Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63965

1Hereinafter referred to as ‘‘heavy vehicles.’’

2Hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the ABS final rule.’’

§ 1180.58 Records related to performance.

(a) A grantee shall keep records

revealing progress and results under the

grant.

(b) The grantee shall use the records

under paragraph (a) of this section to:

(1) Determine progress in

accomplishing objectives; and

(2) Revise those objectives, if

necessary and authorized under the

grant.

13. Section 1180.59 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1180.59 Applicability.

Subparts B and C (§§ 1180.30 through

1180.58) apply to General Operating

Support assistance, except as otherwise

provided in these regulations.

14. Section 1180.75 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 1180.75 Funding and award procedures.

* * * * *

(d) A museum receiving assistance

under this subpart must submit a final

financial and narrative report that

evaluates the success of the assessment

and actions taken by the museum as a

result of the assessment. IMS may

request that the report be submitted up

to 12 months after the close of the grant

period.

* * * * *

[20 U.S.C. 961–68]

[FR Doc. 95–30016 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7036–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 92–29; Notice 7; Docket No.

93–06; Notice 4; Docket No. 93–07; Notice

4]

RIN 2127–AF96; 2127–AF97; 2127–AF98;

2127–AF99

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Stability and Control of

Medium and Heavy Vehicles During

Braking; and Stopping Distance

Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document responds to

petitions for reconsideration of a final

rule that amended Standard No. 105,

Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard

No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to require

medium and heavy vehicles be

equipped with an antilock brake system

(ABS). This document also responds to

petitions for reconsideration of final

rules that established 60 mph stopping

distance requirements for hydraulicbraked heavy vehicles and reinstated

such requirements for air-braked heavy

vehicles.

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments

to § 571.101 are effective January 12,

1996, the amendments to § 571.105 are

effective March 1, 1999, and

amendments to § 571.121 are effective

March 1, 1997.

Compliance dates: Compliance with

the amendments to 49 CFR 571.101 and

49 CFR 571.105 with respect to

hydraulic-braked vehicles will be

required on and after March 1, 1999.

Compliance with 49 CFR 571.101 and

49 CFR 571.121 with respect to airbraked tractors will be required on and

after March 1, 1997 and compliance

with 49 CFR 571.101 and 49 CFR

571.121 with respect to air-braked

trailers and single unit trucks and buses

will be required on and after March 1,

1998.

Petitions for Reconsideration: Any

petitions for reconsideration of this rule

must be received by NHTSA no later

than January 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

of this rule should refer to the above

referenced docket numbers and should

be submitted to: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues: Mr. George

Soodoo, Office of Crash Avoidance,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366–5892.

For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw,

NCC–20, Rulemaking Division, Office of

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590

(202) 366–2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

III. Definitions Related to Antilock Brake

Systems

A. Definition of Antilock Brake Systems

B. Directly Controlled Wheel

C. Independent Wheel Control

IV. Overall Brake Test Sequence

A. Performance Test Sequence

B. Brake Adjustment During Test Sequence

C. Final Brake Inspection in Test Sequence

V. Braking-In-A-Curve Test

A. General Considerations

B. Type of Brake Application

C. Number of Test Stops for Certification

D. Initial Brake Temperature

VI. Stopping Distance Performance

A. Stopping Distance Requirements

B. Test Surface Specification

C. Wheel Lockup Restrictions

D. Burnish Procedure

E. Definition of Nonsteerable Axle

VII. ABS Malfunction Indicator Lamps

A. In-cab Malfunction Lamp for Trailer

ABS

B. Trailer-mounted ABS Malfunction

Indicator

C. Activation Protocol for Malfunction

Indicators

D. Signal Storage

E. ABS Failed System Requirements

VIII. Power Source

A. Separate Powering for Trailer ABS

B. ABS Malfunction Signal Circuit and

Ground

C. Tractor Trailer ABS Interface Connector

IX. Applicability of Amendments and

Leadtime

A. Hydraulic-Braked Vehicles

B. Class 3 Vehicles

C. Four-Wheel Drive Vehicles

D. Trailers and Dollies

X. Miscellaneous

A. National Uniformity

B. Publish Complete Regulatory Texts and

Compliance Test Procedures

C. Costs

D. Corrections to Standard No. 101 and

Standard No. 105

I. Background

On March 10, 1995, NHTSA

published three final rules that

amended the agency’s brake standards

for medium and heavy vehicles.1 (60 FR

13216). One of those final rules requires

heavy vehicles to be equipped with an

antilock brake system (ABS) to improve

the directional stability and control of

these vehicles during braking.2 The

other two final rules announced

NHTSA’s decision to reinstate stopping

distance requirements for air-braked

heavy vehicles and to establish such

requirements for hydraulic-braked

heavy vehicles. (60 FR 13286, 13297)

As specified in the ABS final rule, in

addition to the ABS requirement, truck

tractors are required to comply with a

30-mph braking-in-a-curve test using a

full brake application on a low

coefficient of friction surface

representing a wet surface. All powered

heavy vehicles are also required to be

equipped with an in-cab lamp to

indicate ABS malfunctions. Truck

tractors and other towing vehicles are

required to be equipped with two

separate in-cab lamps: one indicating

malfunctions in the towing vehicle ABS

and the other indicating malfunctions in

the ABS on one or more towed trailers

and/or dollies. Trailers (including

dollies) produced during an initial

eight-year period are also required to be

equipped with an external malfunction
63966 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3 Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating

(GVWR) of 26,001 pounds or greater.

4A closed loop control system is one which

examines the output of the system and adjusts the

input to the system in response to that output. This

inclusion of the output (or some function of the

output) as part of the input to such a system is

referred to as feedback.

5 A differential is comprised of a set of gears

which establish a constant equilibrium of torques

between the left-side and right-side driven wheels,

and which allow the outer wheels of a vehicle to

rotate at a higher speed than the inner wheels

during cornering.

indicator that was to be visible to the

driver through the rearview mirror of

the towing vehicle.

NHTSA issued the ABS final rule

pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act of

1991, a part of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)

of 1991. Section 4012 of ISTEA directed

the Secretary of Transportation to

initiate rulemaking concerning methods

for improving braking performance of

new commercial motor vehicles,3

including truck tractors, trailers, and

their dollies. Congress specifically

directed that such a rulemaking

examine antilock systems, means of

improving brake compatibility, and

methods of ensuring effectiveness of

brake timing. The Act required that the

rulemaking be consistent with the Motor

Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C.

§ 31147) and be carried out pursuant to,

and in accordance with, the National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of

1966 (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. § 30101 et

seq.).

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

NHTSA received petitions for

reconsideration from the American

Trucking Associations (ATA), the

American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA), the Truck Trailer

Manufacturers Association (TTMA), the

Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers

Council (HDBMC), the United Parcel

Service (UPS), vehicle manufacturers,

including Chrysler, Navistar, AM

General, and brake or component

manufacturers including Midland-Grau,

Jenflo, AlliedSignal, Rockwell WABCO,

Rockwell International, Kelsey-Hayes,

and Ferodo America.

The petitioners generally agreed with

NHTSA’s decision to require all heavy

vehicles to be equipped with ABS and

to comply with the stopping distance

requirements and to require truck

tractors to comply with the braking-ina-curve requirements. Nevertheless,

they requested modifications of various

aspects of those requirements. The

issues raised by the petitioners include

the definition of antilock brake systems

and the wheels to which the ABS

requirement applies, the ABS

requirement’s applicability to hydraulicbraked vehicles, the implementation

schedule, certain aspects of the

performance tests, certain aspects of the

malfunction indicator requirements, and

the requirements addressing trailer ABS

powering. The agency responds to each

of the issues raised by the petitioners

throughout the remainder of the

document.

III. Definitions Related to Antilock

Brake Systems

A. Definition of Antilock Brake Systems

In the ABS final rule, NHTSA decided

to require that each heavy vehicle be

equipped with an antilock brake system

that satisfies the following definition:

‘‘Antilock braking system’’ 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

devices which interpret those signals and

generate responsive controlling output

signals; and

(3) Transmitting those controlling signals

to one or more devices which adjust brake

actuating forces in response to those signals.

To meet this definition, an antilock

braking system must be closed-loop.4

With respect to the definition for ABS,

the input is the act of sensing the rate

of angular rotation of the wheels, which

is typically done by a device known as

a wheel speed sensor. The output is the

act of transmitting responsive

controlling output signals to a device or

devices known as modulator valves that

adjust brake actuating forces in response

to those signals.

Jenflo petitioned the agency to amend

the definition of an antilock braking

system so that the definition did not

refer to components such as wheel

speed sensors, control units, and

modulators. Jenflo believes that it is

possible to control rotational wheel slip

and impending wheel lockup without

monitoring these conditions, while still

providing controlled stops. In its

petition for reconsideration, Jenflo

submitted 56 pages of test data, but did

not explain the relevance of the data to

the vehicle’s ABS performance.

NHTSA has decided to deny Jenflo’s

petition to amend the definition of ABS

so as to permit open-loop systems. In

previous notices, the agency discussed

in extensive detail the reasons for

requiring a ‘‘closed-loop’’ antilock

system and for combining an equipment

requirement with a dynamic test

requirement for truck tractors. (60 FR

13224–13228) NHTSA’s definition

permits any ABS, provided that it is a

closed-loop system that ensures

feedback between what is actually

happening at the tire-road surface

interface and what the device is doing

to respond to changes in wheel slip. As

many brake and vehicle manufacturers

commented on the September 1993

NPRM, a device that satisfies these

criteria is necessary to prevent wheel

lockup under a wide variety of real

world conditions, thereby significantly

improving safety. In contrast, a

definition that permitted open-loop

systems would allow systems that

would not necessarily prevent wheel

lockup.

NHTSA also stated that the desired

safety benefits of ABS could currently

be achieved only by means of both a

specific equipment requirement for ABS

and a dynamic performance test

requirement applicable to truck tractors

only. In its petition for reconsideration,

Jenflo did not provide any information

to support reliance solely on a dynamic

performance requirement, or to support

its statement that it is possible to control

rotational wheel slip without

monitoring wheel slip conditions. The

agency therefore has decided to deny

Jenflo’s petition to amend the definition

for antilock brake system.

B. Directly Controlled Wheel

In the ABS final rule, the agency

defined ‘‘directly controlled wheel’’ to

mean a wheel at which the degree of

rotational wheel slip is sensed and

corresponding signals are transmitted to

one or more modulators that adjust the

brake actuating forces at that wheel. (60

FR 13228–13230) The definition further

stated that each modulator may also

adjust the brake actuating forces at other

wheels in response to the same signal or

signals. NHTSA explained that, by

‘‘directly controlled wheel,’’ it meant

that the signal provided at the wheel or

on the axle of the wheel would directly

modulate the braking forces of that

wheel or axle.

AAMA, Chrysler, and Kelsey Hayes

petitioned the agency to revise the

definition of ‘‘directly controlled

wheel’’ to allow the use of a single indifferential 5 or in-axle wheel speed

sensor to control the rear wheel slip.

Chrysler indicated that all of its pickup

trucks in the 10,000–12,000 pound gross

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) class now

successfully use this type of sensor.

After reviewing the petitions for

reconsideration regarding in-axle

sensors, NHTSA has decided to revise

the definition of ‘‘directly controlled

wheel’’ to allow wheel speeds to be

sensed at any point on the axle shaft of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63967

6 The driveline constitutes those parts of the

vehicle that transfer power from the transmission to

the drive wheels, including the drive shaft,

differential, and axle shafts of the driven wheel.

7 An arrangement of two or more axles placed in

proximity one behind the other.

the wheel. This includes any point

between the wheel hub and the point

where the axle shaft mates with the

differential output shaft. The agency

believes that this modification to the

definition will permit the manufacture

of proven antilock systems, without any

detriment to safety. This amendment is

reflected in the revised definition for

‘‘directly controlled wheel’’ by adding

the phrase ‘‘either at that wheel or on

the axle shaft for that wheel’’ and allows

two in-differential sensors to transmit

corresponding signals to one or more

modulators that adjust the brake

actuating forces at the wheels on that

axle.

NHTSA emphasizes that single indifferential sensors will only be allowed

on light vehicles with GVWRs between

10,000 and 12,000 pounds. This

limitation is reflected in S5.5.1 of

Standard No. 105, which permits only

vehicles with such GVWRs to provide

direct wheel control by means of a

single sensor in the drive line. The

agency is concerned that sensing of

rotational wheel slip at the ring gear or

at other points on the driveline 6

forward of the drive axle, does not

provide sufficiently precise

measurements of wheel slip for effective

ABS control on vehicles over 12,000

pounds. The braking distribution

between the front and rear axles of

heavy vehicles is different than on light

vehicles, primarily because of the

greater load-carrying capacity of heavy

vehicles, which necessitates more

braking at the rear wheels. As a result,

greater braking efficiency is typically

required at the rear wheels of heavy

vehicles than on lighter vehicles. Based

on the above considerations, the agency

has decided to allow the use of a single

in-axle or in-differential sensor, and

include in-transmission sensors, for

ABS control of rear wheel slip on

vehicles with a GVWR between 10,000

and 12,000 pounds.

Rockwell WABCO requested that the

agency change the definition of a

‘‘directly controlled wheel’’ to ensure

that the modulator for controlling the

wheels of the front axle is not used to

control the wheels of the rear axle, and

vice versa.

NHTSA has reviewed the definition of

a ‘‘directly controlled wheel’’ and has

concluded that it does not clearly state

that, on single unit vehicles and full

trailers, the same modulator should not

be used to control both the front and

rear axles. It is possible that the

definition may be misinterpreted to

allow a four sensor/one modulator (4S/

1M) system on single unit vehicles and

full trailers. As discussed in the final

rule, it was the agency’s intent to

require at least one modulator for

controlling the front axle(s) and at least

one modulator for controlling the rear

axle(s) of those vehicles. (60 FR 13230)

In revising the definition, the agency

has added the phrase ‘‘that are on the

same axle or in the same axle set,’’ to

make it clear that the modulator that

controls a directly controlled wheel, can

also control a wheel on the same axle

or wheel(s) on other axles in the same

tandem 7.

Based on the above considerations,

NHTSA has decided to amend the

definition of directly controlled wheel

as follows:

‘‘Directly Controlled Wheel’’ means a

wheel for which the degree of rotational

wheel slip is sensed, either at that wheel or

on the axle shaft for that wheel, and

corresponding signals are transmitted to one

or more modulators that adjust the brake

actuating forces at that wheel. Each

modulator may also adjust the brake

actuating forces at other wheels that are on

the same axle or in the same axle set in

response to the same signal(s).

(Italicized phrases are additions to the

definition).

C. Independent Wheel Control

In the ABS final rule, NHTSA defined

‘‘independently controlled wheel’’ to

mean a directly controlled wheel for

which there is a modulator that adjusts

the brake actuating forces at that wheel,

but not at any other wheel on the same

axle.

Jenflo petitioned the agency to delete

the requirement for independent wheel

control on truck tractors and issue what

it called ‘‘performance only’’

requirements. That company stated that

requiring independent wheel control is

unreasonably design- restrictive and is

not a performance requirement.

In the ABS final rule, NHTSA set

forth the reasons for requiring

independent control of at least one axle

for truck tractors and the reasons for

having more stringent requirements for

truck tractors than for other types of

vehicles. (60 FR 13230). The agency

considers these reasons to be a sufficient

basis for requiring independent control.

Nevertheless, Jenflo has not addressed

these reasons in the petition.

AAMA requested confirmation that

the ABS rule requires a truck tractor to

have an ABS with at least four sensors

and three modulators (which are also

known as channels of control)(4S/3M),

a single unit vehicle to have an ABS

with at least four sensors and two

modulators (4S/2M), and a semitrailer to

have an ABS with at least two sensors

and one modulator (2S/1M). NHTSA

confirms the AAMA’s interpretation. In

addition, the agency notes that a full

trailer will be required to have an ABS

with at least four sensors and two

modulators (4S/2M), and a hydraulicbraked single unit vehicle with a GVWR

between 10,000 lbs. and 12,000 lbs. will

be required to have at least three sensors

and two modulators (3S/2M).

IV. Overall Brake Test Sequence

A. Performance Test Sequence

In Table I of the stopping distance

final rule for braked vehicles, NHTSA

specified the sequence in which the

brake tests are to be conducted for

compliance testing, as follows:

(1) Burnish.

(2) Stops with vehicle at gross vehicle

weight rating:

(a) Straight line stop at 60 mph on a

peak friction coefficient surface of 0.9,

for a truck tractor with a loaded

unbraked control trailer, or for a singleunit vehicle (straight line stop).

(b) Braking-in-a-curve stop at 30 mph

on a peak friction coefficient surface of

0.5, for a truck tractor with a loaded

unbraked control trailer.

(c) Emergency brake stops at 60 mph

on a peak friction coefficient surface of

0.9, for a single-unit vehicle. Truck

tractors are not required to be tested in

the loaded condition.

(3) Parking brake test with vehicle

loaded to GVWR.

(4) Stops with vehicle at unloaded

weight plus up to 500 lbs.

(a) Straight line stop at 60 mph on a

peak friction coefficient surface of 0.9,

for a truck tractor or for a single-unit

vehicle.

(b) Braking-in-a-curve stop at 30 mph

service brake stops on a peak friction

coefficient surface of 0.5, for a truck

tractor.

(c) Emergency brake stops at 60 mph

on a peak friction coefficient surface of

0.9, for a truck tractor or for a singleunit vehicle.

5. Parking brake test with vehicle at

unloaded weight plus up to 500 lbs.

6. Final inspection of service brake

system for condition of adjustment. (60

FR 13297)

AAMA, HDBMC, Midland-Grau, and

Navistar requested that the agency

revise the performance test sequence in

Standard No. 121 by placing both

braking-in-a-curve tests for truck

tractors immediately after the burnish.

These petitioners stated that such a

change would result in certain
63968 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

advantages, including (1) allowing test

track wetting to be accomplished more

efficiently; (2) minimizing ABS

performance variability since the tires

would not be previously subject to the

high speed stopping distance tests on a

high coefficient of friction surface; and

(3) minimizing vehicle transfers for

those manufacturers that use a different

test site for their low coefficient of

friction tests.

After reviewing the petitions, NHTSA

has decided to amend the performance

test sequence by placing both brakingin-a-curve tests immediately after the

burnish. The agency believes that

conducting the braking-in-a-curve tests

at the beginning of the test sequence

simplifies the procedure and reduces

the testing burden without

compromising safety. The agency has

specified the GVWR loading condition

first because it coincides with the

GVWR/LLVW sequence of the other

stopping performance tests. This

decision is also supported by the fact

that performance variability due to tire

wear and flat-spotting will be

minimized if the GVWR test runs are

conducted first, since wheel lock is

more likely to occur in the lightlyloaded condition.

B. Brake Adjustment During Test

Sequence

AAMA, HDBMC, Midland-Grau, and

Rockwell International petitioned

NHTSA to permit manual brake

adjustments to be made after each part

of the test sequence in Standard No.

121. The petitioners are concerned

about the potential for over-adjustment

and the impact on the subsequent tests

in the sequence, during testing with

automatic brake adjusters. Standard No.

121 currently requires that air-braked

vehicles be equipped with automatic

brake adjusters. The standard allows

three manual adjustments, at the

manufacturer’s recommended intervals,

during the burnish sequence, but does

not allow subsequent adjustments

during the testing itself.

NHTSA agrees with the petitioners

that there is a potential for overadjustment by automatic brake adjusters

during a series of full treadle brake

applications, as is required for the

braking-in-a-curve tests. The agency also

believes that it is important to specify

precisely where in the test sequence the

manual adjustments are allowed, since

this enhances uniformity of the test

procedures. The agency nevertheless

believes that adjusting the brakes as

frequently as after each test sequence is

inappropriate, because it would be less

representative of real world braking

conditions.

Based on the above considerations,

NHTSA has decided to amend the test

sequence in Standard No. 121 by

allowing some adjustment during

testing. It is allowing two manual brake

adjustments for truck tractors - the first

at the end of the braking-in-a-curve tests

and the second at the end of the GVWR

parking brake test. It is also allowing

one manual brake adjustment for single

unit trucks and buses, at the end of the

GVWR parking brake test. The agency

believes that allowing a limited number

of additional adjustments during testing

accommodates the petitioners’ concerns,

while preserving a well- defined test

procedure that properly accounts for the

newly adopted test procedures.

NHTSA believes that there is no need

to allow additional brake adjustments in

the test procedure for Standard No. 105

for hydraulic-braked heavy vehicles,

since the brake test procedure currently

specifies four burnishes (one burnish

and three reburnishes) and a brake

adjustment after each burnish.

Moreover, hydraulic-braked vehicles are

not subject to the braking-in-a-curve

test.

C. Final Brake Inspection in Test

Sequence

HDBMC and Rockwell International

petitioned NHTSA to delete the final

brake inspection requirement that is

specified at the end of the stopping

sequence in Table I of Standard No. 121.

They claimed that there are no stated

requirements necessary to satisfy the

results of this inspection, and that the

condition of the adjusters has little

significance to the brake adjusters—

condition after real world service.

NHTSA disagrees with the

petitioners’ claims that the final brake

inspection provision is unnecessary.

The agency notes that Standard No. 121

was amended to include the final brake

inspection as part of the amendments

for the rulemaking on automatic brake

adjusters. This issue has never been

included in any of the notices for the

heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking. As a

result, the agency cannot delete the

requirement without giving the public

an opportunity to comment on the issue.

Moreover, the agency disagrees with the

petitioners that there are no stated

requirements by which a manufacturer

can ensure that its vehicle complies

with this inspection. Paragraph S5.9,

Final Inspection, specifies that the

inspection is conducted to determine

the condition of adjustment and for the

brake indicator display, in accordance

with S5.1.8 and S5.2.2 (i.e., brake

adjustment within the limits

recommended by the vehicle

manufacturer). Based on these

considerations, the agency has decided

to deny the petitioners’ request to delete

the provision regarding the final brake

inspection.

V. Braking-In-A-Curve Test

A. General Considerations

Navistar requested that the agency

eliminate the braking-in-a-curve test for

ABS-equipped truck tractors. That

company stated that such a test is

redundant to the provision requiring

ABS because the test would not cause

any changes to the ABS equipment

mandated by the ABS equipment

requirement.

NHTSA disagrees with Navistar’s

claim that the braking-in-a-curve

performance test is redundant. As

explained in the ABS final rule, the

braking-in-a-curve test provides an

important check of ABS performance.

Merely having the ABS definition does

not ensure that an antilock system will

provide an acceptable level of

performance. The test serves to evaluate

the basic performance of an antilock

system. The agency notes that the

industry, through the Motor Vehicle

Safety Research Advisory Committee

(MVSRAC), has previously endorsed

and recommended to the agency

essentially the same dynamic

performance test that is contained in the

ABS final rule. The agency further notes

that Navistar provided no support for its

claim that the braking-in-a-curve

performance requirement for truck

tractors is redundant. Based on the

above considerations, the agency has

decided to deny Navistar’s request to

delete the braking-in-a-curve test for

truck tractors equipped with antilock

systems.

ATA requested that the agency apply

the braking-in-a-curve performance

requirements to single unit vehicles and

trailers. ATA also requested that the

agency consider making the

requirements less design-restrictive by

permitting, for an interim period, the

option of meeting either the equipment

requirement or the performance

requirement.

While NHTSA agrees with ATA’s goal

of having a performance test for all

heavy duty vehicles and not just for

tractors, the agency believes that it is

premature to do so at this time.

Thus, NHTSA has decided to deny

ATA’s requests to apply the braking-ina-curve test to single unit vehicles and

trailers at this time. In the ABS final

rule, the agency discussed in detail the

reasons for including a performance test

for truck tractors. (60 FR 13230–13232)

One of those reasons was that extensive

truck tractor testing conducted by the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63969

agency and the industry indicated that

the braking-in-a-curve test on a low mu

surface is an objective, repeatable, and

practicable procedure for evaluating a

heavy vehicle’s antilock braking system.

However, for other heavy vehicles, the

agency decided not to apply the

braking-in-a-curve test at that time due

to the need to conduct additional testing

to ensure that these vehicles could be

safely tested to the braking-in-a-curve

maneuver. NHTSA is currently planning

vehicle research to develop such a

procedure for other vehicles and, should

the research be successful, will consider

adding performance tests for these

vehicles to the standard.

As explained in the final rule, NHTSA

regards the braking-in-a-curve

requirement as a complement to the

ABS equipment requirement, and not as

an alternative to it. (60 FR 13231) The

braking-in-a-curve test alone can neither

evaluate the overall effectiveness of ABS

nor ensure the use of a closed-loop

system. Such an evaluation would

require an array of performance tests

such as split mu tests, surface transition

tests, and stopping distance

performance tests. However, as

indicated above, the braking-in-a-curve

test is an objective, repeatable, and

practicable procedure for evaluating the

performance of a vehicle’s ABS, and

will be used by the agency to

complement the ABS equipment

requirement. Based on these

considerations, the agency has decided

to deny ATA’s request to allow vehicle

manufacturers the option of complying

either with the equipment requirement

or with the braking-in-a-curve

requirement.

B. Type of Brake Application

In the ABS final rule, NHTSA decided

to specify that a driver conducting the

braking-in-a-curve test must make a full

treadle application, i.e., apply the brake

at a rate sufficient to reach a pressure of

100 psi within 0.2 seconds, in at least

one of the treadle valve’s output

circuits. The agency believed that these

values properly represent full brake

applications in terms of both the rate of

application and level of output pressure.

(60 FR 13234) This brake application is

intended to evaluate worst case braking

applications in an aggressive or ‘‘hard’’

stop.

AAMA, Allied Signal, HDBMC, and

Midland-Grau petitioned NHTSA to

change the definition of full-treadle

brake application to allow treadle

pressure of 60 psi in 0.2 seconds, or

maximum treadle travel in 0.2 seconds.

The petitioners claim that some

pneumatic systems do not achieve 100

psi in 0.2 seconds, but that all systems

can achieve 60 psi in that time. In

support of its claim, Midland-Grau

submitted data from testing performed

on different antilock systems installed

on various vehicles. The test data show

that with the vehicles in the loaded

condition, the full-treadle brake

application pressures at the treadle

valve were not consistently able to

achieve 100 psi in 0.2 seconds.

However, they were all able to achieve

at least 85 psi within 0.2 seconds.

Based on NHTSA’s analysis of the test

data submitted by Midland-Grau, the

agency has decided to amend the

definition for ‘‘full treadle brake

application’’ to mean a brake

application in which the treadle

pressure reaches 85 psi within 0.2

seconds * * * ’’ The agency agrees with

the petitioners that not all pneumatic

systems would have been able to

achieve a treadle valve output pressure

of 100 psi within 0.2 seconds and that

such a high threshold is not necessary

to represent an aggressive stop.

Midland-Grau’s data further indicate

that the ABS would activate at brake

chamber pressures below 60 psi on most

heavy vehicles in the loaded condition

on a test surface with a peak friction

coefficient (PFC) 0.5. However, there are

some systems that would need at least

60 psi at the brake chamber within 0.2

seconds to ensure sufficient air pressure

availability for effective ABS control.

NHTSA has also decided to modify

the definition for ‘‘full-treadle brake

application’’ to include a reference to

maximum treadle travel within 0.2

seconds. By ‘‘maximum treadle travel,’’

the agency means the distance that the

treadle moves, from its position when

no force is applied to its position when

the treadle reaches a full stop. Allowing

such an alternative is consistent with

the agency’s intent to require a brake

application that simulates emergency

braking. Moreover, this alternative may

facilitate the introduction of certain

future technologies such as electronic

braking for which the pressure/time

relationship at the treadle valve is not

applicable.

Jenflo stated in its petition that

NHTSA did not specify a duration for

the full-treadle brake application.

NHTSA agrees that such a duration

should be specified to avoid

misinterpretation of the brake

application requirement. Accordingly,

the agency has decided to amend

S5.3.6.1 of Standard 121 to read as

follows: ‘‘using a full-treadle brake

application for the duration of the stop,

stop the vehicle * * *.’’ (emphasis

added)

C. Number of Test Stops for

Certification

In the ABS final rule, NHTSA decided

that requiring compliance with the

braking-in-a-curve requirements during

three consecutive stops is appropriate.

The agency noted that specifying three

consecutive full treadle test stops is

consistent with both NHTSA’s own

testing at its Vehicle Research and Test

Center (VRTC) and its testing in

conjunction with the motor vehicle

industry through the MVSRAC ABS

Task Force. The agency further noted

that because the ABS automatically

modulates the brakes, using full treadle

brake applications to test an ABSequipped vehicle in the braking-in-acurve maneuver requires less driver

skill than using a driver-best-effort

modulated brake application in the

stopping distance performance tests.

The agency further noted that the

braking-in-a-curve test is easier to

perform than the stopping distance test

because it is not coupled with a

stopping distance requirement.

Therefore, NHTSA decided not to adopt

the AAMA recommendation in the

NPRM that manufacturers should be

given the option of complying in only

three of ten stops. Adopting that

recommendation would have made the

braking-in-a-curve requirement

unreasonably lenient.

AlliedSignal, Rockwell WABCO,

HDBMC, AAMA, and Navistar

petitioned the agency to allow truck

tractors to be regarded as complying

with the braking-in-a-curve test if they

make three successful test runs out of

six attempts. The petitioners claimed

that additional test runs should be

permitted given that some variability

may be caused by the driver’s

performance of braking and steering

while conducting these stops. They

further stated that all of the stopping

distance tests of Standard No. 105,

Standard No. 121, and Standard No. 135

recognize the significance of driver-besteffort variability by prescribing that just

one of six attempts need to be successful

to satisfy the requirement.

NHTSA believes that treating three

successful runs out of six attempts as

demonstrating compliance would not

provide a sufficiently stringent test for

antilock brake systems, whose

technology has demonstrated

remarkably consistent performance

during vehicle testing conducted by the

agency and by the motor vehicle

industry. As the agency stated in the

final rule, it is unlikely that driver

influences will result in significant

variability, since the driver does not

have to modulate the brake pedal to
63970 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

8 Public Files Docket PF88–01, MVSRAC ABS

Task Force, Round Robin No. 1.

reduce wheel lockup and achieve the

best stopping distance performance. (60

FR 13234) Nevertheless, since there may

be some minor variability in the test

driver’s performance, the agency has

decided to provide that compliance

with the braking-in-a-curve test is

demonstrated if a vehicle has three

successful test runs out of four attempts.

NHTSA believes that this number of test

runs, which allows one failed test run,

is appropriate for an antilock system

tested to a braking-in-a-curve maneuver.

D. Initial Brake Temperature

In the March 1995 final rules, NHTSA

concluded that an initial brake

temperature range of between 150 °F

and 200 °F is more appropriate than the

proposed temperature range of 250 °F to

300 °F. The agency determined that

testing using the 150 °F to 200 °F

temperature range is more repeatable

and results in less variation between test

runs, compared to testing conducted at

an initial brake temperature of 250 °F to

300 °F, particularly for the emergency

brake stops.

Ferodo petitioned the agency to

change the initial brake temperature to

between 100 °F and 200 °F, claiming

that this is a more practicable range.

NHTSA continues to believe that the

initial brake temperature range of

between 150 °F–200 °F is appropriate. It

appears that Ferodo is not aware that

broadening the initial brake temperature

range makes the requirements more

stringent, since the vehicle would have

to comply with the requirements at any

point within the specified range. The

consensus of the comments received to

the ABS and stopping distance NPRMs

was that the agency should maintain the

150 °F–200 °F temperature range. In

addition, the agency’s vehicle research

reached a similar conclusion. (60 FR

13235) Based on the above

considerations, the agency has decided

to deny Ferodo’s petition to broaden the

initial brake temperature to the range of

100 °F to 200 °F.

VI. Stopping Distance Performance

A. Stopping Distance Requirements for

School Buses

AAMA and HDBMC petitioned the

agency to allow manufacturers the

option of certifying hydraulic-braked

school buses to either the existing

standard or the new standard with ABS,

between now and March 1, 1999. They

stated that, by being given such an

option, manufacturers would have the

incentive to offer ABS on hydraulicbraked school buses prior to 1999, and

the vehicles would have to meet the

more stringent second effectiveness test.

HDBMC also petitioned the agency to

immediately delete the first

effectiveness test for school buses with

a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

NHTSA agrees with the petitioners’

request to allow the option of meeting

the new requirements, including the

ABS requirements, prior to March 1,

1999. This amendment will facilitate the

introduction of ABS equipped school

buses. Nevertheless, the agency does not

agree with HDBMC’s request to

immediately delete the first

effectiveness test, since deleting this

requirement prior to a vehicle being

equipped with ABS might decrease the

braking performance of school buses.

NHTSA has modified S5.1.1(c) of

Standard No. 105 to allow school bus

manufacturers the option of certifying

that their vehicles comply with the new

requirements, beginning 30 days after

this final rule is published.

B. Test Surface Specification

In the stopping distance final rule,

NHTSA concluded that a PFC of 0.9

represents a typical dry surface and will

not be a significant source of variability

in the stopping distance tests. (60 FR

13289, 13290) The agency’s conclusion

was based on the industry-government

cooperative testing to evaluate the effect

of fluctuations of PFC on vehicle

stopping performance.8 Testing

indicates that the expected minor

variability of a high coefficient of

friction surface appears to have a

negligible impact on vehicle stopping

distance performance. This testing led

the agency to conclude that any

variability in the stopping performance

on a high coefficient of friction surface

is more likely due to variation in the

vehicle’s performance than test surface

variability. The agency further stated

that a test surface specification of PFC

1.0 would result in practicability

problems for the agency, since it would

have problems finding such a surface

and conducting compliance testing on

such a surface.

Navistar petitioned NHTSA to specify

a PFC of 1.0 instead of 0.9 for the high

coefficient of friction surface on which

the stopping distance performance tests

are to be conducted. The petitioner

claimed that the specification of PFC 0.9

will cause industry to incur costs for

expensive equipment, maintenance,

delays in testing and redeployment of

scarce resources without any

demonstrable safety improvement.

NHTSA has decided to continue to

specify a PFC of 0.9 for high coefficient

of friction surfaces, for the reasons set

forth in the final rule. The agency notes

that Navistar provided no additional

information calling into question the

agency’s earlier conclusion that a test

surface specification of PFC 1.0 would

result in practicability problems for the

agency. The agency therefore has

decided to deny Navistar’s petition.

AAMA petitioned the agency to allow

the PFC of the curved test surface for the

braking-in-a-curve test to be measured

by the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) trailer on a straight

section of the curved test surface. Since

the ASTM Method E1337–90 procedure

specifies a straight line measurement,

the agency agrees that measuring PFC

on a curved road might introduce

variability in the measurement as a

result of lateral forces present at the tire.

NHTSA therefore has decided to amend

Standard No. 121 to allow the PFC of

the 500-foot radius curved test surface

to be measured by the ASTM skid trailer

on a straight section of the test surface.

ATA requested that the agency amend

S5.3.6.1 to specify that the ASTM

Method E1337–90 be run either on a wet

surface without further water delivery

or on a dry surface with water delivery.

NHTSA believes that such an

amendment about the test surface is not

necessary. The agency’s skid trailer

measurements taken at VRTC show a

negligible difference (i.e., less than 0.05)

for PFC measurements for a surface that

is ‘‘double wetted’’ as compared with an

already wet surface. This is the same

data variability that VRTC obtains from

the skid trailer measurements of a

wetted surface when one type of wetting

is used. Therefore, if a wet test surface

is wetted again just prior to skid trailer

testing, the level of stringency of the test

would be essentially the same as that for

a ‘‘single wetting’’ condition.

C. Wheel Lockup Restrictions

AlliedSignal, AAMA, HDBMC, and

Midland-Grau petitioned NHTSA to

clarify the wording in S5.3.1 and S5.7.1

of Standard No. 121 to explicitly state

that ‘‘unlimited wheel lockup is allowed

during partial failure stops,’’ as is stated

in S6.10.2(e) of Standard No. 105.

NHTSA has decided that it is

appropriate to modify the regulatory

language in S5.7.1 of Standard No. 121

to explicitly allow unlimited wheel

lockup during emergency brake stops.

The agency emphasizes that this

amendment serves merely to make it

clear that unlimited wheel lockup is

allowed during emergency brake system

performance tests. While the agency

intends to allow unlimited wheel

lockup during emergency brake stops, it

does not intend to allow such unlimited

wheel lockup for service brake stops in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63971

9 ‘‘An In-Service Evaluation of the Performance,

Reliability, Maintainability, and Durability of

Antilock Braking Systems for Semitrailers,’’ U.S.

Department of Transportation/ NHTSA Report No.

DOT HS 808 059, October 1993.

S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121. NHTSA

notes that this is only a clarification and

does not change the requirements that

were adopted in the March 1995 final

rules.

D. Burnish Procedure

On May 15, 1995, NHTSA issued a

notice that terminated rulemaking to

amend Standard No. 105 and Standard

No. 121 with respect to the burnish

procedures for medium and heavy

vehicles. (60 FR 25880) The agency

determined that it would be

unnecessary to extend the period during

which a manufacturer may choose

between two burnish procedures. The

agency reasoned that its decision was

appropriate because manufacturers have

been certifying compliance to the brake

standards, based on the ‘‘new’’ more

representative burnish procedure, since

September 1994.

In response to the March 1995 final

rules, Navistar petitioned the agency to

allow, indefinitely, the option of using

either the old or the new burnish

procedure.

As explained in the May 1995

termination notice, the new burnish

procedure is currently in effect.

Therefore, the issue of allowing the

option of using the old procedure is

moot.

E. Definition of Nonsteerable Axle

In the stopping distance final rule,

NHTSA stated that wheel lockup is

permitted at certain wheels, including

‘‘any wheel on a nonsteerable axle other

than the two rearmost nonliftable,

nonsteerable axles * * *, for any

duration * * *.’’ (see paragraph

S5.3.1(a))

AAMA requested the agency to make

it clear that a nonsteerable axle is an

axle that does not steer by means of a

driver-controlled mechanism, and that a

self-steering axle would be considered a

nonsteerable axle.

NHTSA considers a self-steering axle

to be a nonsteerable axle in this context,

since such an axle is not under the

control of the driver. The pertinent

criterion is that an axle is only

considered ‘‘steerable’’ for purposes of

this requirement, if the steerability of

the wheels on that axle is controlled by

the steering wheel of the vehicle. Since

a self-steering axle is not under the

control of the driver’s steering wheel, it

is not considered to be steerable.

VII. ABS Malfunction Indicator Lamps

A. In-Cab Malfunction Lamp for Trailer

ABS

In the final rule, NHTSA decided to

require lamps in the cab of truck tractors

to indicate any malfunction with the

ABS of any towed vehicles. (60 FR

13244, 13245) The agency also required

trailers to supply trailer ABS

malfunction signals to the tractor. This

requirement is essentially the same as

the one proposed prior to the March

1995 final rule.

ATA petitioned the agency to delete

the provision requiring in-cab

indication of trailer ABS malfunctions.

That organization claimed both in its

comments to the NPRM and in its

petition for reconsideration that such a

lamp is unnecessary. It also argued that

such a requirement needlessly

complicates the electrical system of the

tractor and the electrical connector

arrangement between tractors and

trailers.

NHTSA disagrees with ATA that the

in-cab trailer malfunction lamp is

unnecessary. Studies have shown that

an in-cab malfunction lamp is a more

effective means of making the driver

aware of an ABS malfunction, compared

with an external malfunction lamp on

the trailer.9 The agency also disagrees

with ATA’s statement that having two

malfunction indicators unreasonably

complicates the electrical systems in

combination vehicles. In their

comments on the NPRM, several brake

and vehicle manufacturers stated that it

was appropriate to have two indicators.

For instance, Midland-Grau strongly

opposed having a single malfunction

indicator, claiming that having a single

lamp would make it difficult to identify

which vehicle had a malfunction

without using separate diagnostic

equipment. Since this issue has been

addressed in detail in previous notices,

and since ATA has not submitted any

additional data to substantiate its claim,

the agency has decided to deny ATA’s

request to delete the in-cab malfunction

lamp for the trailer ABS.

B. Trailer-Mounted ABS Malfunction

Indicator

In the final rule, NHTSA decided to

require an external ABS malfunction

lamp on trailers and dollies for the

eight-year period during which some

non-ABS-equipped tractors will be

towing ABS-equipped trailers. (60 FR

13244, 13245) The requirement

specified that the external lamp ‘‘be

visible within the driver’s forward field

of view through rearview mirrors.’’

ATA and UPS petitioned the agency

to delete the requirements for an

external trailer-mounted malfunction

lamp. They claimed that the external

malfunction lamp will lead to less safety

because drivers will be looking in their

mirrors during braking to see whether

the ABS lamp is functioning, instead of

looking at traffic conditions ahead of

their vehicle.

NHTSA continues to believe that it is

appropriate to require an external

malfunction lamp on trailers and dollies

for the eight-year period during which

some non-ABS-equipped tractors will be

towing ABS-equipped trailers. The

external malfunction lamp will indicate

trailer ABS malfunctions to the driver of

a non-ABS tractor and will also assist

Federal and State inspectors in

determining the operational status of a

trailer’s antilock system. NHTSA

disagrees with ATA’s claim that the

external malfunction lamp would create

a less safe condition for drivers. The

agency anticipates that most drivers will

look through their mirrors to check the

lamp infrequently, and only when the

vehicle is stationary or the road ahead

is clear. The agency therefore denies the

petitions from ATA and UPS to delete

the trailer-mounted ABS malfunction

lamp.

Midland-Grau and TTMA petitioned

the agency to delete the requirement in

S5.2.3.3 that the external indicator on a

trailer be visible from the driver’s

seating position ‘‘through the rearview

mirrors.’’ Midland-Grau stated that

since the truck tractor manufacturers

cannot control where the external lamp

would be located, requiring that the

lamp be visible from the cab of the truck

tractor is unreasonable. TTMA stated

that since trailer manufacturers have no

responsibility for the mirrors, requiring

the ABS malfunction lamp on dollies

and trailers to be visible ‘‘through the

rearview mirrors’’ is not appropriate.

They also stated that there is no good,

practical location for such a lamp on a

dolly.

Even though NHTSA believes that the

external trailer malfunction lamp is

appropriate, the agency agrees with

Midland-Grau and TTMA that it is

inappropriate to specify a location

requirement for the external

malfunction lamp that is based on what

can be seen in a truck tractor’s rearview

mirror. Compliance with such a

requirement would depend on factors

that are not fully controlled by the

trailer manufacturer. Rearview visibility

of the ABS external malfunction lamp

could vary based on truck tractor design

and its aerodynamic fairings, the field of

view provided by the rearview mirrors,

and on the location of the lamp.

Accordingly, the agency has decided to

delete the requirement in S5.2.3.3 for

rearview mirror visibility of the lamp on

trailers and dollies.
63972 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TTMA requested that if the agency

retains the requirement for an external

malfunction lamp on the trailer, then

the location of the lamp, its color, and

its intensity should be specified in

Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective

devices, and associated equipment.

NHTSA emphasizes that it is

important for the driver to see the trailer

mounted malfunction lamp from his or

her driving position. Therefore, the

agency is issuing, simultaneously with

this final rule, an NPRM that proposes

a lamp location on the trailer and the

dolly, but without stating any visibility

requirements with reference to the

tractor. The agency agrees with TTMA

that it is appropriate to propose the

location, color, and intensity of the

trailer and dolly ABS external

malfunction lamp. Specifically, the

agency is proposing a location for the

external ABS malfunction indicator on

trailers, which is similar to the location

proposed by the agency when it was

considering requiring a low pressure

warning lamp on trailers (55 FR 4453,

February 8, 1995).

ATA and UPS petitioned the agency

to only require that the ABS check lamp

be visible for visual inspection during a

walk-around of a vehicle.

NHTSA believes that only requiring a

lamp for visual inspection during a

vehicle walk-around is insufficient

because current designs would require

more than one person to conduct the

inspection, if the trailer is powered

through the stop lamp circuit. One

person would have to apply the brake

pedal to provide ABS power to the

trailer, and another would need to be

outside the vehicle to view the ABS

lamp, if it is located somewhere on the

trailer’s chassis.

C. Activation Protocol for Malfunction

Indicators

In the final rule, NHTSA decided to

require the malfunction indicator lamp

to activate when a problem exists and

not activate when the system is

functioning properly. (60 FR 13246)

Under this requirement, the indicator

lamp is required to provide a

continuous indication until a function

check of the ABS is completed. Under

that format, the ABS malfunction lamp

extinguishes after a function check, and

before the vehicle is driven. The agency

explained that this ABS malfunction

lamp format, together with the

requirement that the system stores

malfunctions until the next key-on, is

necessary to enable Federal and State

inspectors to determine the operational

status of an ABS without moving the

vehicle. In support of its decision, the

agency noted that this activation pattern

is consistent with the one for light

vehicle ABS and the one adopted by the

Economic Commission for Europe

(ECE).

Navistar petitioned NHTSA to allow

the vehicle to be in motion at low

vehicle speed during an ABS system

check so that the sensor check could be

included before the lamp extinguishes.

Navistar stated that the benefits of a

sensor check outweigh the convenience

for use by Federal or State inspectors.

As explained in the final rule, NHTSA

believes that the requirement that the

system store malfunctions until the next

key-on is necessary to enable Federal

and State inspectors to determine the

operational status of an ABS without

moving the vehicle. On March 10, 1995,

the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) published a notice of intent to

initiate rulemaking addressing

requirements for motor carriers to

maintain the ABS on those vehicles that

are subject to NHTSA’s final rule. These

requirements could include inspecting

the vehicle to determine whether ABS is

operational. Navistar’s request to allow

the vehicle to be in motion before the

lamp extinguishes would impede

FHWA’s inspection process to

determine the operational status of ABS.

The agency therefore has decided to

deny Navistar’s petition to amend the

malfunction lamp protocol to allow the

lamp to stay lit until the vehicle is

driven.

AlliedSignal and TTMA requested

that the check of lamp function on the

external trailer ABS malfunction lamp

would only activate when power is

supplied to the ABS and the vehicle is

stationary. They stated that such a

requirement would prevent the ABS

lamp from cycling on and off whenever

power is supplied or with every brake

application in cases where the trailer

ABS is being powered through the stop

lamp circuit.

NHTSA agrees with the petitioners

that such a requirement reduces

potential distractions to the driver or to

drivers of other vehicles caused by the

lamp cycling on and off with every

brake application. The agency notes that

this modification retains the

requirement’s primary purpose, which

is to indicate an ABS malfunction to the

driver or to Federal and State inspection

personnel. The agency has therefore

decided to amend paragraph S5.2.3.3 to

specify that the check of lamp function

will activate the trailer ABS malfunction

lamp, whenever power is supplied to

the ABS and there is an absence of

wheel speed (i.e., that the vehicle is

stationary).

TTMA stated that the final rule does

not address the operation of the ABS

malfunction lamp in the event of a total

loss of electrical power. That

organization requested that the agency

explicitly state that neither the external

trailer lamp nor the in-cab lamp is

required to be activated if there is a total

loss of electrical power to the trailer.

A total loss of power causes the

control unit to be incapable of sending

a malfunction signal to the indicator

lamp, since the control unit for an

electronic ABS requires electrical power

for operation. NHTSA notes that no

vehicle system is capable of indicating

a warning or malfunction in the event

of a total loss of electrical power. The

agency therefore believes that there is

no need to specify regulatory language

about the operation of the ABS

malfunction lamp in the event of a total

loss of electrical power.

D. Signal Storage

In the final rule, NHTSA decided to

require that the ABS indicator lamp

system be capable of storing information

regarding any malfunction that existed

when the ignition was last turned to the

‘‘off’’ position or in the case of towed

vehicles, when power was last received

by the ABS. (60 FR 13246, 13247) The

agency explained that the malfunction

storage requirement is necessary to

ensure that relief drivers and Federal

and State inspectors are advised about

any malfunctions in a vehicle’s ABS

without having to move the vehicle.

Rockwell WABCO, Midland-Grau,

AAMA, TTMA, and ATA requested that

the agency define a pre-existing

malfunction as a malfunction that

existed when the ignition switch was

last turned to the ‘‘off’’ position. These

petitioners argued that such a definition

is necessary to clarify that malfunctions

that no longer exist are to be cleared and

do not need to be indicated.

After reviewing the petitions, NHTSA

had decided to amend S5.3.3(b) of

Standard No. 105, and S5.1.6.2 (a) and

(b) and S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 121 to

clarify that a pre-existing malfunction is

a malfunction that existed when the

ignition switch was last turned to the

‘‘off’’ position. The agency never

intended to require the indication of

malfunctions that have been corrected

but still remain in the long-term

memory of the electronic control unit.

E. ABS Failed System Requirements

In the final rule, NHTSA decided to

revise Standard No. 121 to prohibit any

change in brake timing in the event of

ABS malfunctions that affect the

generation or transmission of response

or control signals. The agency explained

that this modification will ensure that

the brake system reverts to normal
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63973

braking without antilock control, in the

event of such a malfunction in the

antilock system.

AlliedSignal, HDBMC, and MidlandGrau petitioned the agency to amend

S5.5.1 to require each vehicle to meet

the emergency brake stopping

requirements but not the service brake,

actuation and release timing

requirements. The petitioners are

concerned about the potential for

noncompliance that is not within the

control of known antilock brake

systems.

NHTSA believes that it is important

that a heavy vehicle’s brake system

revert to normal braking without

antilock control, in the event of an ABS

malfunction that affects the generation

or transmission of response or control

signals in any part of the antilock

system. The agency believes that it

would be inappropriate to allow brake

performance to degrade to the level of

the emergency braking performance

requirements when a typical ABS

malfunction exists. The service brakes

of a vehicle with a malfunctioning ABS

should provide a level of braking

performance that is not substantially

different from the service brake

performance with the ABS operational.

This is necessary so that the resulting

braking performance will not surprise a

driver when the ABS malfunctions.

Based on the above considerations, the

agency has decided to deny the

petitions to amend the performance

requirements for a vehicle with a failed

antilock system.

VIII. Power Source

A. Separate Powering for Trailer ABS

In the final rule, NHTSA decided to

require full time powering for the trailer

ABSs as well as requiring that the

towing vehicle have a corresponding

separate circuit. (60 FR 13248–13250)

The agency explained that this

requirement provides the strongest

possible source of electrical power from

the tractor to ensure the functioning of

the ECU, the modulators, and a

continuous malfunction indication

whenever a malfunction exists.

AAMA, Midland-Grau, and TTMA

requested the agency to make it clear

that the phrase, ‘‘separate electrical

circuits, specifically provided to power

the antilock system,’’ is not intended to

require that a circuit be exclusively

utilized by the towed vehicle ABS.

AAMA and Midland-Grau want the

agency to allow other uses for this

circuit, such as interior van trailer lights

and multiplexing applications. ATA

asserted that the requirement for a

separate circuit is redundant and costly.

ATA subsequently requested the agency

in a September 6, 1995 letter to interpret

the requirement for a separate electrical

circuit.

NHTSA has decided to deny the

request to permit other uses for the

separate ABS circuit. As emphasized in

the final rule, based on the best data

available to the agency, NHTSA

determined that it is necessary for the

ABS on towed vehicles to receive fulltime power through a circuit that is

exclusively used by the towed vehicle

ABS, so as to reduce the possibility of

the ABS being inoperative due to lack

of power. Throughout the rulemaking,

the agency has intended that a towed

vehicle antilock system be powered

through a separate electrical circuit that

is specifically provided to power the

antilock system.

NHTSA based that decision on the

results of its field evaluation of the

durability, reliability, and

maintainability of trailer ABS systems

(as reported in DOT Report No. HS 808

059). That report noted that each of the

three electrical powering methods that

employed a separate circuit (e.g., the

Cole-Hersee 13-pin connector, the

separate 6-pin connector, and the

separate ISO connector) was superior to

the stoplamp powering approach. Each

of these separate powering approaches

used completely dedicated electrical

circuits, which included separate, fully

dedicated positive and ground wires, to

power the trailer ABS ECUs. Based on

the existing data, the agency therefore

believes that both positive and ground

wires separate from those now provided

for other uses are necessary to

adequately power trailer ABS systems.

The agency has no technical basis for

concluding that circuits that share the

existing ground provided by the

currently-used SAE J560 connector

would provide power as well as a fully

separate circuit, and therefore has no

basis to conclude that such a powering

scheme would be adequate.

NHTSA is aware of extensive industry

efforts in various Society of Automotive

Engineers’ (SAE) technical committees

to establish performance standards for

electrical systems used to power tractor

and trailer ABS systems which include

objective performance test procedures,

measurement criteria, and, in some

cases, target performance levels. If those

efforts result in the development of

consensus standards that would ensure

high quality tractor and trailer electrical

systems that could be demonstrated to

adequately supply electrical power to

trailer ABS systems, the agency would

consider alternative means of satisfying

the safety need for adequate trailer ABS

powering, other than the one which

currently available data indicate is

necessary.

NHTSA has been asked whether the

rule allows the use of the SAE J560

connector. The agency reiterates the

point it made in the final rule, i.e, that

it is leaving to industry the decision as

to which design approach is used to

implement the performance requirement

that trailer ABS be supplied power

through a separate circuit and that a

means of signaling trailer ABS

malfunctions to the tractor also be

provided. SAE J560 standard both

specifies the physical connector and

standardizes the uses for each of the

seven pins. Thus, the connector, if it is

configured as specified in the J560

standard could not be used, because

there is, at most, one pin available for

new uses, and up to three new ones

could be required. However, if the

industry chooses to reconfigure the

presently-used SAE J560 connector

hardware in such a manner as to meet

the requirements for a separate trailer

ABS powering circuit (both positive and

ground) and malfunction signaling, then

that solution would be permitted. The

agency notes that such a solution would

require multiplexing of some circuits, in

order to free up enough pins for ABS

power.

NHTSA agrees with TTMA’s concern

that ‘‘if the auxiliary circuit is used to

provide full-time power to ABS, then

there would be potential for

inadvertently powering the auxiliary

devices, due to human error, if a manual

switch is left on * * *’’ Such an

inadvertent powering of an auxiliary

device that uses the same power circuit

as the ABS could result in a low voltage

condition at the electronic control unit

of the ABS, thus making the ABS

inoperative. Also, the suggestion that

the trailer ABS powering circuit could

be shared with other electrical devices

and still be adequate if power to those

devices were automatically switched off

(except when the vehicle is stationary),

lacks an objective basis to gauge

whether such an automatic means

would be fail-safe. If the automatic

means failed, the trailer ABS systems

could have insufficient power. The

agency therefore considers this

approach to providing separate power to

trailer ABSs to be inadequate.

B. ABS Malfunction Signal Circuit and

Ground

In the final rule, NHTSA specified

detailed requirements about the

capabilities of the electrical circuits.

Among other things, paragraph S5.2.3.2

requires each non-towing trailer to have

the means for connection of the antilock
63974 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

10 ‘‘New’’ refers to changes made in today’s

document; ‘‘old’’ refers to the regulatory text

adopted in the March 10, 1995 final rule.

malfunction signal circuit and ground,

at the front of the trailer.

AAMA and Midland-Grau petitioned

the agency to delete the word ‘‘circuit’’

in the phrase ‘‘malfunction signal

circuit and ground’’ in S5.2.3.2,

claiming that it could be interpreted as

requiring a separate circuit with

dedicated power and ground wires.

After reviewing the petitions, NHTSA

has decided to amend paragraph

S5.2.3.2 to delete the words ‘‘and

ground’’ from the phrase ‘‘malfunction

signal circuit and ground.’’ The agency

notes that it did not intend to require a

dedicated circuit for the ABS

malfunction signal circuit on trailers.

The agency agrees with the petitioners

that since a ‘‘circuit’’ is defined as an

electrical path having both a power

source and a ground, the present

language could be confusing, and that

the language should be changed to avoid

being misinterpreted.

TTMA requested that the agency

amend S5.1.6.2(a) and S5.2.3.2, which

require that the vehicle be equipped

with an ‘‘electrical circuit that is

capable of signaling a malfunction.’’ The

petitioner stated that the ABS, not the

electrical circuit, should be required to

signal a malfunction.

NHTSA agrees that TTMA’s requested

language is more precise than the

wording in the final rule’s regulatory

text, and amends the regulatory

language accordingly.

AAMA, Midland-Grau, and TTMA

petitioned the agency to amend

S5.1.6.2(c), which currently requires

that a truck or truck tractor designed to

tow another vehicle have an electrical

circuit that is capable of ‘‘transmitting’’

information about a malfunction. The

petitioners requested that the word

‘‘transmitting’’ be changed to

‘‘receiving.’’

NHTSA believes that it would be

inappropriate to substitute the word

‘‘receiving’’ for ‘‘transmitting’’ since this

electrical circuit both transmits and

receives information. When towing a

trailer, a tractor transmits the

malfunction information that it receives

from the trailer’s ABS to the ABS

malfunction indicator lamp in the cab of

the tractor or the truck. Even though the

agency has decided not to change the

word ‘‘transmitting’’ in S5.1.6.2 to

‘‘receiving,’’ it has decided to clarify the

provision’s wording.

In addition to the changes specifically

addressed by the petitions, NHTSA has

decided to reword all three ABS

malfunction circuit and indicator

provisions (S5.1.6.2, S5.2.3.2, and

S5.2.3.3) to clarify them and make them

more consistent in form and wording to

each other and to the other parts of the

standard.

In particular:

(a) The new 10 S5.1.6.2(a) is written as

a general requirement.

(b) The old S5.1.6.2(a) and S5.1.6.2(b)

has been combined into one paragraph.

(c) The old S5.1.6.2(c) has been

renumbered S5.1.6.2(b) and has been

reworded to delete references to trailer

failures in a tractor requirement.

(d) The new S5.2.3.2 no longer

references a ‘‘key switch’’ or an in-cab

ABS malfunction lamp, because those

items are not present on trailers.

(e) The new S5.2.3.3 now includes

requirements for memory and check of

lamp functions.

C. Tractor Trailer ABS Interface

Connector

AAMA petitioned the agency to

specify the electrical connector, SAE

J2272, Tractor Trailer Interface

Connector, stating that ‘‘the industry

will not be able to converge to a single

solution in the absence of regulatory

direction.’’ AAMA claimed that without

regulatory direction, the end users could

prevent an industry approach from

being implemented, which would result

in a proliferation, rather than needed

deproliferation, in connector strategies.

In its petition for reconsideration,

TTMA supported the J2272 connector.

However, in a later submission to the

docket, that organization withdrew its

support of that connector. TTMA now

supports a separate connector, but does

not favor any one in particular. ATA

supports the current seven-pin

connector.

NHTSA is aware that the industry is

considering several options for

powering trailer antilock systems and

that it is having a difficult time reaching

a consensus. The agency agrees that the

SAE J2272 connector is one potentially

permissible approach that should be

given full consideration by the industry.

However, the agency is also aware that

the 7-pin configuration of the SAE J2272

connector might not allow the industry

to have a one-connector solution in the

long term, even if some of its pins are

multiplexed. It is NHTSA’s belief that

the industry understands and can best

respond to the future electrical

powering needs for trailers, such as

antilock braking systems, electronic

braking systems, and satellite tracking

and communications network. The

agency believes that obtaining

compatibility provides sufficient

incentive for the industry to reach a

consensus to standardize on a connector

to comply with the full-time power and

in-cab malfunction lamp requirements

without the need for an electrical

connector equipment requirement

mandated by NHTSA. AMA, ATA,

TTMA, and brake component

manufacturers have been meeting under

the auspices of SAE in an effort to reach

consensus on the connector issue. These

meetings indicate that all parties have

placed forward and backward

compatibility as an important issue for

the industry to resolve and reach

consensus. Based on these

considerations, the agency has decided

to deny the petition from AAMA to

specify the SAE J2272 Tractor Trailer

Interface Connector (or any other

specific connector) as required

equipment for tractors and trailers.

IX. Applicability of Amendments and

Leadtime

A. Hydraulic-Braked Vehicles

In the final rule, NHTSA stated that

a March 1999 compliance date for

installing antilock brake systems on

hydraulic-braked single-unit trucks and

buses provides sufficient time for

vehicle manufacturers and ABS

manufacturers to complete the

development and testing of these

systems. (60 FR 13250–13251) It noted

that some Japanese and European

manufacturers are currently marketing

ABS for medium and heavy hydraulicbraked vehicles and that brake

manufacturers expressed confidence

that such antilock systems will be

available in the United States.

In its petition, ATA expressed

concern that NHTSA was requiring

hydraulic-braked heavy vehicles to be

equipped with antilock brake systems,

even though that organization claimed

that such systems are not currently

commercially available for heavy

vehicles sold in the United States. ATA

further stated that ‘‘different concepts

are necessary for hydraulic ABS on

medium and heavy vehicles because of

dissimilarities’’ between the braking

systems of hydraulic-braked light

vehicles and hydraulic-braked medium/

heavy vehicles. Given these concerns,

ATA and UPS petitioned the agency to

postpone the compliance date for

hydraulic-braked vehicles, claiming that

no antilock systems are available for

these vehicles and such systems, when

they are available, would need time to

be tested. The petitioners urged the

agency to postpone the compliance date

for these vehicles until 2 years after the

technology is readily available. Further,

UPS reiterated its request for a threeyear phase-in scheme of 20 percent/50
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63975

11 ‘‘Medium-Duty ABS,’’ Pickup and Delivery

September 1995

percent/100 percent for the entire ABS

applicability requirement.

NHTSA continues to believe that it is

appropriate to require that medium and

heavy hydraulic-braked vehicles be

equipped with ABS, starting in March

1999. Two leading manufacturers of

medium and heavy hydraulic vehicles,

Freightliner and Navistar, have

announced that they will offer the

AlliedSignal hydraulic antilock brake

system on their hydraulic-braked

vehicles in 1996. Freightliner will offer

ABS as an option on its Class 5–8

hydraulic Business Class models, while

Navistar will offer hydraulic ABS as

standard equipment on all its medium

truck chassis, including the 4000

Series.11 Moreover, in its comments to

the April 1994 SNPRM, Freightliner

stated that the March 1, 1999 ABS

compliance date for hydraulic-braked

heavy vehicles is realistic and

appropriate, but urged the agency to

continue to monitor manufacturers’

progress and be willing to act on short

notice, if necessary, to provide

additional lead time.

NHTSA disagrees with ATA’s claim

that there are significant differences

between ABS on hydraulic-braked light

vehicles compared with medium and

heavy vehicles. AlliedSignal, a

manufacturer of both air-braked and

hydraulic-braked ABS, stated in its

comments to the September 1993 NPRM

that the hydraulic- braked ABS

technology that will be used on heavy

vehicles is the same as the technology

now used on passenger cars and other

light vehicles, and that the application

of hydraulic-braked ABS on heavy

vehicles ‘‘should not present significant

technical risk.’’ That company also

explicitly stated that ‘‘components are

identical or nearly identical to that used

in the passenger car and light truck

applications.’’ It added that ‘‘the wheel

speed sensors are the same technology

as used in light vehicle applications,

and in fact are the same as that planned

for air-braked vehicles. The electronic

control unit utilizes the same

components as light vehicles * * * and

is planned to be the same as that

supplied by our AlliedSignal Truck

Brake System Company for air braked

vehicle applications.’’ AlliedSignal

concluded their comments to the NPRM

by stating that as a supplier of ABS for

hydraulic-braked vehicles, the

requirements can be reliably achieved

with proven technology within the

suggested time frame.

Such similarities are also present

when comparing ABS on air braked

vehicles and hydraulic-braked vehicles.

In the September 1995 Pickup &

Delivery article, a representative of

AlliedSignal stated that—

There’s quite a few similarities in

complexity [between hydraulic and air

braked ABS]. For example, the means of

sensing wheel speed is basically identical.

There’s a wheel speed sensor that’s used to

check the speed of each wheel. You also have

an ECU which monitors those wheel speeds

and identifies if they are remaining constant

or there are differentials from one side to

another or front to rear.

ATA also disagreed with NHTSA

statements, claiming that ABS will not

be required on European trucks until

after NHTSA’s requirement takes effect.

NHTSA believes that ATA’s claim is

based on a misinterpretation of the

European type approval system as

compared with the United States’ selfcertification system. The agency is

aware that there are new European

requirements pending for hydraulicbraked medium and heavy vehicles

equipped with ABS, with the first

compliance date of January 1999. In

Europe, newly produced vehicles with

old type-approvals can use their old

brake system design for a period of time

after the compliance dates when ABS

will be required on new type-approved

vehicles. Therefore, these vehicles can

continue to be built and sold without

ABS, even after the European

compliance dates, which begin in

January 1999. When a manufacturer

redesigns a vehicle, however, the new

design has to be typed-approved, and

therefore would be required to comply

with the new ABS requirements. Hence,

ATA is technically correct that some

hydraulic-braked heavy vehicles built

for the European market will be allowed

to be built without ABS even after the

compliance date for the United States

requirements. However, other European

market vehicles with hydraulic brakes

will have to have ABS before their

United States counterparts. Due to the

differences between the type approval

and self-certification processes, there is

no way to completely synchronize the

introduction of ABS on hydraulicbraked heavy vehicles in the United

States and in Europe, and there is no

reason to delay introduction in the

United States until after all European

vehicles are required to have it.

Based on the above comments from

manufacturers and the positive

experience in other countries with ABSequipped hydraulic-braked vehicles,

NHTSA has determined that requiring

hydraulic-braked vehicles to be

equipped with ABS is practicable and

appropriate. The agency continues to

believe that four years is sufficient

leadtime for vehicle manufacturers to

develop and test these antilock systems,

given that ABS technology has already

been introduced on light vehicles

equipped with hydraulic braking

systems. Therefore, the agency has

decided to deny ATA’s petition to

extend the compliance date for

equipping hydraulic-braked vehicles

with ABS.

AM General petitioned the agency to

change the compliance date for

equipping hydraulic-braked vehicles

with ABS from March 1, 1999, to

September 1, 1999. It claimed that the

company would face complications in

making such a major mid-year change.

NHTSA notes that vehicles produced

on or after the specified compliance

dates must comply with the new

requirements. This also means that a

vehicle manufacturer can comply with

the new brake requirements before the

compliance date of the new

requirements. Hence, if AM General

finds it difficult to comply with the

March 1, 1999 compliance date because

of the mid-year timing of the date, then

it has the option of complying with the

new requirements prior to that date,

such as on September 1, 1998.

AM General petitioned the agency to

specify a timetable for monitoring and

reviewing the technical status and

viability of commercially available

hydraulic antilock systems.

NHTSA currently has no plans for

specifying a formal timetable for

monitoring and reviewing the technical

status of hydraulic-braked ABS for

heavy vehicles. Nevertheless, the agency

plans to monitor this development

closely and could modify the

implementation schedule if

development of antilock systems for

hydraulic-braked vehicles faced

unexpected development problems. As

stated above, vehicle and brake

manufacturers indicate that they will

have hydraulic antilock systems

commercially available in 1996. The

agency has provided a leadtime of four

years to ensure that manufacturers will

have sufficient time to develop and test

antilock systems for hydraulic-braked

heavy vehicles. The agency believes that

the fleets and users, the ABS

manufacturers, and the vehicle

manufacturers can work together to lay

out a timetable for the industry so that

antilock systems for these heavy

vehicles are ready for commercial use

by March 1, 1999.

B. Class 3 Vehicles

AM General petitioned that the ABS

requirements not apply to vehicles with

GVWRs between 10,001 and 14,000

pounds (Class 3 trucks). It argued that
63976 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

since many of these vehicles are derived

from light vehicles, and given its belief

that the effectiveness of ABS on light

vehicles is open to debate, the industry

should be given the opportunity to

review and consider comments on

equipping Class 3 vehicles with ABS.

NHTSA has previously stated that

excluding vehicles of certain weight

classes between 10,000 and 26,000

pounds GVWR would create an uneven

application of the ABS requirements

and could result in an inconsistent

regulatory framework that would not

provide safety benefits to all vehicles.

The results of the accident data analysis

that examined the effectiveness of ABS

on light vehicles showed that there was

a net positive safety benefit from

equipping vans, sport utilities, and light

trucks with ABS. Since many Class 3

vehicles are derived from these light

trucks, the agency anticipates that Class

3 vehicles will also experience safety

benefits from being equipped with ABS.

The agency therefore disagrees with AM

General’s conclusion and has decided to

deny its petition requesting that Class 3

vehicles be excluded from applicability

to the ABS requirements because of the

lack of demonstrated effectiveness of

ABS on passenger cars.

C. Four-Wheel Drive Vehicles

AM General also requested that the

ABS requirement not apply to fourwheel drive vehicles. The company

stated that it has had difficulty getting

an ABS supplier to develop a system for

its Hummer vehicle because of the

vehicle’s full-time 4WD, torque-biasing

differentials on both axles, and low

volume production. AM General

believes that the issue of four-wheel

drive ABS has been overlooked and

needs to be addressed openly.

NHTSA believes that it is appropriate

to apply the ABS requirements to fourwheel drive vehicles, since such

vehicles can and do lose control during

braking. Moreover, the agency is aware

of ABS applications on current vehicles

equipped with full-time four-wheel

drive or with all-wheel drive, and

believes that the ABS technology, to

accomplish an ABS installation on AM

General’s Hummer vehicle, is readily

available. Therefore, the agency has

decided to deny AM General’s petition

requesting that four-wheel drive

vehicles be excluded from being

equipped with ABS.

D. Trailers and Dollies

UPS petitioned the agency to

implement ABS on air-braked vehicles

by using a three-year phase-in scheme of

20 percent/50 percent/100 percent for

trailers and dollies. That company

requested that in 1998, 20 percent of

trailers and dollies be required to have

ABS; in 1999, 50 percent be required to

have ABS; and in 2000, 100 percent be

required to have ABS. UPS claims that

it faces critical problems regarding

reliability and cost to meet the current

effective dates.

NHTSA believes that such a

protracted delay in the implementation

of ABS on trailers and dollies is

unnecessary, given the current state of

development of ABS for these vehicles

and given that 2S/1M and tandem

control configurations on semi-trailers

and dollies are being allowed. The

agency further notes that no ABS or

trailer manufacturer expressed concerns

about the agency’s timetable or ABS

reliability. Moreover, in the final rule,

the agency discussed in detail the issues

that ATA and UPS raised about

reliability of ABS on heavy vehicles.

NHTSA concluded that ABSs are

reliable and that maintenance costs

associated with ABS are neither

excessive nor unreasonable compared to

other maintenance costs. The agency

further stated that these costs will not be

significantly reduced if the

implementation dates of this rule are

further delayed.

X. Miscellaneous

A. National Uniformity

ATA petitioned the agency to clarify

that States may not impose compliance

dates that differ from NHTSA’s rules.

That organization specifically requested

NHTSA to ‘‘confirm * * * that any

attempt under State law to impose a

retroactive ABS mandate would

frustrate the significant Federal

statutory purpose and, therefore, is not

permitted.’’

NHTSA notes that the statute

(formerly known as the ‘‘National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of

1966’’) clearly addresses the issue of

preemption at 49 USC 30103(b). That

provision states that when a Federal

motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a State generally may only

prescribe an identical standard.

B. Publish Complete Regulatory Texts

and Compliance Test Procedures

AAMA, HDBMC, and Midland-Grau

requested that the agency immediately

publish complete and updated versions

of Standard No. 105 and Standard No.

121.

NHTSA agrees that there should be

complete and updated versions of

Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121,

showing all the amendments made by

the ABS and Stopping Distance

rulemakings. Such changes are generally

reflected in the Code of Federal

Regulations published annually by the

National Archives and Records

Administration. The agency believes

that the publication of updated versions

of Standard No. 105 and Standard No.

121 would be helpful to the regulated

industry. Since the agency’s first

priority is to issue the substantive rules,

it has issued today’s notice first. The

agency anticipates publishing the

updated Standards in 1996.

AAMA, AlliedSignal, HDBMC, and

Midland-Grau petitioned the agency to

provide the compliance test procedures

for Standard 121, TP–121, within 60

days after April 10, 1995.

NHTSA notes that these compliance

test procedures are currently under

development by the agency and will be

made available in the near future.

C. Costs

ATA claimed that NHTSA’s cost

estimate for ABS ‘‘are low by roughly a

factor of two.’’ That organization stated

that fleets are getting bids on ABS

equipment and actual quotes are

running at almost $2,000 per tractor and

$1,400 per trailer.

NHTSA disagrees with ATA that the

agency’s cost estimates for ABS are low

by ‘‘a factor of two.’’ The agency

conducted an in-depth study of heavy

vehicle ABS cost, and the findings are

reported in a final report, ‘‘Incremental

Cost, Weight, and Leadtime Impacts of

Requiring Heavy Truck Tractor/Trailer

ABS,’’ published in June 1994. This

study is based on an annual production

volume of 100,000 ABS units. Hence, it

is to be expected that the current prices

that ATA is quoting would be higher

than those provided in the agency’s

study, considering that current annual

production of ABS units is under 10,000

units.

D. Corrections to Standard No. 101 and

Standard No. 105

NHTSA has revised Table 2 of

Standard No. 101, Controls and

Displays, to correct several of the

identifying symbols in Column 4, which

were inadvertently changed in the

regulatory text of the final rule. The

attached Table 2 has been revised to

include the original identifying symbols

in Column 4.

NHTSA has also corrected Table II of

Standard No. 105 to reflect correct

positioning of footnote references.

XI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This notice was reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63977

considered the impacts of this

rulemaking action and determined that

it is ‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of

the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. In

connection with the March 1995 final

rules, the agency prepared a Final

Economic Assessment (FEA) describing

the economic and other effects of this

rulemaking action. Summary

discussions of those effects were

provided in the ABS final rule. The

amendments in this final rule do not

make those effects any more stringent,

and in some respects make it easier for

a manufacturer to comply with them.

For persons wishing to examine the full

analysis, a copy is in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

effects of both this final rule or the

original final rule under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Accordingly, the agency has not

prepared a final regulatory flexibility

analysis.

The primary cost effect of the

requirements in this final rule or in the

original final rules will be on

manufacturers of heavy vehicles which

are generally large businesses. However,

final stage manufacturers are generally

small businesses. A detailed discussion

about the anticipated economic impact

on these businesses is provided in the

FEA.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action 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.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this action

under the principles and criteria in

Executive Order 12612. The agency has

determined that this notice does not

have sufficient Federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment. No State laws

will be affected.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the State requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

agency is amending Standard No. 101,

Controls and Displays, Standard No.

105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, in

Title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations at Part 571 as follows:

PART 571—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 571

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166, delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. In § 571.101, Table 2 is revised to

appear as follows: § 571.101 Standard

No. 101; Controls and Displays.

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
63978 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63979

2. Section 571.105 is amended by

revising the definition of ‘‘Directly

controlled wheel’’ in S4; by revising

S5.1.1(c), S5.3.3(b); S5.5.1, S7, and S7.5

to read as follows:

§ 571.105 Standard No. 105, Hydraulic

Brake Systems

* * * * *

S4.* * *

Directly Controlled Wheel means a

wheel for which the degree of rotational

wheel slip is sensed, either at that wheel

or on the axle shaft for that wheel and

corresponding signals are transmitted to

one or more modulators that adjust the

brake actuating forces at that wheel.

Each modulator may also adjust the

brake actuating forces at other wheels

that are on the same axle or in the same

axle set in response to the same signal

or signals.

* * * * *

S5.1.1* * *

(c) The service brakes shall be capable

of stopping each vehicle with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 pounds in two

effectiveness tests within the distances

and from the speeds specified in

S5.1.1.2 and S5.1.1.3. Each school bus

with a GVWR greater than 10,000

pounds manufactured after January 12,

1996 and before March 1, 1999 and

which is equipped with an antilock

brake system may comply with

paragraph S5.1.1.2 and S5.5.1 rather

than the first effectiveness test, as

specified in S5.1.1.1. Each school bus

with a GVWR greater than 10,000

pounds manufactured on or after March

1, 1999 shall be capable of meeting the

requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.5,

under the conditions prescribed in S6,

when tested according to the procedures

and in the sequence set forth in S7.

* * * * *

S5.3.3* * *

(b) For vehicles with a GVWR greater

than 10,000 pounds, each message about

the existence of a malfunction, as

described in S5.3.1(c), shall be stored in

the antilock brake system after the

ignition switch is turned to the ‘‘off’’

position and the indicator lamp shall be

automatically reactivated when the

ignition switch is again turned to the

‘‘on’’ position. The indicator lamp shall

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 there

is a malfunction or a message about a

malfunction that existed when the key

switch was last turned to the ‘‘off’’

position.

* * * * *

S5.5.1 Each vehicle with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 pounds, except for

any vehicle that has a speed attainable

in 2 miles of not more than 33 mph,

shall be equipped with an antilock

brake system that directly controls the

wheels of at least one front axle and the

wheels of at least one rear axle of the

vehicle. On each vehicle with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 pounds but not

greater than 12,000 pounds, the antilock

brake system may also directly control

the wheels of the drive axle by means

of a single sensor in the drive line.

Wheels on other axles of the vehicle

may be indirectly controlled by the

antilock brake system.

* * * * *

S7. Test procedures and sequence.

Each vehicle shall be capable of meeting

all the applicable requirements of S5

when tested according to the procedures

and in the sequence set forth below,

without replacing any brake system part

or making any adjustments to the brake

system other than as permitted in the

burnish and reburnish procedures and

in S7.9 and S7.10. (For vehicles only

having to meet the requirements of

S5.1.1, S5.1.2 and S5.1.3 in section S5.1,

the applicable test procedures and

sequence are S7.1, S7.2, S7.4, S7.5, S7.8,

S7.9, S7.10 and S7.18. However, at the

option of the manufacturer, the

following test procedures and sequence

may be conducted: S7.1, S7.2, S7.3,

S7.4, S7.5, S7.6, S7.7 S7.8, S7.9, S7.10

and S7.18. The choice of this option

shall not be construed as adding to the

requirements specified in S5.1.2 and

S5.1.3.) Automatic adjusters must

remain activated at all times. A vehicle

shall be deemed to comply with the

stopping distance requirements of S5.1

if at least one of the stops at each speed

and load specified in each of S7.3, S7.5,

S7.8, S7.9, S7.10, S7.15 and S7.17

(check stops) is made within a stopping

distance that does not exceed the

corresponding distance specified in

Table II. When the transmission selector

control is required to be in neutral for

a deceleration, a stop or snub shall be

obtained by the following procedures:

(a) Exceed the test speed by 4 to 8

mph;

(b) close the throttle and coast in gear

to approximately 2 mph above the test

speed;

(c) shift to neutral; and

(d) when the test speed is reached,

apply the service brakes.

* * * * *

S7.5 Service brake system-second

effectiveness test. Repeat S7.3, except

for vehicles with a GVWR greater than

10,000 lbs. Then, for vehicles with a

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, make

four stops from 80 mph if the speed

attainable in 2 miles is not less 84 mph.

* * * * *

3. Section 571.121 is amended by

revising the definitions of ‘‘Directly

Controlled Wheel’’ and ‘‘Full-treadle

brake application’’ in S4; by adding the

definition for ‘‘Maximum treadle travel’’

in S4; and by revising S5.1.6.2, S5.2.3.2,

S5.2.3.3, S5.3.1, S5.3.6, S5.3.6.1, and

S5.7.1 to read as follows:

§ 571.121 Standard No. 121; Air Brake

Systems.

* * * * *

S4.* * *

Directly Controlled Wheel means a

wheel for which the degree of rotational

wheel slip is sensed, either at that wheel

or on the axle shaft for that wheel and

corresponding signals are transmitted to

one or more modulators that adjust the

brake actuating forces at that wheel.

Each modulator may also adjust the

brake actuating forces at other wheels

that are on the same axle or in the same

axle set in response to the same signal

or signals.

* * * * *

Full-treadle brake application means

a brake application in which the treadle

valve pressure in any of the valve’s

output circuits reaches 85 psi within 0.2

seconds after the application is

initiated, or in which maximum treadle

travel is achieved within 0.2 seconds

after the application is initiated.

* * * * *

Maximum treadle travel means the

distance that the treadle moves from its

position when no force is applied to its

position when the treadle reaches a full

stop.

* * * * *

S5.1.6.2 Antilock Malfunction

Signal.

(a) Each truck tractor manufactured

on or after March 1, 1997 and each

single unit vehicle manufactured on or

after March 1, 1998 shall be equipped

with an indicator lamp, mounted in

front of and in clear view of the driver,

which is activated whenever there is a

malfunction that affects the generation

or transmission of response or control

signals in the vehicle’s antilock brake

system. The indicator lamp shall remain

activated as long as such a malfunction

exists, whenever the ignition (start)

switch is in the ‘‘on’’ (run) position,

whether or not the engine is running.

Each message about the existence of

such a malfunction shall be stored in

the antilock brake system after the

ignition switch is turned to the ‘‘off’’

position and automatically reactivated

when the ignition switch is again turned

to the ‘‘on’’ position. The indicator lamp

shall also be activated as a check of

lamp function whenever the ignition is

turned to the ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘run’’ position.
63980 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

The indicator lamp shall be deactivated

at the end of the check of lamp function

unless there is a malfunction or a

message about a malfunction that

existed when the key switch was last

turned to the ‘‘off’’ position.

(b) Each truck tractor manufactured

on or after March 1, 1997, and each

single unit vehicle manufactured on or

after March 1, 1998 that is equipped to

tow another air-braked vehicle, shall 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 dolly(ies)) to the trailer

ABS malfunction lamp in the cab of the

towing vehicle, and shall have the

means for connection of this electrical

circuit to the towed vehicle. Each such

truck tractor and single unit vehicle

shall also be equipped with an indicator

lamp, separate from the lamp required

in S5.1.6.2(a), mounted in front of and

in clear view of the driver, which is

activated whenever the malfunction

signal circuit described above receives a

signal indicating an ABS malfunction

on one or more towed vehicle(s). The

indicator lamp shall 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, whether or not

the engine is running. The indicator

lamp shall also be activated as a check

of lamp function whenever the ignition

is turned to the ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘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.

(c) [Reserved]

* * * * *

S5.2.3.2 Antilock Malfunction

Signal. Each trailer (including a trailer

converter dolly) manufactured on or

after March 1, 1998 that is equipped

with an antilock brake system shall be

equipped with an electrical circuit that

is capable of signalling a malfunction in

the trailer’s antilock brake system, and

shall have the means for connection of

this antilock brake system malfunction

signal circuit to the towing vehicle. The

electrical circuit need not be separate or

dedicated exclusively to this

malfunction signaling function. The

signal shall be present whenever there

is a malfunction that affects the

generation or transmission of response

or control signals in the trailer’s antilock

brake system. The signal shall remain

present as long as the malfunction

exists, whenever power is supplied to

the antilock brake system. Each message

about the existence of such a

malfunction shall be stored in the

antilock brake system whenever power

is no longer supplied to the system, and

the malfunction signal shall be

automatically reactivated whenever

power is again supplied to the trailer’s

antilock brake system. In addition, each

trailer manufactured on or after March

1, 1998, 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 additional trailers in a combination

by means of its ABS malfunction signal

circuit, and shall have the means for

connection of its ABS malfunction

signal circuit to the towed vehicle.

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction

Indicator. In addition to the

requirements of S5.2.3.2, each trailer

(including a trailer converter dolly)

manufactured on or after March 1, 1998

and before March 1, 2006, shall be

equipped with an external indicator

lamp that is activated whenever there is

a malfunction that affects the generation

or transmission of response or control

signals in the trailer’s antilock brake

system. The indicator lamp shall remain

activated as long as such a malfunction

exists, whenever power is supplied to

the antilock brake system. Each message

about the existence of such a

malfunction shall be stored in the

antilock brake system whenever power

is no longer supplied to the system, and

the malfunction signal shall be

automatically reactivated when power is

again supplied to the trailer’s antilock

brake system. The indicator lamp shall

also be activated as a check of lamp

function whenever power is supplied to

the antilock brake system and the

vehicle is stationary. The indicator lamp

shall be deactivated at the end of the

check of lamp function unless there is

a malfunction or a message about a

malfunction that existed when power

was last supplied to the antilock brake

system.

* * * * *

S5.3.1 Stopping distance—trucks

and buses. When stopped six times for

each combination of vehicle type,

weight, and speed specified in S5.3.1.1,

in the sequence specified in Table I,

each truck tractor manufactured on or

after March 1, 1997 and each single unit

vehicle manufactured on or after March

1, 1998 shall stop at least once in not

more than the distance specified in

Table II, measured from the point at

which movement of the service brake

control begins, without any part of the

vehicle leaving the roadway, and with

wheel lockup permitted only as follows:

(a) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph,

any wheel on a nonsteerable axle other

than the two rearmost nonliftable,

nonsteerable axles may lock up, for any

duration. The wheels on the two

rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles

may lock up according to (b).

(b) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph,

one wheel on any axle or two wheels on

any tandem may lock up for any

duration.

(c) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph,

any wheel not permitted to lock in (a)

or (b) may lock up repeatedly, with each

lockup occurring for a duration of one

second or less.

(d) At vehicle speeds of 20 mph or

less, any wheel may lock up for any

duration.

Table I.—Stopping Sequence

1. Burnish.

2. Stops on a peak friction coefficient

surface of 0.5: (a) With the vehicle at

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR),

stop the vehicle from 30 mph using the

service brake, for a truck tractor with a

loaded unbraked control trailer. (b) With

the vehicle at unloaded weight plus up

to 500 lbs., stop the vehicle from 30

mph using the service brake, for a truck

tractor.

3. Manual adjustment of the service

brakes allowed for truck tractors, within

the limits recommended by the vehicle

manufacturer.

4. Other stops with vehicle at GVWR:

(a) 60 mph service brake stops on a

peak friction coefficient surface of 0.9,

for a truck tractor with a loaded

unbraked control trailer, or for a singleunit vehicle.

(b) 60 mph emergency brake stops on

a peak friction coefficient of 0.9, for a

single-unit vehicle. Truck tractors are

not required to be tested in the loaded

condition.

5. Parking brake test with the vehicle

loaded to GVWR.

6. Manual adjustment of the service

brakes allowed for truck tractors and

single-unit vehicles, within the limits

recommended by the vehicle

manufacturer.

7. Other stops with the vehicle at

unloaded weight plus up to 500 lbs.

(a) 60 mph service brake stops on a

peak friction coefficient surface of 0.9,

for a truck tractor or for a single-unit

vehicle.

(b) 60 mph emergency brake stops on

a peak friction coefficient of 0.9, for a

truck tractor or for a single-unit vehicle.

8. Parking brake test with the vehicle

at unloaded weight plus up to 500 lbs.

9. Final inspection of service brake

system for condition of adjustment.

S5.3.6 Stability and Control During

Braking-Truck Tractors. When stopped

four consecutive times for each

combination of weight, speed, and road

conditions specified in S5.3.6.1 and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63981

S5.3.6.2, each truck tractor

manufactured on or after March 1, 1997

shall stop at least three times within the

12-foot lane, without any part of the

vehicle leaving the roadway.

S5.3.6.1 Using a full-treadle brake

application for the duration of the stop,

stop the vehicle from 30 mph or 75

percent of the maximum drive-through

speed, whichever is less, on a 500- foot

radius curved roadway with a wet level

surface having a peak friction coefficient

of 0.5 when measured on a straight or

curved section of the curved roadway

using an American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) E1136 standard

reference tire, in accordance with ASTM

Method E1337–90, at a speed of 40 mph,

with water delivery.

* * * * *

S5.7.1 Emergency brake system

performance. When stopped six times

for each combination of weight and

speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a

loaded truck tractor with an unbraked

control trailer, on a road surface having

a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the

service brake system of a part designed

to contain compressed air or brake fluid

(except failure of a common valve,

manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake

chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop

at least once in not more than the

distance specified in Column 5 of Table

II, measured from the point at which

movement of the service brake control

begins, except that a truck-tractor tested

at its unloaded vehicle weight plus up

to 500 pounds shall stop at least once

in not more than the distance specified

in Column 6 of Table II. The stop shall

be made without any part of the vehicle

leaving the roadway, and with

unlimited wheel lockup permitted at

any speed.

* * * * *

Issued on: December 8, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30375 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

49 CFR Parts 1043 and 1160

[Ex Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 96)]

Freight Operations by Mexican Motor

Carriers—Implementation of North

American Free Trade Agreement

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends Interstate

Commerce Commission (ICC)

regulations relating to motor carrier

operating authority and insurance, in

order to implement the second phase of

the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA) relating to land

transportation. The amendments will

establish procedures under which

Mexican motor carriers may apply for

operating authority to provide service

across the United States-Mexico

international boundary line to and from

points in California, Arizona, New

Mexico, and Texas. They will also

establish procedures under which

persons of Mexico who establish

enterprises in the United States to

distribute international cargo in this

country may apply for operating

authority.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Applications for operating authority

may be obtained by calling the ICC’s

Automated Response Capability (ARC)

telephone system at (202) 927–7600 and

selecting the option for how to file an

application. For additional information,

contact either Bernard Gaillard, (202)

927–5500 or Stanley M. Braverman,

(202) 927–6316. [TDD for the hearing

impaired: (202) 927–5721.] To obtain a

copy of the Commission’s full decision

in this matter, contact D.C. News & Data

Inc., ICC Building, 1201 Constitution

Avenue NW., Room 2229, Washington,

DC 20423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission published a notice of

proposed rulemaking in the Federal

Register on October 18, 1995 (60 FR

53894). This notice proposed changes to

ICC licensing and insurance regulations,

and it sought comments on a new

application form created to assist in the

implementation of the second phase of

NAFTA. After reviewing the comments

submitted, we have decided to adopt the

proposed rules. We have made some

changes to Form OP–1MX, ‘‘Application

for Operating Authority by Mexican

Carriers,’’ to correct inadvertent

oversights and to address points made

in the comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., we have examined

the impact of our action on small

businesses and small organizations. We

conclude that our action will not have

a substantial impact upon a significant

number of small entities, and that any

impact it may have will be beneficial.

We expect that the new application

form designated for Mexican applicants

(Form OP–1MX), and the corresponding

regulations, will simplify and clarify the

application process. Use of the existing

Form OP–1 for these new applications,

by contrast, could cause confusion and

require more work on the part of

Mexican carrier applicants.

Environmental and Energy

Considerations

We conclude that our rules will not

significantly affect either the quality of

the human environment or the

conservation of energy resources.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 1043

Insurance, Motor Carriers, Surety

Bonds.

49 CFR Part 1160

Administrative practice and

procedure, Brokers, Buses, Freight

forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor

carriers, Moving of household goods.

Decided: November 30, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman Morgan,

Vice Chairman Owen and Commissioner

Simmons.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 49, chapter X, parts 1043

and 1160 are amended as set forth

below:

PART 1043—SURETY BONDS AND

POLICIES OF INSURANCE

1. The authority citation for part 1043

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10101, 10321, 11701,

10927; 5 U.S.C. 553.

§ 1043.1 [Amended]

2. Section 1043.1, paragraphs (a)(1)

and (b) are amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1) in the first

sentence add the words ‘‘or foreign

(Mexican) motor private carrier or

foreign motor carrier transporting

exempt commodities’’ after the words

‘‘No common or contract carrier’’.

b. In paragraph (b) in the first

sentence add the words ‘‘nor any foreign

(Mexican) common carrier of exempt

commodities’’ after the words ‘‘title 49

of the U.S. Code’’.

PART 1160—RULES GOVERNING

APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATING

AUTHORITY

3. The authority citation for part 1160

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C 553 and 559; 16 U.S.C.

1456; 49 U.S.C. 10101, 10305, 10321, 10921,

10922, 10923, 10924, 10928 and 11102.

4. In § 1160.1 a new paragraph (h) is

added to read as follows: