setting of stopping distance
requirements for hydraulically-braked vehicles that were more stringent
than those set for air-braked vehicles in Standard No. 121. While the
initial stopping distance requirement of 245 feet in Standard No. 121
was identical to Standard No. 105's requirement, Standard No. 121 was
later revised to require stopping within 258 feet and then 293 feet.
The requirements for air-braked vehicles were to become effective
on September 1, 1973, and those for hydraulic-braked vehicles, on
September 1, 1974. NHTSA extended the effective dates for the stopping
distance requirements in Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121. (37 FR
3905, February 24, 1972; 38 FR 3047, February 1, 1973; 39 FR 17550,
17563, May 17, 1974.) Prior to the final effective date for Standard
No. 105, the amendments pertaining to heavy vehicles were withdrawn, so
the requirements for heavy hydraulic-braked trucks and buses never went
into effect. (40 FR 18411, April 28, 1975.) The agency concluded that
the requirements that were being withdrawn could not be justified ``on
the basis of the data available at this time.'' The agency noted that
its decision to withdraw the amendment implementing requirements for
vehicles other than passenger cars was based on uncertainty as to the
achievable safety benefits relative to the costs of meeting those
requirements, rather than on an explicit determination that the
requirements were not justified. Notwithstanding this decision, the
agency emphasized that ``truck braking is in many cases substantially
poorer than passenger car braking, and that the generally longer
stopping distances and the greater severity of truck accidents justify
a safety standard for these vehicles.''
There are two primary reasons for the substantial costs that would
have been involved in meeting those requirements. The first reason was
the level of stringency of the requirements: the stopping distance
requirement from 60 mph was 246 feet, which was the original
requirement implemented for air-braked vehicles in Standard No. 121
that was later revised to 293 feet. The second reason relates to the
state-of-the-art of hydraulic brake system technology in 1975 versus
that of today. As discussed in detail in the Final Regulatory
Evaluation (FRE), the requirements being implemented by this notice
will not require any changes in the design or performance of
hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles.
Since its decision in 1975 to narrow Standard No. 105's
applicability, NHTSA has issued several amendments extending its
applicability to certain types of vehicles. In 1976, the agency
extended the Standard's applicability to all school buses. (41 FR 2391,
January 16, 1976.) In 1981, it extended the standard's applicability on
a general basis (with some limitations) to trucks, all types of buses,
and MPVs with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. (46 FR 55, January 2,
1981.) As for trucks, buses, and MPVs with a GVWR greater than 10,000
pounds, the agency extended the requirements for braking with partial
hydraulic system failures and power booster unit failures. However, the
service and parking brake performance requirements, including those for
stopping distances, have not been re-adopted for hydraulically-braked
trucks and non-school buses with GVWRs over 10,000 pounds. The reader
should refer to the February 1993 NPRMs and today's companion final
rules for a detailed discussion of the regulatory history.
These requirements have received a great deal of agency and
judicial attention. (58 FR 11009, February 23, 1993.) Along with
certain other provisions, the stopping distance requirements for air-
braked vehicles were invalidated by the United States Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978)
cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978).
While PACCAR involved air-braked vehicles, it is relevant to
hydraulically-braked vehicles as well. The stability and control final
rule contains a detailed discussion about PACCAR and how the agency has
responded to that decision. As mentioned earlier, the stopping distance
requirements in this final rule are significantly longer than those
that were rescinded in 1975.
However, as also discussed earlier, the same stopping distance
requirements that were implemented in 1975 for air-braked vehicles were
later extended to levels that are close to those included in this
notice. One significant difference between the original requirements in
1975 for hydraulically braked, heavy vehicles and those contained in
today's final rule is that the agency has decided to specify different
stopping distances for different configurations of heavy vehicles.
Today's requirements can further be distinguished from those
invalidated in the 1970s, since manufacturers will not need to
significantly redesign their brakes or use overly aggressive foundation
brakes to comply with today's requirements.
Even though the stopping distance requirements being specified in
today's final rule are less stringent for some vehicle configurations
than those invalidated by PACCAR for air-braked vehicles, the agency
believes that the braking requirements in today's final rules, taken as
a whole, significantly enhance the overall braking performance of
hydraulically-braked vehicles given the agency's decision to require
these vehicles to be equipped with ABS.
B. Agency Research
As part of its review of heavy vehicle braking, NHTSA issued a
report entitled ``NHTSA Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program
Report No. 4--Stopping Capability of Hydraulically Braked Vehicles''
(DOT HS 806 860, October 1985). That report was based on a
comprehensive testing of twelve hydraulically-braked vehicles ranging
in weight from 14,800 to 46,000 pounds in both the empty and loaded
conditions. The straight line stopping distance tests measured the
shortest possible stop within a 12-foot-wide lane without locking up
more than one wheel per axle or two wheels per tandem axle at speeds
greater than 20 mph. At 60 mph, stopping distances ranged from 214 feet
to 396 feet. Among other things, the agency found that the ability to
stop in a short distance without loss of control is primarily a
function of front/rear braking force distribution. Vehicles with brake
force distributions closest to their dynamic weight distributions were
the best performers. [[Page 13300]]
C. Heavy Vehicle Safety Report to Congress
In response to section 9107 of the Truck and Bus Regulatory Reform
Act of 1988, the agency submitted a report to Congress entitled
``Improved Brake Systems for Commercial Vehicles.'' (DOT HS 807 706,
April 1991)4 While the report focuses on air brakes systems, much
of the information is relevant to hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles.
After discussing crash data concerning heavy vehicle brake systems, the
report explained factors related to braking effectiveness and stability
and control during braking. The report mentioned that stopping
distances and vehicle stability could be improved by equipping heavy
vehicles with LPVs and ABS.
\4\The report may be examined at the agency's Technical
Reference Office, room 5108, at no charge. It is available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161
for a small charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Agency Proposal
On February 23, 1993, NHTSA proposed to amend Standard No. 105 to
establish different stopping distance requirements for different types
of heavy vehicles equipped with hydraulic brake systems, when making
stops from 60 mph on a high coefficient of friction surface. (58 FR
11003.) The agency tentatively concluded that establishing the same
stopping distance requirement for all heavy vehicles with fully
operational service brakes would be inappropriate, since it would be
too stringent for unloaded single unit trucks but not stringent enough
for buses. The proposed stopping distances were based on the agency's
analysis of the available data, especially the stopping distance
results in the VRTC reports.
NHTSA explained that its long-term objective is to upgrade the
braking efficiency of heavy vehicles to enable them to make controlled,
stable stops, under all loading and road surface conditions. The agency
believed that the proposed requirements would reduce the disparity in
stopping distance performance between heavy vehicles and passenger
cars, while assuring that the requirements' costs are reasonable. The
agency proposed stopping distance requirements for vehicles equipped
with hydraulic brake systems consistent with the stopping distance
requirements for air-braked heavy vehicles. These requirements would
take effect two years after issuance of the final rule. The agency
decided not to propose the first effectiveness test, which involves the
preburnish condition. However, it proposed the second effectiveness
test, where the vehicle is tested at its GVWR to assure full braking
power, and the third effectiveness test where the vehicle is tested in
the lightly loaded vehicle condition to assure reasonable brake
balance.
IV. Comments on the Proposal
NHTSA received 29 comments in response to the NPRM. Commenters
included heavy vehicle manufacturers, brake manufacturers, safety
advocacy groups, heavy vehicle users, industry trade associations, and
other individuals. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA) submitted joint comments on behalf of the eight major domestic
manufacturers of heavy vehicles: Chrysler, Ford, Freightliner, General
Motors (GM), Mack Trucks, Navistar, PACCAR, and Volvo-GM.
The commenters generally supported the agency's decision to
establish stopping distance requirements. However, they offered mixed
views about the specific stopping distances being proposed. GM,
Navistar, Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBMC), and Rockwell
WABCO stated that the proposed stopping distance requirements are
appropriate. In contrast, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS), the Coalition for Consumer Health, and Advocates for Highway
Safety (Advocates) believed that the required distances for trucks and
buses should be shorter. Advocates stated that the proposal did little
more than ``grandfather'' existing braking capabilities and therefore
would not result in the best available braking performance for large
trucks.
Commenters also addressed specific issues raised in the NPRM,
including the requirements' applicability to school buses, the need for
the first and fourth effectiveness tests, the vehicle test speed, the
test surface specification, the wheel lock up restrictions, the initial
brake temperature, the failed system test, the vehicle loading, the
parking brake test, the burnish procedures, and the implementation
schedule for the requirements. More specific discussions of these
comments, and the agency's responses to them, are set forth either
below or in the stopping distance rule for Standard No. 121.\5\
\5\The stopping distance rule for air-braked vehicles discusses
the issues of the test surface, wheel lock restrictions, initial
brake temperature, the failed system test, vehicle loading, the
parking brake test, and burnish procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Agency Decision
A. Overview
Based on the FARS and other crash data, test data from the agency's
heavy vehicle brake research program, comments to the NPRM, and other
available information, NHTSA has decided to amend Standard No. 105 to
establish stopping distance performance requirements for heavy vehicles
that are equipped with hydraulic brake systems. The requirements, which
apply to 60 mph stops on a high coefficient of friction surface,
specify different stopping distance requirements for three different
types of heavy vehicle configurations: (1) loaded and unloaded buses,
(2) loaded single unit trucks, and (3) empty single unit trucks. The
requirements are designed to standardize the distance needed for all
heavy vehicles to come to a complete stop, thereby reducing the number
and severity of crashes.
This notice is one part of the agency's comprehensive effort to
improve the braking ability of heavy vehicles. In another final rule
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, the agency is adopting
identical stopping distance requirements for comparable heavy vehicles
that are equipped with air brake systems. The agency believes that it
is appropriate to specify the same stopping distance requirements for
similar vehicles. In a third final rule, the agency is responding to
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 by
requiring heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake system
to improve the lateral stability and control of these vehicles during
braking.
B. Stopping Distance Requirements
Based on its testing at VRTC, NHTSA proposed different stopping
distances for various categories of vehicles, as follows:
Loaded and Unloaded Buses
280 ft.
Loaded Single-Unit Trucks
310 ft.
Empty Single-Unit Trucks
335 ft.
The agency reasoned that a single stopping distance requirement for
all heavy vehicles with fully operational service brakes would be too
stringent for unloaded single unit trucks, but not be stringent enough
for buses. Based on the VRTC test results, the agency anticipated that
manufacturers would not have to make changes to the hydraulic braking
systems of their vehicles to comply with the proposed stopping distance
requirements.
AAMA and most other industry commenters agreed with the stopping
distance values proposed for the various vehicle configurations. GM,
Navistar, [[Page 13301]] Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Council
(HDBMC), and Rockwell WABCO commented that they believed that the
proposed stopping distance requirements are appropriate. ATA agreed
with the proposal to specify different stopping distances for different
types and loadings of vehicles. It also agreed with specifying the same
stopping distances for the same types of air-braked and hydraulically-
braked vehicles under the same loading conditions.
In contrast, other commenters stated that the proposed stopping
distances were not sufficiently stringent. Advocates stated that the
proposed stopping distances simply ratify braking distances currently
achieved by manufacturers and do not seek to improve real-world braking
performance. It stated that except for the 280-foot requirement for
buses, the other proposed stopping distances are longer than the 293
feet established before PACCAR. Similarly, IIHS stated that the
proposals do not go far enough toward requiring the best available
braking for heavy vehicles.
Based on the public comments and other available information,
especially the VRTC test results, NHTSA has decided to specify
different stopping distances for three separate categories of vehicles,
when tested at a speed of 60 mph on a surface with a PFC of 0.9, as
follows:
Loaded and Unloaded Buses
280 ft.
Loaded Single-Unit Trucks
310 ft.
Unloaded Single-Unit Trucks
335 ft.
NHTSA believes that these stopping distances, combined with the
stability and control final rule, will ensure that heavy vehicles make
short stable stops within a reasonable distance. The agency further
notes that the companion notice to require heavy vehicles to be
equipped with antilock brake systems will also help to improve the
braking performance of those vehicles enough to enable them to comply
with the stopping distance requirements.
C. First Effectiveness Test
The first effectiveness test in Standard No. 105, which is commonly
known as the ``preburnish test,'' measures brake performance very early
in a vehicle's life. School buses are the only heavy vehicle type
currently subject to the first effectiveness test (and to Standard No.
105's other stopping distance requirements.)
In the NPRM, NHTSA did not propose applying the preburnish test to
other heavy vehicles. The agency stated that the first effectiveness
test would continue to apply to school buses, since it did not want to
modify the Standard's current requirements. The agency reasoned that
subjecting school buses (but not other heavy vehicles) to the first
effectiveness test was appropriate given the provisions in the vehicle
safety law pertaining to school buses (codified as 49 U.S.C. 301), and
the ``stop-and-go'' duty cycle of school buses. The agency requested
comment on whether to apply the first effectiveness test to heavy
vehicles in general and whether to retain the test for school buses.
AAMA, AlliedSignal, and HDBMC stated that heavy vehicles, including
school buses, should not be subject to the first effectiveness test and
the 30-mph second effectiveness test. AlliedSignal commented that
excluding hydraulically braked school buses from the first
effectiveness test would be consistent with the agency's intent for
consistency between hydraulically braked and air-braked vehicles.
AlliedSignal also stated that the intended usage of non-school buses
and school buses is nearly identical, and that chassis components are
nearly identical. AAMA commented that school buses and non-school buses
should have standardized braking requirements. AAMA disagreed with the
agency's statement that the school bus provisions of the law have a
bearing on the need for a first effectiveness or 30-mph second
effectiveness requirements for school buses. Straight-Stop and Arent
Fox recommended that transit buses and school buses be tested at speeds
typical of their normal use such as 20 to 30 mph. Chrysler agreed with
the agency's proposal not to apply the first effectiveness test to
heavy vehicles, except for school buses.
Advocates requested that the agency apply the first effectiveness
test to all hydraulic braked vehicles, not just school buses. It
claimed that the new non-asbestos linings tend to swell early in the
service lives of new brakes. As a result, it believed that the stopping
distance would be degraded during this period, a phenomenon that would
be detrimental to safety. Advocates argued that the agency cannot
arbitrarily dismiss the first effectiveness test with an assertion that
it is not aware of any ``green brake'' crashes.
After reviewing the comments and other available information, NHTSA
has decided not to apply the preburnish test to all heavy vehicles
equipped with hydraulic brakes. It has also decided that the test
should not apply to school buses. As explained in the NPRM, NHTSA is
not aware of any crashes involving hydraulically braked heavy vehicles
caused by ``green'' brake linings. Therefore, the agency has determined
that there is no need to apply the preburnish test to heavy vehicles.
The agency notes that its decision not to apply the preburnish test to
heavy vehicles results in the requirements in Standard No. 105 and
Standard No. 121 being consistent for similar vehicles given the
absence of a preburnish test in FMVSS No. 121 for air-braked school
buses.\6\
\6\The agency decided not to include a preburnish test in
Standard No. 135, reasoning that few vehicles are driven any length
of time in an unburnished condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to non-asbestos linings, NHTSA agrees that there is a
tendency for such linings to swell early in the life of the new brakes.
However, the agency has already addressed this issue in greater detail
in a NPRM on the brake adjustment procedure for brake burnish of heavy
vehicles (56 FR 66395, December 23, 1991). The agency concluded that
the swelling of the non-asbestos linings has no effect on their service
life or on the service brake performance of the vehicle.
D. Second Effectiveness Test
The second effectiveness test in Standard No. 105 assesses brake
performance when a vehicle is in its fully loaded condition. In the
NPRM, NHTSA proposed extending the second effectiveness test to
hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles. The agency explained that this
test replicates one of the most common loading conditions for heavy
vehicles. The agency tentatively concluded that it would be in the
interests of safety to establish stopping distance requirements for
hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles in the fully loaded condition (at
GVWR).
NHTSA notes that, unlike the requirements in Standard No. 121 which
specify 60-mph stops, the second effectiveness test includes 30-mph
stops as well as 60-mph stops. The agency proposed applying the 30-mph
test to school buses, since it is similar to their in-service stop-and-
go operation. Although there is no similar 30-mph road test for air-
braked school buses, the brake assemblies of these vehicles are
required to be tested on a dynamometer under section S5.4 of Standard
No. 121. These tests evaluate the capability of a brake assembly in a
stop-and-go duty cycle. Section S5.4.2, Brake Power, requires that the
brake be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations from 50 mph to
15 mph at an average deceleration rate of 9 feet per second. Therefore,
the agency further believed that the 30-mph portion of the second
effectiveness tests should be retained for school buses only, given
their stop-and-go duty cycle. [[Page 13302]]
AlliedSignal was the sole commenter on the issue of the 30-mph
stopping distances. It stated that its testing of a current system
showed that the proposed requirement of 70 feet for the 30-mph second
effectiveness test would be difficult to meet without major brake
redesign. It therefore recommended that the requirement be increased to
at least 78 feet if the agency decides not to exclude school buses from
this test.
NHTSA has decided to apply the test requirement to school buses
with a stopping distance of 70 feet, as proposed. The agency notes that
no vehicle manufacturer objected to the proposed stopping distance
value. Further, NHTSA's test data (NHTSA Heavy-Duty Vehicle Brake
Research Program Report No. 4--Stopping Capability of Hydraulically-
Braked Vehicles) show that 70 feet is a reasonable requirement from 30
mph for the second effectiveness test.
NHTSA acknowledges that some transit buses have stop-and-go duty
cycles similar to school buses. However, such vehicles are typically
equipped with air brake systems, and would therefore be required to
have their brake assemblies dynamometer tested. The 30-mph second
effectiveness test would not apply to these vehicles because they are
not school buses.
E. Leadtime
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that the stopping distance requirements
become effective two years after the final rule's publication.
AAMA supported the proposed effective date, provided that the
agency incorporated its recommended modifications in the final rule.
Rockwell recommended that the stopping distance requirements and the
stability performance requirements be combined so that the effective
dates for both rulemakings are concurrent. Several commenters to the
stability and control NPRM, including AAMA, made the same suggestion.
AAMA noted that since ABS can have a direct influence on achievable
stopping distance, it is important to optimize brake system performance
by taking both stopping distance and stability into account.
On April 12, 1994, NHTSA published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (59 FR 17326) that proposed the following
implementation schedule for both the stopping distance and lateral
stability and control requirements:
Truck tractors
2 years after final rule (1996)
Trailers
3 years after final rule (1997)
Air-braked single unit trucks and buses
3 years after final rule (1997)
Hydraulic-braked single unit trucks and buses
4 years after final rule (1998).
The agency reasoned that making the effective dates for the two
rulemakings concurrent would facilitate a more orderly implementation
process, avoid the need for manufacturers to redesign the brakes on
individual vehicles twice, and reduce the development and compliance
costs that manufacturers would face as a result of these regulations.
NHTSA requested comments about the implementation schedule proposed in
the supplemental notice.
As the stability and control final rule discusses in detail in the
section titled ``Implementation Schedule,'' NHTSA has decided to adopt
an implementation schedule similar to the one proposed in the SNPRM.
Specifically, hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles manufactured on or
after March 1, 1999 will have to be equipped with ABS and comply with
the high coefficient of friction stopping distance requirements. The
agency has decided that these effective dates, which were widely
supported by vehicle manufacturers, brake manufacturers, and safety
advocacy groups, will provide for an efficient implementation of the
heavy vehicle braking requirements.
F. Costs
As indicated earlier, NHTSA does not anticipate the need for
vehicle manufacturers to change the design of the foundation brake
system of heavy, hydraulically braked vehicles in order to comply with
the requirements of this final rule. The only costs associated with
this rulemaking are those related to compliance testing costs. As
detailed in the FRE, the agency estimates these costs to be $1.030
million, or an average per-vehicle cost of $5.30.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA
has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This
action has been determined to be not ``significant'' under those
policies and procedures.
A FRE setting forth the agency's detailed analysis of the benefits
and costs of this rulemaking (along with the other rules issued today)
has been prepared and been placed in the docket. As mentioned above,
the agency estimates that the costs attributable to these requirements
are approximately $1.03 million for testing costs.
Based on its analysis, the agency concludes that the requirements
will improve safety by ensuring that all heavy vehicles are capable of
stopping within a safe distance. The agency believes that implementing
the stopping distance requirements for heavy vehicles will not result
in significant costs since the braking performance of currently
produced vehicles is adequate for these vehicles to comply with the
reinstated requirements.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. As mentioned above, most heavy vehicles will comply
with the requirements without the need for significant changes. In
addition, the agency is not aware of any manufacturer of heavy vehicles
or hydraulic brake systems that is considered to be a small entity.
There are no added costs associated with modifying a vehicle's brake
system to comply with the requirements implemented by this final rule.
The industry test cost per vehicle to assure compliance with the
proposal is very small: $5.30. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis has been prepared.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this rule under the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it will not have a significant impact on
the human environment. No changes in existing production or disposal
processes will result, except that there is a reduction resulting from
the removal of the ALV. Nor should production and disposal processes
have a significant adverse affect on the environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
[[Page 13303]]
F. 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.
Sec. 571.105 [Amended]
2. Section 571.105 is amended by adding the definition of ``wheel
lockup'' in S4 and by revising Table II, S5.1.1, S5.1.1.2, S6, S6.9,
and S6.10; and by adding S6.9.1, S6.9.2, S6.10.1 and S6.10.2 to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Wheel lockup means 100 percent wheel slip.
* * * * *
[[Page 13304]]
Table II.--Stopping Distances
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stopping distance in feet for tests indicated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--1st (preburnished) & 4th II--2d effectiveness III--3d (lightly loaded vehicles) IV--Inoperative brake
effectiveness; spike effectiveness ------------------------------------ effectiveness power and power assist
Vehicle test speed (miles per hour) check --------------------------------------------- unit; partial failure
------------------------------------ (b) & --------------------------
(a) (c) (d) (e) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (b) & (d) &
(a) (b) (c) (d) (a) (c) (e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.............................................. 157 1,265 1,269
(1st)
1,265 (4th
and
spike)
172 1,288 154 157 1,278 70 51 57 65 84 70 114 130 170
35.............................................. 74 83 91 132 70 74 106 96 67 74 83 114 96 155 176 225
40.............................................. 96 108 119 173 91 96 138 124 87 96 108 149 124 202 229 288
45.............................................. 121 137 150 218 115 121 175 158 110 121 137 189 158 257 291 358
50.............................................. 150 169 185 264 142 150 216 195 135 150 169 233 195 317 359 435
55.............................................. 181 204 224 326 172 181 261 236 163 181 204 281 236 383 433 530
60.............................................. 1216 1242 1267 1,2388 1204 1216 1310 280 1194 1216 1242 1335 280 1456 1517 1613
80.............................................. 1405 1459 1510 NA 1383 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
95.............................................. 1607 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
100............................................. 1673 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Distance for specified tests. 2Applicable to school buses only. NA=Not applicable.
Note: (a) Passenger cars; (b) vehicles other than passenger cars with GVWR of less than 8,000 lbs; (c) vehicles with GVWR of not less than 8,000 lbs and not more than 10,000 lbs; (d) vehicles
with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs; (e) buses, including school buses, with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs.
[[Page 13305]]
* * * * *
S5.1.1 Stopping distance.
(a) The service brakes shall be capable of stopping each vehicle
with a GVWR of less than 8,000 pounds, and each school bus with a GVWR
between 8,000 pounds and 10,000 pounds in four effectiveness tests
within the distances and from the speeds specified in S5.1.1.1,
S5.1.1.2, S5.1.1.3, and S5.1.1.4.
(b) The service brakes shall be capable of stopping each vehicle
with a GVWR of between 8,000 pounds and 10,000 pounds, other than a
school bus, in three effectiveness tests within the distances and from
the speeds specified in S5.1.1.1, S5.1.1.2, and S5.1.1.4.
(c) The service brakes shall be capable of stopping each vehicle
with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds in two effectiveness tests
within the distances and from the speeds specified in S5.1.1.2 and
S5.1.1.3.
* * * * *
S5.1.1.2 In the second effectiveness test, each vehicle with a
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and each school bus with a GVWR greater
than 10,000 pounds shall be capable of stopping from 30 mph and 60 mph,
and each vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (other than a
school bus) shall be capable of stopping from 60 mph, within the
corresponding distances specified in Column II of Table II. If the
speed attainable in 2 miles is not less than 84 mph, a passenger car or
other vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall also be
capable of stopping from 80 mph within the corresponding distances
specified in Column II of Table II.
* * * * *
S6 Test conditions. The performance requirements of S5 shall be
met under the following conditions. Where a range of conditions is
specified, the vehicle shall be capable of meeting the requirements at
all points within the range. Compliance of vehicles manufactured in two
or more stages may, at the option of the final-stage manufacturer, be
demonstrated to comply with this standard by adherence to the
instructions of the incomplete manufacturer provided with the vehicle
in accordance with Sec. 568.4(a)(7)(ii) and Sec. 568.5 of title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
* * * * *
S6.9 Road Surface.
S6.9.1 For vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, road
tests are conducted on a 12-foot-wide, level roadway, having a skid
number of 81. Burnish stops are conducted on any surface. The parking
brake test surface is clean, dry, smooth, Portland cement concrete.
S6.9.2 For vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, road
tests are conducted on a 12-foot-wide, level roadway, having a peak
friction coefficient of 0.9 when measured using an American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1136 standard reference test tire, in
accordance with ASTM Method E 1337-90, at a speed of 40 mph, without
water delivery. Burnish stops are conducted on any surface. The parking
brake test surface is clean, dry, smooth, Portland cement concrete.
* * * * *
S6.10 Vehicle Position and Wheel Lockup Restrictions. The vehicle
is aligned in the center of the roadway at the start of each brake
application. Stops, other than spike stops, are made without any part
of the vehicle leaving the roadway.
S6.10.1 For vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, stops
are made with wheel lockup permitted only as follows:
(a) At vehicle speeds above 10 mph, there may be controlled wheel
lockup on an antilock-equipped axle, and lockup of not more than one
wheel per vehicle, uncontrolled by an antilock system. (Dual wheels on
one side of an axle are considered a single wheel.)
(b) At vehicle speeds of 10 mph or less, any wheel may lock up for
any duration.
(c) Unlimited wheel lockup is allowed during spike stops (but not
spike check stops), partial failure stops, and inoperative brake power
or power assist unit stops.
S6.10.2 For vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, stops
are made with wheel lockup permitted only as follows:
(a) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph, any wheel on a nonsteerable
axle other than the two rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles may
lock up for any duration. The wheels on the two rearmost nonliftable,
nonsteerable axles may lock up according to (b).
(b) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph, one wheel on any axle or two
wheels on any tandem may lock up for any duration.
(c) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph, any wheel not permitted to lock
in (a) or (b) may lock up repeatedly, with each lockup occurring for a
duration of one second or less.
(d) At vehicle speeds of 20 mph or less, any wheel may lock up for
any duration.
(e) Unlimited wheel lockup is allowed during partial failure stops,
and inoperative brake power or power assist stops.
Issued on March 1, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-5412 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
