75486 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Source of Flooding and Location 

#Depth in 

feet above 

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

•Elevation

in feet

(NAVD) 

Approximately 100 meters 

downstream of Puerto Rico 

Route 2 .............................. *10.7 

Approximately 9.5 kilometers 

upstream of Puerto Rico 

Route 174 .......................... *250.6

Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, Municipality of Bayamon

Rio de La Plata (Toa Baja):

Approximately 0.1 kilometer 

above the confluence with 

Atlantic Ocean ................... *3.3 

At downstream side of Puerto Rico Route 2 ................. *11.0

Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico

Rio Nigua:

Approximately 400 meters 

upstream of mouth of Rio 

Nigua ................................. *3.2 

Approximately 5.41 kilometers upstream of Puerto 

Rico Route 52 ................... *49.5

Rio Coamo:

Approximately 2.16 kilometers downstream of 

Puerto Rico Route 1 .......... *3.0 

Approximately 2.15 kilometers upstream of Puerto 

Rico Route 1 ..................... *20.1

Rio de La Plata (Toa Alta):

At downstream side of Puerto Rico Route 2 ................. *11.0 

Approximately 0.3 kilometer 

upstream of Puerto Rico 

Route 824 .......................... *22.0

Rio de La Plata: Overflow:

Approximately 0.79 kilometer 

downstream of the road to 

Military Reservation ........... *2.3 

Approximately 0.45 kilometer 

upstream of Puerto Rico 

Route 854 .......................... *6.7

Rio Grande:

At the confluence with 

Espiritu Santo River .......... *5.0 

At the Puerto Rico Route 3 .. *6.9

Maps available for inspection

at the Puerto Rico Planning 

Board, Minilas Government 

Center, North Building, East 

Diego Avenue, Stop 22, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico.

Municipality of Bayamon

Maps available for inspection

at Carretera #2, Alcaldia de 

Bayamon, 4to piso Oficina de 

Ordenacion Territorial, Bayamon, Puerto Rico. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: December 8, 2004. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Acting Director, Mitigation Division, 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 04–27619 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–04–19892] 

RIN 2127–AI63

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Hydraulic and Electric 

Brake Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA is 

establishing an option in the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard on 

hydraulic and electric brake systems to 

permit the use of a roll bar structure 

during specified testing of brake systems 

in single unit trucks and buses. This 

option is already available for similar 

testing of air braked trucks and buses. 

Permitting the use of a roll bar structure 

will help protect drivers and 

technicians in the event of a rollover 

during testing of hydraulically-braked 

trucks and buses. The safety of drivers 

and technicians is a primary concern 

during vehicle testing. The use of a roll 

bar structure offers protection to the 

drivers and technicians performing 

brake tests conducted at lightly loaded 

vehicle weight.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is 

effective January 18, 2005. 

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration 

must be received by January 31, 2005, 

and should refer to this docket and the 

notice number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

Note that all petitions received will be 

posted without change to http://

dms.dot.gov including any personal 

information provided. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking 

Analysis and Notices. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Samuel 

Daniel Jr., Safety Standards Engineer, 

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, 

Vehicle Dynamics Division, at (202) 

366–4921, and fax him at (202) 493–

2739. 

For legal issues, you may call 

Christopher Calamita of the NHTSA 

Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366–

2992, and fax him at (202) 366–3820. 

You may send mail to both of these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Proposed 

Rulemaking 

NHTSA has two brake standards for 

medium and heavy vehicles. Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake 

systems, applies to vehicles with 

hydraulic brakes. FMVSS No. 121, Air 

brake systems, applies to vehicles with 

air brakes. 

Although FMVSS No. 105 and 121 

have similar brake performance 

requirements, the two standards have 

differed with respect to their 

specifications concerning the use of a 

roll bar during these tests. Roll bars are 

sometimes added to vehicles for brake 

testing if there are concerns about a 

possible vehicle rollover.

On March 10, 1995, NHTSA 

published a final rule amending FMVSS 

No. 121 requiring all air braked vehicles 

to be equipped with antilock brake 

systems (ABS) (60 FR 13216). The 

braking-in-a-curve performance test for 

truck tractors adopted in that final rule 

included a manufacturer’s option for 

using a roll bar structure during 

performance of that test at lightly loaded 

vehicle weight (LLVW). Loading of a 

vehicle to test at the gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) already afforded 

manufacturers the opportunity to use a 

roll bar structure. 

On December 12, 2001, the agency 

extended the option for use of a roll bar 

structure on vehicles tested at lightly 

loaded vehicle weight in other FMVSS 

No. 121 tests, including the 60 mph 

straight-line stop and the parking brake 

grade holding tests (66 FR 64154). In 

extending the option for using a roll bar 

structure to these tests, we determined 

that the roll bar option is equally 

appropriate for tractors as well as singleunit vehicles. 

NHTSA then established braking-in-acurve test requirements for hydraulicVerDate jul<14>2003 16:46 Dec 16, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM 17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 75487

braked single-unit trucks and buses that 

are equipped with ABS and have a 

GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (68 

FR 47485; August 11, 2003). Again, the 

concerns regarding possible rollover led 

NHTSA to grant manufacturers the 

option to use a roll bar structure on 

single-unit trucks and buses undergoing 

the braking-in-a-curve test under 

FMVSS No. 105. 

On November 4, 2003, the agency 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to permit the use of a roll 

bar structure on any vehicle with a 

GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds 

during FMVSS No. 105 compliance 

testing of the parking brake system at 

LLVW, the service brake system at 

LLVW, and the service brake system in 

partial failure mode at LLVW (68 FR 

62421). No comments were received. 

II. Final Rule 

We are amending FMVSS No. 105 as 

proposed in the November 2003 notice. 

Today’s final rule gives manufacturers 

the option of using a roll bar structure 

on medium and heavy vehicles during 

compliance testing of the parking brake 

system at LLVW, the service brake 

system at LLVW, and the service brake 

system in partial failure mode at LLVW. 

As explained in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking, performance 

testing of brake systems at LLVW on 

vehicles with a GVWR greater than 

10,000 pounds may result in vehicle 

rollover because of the configuration of 

these vehicles. Trucks and buses with a 

GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds often 

have a high center of gravity resulting in 

a low rollover threshold. Rollover 

threshold is the lateral acceleration at 

which a vehicle will roll over and for 

trucks and buses with a GVWR greater 

than 10,000 pounds it is usually 0.5 g 

or less. In contrast, a typical light 

vehicle has a rollover threshold between 

0.8 g and 1.2 g. For tests performed at 

GVWR, manufacturers can already 

include roll bar structure weight in the 

vehicle weight to provide test drivers 

and technicians additional safety. This 

final rule permits, at manufacturer’s 

option, the use of a roll bar structure on 

these vehicles undergoing testing at 

LLVW. 

Hydraulically-braked vehicles with a 

GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds must 

meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 

105, including 60 mph straight-line 

stopping distance requirements and, for 

heavy school buses, parking brake 

requirements. During straight line stop 

testing, an equipment malfunction or a 

problem with the ABS can create the 

potential for these trucks and buses to 

yaw. Because of the low rollover 

threshold, these vehicles may roll over 

if they experience yaw at test speeds. 

During the parking brake test, while the 

vehicle is in the forward direction on a 

20 percent grade, a failure of the brake 

system on one side of the vehicle can 

also cause the vehicle to yaw and 

perhaps roll over. 

Currently, heavy school buses are the 

only vehicles with a GVWR greater than 

10,000 pounds required by FMVSS No. 

105 to meet the parking brake 

requirements. However, the agency has 

requested comments on a proposal that 

would require all hydraulically braked 

vehicles with a GVWR greater than 

10,000 pounds to have parking brakes 

that meet these same requirements (67 

FR 66098; October 30, 2002). 

The agency also notes that single-unit 

trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 

pounds may undergo brake system 

testing either as completed trucks or as 

chassis-cabs without bodies or 

equipment that would normally be 

installed by a final-stage manufacturer. 

A completed vehicle is likely to have 

more structure to protect a test driver 

than an incomplete vehicle. If a 

completed truck were to roll over, the 

impact force would be distributed 

across the body and cab of the truck. In 

the absence of a body or additional 

equipment during testing of a chassiscab, the vehicle cab would receive a 

greater impact force during a rollover, 

increasing the potential of harm to the 

driver. Permitting the use of a roll bar 

allows manufacturers to provide 

additional protection for the test driver 

in the event of a rollover. 

III. Effective Date 

This final rule does not impose any 

new requirements. Instead, it simply 

allows manufacturers the option of a 

roll bar as an added safety measure 

during the specified compliance tests. 

Since this final rule relieves a restriction 

and promotes safety for test drivers, it 

will become effective 30 days after the 

date of this publication.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 JR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budget impact 

of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is also 

not considered to be significant under 

the Department’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979). 

This document amends 49 CFR 

571.105 by including a manufacturer’s 

option for the use of a roll bar structure 

during the performance testing of 

hydraulic brake systems. The 

amendment allows, at manufacturer’s 

option, the use of a roll bar structure 

when testing hydraulic braked vehicles 

with a GVWR greater than 10,000 

pounds at lightly loaded vehicle weight. 

Because of the configuration of these 

vehicles, they are susceptible to roll 

over during testing. We conclude that 

permitting the use of a roll bar structure 

will help protect drivers and 

technicians in the event of a rollover 

during these tests. As noted above, 

today’s final rule does not impose any 

new requirements. Instead, the final rule 

simply allows manufacturers the option 

of a roll bar as an added safety measure 

during the specified compliance tests. 

The impacts are so small that a full 

regulatory evaluation was not prepared. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,

NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this 

proposed action on small entities. I 

hereby certify that this notice of 

proposed rulemaking would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

As explained above, the final rule 

does not require use of a roll bar 

structure and therefore does not impose 

any increased costs or other burdens on 

truck manufacturers. The final rule 

simply permits the use of a roll bar 

structure at the manufacturer’s option, 

on test vehicles undergoing brake 

testing. Accordingly, there is no 

significant impact on small businesses, 

small organizations, or small 

75488 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

governmental units by these 

amendments. 

C. Executive Order No. 13132

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132, Federalism and has determined 

that this final rule does not have 

sufficient Federal implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule does not have any 

substantial impact on the States, or on 

the current Federal-State relationship, 

or on the current distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various 

local officials.

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule does not contain any 

collection of information requirements 

requiring review under the paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). 

F. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ Society 

of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Recommended Practice J1626 APR96, 

Braking, Stability, and Control 

Performance Test Procedures for AirBrake-Equipped Truck Tractors,

includes an option for using a roll bar 

structure for testing at LLVW. While the 

SAE practice applies to air braked 

trucks, the SAE tests performed at 

LLVW are similar to tests performed at 

LLVW under FMVSS No. 105. The final 

rule permits the use of a roll bar 

structure in a manner similar to that in 

the SAE recommended practice. 

G. Civil Justice Reform 

The final rule does not have any 

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 

21403, 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. 21461 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. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This rulemaking will not result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $100 million 

annually. 

I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda.

J. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.) You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (volume 65, 

number 70; pages 19477–78) or you may 

visit http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, 

and Tires.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as 

set forth below.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

■ 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.

■ 2. Section 571.105 is amended by 

revising S6.1.2, S7.7.3, S7.8, and S7.9.1 

to read as follows:

§ 571.105 Standard No. 105; Hydraulic and 

electric braking systems.

* * * * *

S6.1.2 For applicable tests specified 

in S7.5(a), S7.7, S7.8, and S7.9, vehicle 

weight is lightly loaded vehicle weight, 

with the added weight, except for the 

roll bar structure allowed for trucks and 

buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 

pounds, distributed in the front 

passenger seat area in passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, and 

trucks, and in the area adjacent to the 

driver’s seat in buses.

* * * * *

S7.7.3 Lightly loaded vehicle. Repeat 

S7.7.1 or S7.7.2 as applicable except 

with the vehicle at lightly loaded 

vehicles weight or at manufacturer’s 

option, for a vehicle with GVWR greater 

than 10,000 pounds, at lightly loaded 

vehicle weight plus not more than an 

additional 1,000 pounds for a roll bar 

structure on the vehicle.

* * * * *

S7.8 Service brake system test—

lightly loaded vehicle (third 

effectiveness) test. Make six stops from 

60 mph with vehicle at lightly vehicle 

weight, or at the manufacturer’s option 

for a vehicle with GVWR greater than 

10,000 pounds, at lightly loaded vehicle 

weight plus not more than an additional 

1,000 pounds for a roll bar structure on 

the vehicle. (This test is not applicable 

to a vehicle which has a GVWR of not 

less than 7,716 pounds and not greater 

than 10,000 pounds and is not a school 

bus.)

* * * * *

S7.9.1 With the vehicle at lightly 

loaded vehicle weight or at the 

manufacturer’s option for a vehicle with 

a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, at 

lightly loaded vehicle weight plus not 

more than an additional 1,000 pounds 

for a roll bar structure on the vehicle, 

alter the service brake system to 

produce any one rupture or leakage type 

of failure, other than a structural failure 

of a housing that is common to two or 

more subsystems. Determine the control 

force, pressure level, or fluid level (as 

appropriate for the indicator being 

tested) necessary to activate the brake 

system indicator lamp. Make four stops 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 75489

if the vehicle is equipped with a split 

service brake system, or 10 stops if the 

vehicle is not so equipped, each from 60 

mph, by a continuous application of the 

service brake control. Restore the 

service brake system to normal at 

completion of this test.

* * * * *

Dated: Issued on December 13, 2004. 

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–27595 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M