[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24454-24466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11775]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[FHWA Docket No. MC-94-31; FHWA-97-2318]
RIN 2125-AD42


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Antilock 
Brake Systems

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations (FMCSRs) to require that air-braked truck tractors 
manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, and air-braked single-unit 
trucks, buses, trailers,

[[Page 24455]]

and converter dollies manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, be 
equipped with antilock brake systems (ABSs) that meet the requirements 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121. The FHWA is 
also requiring hydraulic-braked trucks and buses manufactured on or 
after March 1, 1999, to be equipped with ABSs that meet the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 105. In addition, the agency is requiring 
motor carriers to maintain the ABSs on these vehicles. This rulemaking 
is intended to ensure that the in-service brake standards of the FMCSRs 
are consistent with the FMVSSs. The rulemaking would also improve the 
safety of operation of commercial motor vehicles by reducing the 
incidence of accidents caused by jackknifing and other losses of 
directional stability and control during braking. With regard to 
commercial motor vehicles manufactured prior to the dates previously 
mentioned, the FHWA is not requiring motor carriers to retrofit such 
vehicles with ABSs.

DATES: This rule is effective June 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor 
Carrier Research and Standards, HCS-10, (202) 366-4009; or Mr. Charles 
E. Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-20, (202) 366-1354, 
Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): 
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each 
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and 
help.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the Federal Register 
Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may 
reach the Federal Register's home page at: <a href="http://www.nara.gov/nara/
fedreg">http://www.nara.gov/nara/
fedreg</a> and the Government Printing Office's database at: <a href="http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs">http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs</a>.

Background

    Section 4012 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2157) directs the 
Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking concerning methods 
for improving the braking performance of new commercial motor vehicles, 
<SUP>\1\</SUP> including truck tractors, trailers, and their dollies. 
Congress specifically directed that the rulemaking examine antilock 
systems, means of improving brake compatibility, and methods of 
ensuring effectiveness of brake timing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purposes of section 4012, the term ``commercial 
motor vehicle'' means any self-propelled or towed vehicle used on 
highways to transport passengers or property if such vehicle has a 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 11,794 kilograms (kg) (26,001 
pounds) or more. The NHTSA's final rule on ABS applies to medium and 
heavy vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
Rulemaking

    In response to the ISTEA, the NHTSA published a final rule amending 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake 
Systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to require that medium 
and heavy vehicles be equipped with an ABS to improve the lateral 
stability (i.e., traction) and steering control of these vehicles 
during braking (60 FR 13216, March 10, 1995). For truck tractors, the 
ABS requirement is supplemented by a 48.3 kilometer per hour (30-mph) 
braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface using 
a full brake application. By improving lateral stability and control, 
these requirements will significantly reduce jackknifing and other 
losses of control during braking, as well as the deaths and injuries 
caused by those control problems.
    In addition, the NHTSA final rule requires all powered heavy 
vehicles to be equipped with an in-cab lamp to indicate ABS 
malfunctions. Truck tractors and other trucks equipped to tow air-
braked trailers are required to be equipped with two separate in-cab 
lamps: one indicating malfunctions in the towing vehicle ABS and the 
other in the trailer ABS. The requirement for the in-cab lamp to alert 
the driver of malfunctions in the trailer ABS applies to trucks and 
truck tractors manufactured on or after March 1, 2001 (61 FR 5949, 
February 15, 1996). Trailers produced during an initial 11-year period 
(March 1, 1998 through March 1, 2009) must also be equipped with an 
external malfunction indicator that is visible to the driver of the 
towing tractor (61 FR 5949).
    The amendments to FMVSS No. 105 become effective on March 1, 1999. 
With the exception of the in-cab indicator for trailer ABS 
malfunctions, the amendments to FMVSS No. 121 became effective on March 
1, 1997, for truck tractors, and on March 1, 1998, for air-braked 
trailers, converter dollies, single unit trucks, and buses.

FHWA Notice of Intent

    On March 10, 1995, the FHWA published a notice of intent to 
initiate a rulemaking concerning requirements for ABSs on commercial 
motor vehicles operating in interstate commerce (60 FR 13306). The 
notice of intent included an extensive discussion of the NHTSA's ABS 
fleet study conducted between 1988 and 1993. Copies of the reports from 
the fleet study have been placed in the docket.<SUP>\2\</SUP> The NHTSA 
tracked the maintenance performance histories of 200 truck tractors and 
50 semitrailers equipped with ABSs, as well as the histories of a 
comparison group of 88 truck tractors and 35 semitrailers that were not 
equipped with ABSs to determine the incremental maintenance costs and 
patterns associated with installing ABSs on these heavy vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``An In-Service Evaluation of the Reliability, 
Maintainability, and Durability of Antilock Braking Systems (ABS) 
for Heavy Truck Tractors,'' DOT Report No. 807 846, March 1992, and 
``An In-Service Evaluation of the Reliability, Maintainability, and 
Durability of Antilock Braking Systems (ABS) for Semitrailers,'' DOT 
Report No. 808 059, October 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authors concluded that, based upon the data collected during 
the fleet study, currently available ABSs are reliable, durable, and 
maintainable. While an ABS is not a zero-cost maintenance item, its 
presence on a vehicle did not substantially increase maintenance costs 
(less than one percent for tractors, less than two percent for 
trailers) or decrease vehicle operational availability.
    The NHTSA data indicate that ABSs are neither difficult nor unduly 
expensive to maintain. The fleet test results do not indicate that the 
level of maintenance required to keep an ABS functional is unreasonable 
relative to the safety benefits that will result from the use of these 
systems.
    The FHWA concluded that a rulemaking should be initiated to propose 
amending the FMCSRs to include ABS requirements and solicited comments 
on this decision.

FHWA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    On July 12, 1996, the FHWA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that would require motor carriers to maintain the ABSs on 
commercial motor vehicles manufactured on or after the effective dates 
of the NHTSA requirements (61 FR 36691). The NPRM discussed the 
comments received in response to the

[[Page 24456]]

notice of intent and the FHWA's responses to the comments. The comments 
covered a range of issues including: Interpretation of 49 CFR 396.3--
certain commenters believed an amendment to part 393 was not necessary 
and that Sec. 396.3 could be used to assure that motor carriers provide 
appropriate maintenance for ABSs; research on ABS operation and failure 
modes; retrofitting; inspection procedures; and applicability to 
Canada-and Mexico-based motor carriers. The FHWA did not propose an 
exemption for commercial motor vehicles operated in the United States 
by Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers, but specifically requested 
comments from such motor carriers and original equipment manufacturers 
that sell vehicles for the Canadian and Mexican markets.

Discussion of Comments

    The FHWA received 8 comments in response to the July 12, 1996, 
NPRM. The commenters were: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (the 
Advocates); the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA); Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS); the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters (the Teamsters); Midland-Grau Heavy Duty Systems; Rockwell 
WABCO Vehicle Control Systems (Rockwell WABCO); the Texas Department of 
Transportation (Texas DOT); and, the Truck Manufacturers Association 
(TMA).
    Generally, the commenters were in favor of the FHWA establishing 
requirements for motor carriers to maintain the ABSs. However, the ATA 
expressed concerns about the FHWA's proposed cross-reference to FMVSS 
Nos. 105 and 121, and certain aspects of the proposed regulatory 
language that the ATA considered design restrictive. The Texas DOT 
supported the proposed requirements for ABSs, but expressed concern 
about radio frequency interference (RFI) problems with current 
generation ABSs. The specific concerns or issues raised by the 
commenters are discussed below.

Retrofitting

    The ATA, Teamsters, Midland-Grau, Rockwell WABCO, and the TMA 
supported the FHWA's decision not to propose an ABS retrofitting 
requirement for vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of 
the NHTSA requirements. None of the remaining commenters expressed 
views concerning retrofitting. Rockwell WABCO stated:

    Rockwell WABCO agrees with the FHWA's position that it is 
inappropriate to require ABS to be retrofitted on commercial 
vehicles built prior to the effective date of the NHTSA regulation. 
Rockwell WABCO believes antilock braking systems (ABS) represent the 
best and most reliable technology available to improve the stability 
and control of medium and heavy vehicles during braking. However, 
for the systems to function as designed, they must be properly 
installed. Rockwell WABCO believes it would be extremely difficult 
to achieve quality installations if a nation-wide retrofit program 
were mandated on commercial vehicles built prior to the effective 
date of the regulation.
    Today, commercial vehicle OEMs (original equipment 
manufacturers) are installing ABS in a reliable manner. With proper 
documentation and attention to harness design, wire routing, 
component mounting and quality control procedures, reliable ABS 
installations have become routine. However, without the 
infrastructure available at the OEM level, significant difficulties 
could result if ABS retrofitting was mandated.
    It would be extremely difficult for ABS manufacturers to provide 
the necessary support to the large number of retrofit centers that 
would be required to perform a task of this magnitude. Because of 
the variety and configurations of vehicles involved, a significant 
amount of engineering would be required to accomplish a major 
retrofit program. As the NHTSA research has shown, even with the 
cooperation of a variety of suppliers, it potentially is difficult 
to achieve defect free tractor/truck ABS installations during a 
retrofitting process.

    The TMA is an organization of truck manufacturers, including the 
Ford Motor Company, Freightliner Corporation, General Motors 
Corporation, Mack Trucks, Inc., Navistar International Transportation 
Corporation, PACCAR Inc. (manufacturers of Kenworth and Peterbilt 
trucks) and Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation. The TMA stated:

    TMA does not support the concept of ABS retrofit. The FHWA is not 
proposing that motor carriers be required to retrofit vehicles 
manufactured prior to the dates previously mentioned, however, the FHWA 
requested comments on this subject. Kits for retrofit have not been 
designed and are, therefore, not commercially available.

    The Teamsters stated:

    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters agrees that 
retrofitting ABS for CMV's (commercial motor vehicles) currently in 
service would not be advisable. It would be extremely difficult and 
expensive to properly retrofit all the vehicles which are now in 
service. As the NHTSA Fleet Study proved, the technology is not 
currently available to allow a smooth retrofitting process. Many 
technical problems would be faced during the retrofitting process: 
pieces of equipment would have to be fabricated, and workers would 
have to be trained to install and service these ``new'' brake 
systems. According to the requirements of Sec. 396.25, these workers 
would need to obtain one year of experience before working on ABS.
    There would be no guarantee that the retrofitted brakes would 
operate properly and it might be possible to damage or disable the 
original brake system thus making it impossible to stop the vehicle 
within a safe distance. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
is inclined to agree with the FHWA assumption that the percentage of 
malfunctions of the retrofitted ABS would be ``* * * much greater if 
motor carriers were required to attempt retrofitting the innumerable 
configurations of air-braked vehicles.'' (61 FR 36695) For these 
reasons which could negatively impact on CMV safety the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters believes it would not be 
prudent to require motor carriers to retrofit ABS at this time.
    If, in the future, retrofit kits were developed which adequately 
addressed these safety concerns, then requiring retrofitting would 
be wise. These kits, provided by the manufacturers, could be 
designed for specific vehicles and provide detailed instructions to 
assist in their installation. Should these kits become available, 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters would recommend that 
retrofitting be required.

    The FHWA agrees with the commenters; statements about the 
difficulties the motor carrier industry would have retrofitting 
commercial motor vehicles with ABS. The FHWA believes the NHTSA 
research provides a strong indication of the types of technical 
problems that would be expected if motor carriers were required to 
retrofit vehicles with ABS.
    As the FHWA noted in the preamble to the NPRM, at the time the 
NHTSA conducted its research, only one heavy truck manufacturer offered 
ABS as a fully-engineered production option on its line of trucks. In 
contrast, most of the remaining truck tractor manufacturers had only 
limited experience installing small numbers of ``current-generation'' 
ABSs and, therefore, had not worked out many of the detailed design 
aspects of installing the systems. The retrofitting of ABSs on truck 
tractors required teamwork on the part of ABS suppliers, truck 
manufacturers, wheel and hub suppliers, and wiring harness suppliers. 
Even with this team effort, some of the test vehicles were delivered to 
the participating motor carriers with pre-existing problems that, for 
one reason or another, prevented the ABS from functioning properly.
    In all, 116 out of the 200 truck tractors (58 percent) experienced 
installation/pre-production design-related problems. The researchers 
indicated that the relatively high percentage is indicative of the 
``newness'' of the systems in North American applications. Table 1

[[Page 24457]]

summarizes the types of problems that were experienced in the truck 
tractor portion of the fleet study. Table 2 summarizes installation-
related problems in the semitrailer portion of the fleet study.

 Table 1.--Truck Tractor ABS Installation/Pre-Production Design-Related 
                Problems by System Component Needing Work               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of trucks                   
                                        requiring       Number of trucks
                                       inspections,        requiring    
           ABS component              adjustments or    replacements of 
                                     repairs of this     this component 
                                        component                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiring Cables.....................                 12             \2\ 23
Wiring Connectors.................                 29                 10
Sensors and Related Parts.........                  5                 10
Modulator Valves and Related Parts                 13             \3\ 50
Electronic Control Units (ECUs)...                 17             \2\ 20
Others \1\........................                  7                   
Total Number of Trucks per Column.                 57                102
Overall Number of Trucks Involved                                       
 in Installation/Pre-Production                                         
 Design Related Problems..........                                      
(1) 116                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Others include: rewiring due to installation oversights; two        
  miscellaneous wire resecurements; and the addition of one ground strap
  to adjust the ECU.                                                    
\2\ One problem represented all of these replacements.                  
\3\ One problem involved 40 of these trucks, while another involved 10  
  trucks.                                                               
                                                                        
Note: Individual column numbers are not additive since specific trucks  
  may have needed maintenance on more than one component.               


  Table 2.--Semitrailer ABS Installation/Pre-Production Design-Related  
                Problems by System Component Needing Work               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Number of                       
                                       semitrailers        Number of    
                                        requiring         semitrailers  
           ABS component               inspections,        requiring    
                                      adjustments or    replacements of 
                                     repairs of this     this component 
                                        component                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiring Cables.....................                  0                  2
Wiring Connectors.................                 11                  0
Sensors and Related Parts.........              \2\ 3                 10
Modulator Valves and Related Parts  .................  .................
Electronic Control Units (ECUs)...  .................                  5
Others \1\........................  .................                 26
Total Number of Semitrailers per                                        
 Column...........................                 14                 31
Overall Number of Semitrailers                                          
 Involved in Installation/Pre-                                          
 Production Design-Related                                              
 Problems.........................                                      
(1)31                                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Others include: Isolation diode installation and replacement of ECU 
  grommets.                                                             
\2\ Sensor adjustment resulted from incorrectly adjusted wheel bearings 
  on new semitrailers.                                                  
                                                                        
Note: Individual column numbers are not additive since specific         
  semitrailers may have needed maintenance on more than one component.  

    The NHTSA report on the truck tractor portion of the fleet study 
indicates the percentage of installation-related problems is similar to 
that observed by many of the participating fleets when they receive 
newly-built vehicles. However, the FHWA believes the percentage of 
malfunctions would be much greater if motor carriers were required to 
attempt retrofitting innumerable configurations of air-braked vehicles. 
The FHWA considers NHTSA's fleet study to be a best-case scenario for 
retrofitting ABS in that the vehicle and brake manufacturers (as well 
as wheel and hub manufacturers) worked together to complete the 
installations of the ABS. Even with this collaborative effort of 
experienced engineers, numerous problems related to the retrofitting 
process surfaced during the fleet study.
    Although many motor carriers have excellent maintenance programs 
and talented engineering staff, the FHWA believes that the majority of 
motor carriers could not retrofit their vehicles without a substantial 
amount of technical assistance from vehicle and component 
manufacturers. Without this technical assistance, it is more likely 
than not that many of the retrofitted ABS installations would not be 
performed correctly, thereby creating the potential for a degradation 
of the CMV's braking performance. It is unrealistic to expect 
manufacturers to be able to help more than 300,000 motor carriers 
complete the retrofitting of several million vehicles while working on 
the design and installation of ABSs on newly manufactured vehicles.
    The comments submitted by Rockwell WABCO, Midland-Grau, and the TMA 
suggest that brake system and vehicle manufacturers would not have the 
resources to assist motor carriers in complying with a retrofitting 
requirement. Even if there were a collaborative effort between vehicle 
and component manufacturers and the motor carriers, it is unlikely that 
the quality of the ABS installations would be better than those 
performed for the NHTSA fleet study.
    Although none of the commenters to the NPRM specifically discussed 
the costs of retrofitting, the FHWA believes it is important to note 
that the cost of retrofitting a commercial motor vehicle with an ABS is 
likely to be higher than original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 
installations because the vehicle will have to be removed from revenue 
service during the retrofitting process. This is not the case for brand 
new vehicles. Also, repeated adjustments or repairs of the type 
described in the

[[Page 24458]]

NHTSA research reports would mean more down time for the retrofitted 
vehicles.
    The FHWA agrees with the Teamsters' interpretation of Sec. 396.25 
of the FMCSRs, Qualifications of brake inspectors. As the agency 
indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, Sec. 396.25 prohibits motor 
carriers from allowing their employees to be responsible for ensuring 
that brake-related inspection, repair, and maintenance tasks are 
performed correctly unless the employee has at least one year of 
training and/or experience. This requirement was issued in response to 
section 9110 of the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of 
1988 (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)). Therefore, motor carriers 
that lack sufficient staff with at least one year of training and/or 
experience at retrofitting ABSs prior to the effective date of a 
retrofitting requirement, would have to rely on commercial garages or 
similar facilities to fulfill a retrofitting requirement. Since many of 
these facilities would also have very little, if any, experience 
retrofitting ABSs, there is no assurance that they could do a better 
job than the motor carriers' employees. Therefore, most motor carriers 
could not allow their employees to attempt the retrofitting of ABSs, 
and would not have a practical means to satisfy a retrofitting 
requirement.

Roadside Inspection Procedures

    Rockwell WABCO commented on the importance of having standardized 
roadside inspection procedures for the various ABSs. Rockwell WABCO 
stated:

    As stated in our earlier response to FHWA (after the agency's 
March 10, 1995, notice of intent), Rockwell WABCO would like to 
emphasize that the procedure must be short, simple and 
straightforward. The inspections should provide meaningful 
information about the condition of the ABS and take advantage of the 
self-diagnostic system capabilities required by (the NHTSA) 
rulemaking. Rockwell WABCO recommends that FHWA adopt a common 
inspection procedure for all ABS systems regardless of manufacturer 
or vehicle type.
    If FHWA decides that roadside inspections are necessary and 
effective to ensure ABS is properly maintained, Rockwell WABCO 
recommends the inspection consist of (1) a basic bulb check of the 
ABS indicator lamp to be conducted when the ignition switch is 
turned from the ``off'' to the ``on'' position followed by (2) 
verification that the ABS indicator lamp deactivates at the end of 
the check of lamp function.
    In order to pass the inspection, the bulb must illuminate during 
the bulb check and then deactivate. This will indicate the lamp is 
functioning properly and there are no current or pre-existing 
malfunctions present in the ABS. If the ABS indicator lamp does not 
activate at all when the ignition key is turned from the ``off'' to 
the ``on'' position, a potential bulb or indicator lamp circuit 
problem exists. If the indicator lamp does not deactivate after the 
bulb check, a current or pre-existing malfunction potentially exists 
in the ABS, requiring diagnosis and possible repair and/or 
adjustment.

    The FHWA appreciates the information provided by Rockwell WABCO. 
The agency provided members of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's 
<SUP>3</SUP> (CVSA) Vehicle Committee with copies of the July 12, 1996, 
notice of proposed rulemaking which included a detailed discussion of 
the inspection procedures recommended by the brake manufacturers 
commenting to the docket. The FHWA will work with the appropriate 
committees within the CVSA to assist in the development of training 
material to help inspectors identify ABS components and determine if 
the ABSs are working properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) is an 
organization of Federal, State and Provincial government agencies 
and representatives from private industry in the United States, 
Canada and Mexico dedicated to improvement of commercial vehicle 
safety. State agencies responsible for conducting roadside 
inspections are members of the CVSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA, through a contract with the Trucking Research Institute 
(TRI) <SUP>4</SUP>, has developed videotapes to familiarize commercial 
motor vehicle drivers and maintenance personnel with ABSs. The FHWA has 
also developed an ABS brochure for drivers (``Truck Drivers Guide to 
Antilock Braking Systems,'' FHWA-MC-98-006, March 1998) and an ABS 
handbook for maintenance personnel (``Technician Guidelines for 
Antilock Braking Systems: Air-Braked Trucks, Tractors and Trailers,'' 
FHWA-MC-98-008, March 1998). The videotapes (``Antilock Braking 
Systems: What Every Driver Needs to Know'' and ``Technician Guidelines 
for ABS'') and driver brochure are available free of charge from the 
FHWA. Copies may be requested by contacting the Office of Motor Carrier 
Research and Standards at the address or telephone number listed at the 
beginning of this final rule. The technicians booklet will be available 
in July 1998 and may be purchased from the National Technical 
Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port 
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The telephone number for 
ordering publications from the NTIS is 703-605-6000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Conference Committee report on the 1993 Department of 
Transportation Appropriations Act (Pub.L. 102-388, October 6, 1992) 
directed the FHWA to follow the instructions of the House report on 
obligating certain research funds, including funding research on 
means to improve the training of heavy truck brake mechanics. H.R. 
Conf. Rep. No. 102-924, at 35 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA believes the information included in the videotapes and 
publications can be used by the CVSA to help train employees of State 
agencies responsible for conducting roadside inspections within a 
relatively short period of time.

Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance Procedures

    Two commenters discussed the need for inspection, repair, and 
maintenance procedures for motor carriers. The Teamsters stated:

    While the International Brotherhood of Teamsters agrees with the 
FHWA that specific roadside inspection procedures should not be 
included in the FMCSR there is a need to specify within the 
regulations the methodology of vehicle inspections for motor 
carriers. The vehicle inspections should include a review of the ABS 
malfunction indicator lamp, as well as any other appropriate 
inspection procedures. It is logical that specific language 
detailing the systematic inspection, maintenance, and repair of ABS 
should be included in part 396, appendix G, subpart B.

    Midland-Grau stated:

    Regarding the need to add detailed systematic, inspection, 
repair, and maintenance requirements in part 396 of the FMCSRs, 
MIDLAND-GRAU believes this is not necessary. MIDLAND-GRAU along with 
other ABS suppliers and vehicle manufacturers, will continue their 
efforts to support the industry with the necessary product, 
inspection, repair, and service information. MIDLAND-GRAU believes 
there are already more effective methods to develop and distribute 
the subject information. The FHWA has in this notice defined clearly 
the appropriate sources for this information.

    The FHWA does not agree with the Teamsters' argument that the 
FMCSRs should include detailed inspection procedures for motor carriers 
to maintain ABSs. The FMCSRs do not currently contain detailed 
inspection procedures for systems and components on commercial motor 
vehicles. The regulations provide inspection criteria and minimum 
qualifications for individuals performing the periodic or annual 
inspection, and motor carrier employees responsible for brake-related 
inspection, repair, and maintenance tasks. The FHWA believes this 
approach is more effective than trying to develop a single set of 
procedures to cover all types of ABSs, including present and future 
designs. As noted earlier, the agency has developed videotapes and 
publications to familiarize drivers and maintenance personnel with 
ABSs. The agency believes the videotapes and publications will provide 
the industry

[[Page 24459]]

with basic information to effectively maintain ABSs and advice on when 
to seek expert assistance from vehicle and/or brake system 
manufacturers.
    The FHWA appreciates the information provided by Midland-Grau. The 
agency notes that the TRI has worked with Midland-Grau and the other 
brake manufacturers in developing the ABS videotapes and publications 
for the FHWA. This cooperative effort between the private sector and 
the government to provide non-regulatory technical guidance to the 
industry is an effective alternative to prescriptive regulations 
concerning ABS maintenance procedures.

Applicability to Canadian and Mexican Vehicles

    The Advocates, Teamsters, and TMA expressed support for the FHWA's 
proposal not to provide an exemption for commercial motor vehicles 
operated in the United States by Canada- and Mexico-based motor 
carriers. None of the other commenters expressed an opinion concerning 
this issue.
    The Teamsters stated:

    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters strongly agrees with 
the FHWA that it `` * * * is appropriate to require ABS on foreign-
based vehicles manufactured on or after the effective dates of the 
NHTSA requirements if those vehicles are operated within the United 
States.'' (61 FR 36696) This requirement would ensure that ``* * * 
all CMVs operating in interstate or foreign commerce within the 
United States are required to meet the same safety standards.'' 
(Ibid)
    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters encourages the strict 
enforcement of these requirements as it is currently known that a 
large percentage of those vehicles crossing the Mexican-United 
States border are not in compliance with the United States FMCSRs.

    The Advocates stated:

    Advocates strongly supports this initiative by the FHWA and 
applauds the agency's determination not only to improve domestic 
commercial vehicle operating safety, but also to set an example for 
international harmonization that increases medium and heavy vehicle 
safety for Canadian and Mexican motor carriers. This rulemaking 
proposal is a textbook example of regulating in the public interest. 
We commend the agency for its resolve to move forward on this major 
safety policy despite adverse comments filed in response to the 
FHWA's March 10, 1995, notice of intent to initiate the instant 
rulemaking. Advocates endorses this proposal and, in light of the 
lead time for compliance that duplicates the calendars set forth for 
FMVSSs Nos. 105 and 135, asks that the agency promulgate a final 
rule as soon as possible that is effective on the date of 
publication.

    The TMA stated:

    TMA feels that only commercial motor vehicles that meet all of 
the applicable requirements of part 393, including the proposed 
Sec. 393.55 requirements that addresses ABS, should be allowed to 
operate in the U.S. Therefore, we support the FHWA proposal to not 
grant an exception for commercial motor vehicles operated in the 
U.S. by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers. Truck 
manufacturers, however, need timely resolution of the following 
questions so that they can appropriately advise their Canadian and 
Mexican motor carrier customers on ABS purchases.
    1. When is the enforcement of this requirement going to 
commence?
    2. When will the inspection procedures and criteria be 
finalized?
    3. How will this requirement be enforced? Will it be handled at 
the border by U.S. Customs officials? By FHWA officials? By State 
officials? Or will it be enforced during random roadside 
inspections?

    The FHWA agrees with the commenters. Although the NPRM explicitly 
requested comments from foreign carriers that would be subject to the 
proposed requirements, the agency did not receive any comments from 
Canada- or Mexico-based motor carriers operating within the United 
States. The agency is not aware of any technical or economic reasons 
why these carriers could not comply with the ABS requirements. 
Therefore, the final rule is applicable to CMVs operated in the United 
States by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers. The FHWA notes that 
this decision is consistent with the applicability of all of the 
agency's equipment-related regulations.
    Currently, subpart C of part 393 cross-references FMVSS No. 105 
(Hydraulic Brake Systems), FMVSS No. 106 (Brake Hoses), and FMVSS No. 
121 (Air Brake Systems), as well as several other CMV-related FMVSSs. 
The FHWA's cross-references have the net effect of requiring that 
vehicles operated by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers be 
equipped with safety features and equipment that are compatible with 
the NHTSA requirements irrespective of where the vehicle was originally 
manufactured, or whether the vehicle was manufactured for sale or use 
in the United States. Commercial motor vehicles that do not meet all of 
the applicable requirements of part 393 cannot be operated in the 
United States. As such, commercial motor vehicles operated by foreign-
based motor carriers are currently required by the FHWA to have, at a 
minimum, brake systems that comply with the applicable provisions of 
FMVSS Nos. 105, 106, and 121 in effect on the date of manufacture.
    Although the FHWA does not have data on the extent to which CMVs 
manufactured for sale in Canada and Mexico comply with the current 
brake-related FMVSSs and FMCSRs, it is unlikely that there are 
technical reasons that would preclude manufacturers of these vehicles 
from offering ABS as an option. As previously mentioned, foreign-based 
motor carriers are currently required to operate commercial motor 
vehicles that comply with all of the applicable requirements of part 
393 while in the United States.
    Prior to issuing the NPRM, the FHWA contacted the TMA to determine 
the availability of ABS on air braked vehicles sold in Canada and 
Mexico.
    The TMA indicated that five of the manufacturers that sell medium 
and heavy-duty trucks in Canada install ABSs as standard equipment. 
Another manufacturer offers ABSs as optional equipment for the Canadian 
market.
    With regard to the Mexican market, none of the TMA's members 
install ABSs as standard equipment. Only two of the TMA's members offer 
ABSs as optional equipment. However, another member indicated it would 
make ABSs available on units manufactured in Mexico in the near future.
    The FHWA also contacted Dina, a Mexican manufacturer of heavy 
trucks, and determined that ABSs are offered as optional equipment.
    Based upon the information obtained from the TMA and Dina, and the 
docket comments received in response to the NPRM, the FHWA believes 
that requiring ABSs on Canadian and Mexican CMVs manufactured on or 
after the effective dates of NHTSA's ABS requirements, and operated in 
the United States, is appropriate. The FHWA notes that ABS is not yet 
commercially available for hydraulically-braked medium and heavy 
vehicles in the United States, Canada or Mexico. However, given the 
March 1, 1999, effective date of the FMVSS No. 105 requirements for 
ABSs, the FHWA believes these systems will be commercially available in 
time for motor carriers to comply with the FMCSRs.
    In response to the TMA's questions about enforcement, the FHWA and 
the States may cite motor carriers for violations of the ABS 
requirements at any time after the final rule becomes effective. The 
ABS requirements will be enforced primarily through roadside 
inspections conducted by the States. Checking the status of the ABSs 
will be one of many items (e.g., brake adjustment and the condition of 
major brake system components; steering, suspension, and fuel systems; 
tires, wheels, and rims; axles and axle positioning components; lamps 
and reflectors; cargo securement) inspectors examine during roadside 
inspections.

[[Page 24460]]

The agency does not expect the recommended inspection procedures that 
may be used by the States to be complex or time consuming. The brake 
manufacturers' comments provided in response to the agency's March 10, 
1995, notice of intent, and the July 12, 1996, NPRM include 
straightforward inspection procedures that could be used by the States 
at any time after the effective date of the final rule.

Cross-Referencing the FMVSSs

    The ATA opposed the manner in which the FHWA cross-referenced FMVSS 
Nos. 105 and 121 and presented two possible alternative ways of writing 
Sec. 393.55. The ATA stated:

    By referencing FMVSSs (Nos.) 105 and 121 in this proposed FMCSR, 
the agency is placing a burden on motor carriers to show compliance 
with new vehicle requirements which were written for manufacturers. 
Carriers cannot do this without help.
    While we agree with the FHWA/OMC's (Office of Motor Carriers) 
intent, we are concerned with the language of the regulation. The 
problem comes from the reference to the FMVSSs in the FMCSRs.
    FMVSSs are standards directed at manufacturers who have the 
personnel, facilities, and test equipment necessary to test their 
products. By requiring vehicle users to assure that replacement 
parts meet the FMVSSs, FHWA/OMC is requiring that consumers create 
the technical expertise of manufacturers for themselves. Virtually 
no motor carrier has either the staff, facilities or equipment with 
which to test products for compliance to FMVSS type requirements.
    If the agency wants vehicle users to purchase repair parts and 
components which meet FMVSSs, then it must work with the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assure that new 
parts and components are labeled with compliance information or a 
code. This is already done in FMCSR Sec. 393.67(f) for fuel tanks. 
Consumers, on their own, are incapable of certifying that 
replacement parts and components meet new vehicle or component 
standards. Consumers can ask suppliers to provide certifications, 
however, they cannot go beyond such an importune.

    The ATA indicated that this issue was raised in its comments to the 
FHWA's notice of proposed rulemaking concerning automatic brake 
adjusters and brake adjustment indicators (59 FR 39518, August 3, 
1994). The ATA quoted the FHWA's response to its comments. The agency's 
response, presented in the preamble to the final rule, indicated an in-
use requirement for a commercial motor vehicle part or accessory that 
references an FMVSS does not place a burden on motor carriers (60 FR 
46236, September 6, 1995). The agency also indicated motor carriers 
have ample experience in obtaining replacement parts for vehicle 
subsystems. The ATA believes the FHWA's response to its comments 
``explicitly places in focus the problem which exists in this area.'' 
The ATA stated:

    Carriers face little difficulty acquiring replacement parts for 
lighting and illuminating systems, in compliance with FMCSR 393.11, 
because (paragraph 5.8), Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS 108 
requires such parts to carry appropriate identification markings. 
The same is true for tires (S6.5 of FMVSS 119) and wheels (S5.3 of 
FMVSS 120). In the case of brake components like ABS parts, however, 
no such labeling is required.

    The ATA also stated:

    Part of the concern which drives us to the conclusion that parts 
need to be marked in a manner that enables carriers to show 
continued compliance with FMVSSs stems from the fact that component 
systems are becoming obsolete at an unprecedented pace. It is not at 
all unusual for a carrier wanting to repair a system to find that it 
is better to upgrade than repair. Two important considerations in 
the decision are whether replacement parts identical to the original 
exist and whether the upgraded system will out-perform its 
forerunner.

    The FHWA does not believe the ATA's concerns about cross-
referencing FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121 are warranted. The regulatory 
language proposed did not include a requirement for motor carriers to 
conduct certification testing of ABSs in order to verify vehicles were 
equipped with an ABS that meets the NHTSA requirements.
    Motor vehicle manufacturers must certify that the vehicles they 
manufacture for sale and use in the United States meet all applicable 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by the NHTSA. In certain 
cases, the vehicle safety standards require motor vehicle equipment to 
be marked by the equipment manufacturer to certify that the product 
meets the applicable safety standard (e.g., retroreflective sheeting 
for use on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, are 
marked with DOT-C2, DOT-C3, or DOT-C4, depending on the width of the 
tape). During roadside inspections of commercial motor vehicles, 
Federal and State officials look for certification markings on 
components, such as, retroreflective sheeting, tires, brake hoses, fuel 
tanks, windshields, etc., because there are no other practical means to 
verify that such components or items meet the testing requirements 
specified in the Federal regulations. The certification markings for 
these components or items also help motor carriers identify products 
that meet applicable Federal requirements.
    Through cross-references to the FMVSSs, the FHWA places upon motor 
carriers the responsibility for being knowledgeable about the Federal 
manufacturing standards that are applicable to heavy trucks, buses, and 
trailers. Motor carriers have the responsibility of purchasing vehicles 
and components from manufacturers that are able to certify that the 
products they sell meet the applicable Federal manufacturing standards. 
If the commercial motor vehicle is damaged during its service-life, or 
components wear out and require replacement, motor carriers are 
required to have the vehicle properly repaired by knowledgeable and 
capable maintenance personnel. Maintenance personnel should recognize 
that there are Federal safety standards and be capable of determining 
whether the repairs being performed will restore the vehicle to its 
previous condition.
    Looking specifically at the cross-references to FMVSS Nos. 105 and 
121, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the ABSs 
installed in new commercial motor vehicles meet the applicable 
requirements. The FHWA acknowledges that individual ABS components are 
not required to be marked or labeled by the manufacturer. However, 
there is no readily apparent reason why the ECU, sensors, modulator 
valves, tone rings and connectors would need certification markings in 
order for motor carriers to determine the appropriate replacement 
components for the ABSs. Motor carriers need only know that a specific 
component in the ABS needs to be replaced, locate the appropriate 
replacement part and ensure that it is properly installed in accordance 
with the vehicle or ABS manufacturer's recommendations. Generally, this 
will ensure that the ABS continues to perform as required.
    With regard to the assertion that the regulatory language would 
prevent carriers from upgrading their ABSs in the future, the ATA has 
misinterpreted the proposed ABS requirements, as well as the current 
FMCSRs. The agency does not prohibit motor carriers from modifying 
their vehicles to meet the latest Federal safety standards. Motor 
carriers must, at a minimum, ensure that their vehicles meet the cross-
referenced FMVSSs in effect at the time the commercial motor vehicle 
was manufactured, but may modify their vehicles to meet any subsequent 
version of the applicable safety standards.
    Motor carriers who want to go beyond routine inspection, repair and 
maintenance tasks and attempt major upgrades of the ABSs on their 
commercial motor vehicles, are responsible for ensuring that the 
modified brake systems meet the

[[Page 24461]]

minimum performance requirements specified by the NHTSA. However, this 
does not mean that motor carriers cannot exceed those requirements or 
that they must conduct testing. Carriers may rely on installation 
instructions and other information from the ABS manufacturer to 
determine whether the upgraded ABS meets the NHTSA's performance 
requirements.
    The argument by the ATA that motor carriers would be required to 
understand, in whole or in part, the test procedures that manufacturers 
are required to follow, or conduct testing in order to ensure 
compliance with the cross-referenced standards, is without basis. For 
more than 25 years, the FMCSRs have included cross-references to the 
FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, with an apparently clear understanding by the 
vast majority of the regulated industry that motor carriers are not 
required to conduct certification testing. Although motor carriers and 
vehicle manufacturers have requested interpretations on numerous 
aspects of part 393 of the FMCSRs, the cross-references to the FMVSSs 
do not appear to have raised a discernible level of confusion or 
concern. Therefore, the FHWA has retained the cross-references to FMVSS 
Nos. 105 and 121.

Flexibility to Disconnect ABSs if Manufacturing or Design Defects are 
Suspected

    The ATA expressed concerns that ABSs may fail in ways that could 
adversely impact the service brake system on commercial motor vehicles. 
The ATA believes the FHWA should allow carriers to disconnect ABSs if 
defects are suspected. The ATA stated:

    The agency implies that consumers need not worry about ABS 
failing unsafe. Based on NHTSA's FMVSS 121 demonstration work 
(previously referenced) this problem does, however, remain a serious 
concern.
    In our comments to the FHWA Notice of Intent in this docket, we 
raised the issue of carriers being able to disconnect ABSs if, 
``because of existing circumstances, doing so is the safest 
policy.'' This Notice attempts to discount this concern on the basis 
that NHTSA will correct any serious failures through a safety-defect 
related recall and that ``* * *, there is no documentation of an ABS 
defect or malfunction contributing to an accident as the ATA 
suggests may occur in the future.''
    A major and growing concern that carriers have with government is 
that it is not structured to react as fast as necessary given the ever 
increasing rate at which technology continues to change. While a 
suspect bolt in a system can be checked in a laboratory rather quickly, 
and a consensus on the results of that test rapidly formed, an unwanted 
transient system response, caused by a flaw in a microchip, is much 
harder to positively identify and diagnose. There is no way that NHTSA 
can respond with a safety recall program fast enough to assure a faulty 
ABS controller or modulator component does not lead to several 
accidents.
    Past experience with many truck systems, including ABS, has taught 
motor carriers that certain product designs occasionally incorporate 
critical components that fail and that such failure will repeat across 
the fleet. This is not like a person with one automobile where the 
situation can be quickly assessed, the driver made aware of the problem 
and a repair made at the owner's convenience.
    A fleet of hundreds or thousands of vehicles in many locations 
requires time to find the involved equipment and make the required 
repairs before the adverse effects of a defect can be mitigated. In the 
meantime, the fleet must be operated as safely as possible. This can 
call for quick temporary measures, to assure no further accidents 
happen, while solutions are developed, procedures and/or parts made 
available, and corrections made. What has been proposed in this docket 
should not be allowed to become a regulation which keeps fleets from 
quickly taking the most prudent course of safe action in dealing with a 
product defect.
    While FHWA/OMC (Office of Motor Carriers) contends that no 
accidents caused by an ABS which did not fail-safe are yet documented, 
the fact is that a latent failure can exist in an ABS which will not 
surface until the systems have been in use for a number of years, in 
many different applications. For example, the situation that developed 
after air bags were in widespread use, i.e., injuring, sometimes 
fatally, young children and old people, is now being addressed.
    A review of NHTSA's defect files will illustrate this point. We 
cite the heavy truck steering gear box failure which occurred several 
years ago that caused a major disruption in fleet operations. The 
manufacturer of the gear assembly asked owners of trucks all over the 
country to immediately stop their trucks until they could positively 
identify the problem and replace suspect gear boxes. This manufacturer-
generated recall cost the industry many millions of dollars in vehicle 
downtime. If a defect surfaces in an ABS component which can cause it 
to malfunction in an unsafe way, e.g., unintentional release of the 
brakes, the involved vehicles should not be stopped until the problem 
is identified and corrected, when a simple ABS disconnect will allow 
them to operate safely.
    Users of ABS not only have to be concerned about mechanical 
failures, like the one that occurred with the gear box, but, also with 
electrical failures and faulty algorithms programmed in the ECU, which, 
under certain circumstances, make a vehicle less safe. A prime example 
of this is the reduction in stopping capability caused when ABS 
equipped vehicles operate on unpaved roads. This discovery caused the 
logging truck tested in Canada to be equipped with a switch to disable 
the ABS when the truck was operated off of the paved highway (Forest 
Engineering Research Institute of Canada's report SR-97 (TP 11815E) 
entitled Evaluation of an Antilock Braking System and Automatic Slip 
Regulation on a Log-Hauling Truck).

    The FHWA disagrees with the ATA's arguments and has not adopted 
regulatory language that would allow motor carriers to disconnect ABSs. 
Based upon the information presented in the NHTSA's research reports, 
and the preamble to the NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule concerning 
ABSs, the FHWA does not foresee the development of problems such as 
those anticipated by the ATA.
    In the event an ABS or vehicle manufacturer, or the NHTSA 
determines that there is a safety-related defect, the manufacturers are 
responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and 
remedying the problem free of charge (49 CFR part 577, Defect and 
Noncompliance Notification). If a manufacturer or the NHTSA indicates 
there is an ABS defect of the severity alluded to by the ATA, the FHWA 
would immediately notify all Federal officials responsible for 
enforcing the FMCSRs and State officials responsible for enforcing 
compatible State regulations to ensure that carriers are not unfairly 
penalized for inoperable ABSs. However, in the absence of notification 
from a vehicle or ABS manufacturer or the NHTSA, the FHWA does not 
intend to allow motor carriers to disconnect the ABSs.
    The preamble to NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule included a 
response to the ATA's concerns about alleged safety problems with 
current-generation ABSs. The NHTSA indicated that during the two-year 
evaluation of 200 ABS-equipped truck tractors, a total of 421 incidents 
were recorded involving in-service wear related ABS malfunctions. The 
vast majority (99.8 percent) of these malfunctions were benign. When 
the ABSs became inoperative, the vehicle reverted to a normally-braked 
vehicle

[[Page 24462]]

without ABS protection and remained fully operational until the 
malfunction was remedied. Similarly, during the two-year evaluation of 
50 ABS-equipped semi-trailers, 44 such incidents were noted. All (100 
percent) were benign.
    The NHTSA indicated that only two ABS malfunction incidents 
occurred during the tractor fleet study that resulted in the vehicle 
having reduced braking performance. The first incident involved a 
manufacturing defect with the surface coating of a piston slide valve 
in the modulator section of a drive-axle-only ABS and only affected one 
truck-tractor. When the ABS manufacturer found the cause of this 
failure, a design change was made to rectify the problem and all the 
other test units in the fleet study were retrofitted with the improved 
components.
    The second incident was discussed in the research report concerning 
the evaluation of trailer ABSs and involved a leaking relay valve. The 
motor carrier experienced periodic problems with leaking relay valves 
which were part of the ABS relay valve/modulator assemblies on their 
ABS-equipped tractors. The ABS modulator valves and relay valves were 
combined into one unit which serves the left and right brake chambers 
of the steer or drive axles on the tractor. In one of these cases, the 
supply air was found to be leaking to the relay valve exhaust port, a 
problem that had reportedly occurred on several previous occasions. The 
leaking valves were returned to the ABS manufacturer to determine the 
cause of this malfunction.
    The ABS manufacturer disassembled the valves and determined that 
rust and oil sludge in the tractors' air systems were causing the relay 
valve's intake and exhaust seats to not seal properly, resulting in the 
air leakage. Therefore the problem was related to improper maintenance 
by the motor carrier and not the design, manufacture or installation of 
the ABS.
    In responding to the ATA's descriptions of ABS problems experienced 
by motor carriers that were not involved in the NHTSA fleet study, the 
NHTSA stated:

    Contrary to ATA's allegations that existing ABSs have 
significant safety problems, most commenters, including vehicle and 
brake manufacturers, appear to agree with NHTSA's assessment that 
current generation ABSs are safe and reliable. Unlike the 1970's 
when several vehicle and brake manufacturers objected to the 
rulemaking, and ATA, TEBDA (Truck Equipment and Body Distributors 
Association), and PACCAR challenged the antilock standard in court, 
comments to the September 1993 NPRM indicate that vehicle and brake 
manufacturers now generally believe that the proposal was 
appropriate and today's antilock systems provide significant safety 
benefits. (60 FR 13216, 13242, March 10, 1995)

The NHTSA indicated that neither the vehicle nor brake manufacturers 
expressed concern that today's ABSs would fail in such a way as to 
compromise basic braking performance, as ATA alleges.
    Although the ATA argues that the NHTSA cannot respond fast enough 
with a safety recall to assure a faulty ABS does not lead to accidents, 
the FHWA notes that vehicle and ABS manufacturers are responsible for 
notifying vehicle owners if there is a defect which relates to motor 
vehicle safety, or the product fails to conform to applicable Federal 
safety standards. If the manufacturer is aware of a defect relating to 
motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer must take action. The NHTSA has 
the authority (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(b)) to order a manufacturer 
to provide notification of a defect or noncompliance in the event a 
manufacturer disputes complaints about the existence of a safety-
related defect or noncompliance.
    The FHWA believes the ATA has overlooked manufacturers' 
responsibilities and focused on the amount of time it would take the 
NHTSA to force a manufacturer to take action. The FHWA does not intend 
to penalize motor carriers for inoperative ABSs when there is an 
acknowledged dispute between manufacturers and the NHTSA. The FHWA 
would notify enforcement officials about potential ABS problems 
irrespective of whether there was a NHTSA-ordered notification to 
ensure that motor carriers are not unfairly penalized. The FHWA's 
actions would not have any bearing on the NHTSA's procedures concerning 
defect and noncompliance notification, but would serve only as an 
advisory to enforcement officials that there could be a defect or 
noncompliance in certain ABSs and that motor carriers operating the 
vehicles in question should not be cited for the specific defect or 
noncompliance while the matter was being resolved by the NHTSA.
    With regard to the ATA's reference to the NHTSA's handling of the 
air bag issue, the FHWA considers the comment inappropriate in the 
context of this rulemaking. The ATA has provided no information to 
support its comparison between the NHTSA's air bag and antilock brake 
system rulemakings. The FHWA has carefully reviewed all of the NHTSA's 
rulemaking notices and research reports relevant to ABSs and supports 
the NHTSA's decision to require that commercial motor vehicles be 
equipped with ABSs. Therefore, the FHWA is requiring motor carriers to 
maintain the ABSs.

ABS Malfunction Signals

    The ATA believes the FHWA should establish performance-based 
requirements for ABS malfunction indicators, rather than use what the 
ATA considers to be design-restrictive standards specified by the 
NHTSA. The ATA stated:

    By referencing ``electrical circuit'' in the sections of the 
regulation applying to ABS malfunction signals, the agency is 
unnecessarily limiting the options of future designers. The final 
regulation should be performance, not design oriented.
    A major concern that commercial vehicle users have about FMVSS 
121 is that it contains sections which are design rather than 
performance requirements. These sections contain design requirements 
because of the difficulty in writing performance standards. Specific 
design requirements can discourage the development of more effective 
designs. When FHWA/OMC (Office of Motor Carriers) incorporates 
design requirements into its regulations, then more effective 
components/systems cannot even be installed on used vehicles. And, 
if FMVSS 121 is changed to permit them, they still can't be used on 
older vehicles because they have to comply with FMVSS 121 as it was 
when the vehicle was built.
    An implicit assumption evidently made in all portions of the 
proposal dealing with malfunction signals is that they need to be 
transmitted through wires. While this is true today, some of the 
advanced concept ABSs and EBSs (electronically-controlled braking 
systems), which we have been privileged to see, use other 
technology. Fiber optics, infra-red, and radio frequency 
technologies can all be used to transmit malfunction signals and 
there is good reason to believe that, in the future, they will be.
    The proposed regulation needs to be changed to embrace such 
technology by deleting references to ``circuits'' and ``electrical 
circuit'' and refer instead to the generic ``system.'' This will 
make the proposal performance oriented, still require working 
malfunction systems, and preclude the need for modifications to the 
regulation to accommodate new technology.
    Also, because the proposed FMCSR incorporates NHTSA requirements 
for malfunction lamps, the proposed (Section 393.55(d)) contains 
requirements for ABS malfunction lamps on combination vehicles which 
are unnecessarily difficult for commercial vehicle users to 
understand and do not appear to comply with FHWA's zero-based 
rulemaking objectives.

    The FHWA disagrees with the ATA's arguments against the use of the 
terms ``malfunction circuit'' and ``electrical circuit'' in the 
proposed ABS requirements. The FHWA believes the ATA has mistakenly 
associated the requirements for ABSs to be capable of detecting certain 
malfunctions and

[[Page 24463]]

transmitting the information to the driver, with the methods for 
transmitting the signals.
    The NHTSA requires that each truck tractor manufactured on or after 
March 1, 1997, and each single-unit vehicle manufactured on or after 
March 1, 1998, be equipped with an electrical circuit that is capable 
of signaling a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission 
of response or control signals in the vehicle's ABSs. Each of these 
vehicles is also required to have an indicator lamp, mounted in front 
of, and in clear view of, the driver. The indicator lamp is activated 
whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation or 
transmission of the response or control signals in an ABS. The 
indicator lamp must remain activated as long as the malfunction exists, 
whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the ``on'' (run) position, 
irrespective of whether the engine is running. Each message about the 
existence of a malfunction in an ABS must be stored after the ignition 
switch is turned to the ``off'' position and automatically reactivated 
when the ignition switch is turned to the ``on'' position. The 
indicator lamps also must be activated as a check of lamp function 
whenever the ignition is turned to the ``on'' or ``run'' position. The 
indicator lamp must be deactivated at the end of the check of lamp 
function, unless there is a malfunction or a message about a pre-
existing malfunction. (49 CFR 571.121, paragraph S5.1.6.2(a))
    Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, and each 
single-unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, that is 
equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle must be equipped with an 
electrical circuit that is capable of transmitting a malfunction signal 
from the antilock brake system(s) on one or more towed vehicle(s) 
(e.g., trailer(s) and converter dolly(ies)) to the trailer ABS 
malfunction lamp in the cab of the towing vehicle, and must have a 
means for connecting the electrical circuit to the towed vehicle. Each 
truck tractor and single-unit vehicle must also be equipped with an 
indicator lamp (separate from the indicator lamp used to alert the 
driver of malfunctions in the truck tractor or single unit vehicle's 
ABS) mounted in front of, and in clear view of, the driver, which is 
activated whenever the malfunction signal circuit in the towing vehicle 
receives a signal indicating an ABS malfunction on one or more towed 
vehicle(s). The indicator lamp must remain activated as long as an ABS 
malfunction signal from one or more towed vehicle(s) is present, 
whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the ``on'' (``run'') 
position, irrespective of whether the engine is running. The indicator 
lamp must also be activated as a check of lamp function whenever the 
ignition is turned to the ``on'' (``run'') position. The indicator lamp 
shall be deactivated at the end of the check of lamp function unless a 
trailer ABS malfunction signal is present. (49 CFR 571.121, paragraph 
S5.1.6.2(b))
    Section 571.121, paragraphs S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 provide 
requirements for ABS malfunction signals and indicators on trailers, 
respectively.
    The FHWA believes the NHTSA requirements provide functional 
specifications for malfunction circuits and indicators, but do not 
limit manufacturers to the use of wires for transmitting signals 
between circuits or components. The FHWA has discussed the ABS 
requirements with the NHTSA and confirmed that the regulations do not 
prohibit the use of fiber optics, infra-red or radio-frequency 
technologies for the transmission of signals. The FHWA notes that with 
all of these alternative means of transmitting signals, electrical 
circuits are needed to generate and receive the signals. Therefore, the 
agency believes the use of the terms ``malfunction circuit'' and 
``electrical circuit'' is appropriate and is retaining those terms in 
the regulatory language.

Radio-Frequency Interference (RFI)

    The Texas DOT discussed problems with ABSs installed on some of its 
vehicles. The State believes the operational problems were caused by 
radio-frequency interference. Radio-frequency interference (RFI) is 
electrical interference from sources of energy outside a system(s), in 
contrast to electromagnetic interference generated inside systems. The 
Texas DOT stated:

    TxDOT's interests lie with the current state of technology in 
ABS systems, and potential problems involving this technology with 
regards to radio frequency interference (RFI).
    While we support the installation of ABS brakes, we believe that 
FHWA should take into account potential problems with this emerging 
technology. We have experienced sporadic RFI problems affecting the 
ABS systems on our light duty equipment fleet, thus our reason for 
concern on the larger and more complex equipment.
    Most carriers, like TxDOT, may have high power (<nearly-eq>100 
watt) commercial two-way radios onboard their vehicles. TxDOT has 
shown over the last several years that the complex, heavily 
computerized environment which exists in modern vehicles is not 
conducive to such near-field radio frequency (RF) emissions. Radio 
transmissions can and do cause onboard system failures. Additional 
shielding and equipment design changes have been required in order 
for all systems to co-exist synergistically. TxDOT is currently 
working closely with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in 
promoting new standards for RFI protection in these areas.

    The FHWA has reviewed the preamble to NHTSA's final rule on ABSs 
and the NHTSA's research reports (referenced previously in this 
document and available in the docket) on the in-service evaluation of 
ABSs. The preamble and the research reports suggest RFI problems are 
the exception and not the rule for current-generation ABSs. The 
preamble states:

    In the 1970s, there were several highly publicized incidents in 
which radio frequency interference (RFI) problems caused the ABS to 
cycle continuously during a brake application, thereby greatly 
diminishing braking power by venting brake system air pressure. The 
agency notes that manufacturers have completely eliminated the 
potential for RFI problems since current generation ABSs have been 
designed with shielded wiring systems and more sophisticated 
electronics that are better able to recognize spurious signals. No 
RFI problems have been reported with current-generation ABSs. (60 FR 
13216, 13243, March 10, 1995)

    The FHWA notes that the Texas DOT did not provide details on the 
year, make, and model of the vehicles in question or identify the 
manufacturer of the ABSs. In addition, the State did not indicate 
whether the RFI problems were reported to the NHTSA for appropriate 
action.
    The FHWA considers the problems described by the Texas DOT to be 
serious, but emphasizes that the purpose of this rulemaking is to 
require motor carriers to maintain the ABSs on commercial motor 
vehicles subject to the NHTSA's requirements. The NHTSA, through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking, has provided all interested parties with 
the opportunity to discuss alleged safety problems with ABSs. The 
preamble to the NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule includes an 
extensive discussion of alleged safety problems with ABSs and the 
NHTSA's responses. The FHWA does not believe this rulemaking is the 
proper forum for debating such issues and has forwarded the Texas DOT's 
comments to the NHTSA.

Discussion of the Final Rule

Section 393.55

    The FHWA is amending the FMCSRs by adding a new Sec. 393.55, 
Antilock brake systems. This section is being added to subpart C, 
Brakes, of part 393. The provisions of paragraph (a) require that 
hydraulic braked trucks and buses manufactured on or after March 1, 
1999, be equipped with an ABS that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 
105.

[[Page 24464]]

Paragraph (b) requires indicator lamps on hydraulic-braked vehicles to 
alert the driver of ABS malfunctions. Paragraph (c) requires that each 
air-braked truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, be 
equipped with an ABS that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 121. 
Paragraph (c) also covers air braked trucks, buses, trailers, and 
converter dollies manufactured on or after March 1, 1998. The 
requirement for ABS malfunction indicators on air braked vehicles is 
covered under paragraph (d). Paragraph (e) covers the requirement for 
the external indicator lamp on trailers and converter dollies 
manufactured between March 1, 1998, and March 1, 2009.

Applicability to Canadian and Mexican Vehicles

    As discussed previously, the final rule is applicable to CMVs 
operated in the United States by Canada-and Mexico-based motor 
carriers. Although the Federal governments of Canada and Mexico have 
not indicated whether they intend to require ABSs for CMVs operating in 
their countries, the FHWA believes that it is appropriate to require 
ABS on foreign-based vehicles manufactured on or after the effective 
dates of the NHTSA requirements if those vehicles are operated within 
the United States.

Driveaway-Towaway Operations Exemption

    The FHWA has revised the language for the final rule to include an 
exemption for commercial motor vehicles engaged in driveaway-towaway 
operations (as defined in Sec. 390.5). This action was taken in 
response to recent telephone calls from vehicle manufacturers and 
letters from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and the 
Canadian Transportation Equipment Association (CTEA). The TTMA and the 
CTEA asked whether the ABS requirements would be applicable to vehicles 
built in the United States and exported to Canada or other countries. 
The TTMA also asked about the applicability of the ABS requirements to 
vehicles manufactured for the military. The FHWA has advised vehicle 
manufacturers, the TTMA and the CTEA that it would consider these 
issues in developing the final rule. Copies of the TTMA and the CTEA's 
letters are in the docket along with the FHWA's responses.
    The FHWA believes that an exemption is appropriate for vehicles 
that are manufactured exclusively for use outside of the United States. 
Although these vehicles are operated on public roads in the United 
States when they are being transported from the point of manufacture to 
the Canadian or Mexican border, or to railroad or shipping yards for 
subsequent movement to foreign destinations, the economic burden 
associated with requiring these vehicles to be equipped with ABSs for 
the one-way trip out of the United States would certainly exceed the 
potential benefits.
    The driveaway-towaway exemption would also be applicable to 
vehicles being delivered to the Armed Forces of the United States. 
Therefore, motor carriers delivering new vehicles from manufacturers to 
the military cannot be penalized if the military purchases vehicles 
without ABSs. Vehicles operated by the military are exempt from the 
FMCSRs under Sec. 390.3(f)(2).
    The FHWA notes that the driveaway-towaway exemption provided in 
Sec. 393.55 is consistent with exceptions provided by the NHTSA. 
Section 571.7(c) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards provides 
an exception for vehicles and items of equipment manufactured for, and 
sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity 
with contractual specifications. Section 571.7(d), through a cross-
reference to the United States Code, indicates the FMVSSs do not apply 
to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment intended only for export, 
labeled for export on the vehicle or equipment and on the outside of 
any container of the vehicle or equipment, and exported (49 U.S.C. 
30112(b)(2)). The FHWA believes that it is important to ensure, to the 
greatest extent practicable, consistency between the FMVSSs and the 
FMCSRs.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. No 
serious inconsistency or interference with another agency's actions or 
plans is likely to result, and it is unlikely that this regulatory 
action would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more. The FHWA's regulation only requires maintenance of ABSs; the 
NHTSA final rule published on March 10, 1995, is the regulation which 
actually requires installation of ABSs. The data collected by NHTSA 
indicates that the level of maintenance required to keep an ABS 
functional would only increase incrementally and would not be 
unreasonable relative to the safety benefits that would result from the 
use of these systems. Therefore, it is anticipated that the economic 
impact of this rule will be minimal.
    The preamble to NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule included 
estimates of the increased costs of operating heavy vehicles equipped 
with ABS. Three categories of operating costs were examined: lifetime 
maintenance costs; lifetime fuel costs due to the additional weight of 
the ABSs; and lifetime revenue loss due to payload displacement. The 
range of the increase in total lifetime operating costs related to 
equipping vehicles with ABS is from $201 for single-unit trucks and 
buses to $787 for truck tractors. The increase in total lifetime 
operating costs for trailers equipped to tow other trailers (i.e., used 
in multi-trailer combinations) is $524 while the increase in operating 
costs for non-towing trailers is $360. The increase in operating costs 
for trailer converter dollies is $687. The NHTSA indicated that the 
total estimated increase in lifetime vehicle operating costs associated 
with ABSs for all commercial motor vehicles will be $232 million per 
year when the majority of these vehicles are equipped with ABSs. A copy 
of the NHTSA's final economic assessment is included in the docket.
    In addition, the FHWA has determined that this action is not a 
significant regulatory action under the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures because it does not concern a matter 
about which there is substantial public controversy, it will not have a 
substantial effect on State and local governments, or initiate a 
substantial regulatory program or change in policy.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities 
and has determined that it will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA finds that this 
rule will not significantly increase costs for motor carriers because 
FHWA regulations only require maintenance of brake systems and the data 
collected by the NHTSA shows that the presence of an ABS on a vehicle 
would not substantially increase maintenance costs (less than one 
percent for tractors and less than two percent for trailers) or 
decrease vehicle operational availability. The range of the increase in 
total lifetime operating costs related to having ABSs on a commercial 
motor vehicle (e.g., lifetime maintenance costs; lifetime fuel costs 
due to the additional weight of the ABSs; and lifetime revenue loss due 
to

[[Page 24465]]

payload displacement) is from $201 for single-unit trucks and buses to 
$787 for truck tractors. The increase in total lifetime operating costs 
for trailers equipped to tow other trailers (i.e., used in multi-
trailer combinations) is $524 while the increase in operating costs for 
non-towing trailers is $360. The increase in operating costs for 
trailer converter dollies is $687.
    For a small entity operating a newly purchased truck tractor and 
semitrailer, the increase in total lifetime operating costs for each of 
the vehicles would be spread over the useful service-life of the 
vehicle. If, for example, the useful service-life for the truck tractor 
is seven years, and the useful service-life for the semitrailer is 14 
years, the small entity would expect to spend $787 during the useful 
service-life of the truck tractor and $360 during the useful service-
life of the semitrailer. The small enitity would spend an additional 
$787 in increased total lifetime operating costs during the service-
life of the replacement truck tractor. This would result in 
approximately $1,934 in increased total lifetime operating costs during 
a 14-year period in which the small entity purchases two new truck 
tractors and one semitrailer.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications 
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. These new safety 
requirements do not directly preempt any State law or regulation, and 
no additional costs or burdens would be imposed on the States as a 
result of this action. Furthermore, the State's ability to discharge 
traditional State governmental functions will not be affected by this 
rulemaking.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor 
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities do not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
U.S.C. 3501-3520.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has 
determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality of 
the environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates on State, local, or 
tribal governments as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532-1538).

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned 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. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers, Motor 
vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety.

    Issued on: April 17, 1998.
Gloria J. Jeff,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, as follows:

PART 393--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 
1993 (1991); 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; 49 CFR 1.48.

    2. Section 393.5 is amended by adding the definition of antilock 
brake system, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec. 393.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Antilock Brake System or ABS means a portion of a service brake 
system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip 
during braking by:
    (1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels;
    (2) Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular 
rotation to one or more controlling devices which interpret those 
signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and
    (3) Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more 
modulators which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those 
signals.
* * * * *
    3. In subpart C, Sec. 393.55 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 393.55  Antilock brake systems.

    (a) Hydraulic brake systems. Each truck and bus manufactured on or 
after March 1, 1999 (except trucks and buses engaged in driveaway-
towaway operations), and equipped with a hydraulic brake system, shall 
be equipped with an antilock brake system that meets the requirements 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105 (49 CFR 
571.105, S5.5).
    (b) ABS malfunction indicators for hydraulic braked vehicles. Each 
hydraulic braked vehicle subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) 
of this section shall be equipped with an ABS malfunction indicator 
system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 (49 CFR 571.105, 
S5.3).
    (c) Air brake systems. (1) Each truck tractor manufactured on or 
after March 1, 1997 (except truck tractors engaged in driveaway-towaway 
operations), shall be equipped with an antilock brake system that meets 
the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.1(b)).
    (2) Each air braked commercial motor vehicle other than a truck 
tractor, manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 (except commercial 
motor vehicles engaged in driveaway-towaway operations), shall be 
equipped with an antilock brake system that meets the requirements of 
FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.1(a) for trucks and buses, S5.2.3 
for semitrailers, converter dollies and full trailers).
    (d) ABS malfunction circuits and signals for air braked vehicles. 
(1) Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, and each 
single-unit air braked vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, 
subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, shall be 
equipped with an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a 
malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of response or 
control signals to the vehicle's antilock brake system (49 CFR 571.121, 
S5.1.6.2(a)).
    (2) Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, and 
each single-unit vehicle that is equipped to tow another air-braked 
vehicle, subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, 
shall be equipped with an electrical circuit that is capable of 
transmitting a malfunction signal from the antilock brake system(s) on 
the towed vehicle(s) to the trailer ABS malfunction lamp in the cab of 
the

[[Page 24466]]

towing vehicle, and shall have the means for connection of the 
electrical circuit to the towed vehicle. The ABS malfunction circuit 
and signal shall meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 
571.121, S5.1.6.2(b)).
    (3) Each semitrailer, trailer converter dolly, and full trailer 
manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, and subject to the requirements 
of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, shall be equipped with an 
electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a malfunction in the 
trailer's antilock brake system, and shall have the means for 
connection of this ABS malfunction circuit to the towing vehicle. In 
addition, each trailer manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, subject 
to the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, that is 
designed to tow another air-brake equipped trailer shall be capable of 
transmitting a malfunction signal from the antilock brake system(s) of 
the trailer(s) it tows to the vehicle in front of the trailer. The ABS 
malfunction circuit and signal shall meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 
121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.2.3.2).
    (e) Exterior ABS malfunction indicator lamps for trailers. Each 
trailer (including a trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after 
March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2009, and subject to the requirements 
of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, shall be equipped with an ABS 
malfunction indicator lamp which meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 
121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.2.3.3).

[FR Doc. 98-11775 Filed 5-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P