Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13297

(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 with vehicle at gross vehicle

weight rating:

Table I.—Stopping Sequence—

Continued

(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 single-unit vehicle.

(b) 30 mph service brake stops on a peak

friction coefficient surface of 0.5, for a

truck tractor with a loaded unbraked

control trailer.

(c) 60 mph emergency brake stops 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) 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) 30 mph service brake stops on a peak

friction coefficient surface of 0.5, for a

truck tractor.

Table I.—Stopping Sequence—

Continued

(c) 60 mph emergency brake stops on a

peak friction coefficient surface of 0.9,

for a truck tractor or for a single-unit

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.

S5.3.1.1 Stop the vehicle from 60

mph on a surface with a peak friction

coefficient of 0.9 with the vehicle

loaded as follows: (a) loaded to its

GVWR, (b) in the Bobtail configuration

(truck-tractors only) plus up to 500

pounds, and (c) at its unloaded vehicle

weight (except for a truck tractor) plus

up to 500 pounds (including driver and

instrumentation). If the speed attainable

in two miles is less than 60 mph, the

vehicle shall stop from a speed in Table

II that is 4 to 8 mph less than the speed

attainable in 2 miles.

TABLE II.—STOPPING DISTANCE

[In feet]

Vehicle speed in miles per hour

Service

brake

Emergency

brake

PFC

0.9

PFC

0.9

PFC

0.9

PFC

0.9

PFC

0.9

PFC

0.9

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

20 ...................................................................................................................................... 32 35 38 40 83 85

25 ...................................................................................................................................... 49 54 59 62 123 131

30 ...................................................................................................................................... 70 78 84 89 170 186

35 ...................................................................................................................................... 96 106 114 121 225 250

40 ...................................................................................................................................... 125 138 149 158 288 325

45 ...................................................................................................................................... 158 175 189 200 358 409

50 ...................................................................................................................................... 195 216 233 247 435 504

55 ...................................................................................................................................... 236 261 281 299 520 608

60 ...................................................................................................................................... 280 310 335 355 613 720

Note: (1) Loaded and unloaded buses; (2) Loaded single unit trucks; (3) Unloaded truck tractors and single unit trucks; (4) Loaded truck tractors tested with an unbraked control trailer; (5) All vehicles except truck tractors; (6) Unloaaded truck tractors.

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

Issued on: March 1, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez, M.D.

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5413 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 93–07; Notice 3]

RIN 2127–AE21

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Stopping Distance

Requirements for Vehicles Equipped

With Hydraulic Brake Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes

stopping distance performance

requirements in Standard No. 105,

Hydraulic Brake Systems, for trucks,
13298 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1Hereafter, these vehicles which have a gross

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or

more are referred to as heavy vehicles.

2Hydraulic brake systems are used on most single

unit vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings

(GVWRs) of 26,000 pounds or less and on many

medium and heavy trucks and buses with GVWRs

between 26,000 pounds and 33,000 pounds.

Hydraulic brakes are available on single unit

vehicles with GVWRs up to 46,000 pounds, but are

used to a lesser degree with such vehicles. Heavy

vehicles not equipped with hydraulic brakes are

equipped with air brake systems.

3Today’s companion final rule to require heavy

vehicles to be equipped with antilock brake systems

(ABS) will prevent braking-induced loss-of-control

crashes.

buses, and multipurpose passenger

vehicles (MPVs) that have a gross

vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) over

10,000 pounds and that are equipped

with hydraulic brake systems. The

requirements specify the distances in

which different types of medium and

heavy vehicles must come to a complete

stop from a speed of 60 mph on a high

coefficient of friction surface. The

requirements are designed to reduce the

number and severity of crashes

involving these vehicles.

This notice is one part of the agency’s

comprehensive effort to improve the

braking ability of medium and heavy

vehicles. In another final rule published

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,

the agency is adopting identical

stopping distance requirements for

medium and heavy vehicles that are

equipped with air brake systems. In a

third final rule, that responds to the

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the

agency is requiring medium and heavy

vehicles to be equipped with an antilock

brake system (ABS) to improve the

lateral stability and control of these

vehicles during braking.

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments

become effective on March 1, 1999.

Petitions for Reconsideration: Any

petitions for reconsideration of this rule

must be received by NHTSA no later

than April 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

of this rule should refer to Docket 93–

07; Notice 3 and should be submitted to:

Administrator, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

George Soodoo, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590

(202–366–5892).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Brake Related Crashes

B. Braking Devices

II. NHTSA Activities

A. Regulatory History

B. Agency Research

C. Heavy Vehicle Safety Report to Congress

III. Agency Proposal

IV. Comments to the Proposal

V. Agency Decision

A. Overview

B. Stopping Distance Requirements

C. First Effectiveness Test

D. Second Effectiveness Test

E. Leadtime

F. Costs

I. Background

A. Brake Related Crashes

Medium and heavy vehicles 1 are

involved in thousands of motor vehicle

crashes each year. One of the most

important factors that contributes to

these crashes is brake system

performance. Crashes in which braking

is a contributory factor can be further

subdivided into (1) crashes due to brake

failures or defective brakes, (2)

runaways on downgrades, due to

maladjusted or overheated brakes, (3)

crashes in which vehicles are unable to

stop in time, and (4) loss-of-control

crashes due primarily to locked wheels

during braking.

This final rule amending Standard

No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to

establish stopping distance

requirements for hydraulically braked

vehicles,2 and the companion final rule

amending Standard No. 121, Air Brake

Systems (49 CFR 571.121), to reinstate

stopping distance requirements for air

braked heavy vehicles, will reduce the

severity of or prevent crashes

attributable to a vehicle’s inability to

stop in time.3 In these crashes, the

heavy vehicle’s brakes function, but do

not stop the vehicle quickly enough to

avoid a crash. One way to reduce the

severity or number of such crashes is to

improve heavy vehicle stopping

performance by reducing the distance

needed to stop a vehicle. Even if crashes

of this type were not totally prevented,

improvements in stopping distance

performance reduce collision impact

speeds, and thus reduce crash severity.

The following estimates regarding

heavy vehicle crashes are from

NHTSA’s 1992 General Estimates

System (GES) which is based on data

transcribed from a nationally

representative sample of state police

accident reports (PARs) and the Fatal

Accident Reporting System (FARS).

NHTSA estimates that in 1992 there

were about 168,000 crashes involving

heavy combination vehicles (excluding

truck tractors when operating bobtail,

i.e., without a trailer). These crashes

resulted in about 13,600 injuries and

387 fatalities to truck occupants and

about 51,500 injuries and 2452 fatalities

to occupants of other involved vehicles.

For bobtail truck tractors alone, the

agency estimates that there were about

8,400 crashes resulting in about 1,200

injuries and 39 fatalities to truck

occupants and about 2,600 injuries and

178 fatalities to occupants of other

involved vehicles. For heavy single-unit

trucks, the agency estimates that there

were about 192,600 crashes resulting in

about 15,700 injuries and 165 fatalities

to truck occupants and about 48,300

injuries and 891 fatalities to occupants

of other involved vehicles. In addition,

crashes involving heavy vehicles result

in more expensive and severe property

damage than crashes involving light

vehicles.

It is very difficult to quantify the

number of crashes in which a vehicle’s

brakes are unable to stop the vehicle in

time. NHTSA estimates that in 1992

there were about 18,000 crashes

involving heavy combination vehicles

(excluding bobtail truck tractors). These

crashes resulted in about 1,800 injuries

and 57 fatalities to truck occupants and

about 8,400 injuries and 754 fatalities to

occupants of other involved vehicles.

For bobtail truck tractors alone, the

agency estimates that there were about

260 crashes resulting in about 100

injuries and 7 fatalities to truck

occupants and about 240 injuries and 48

fatalities to occupants of other involved

vehicles. For heavy single-unit trucks,

the agency estimates that there were

about 30,100 crashes resulting in about

4,200 injuries and 17 fatalities to truck

occupants and about 15,000 injuries and

276 fatalities to occupants of other

involved vehicles. The Final Regulatory

Evaluation (FRE) provides greater detail

about how today’s final rules will

reduce injuries and fatalities resulting

from such crashes.

The agency emphasizes that not all

inability-to-stop-in-time crashes are

preventable. Nevertheless,

improvements to heavy vehicle brake

systems should prevent or reduce the

severity of a significant number of these

crashes.

B. Brake Designs and Equipment

In order to understand the discussion

of braking in this preamble, it is

necessary to be familiar with several

devices employed in braking systems.

As explained in greater detail in the

companion final rules about stopping

distances for air-braked vehicles and

about lateral control and stability,

manufacturers have developed several

devices related to the braking of

hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13299

including load proportioning valves

(LPVs) and antilock brake systems

(ABS). LPVs change the brake

proportioning to the drive axle after

mechanically sensing the vehicle’s load,

and ABSs automatically control the

amount of braking pressure applied to a

wheel so as to prevent wheel lockup,

thus increasing stability and control in

emergency stops. As explained in the

companion notices, these devices can

also reduce stopping distances.

II. NHTSA Activities

A. Regulatory History

As initially promulgated, Standard

No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49

CFR 571.105), set performance

requirements for motor vehicles with

hydraulic service brakes. (37 FR 17970,

September 2, 1972.) The 1972 rule

required, among other things, that heavy

vehicles stop from 60 mph within 245

feet when in the lightly loaded

condition and within 553 feet under

partial failure conditions. Some

petitions for reconsideration challenged

the setting of stopping distance

requirements for hydraulically-braked

vehicles that were more stringent than

those set for air-braked vehicles in

Standard No. 121. While the initial

stopping distance requirement of 245

feet in Standard No. 121 was identical

to Standard No. 105’s requirement,

Standard No. 121 was later revised to

require stopping within 258 feet and

then 293 feet.

The requirements for air-braked

vehicles were to become effective on

September 1, 1973, and those for

hydraulic-braked vehicles, on

September 1, 1974. NHTSA extended

the effective dates for the stopping

distance requirements in Standard No.

105 and Standard No. 121. (37 FR 3905,

February 24, 1972; 38 FR 3047, February

1, 1973; 39 FR 17550, 17563, May 17,

1974.) Prior to the final effective date for

Standard No. 105, the amendments

pertaining to heavy vehicles were

withdrawn, so the requirements for

heavy hydraulic-braked trucks and

buses never went into effect. (40 FR

18411, April 28, 1975.) The agency

concluded that the requirements that

were being withdrawn could not be

justified ‘‘on the basis of the data

available at this time.’’ The agency

noted that its decision to withdraw the

amendment implementing requirements

for vehicles other than passenger cars

was based on uncertainty as to the

achievable safety benefits relative to the

costs of meeting those requirements,

rather than on an explicit determination

that the requirements were not justified.

Notwithstanding this decision, the

agency emphasized that ‘‘truck braking

is in many cases substantially poorer

than passenger car braking, and that the

generally longer stopping distances and

the greater severity of truck accidents

justify a safety standard for these

vehicles.’’

There are two primary reasons for the

substantial costs that would have been

involved in meeting those requirements.

The first reason was the level of

stringency of the requirements: the

stopping distance requirement from 60

mph was 246 feet, which was the

original requirement implemented for

air-braked vehicles in Standard No. 121

that was later revised to 293 feet. The

second reason relates to the state-of-theart of hydraulic brake system technology

in 1975 versus that of today. As

discussed in detail in the Final

Regulatory Evaluation (FRE), the

requirements being implemented by this

notice will not require any changes in

the design or performance of

hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles.

Since its decision in 1975 to narrow

Standard No. 105’s applicability,

NHTSA has issued several amendments

extending its applicability to certain

types of vehicles. In 1976, the agency

extended the Standard’s applicability to

all school buses. (41 FR 2391, January

16, 1976.) In 1981, it extended the

standard’s applicability on a general

basis (with some limitations) to trucks,

all types of buses, and MPVs with a

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. (46 FR

55, January 2, 1981.) As for trucks,

buses, and MPVs with a GVWR greater

than 10,000 pounds, the agency

extended the requirements for braking

with partial hydraulic system failures

and power booster unit failures.

However, the service and parking brake

performance requirements, including

those for stopping distances, have not

been re-adopted for hydraulicallybraked trucks and non-school buses

with GVWRs over 10,000 pounds. The

reader should refer to the February 1993

NPRMs and today’s companion final

rules for a detailed discussion of the

regulatory history.

These requirements have received a

great deal of agency and judicial

attention. (58 FR 11009, February 23,

1993.) Along with certain other

provisions, the stopping distance

requirements for air-braked vehicles

were invalidated by the United States

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in

PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632, (9th

Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862

(1978).

While PACCAR involved air-braked

vehicles, it is relevant to hydraulicallybraked vehicles as well. The stability

and control final rule contains a

detailed discussion about PACCAR and

how the agency has responded to that

decision. As mentioned earlier, the

stopping distance requirements in this

final rule are significantly longer than

those that were rescinded in 1975.

However, as also discussed earlier,

the same stopping distance

requirements that were implemented in

1975 for air-braked vehicles were later

extended to levels that are close to those

included in this notice. One significant

difference between the original

requirements in 1975 for hydraulically

braked, heavy vehicles and those

contained in today’s final rule is that the

agency has decided to specify different

stopping distances for different

configurations of heavy vehicles.

Today’s requirements can further be

distinguished from those invalidated in

the 1970s, since manufacturers will not

need to significantly redesign their

brakes or use overly aggressive

foundation brakes to comply with

today’s requirements.

Even though the stopping distance

requirements being specified in today’s

final rule are less stringent for some

vehicle configurations than those

invalidated by PACCAR for air-braked

vehicles, the agency believes that the

braking requirements in today’s final

rules, taken as a whole, significantly

enhance the overall braking

performance of hydraulically-braked

vehicles given the agency’s decision to

require these vehicles to be equipped

with ABS.

B. Agency Research

As part of its review of heavy vehicle

braking, NHTSA issued a report entitled

‘‘NHTSA Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake

Research Program Report No. 4—

Stopping Capability of Hydraulically

Braked Vehicles’’ (DOT HS 806 860,

October 1985). That report was based on

a comprehensive testing of twelve

hydraulically-braked vehicles ranging in

weight from 14,800 to 46,000 pounds in

both the empty and loaded conditions.

The straight line stopping distance tests

measured the shortest possible stop

within a 12-foot-wide lane without

locking up more than one wheel per

axle or two wheels per tandem axle at

speeds greater than 20 mph. At 60 mph,

stopping distances ranged from 214 feet

to 396 feet. Among other things, the

agency found that the ability to stop in

a short distance without loss of control

is primarily a function of front/rear

braking force distribution. Vehicles with

brake force distributions closest to their

dynamic weight distributions were the

best performers.
13300 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

4The report may be examined at the agency’s

Technical Reference Office, room 5108, at no

charge. It is available from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161

for a small charge.

5The stopping distance rule for air-braked

vehicles discusses the issues of the test surface,

wheel lock restrictions, initial brake temperature,

the failed system test, vehicle loading, the parking

brake test, and burnish procedures.

C. Heavy Vehicle Safety Report to

Congress

In response to section 9107 of the

Truck and Bus Regulatory Reform Act of

1988, the agency submitted a report to

Congress entitled ‘‘Improved Brake

Systems for Commercial Vehicles.’’

(DOT HS 807 706, April 1991) 4 While

the report focuses on air brakes systems,

much of the information is relevant to

hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles.

After discussing crash data concerning

heavy vehicle brake systems, the report

explained factors related to braking

effectiveness and stability and control

during braking. The report mentioned

that stopping distances and vehicle

stability could be improved by

equipping heavy vehicles with LPVs

and ABS.

III. Agency Proposal

On February 23, 1993, NHTSA

proposed to amend Standard No. 105 to

establish different stopping distance

requirements for different types of

heavy vehicles equipped with hydraulic

brake systems, when making stops from

60 mph on a high coefficient of friction

surface. (58 FR 11003.) The agency

tentatively concluded that establishing

the same stopping distance requirement

for all heavy vehicles with fully

operational service brakes would be

inappropriate, since it would be too

stringent for unloaded single unit trucks

but not stringent enough for buses. The

proposed stopping distances were based

on the agency’s analysis of the available

data, especially the stopping distance

results in the VRTC reports.

NHTSA explained that its long-term

objective is to upgrade the braking

efficiency of heavy vehicles to enable

them to make controlled, stable stops,

under all loading and road surface

conditions. The agency believed that the

proposed requirements would reduce

the disparity in stopping distance

performance between heavy vehicles

and passenger cars, while assuring that

the requirements’ costs are reasonable.

The agency proposed stopping distance

requirements for vehicles equipped with

hydraulic brake systems consistent with

the stopping distance requirements for

air-braked heavy vehicles. These

requirements would take effect two

years after issuance of the final rule. The

agency decided not to propose the first

effectiveness test, which involves the

preburnish condition. However, it

proposed the second effectiveness test,

where the vehicle is tested at its GVWR

to assure full braking power, and the

third effectiveness test where the

vehicle is tested in the lightly loaded

vehicle condition to assure reasonable

brake balance.

IV. Comments on the Proposal

NHTSA received 29 comments in

response to the NPRM. Commenters

included heavy vehicle manufacturers,

brake manufacturers, safety advocacy

groups, heavy vehicle users, industry

trade associations, and other

individuals. The American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA)

submitted joint comments on behalf of

the eight major domestic manufacturers

of heavy vehicles: Chrysler, Ford,

Freightliner, General Motors (GM),

Mack Trucks, Navistar, PACCAR, and

Volvo-GM.

The commenters generally supported

the agency’s decision to establish

stopping distance requirements.

However, they offered mixed views

about the specific stopping distances

being proposed. GM, Navistar, Heavy

Duty Brake Manufacturers Council

(HDBMC), and Rockwell WABCO stated

that the proposed stopping distance

requirements are appropriate. In

contrast, the Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety (IIHS), the Coalition for

Consumer Health, and Advocates for

Highway Safety (Advocates) believed

that the required distances for trucks

and buses should be shorter. Advocates

stated that the proposal did little more

than ‘‘grandfather’’ existing braking

capabilities and therefore would not

result in the best available braking

performance for large trucks.

Commenters also addressed specific

issues raised in the NPRM, including

the requirements’ applicability to school

buses, the need for the first and fourth

effectiveness tests, the vehicle test

speed, the test surface specification, the

wheel lock up restrictions, the initial

brake temperature, the failed system

test, the vehicle loading, the parking

brake test, the burnish procedures, and

the implementation schedule for the

requirements. More specific discussions

of these comments, and the agency’s

responses to them, are set forth either

below or in the stopping distance rule

for Standard No. 121.5

V. Agency Decision

A. Overview

Based on the FARS and other crash

data, test data from the agency’s heavy

vehicle brake research program,

comments to the NPRM, and other

available information, NHTSA has

decided to amend Standard No. 105 to

establish stopping distance performance

requirements for heavy vehicles that are

equipped with hydraulic brake systems.

The requirements, which apply to 60

mph stops on a high coefficient of

friction surface, specify different

stopping distance requirements for three

different types of heavy vehicle

configurations: (1) loaded and unloaded

buses, (2) loaded single unit trucks, and

(3) empty single unit trucks. The

requirements are designed to

standardize the distance needed for all

heavy vehicles to come to a complete

stop, thereby reducing the number and

severity of crashes.

This notice is one part of the agency’s

comprehensive effort to improve the

braking ability of heavy vehicles. In

another final rule published elsewhere

in today’s Federal Register, the agency

is adopting identical stopping distance

requirements for comparable heavy

vehicles that are equipped with air

brake systems. The agency believes that

it is appropriate to specify the same

stopping distance requirements for

similar vehicles. In a third final rule, the

agency is responding to the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

(ISTEA) of 1991 by requiring heavy

vehicles to be equipped with an antilock

brake system to improve the lateral

stability and control of these vehicles

during braking.

B. Stopping Distance Requirements

Based on its testing at VRTC, NHTSA

proposed different stopping distances

for various categories of vehicles, as

follows:

Loaded and Unloaded Buses..................280 ft.

Loaded Single-Unit Trucks ....................310 ft.

Empty Single-Unit Trucks......................335 ft.

The agency reasoned that a single

stopping distance requirement for all

heavy vehicles with fully operational

service brakes would be too stringent for

unloaded single unit trucks, but not be

stringent enough for buses. Based on the

VRTC test results, the agency

anticipated that manufacturers would

not have to make changes to the

hydraulic braking systems of their

vehicles to comply with the proposed

stopping distance requirements.

AAMA and most other industry

commenters agreed with the stopping

distance values proposed for the various

vehicle configurations. GM, Navistar,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13301

6The agency decided not to include a preburnish

test in Standard No. 135, reasoning that few

vehicles are driven any length of time in an

unburnished condition.

Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers

Council (HDBMC), and Rockwell

WABCO commented that they believed

that the proposed stopping distance

requirements are appropriate. ATA

agreed with the proposal to specify

different stopping distances for different

types and loadings of vehicles. It also

agreed with specifying the same

stopping distances for the same types of

air-braked and hydraulically-braked

vehicles under the same loading

conditions.

In contrast, other commenters stated

that the proposed stopping distances

were not sufficiently stringent.

Advocates stated that the proposed

stopping distances simply ratify braking

distances currently achieved by

manufacturers and do not seek to

improve real-world braking

performance. It stated that except for the

280-foot requirement for buses, the

other proposed stopping distances are

longer than the 293 feet established

before PACCAR. Similarly, IIHS stated

that the proposals do not go far enough

toward requiring the best available

braking for heavy vehicles.

Based on the public comments and

other available information, especially

the VRTC test results, NHTSA has

decided to specify different stopping

distances for three separate categories of

vehicles, when tested at a speed of 60

mph on a surface with a PFC of 0.9, as

follows:

Loaded and Unloaded Buses..................280 ft.

Loaded Single-Unit Trucks ....................310 ft.

Unloaded Single-Unit Trucks ................335 ft.

NHTSA believes that these stopping

distances, combined with the stability

and control final rule, will ensure that

heavy vehicles make short stable stops

within a reasonable distance. The

agency further notes that the companion

notice to require heavy vehicles to be

equipped with antilock brake systems

will also help to improve the braking

performance of those vehicles enough to

enable them to comply with the

stopping distance requirements.

C. First Effectiveness Test

The first effectiveness test in Standard

No. 105, which is commonly known as

the ‘‘preburnish test,’’ measures brake

performance very early in a vehicle’s

life. School buses are the only heavy

vehicle type currently subject to the first

effectiveness test (and to Standard No.

105’s other stopping distance

requirements.)

In the NPRM, NHTSA did not propose

applying the preburnish test to other

heavy vehicles. The agency stated that

the first effectiveness test would

continue to apply to school buses, since

it did not want to modify the Standard’s

current requirements. The agency

reasoned that subjecting school buses

(but not other heavy vehicles) to the first

effectiveness test was appropriate given

the provisions in the vehicle safety law

pertaining to school buses (codified as

49 U.S.C. 301), and the ‘‘stop-and-go’’

duty cycle of school buses. The agency

requested comment on whether to apply

the first effectiveness test to heavy

vehicles in general and whether to

retain the test for school buses.

AAMA, AlliedSignal, and HDBMC

stated that heavy vehicles, including

school buses, should not be subject to

the first effectiveness test and the 30-

mph second effectiveness test.

AlliedSignal commented that excluding

hydraulically braked school buses from

the first effectiveness test would be

consistent with the agency’s intent for

consistency between hydraulically

braked and air-braked vehicles.

AlliedSignal also stated that the

intended usage of non-school buses and

school buses is nearly identical, and

that chassis components are nearly

identical. AAMA commented that

school buses and non-school buses

should have standardized braking

requirements. AAMA disagreed with the

agency’s statement that the school bus

provisions of the law have a bearing on

the need for a first effectiveness or 30-

mph second effectiveness requirements

for school buses. Straight-Stop and

Arent Fox recommended that transit

buses and school buses be tested at

speeds typical of their normal use such

as 20 to 30 mph. Chrysler agreed with

the agency’s proposal not to apply the

first effectiveness test to heavy vehicles,

except for school buses.

Advocates requested that the agency

apply the first effectiveness test to all

hydraulic braked vehicles, not just

school buses. It claimed that the new

non-asbestos linings tend to swell early

in the service lives of new brakes. As a

result, it believed that the stopping

distance would be degraded during this

period, a phenomenon that would be

detrimental to safety. Advocates argued

that the agency cannot arbitrarily

dismiss the first effectiveness test with

an assertion that it is not aware of any

‘‘green brake’’ crashes.

After reviewing the comments and

other available information, NHTSA has

decided not to apply the preburnish test

to all heavy vehicles equipped with

hydraulic brakes. It has also decided

that the test should not apply to school

buses. As explained in the NPRM,

NHTSA is not aware of any crashes

involving hydraulically braked heavy

vehicles caused by ‘‘green’’ brake

linings. Therefore, the agency has

determined that there is no need to

apply the preburnish test to heavy

vehicles. The agency notes that its

decision not to apply the preburnish test

to heavy vehicles results in the

requirements in Standard No. 105 and

Standard No. 121 being consistent for

similar vehicles given the absence of a

preburnish test in FMVSS No. 121 for

air-braked school buses.6

With respect to non-asbestos linings,

NHTSA agrees that there is a tendency

for such linings to swell early in the life

of the new brakes. However, the agency

has already addressed this issue in

greater detail in a NPRM on the brake

adjustment procedure for brake burnish

of heavy vehicles (56 FR 66395,

December 23, 1991). The agency

concluded that the swelling of the nonasbestos linings has no effect on their

service life or on the service brake

performance of the vehicle.

D. Second Effectiveness Test

The second effectiveness test in

Standard No. 105 assesses brake

performance when a vehicle is in its

fully loaded condition. In the NPRM,

NHTSA proposed extending the second

effectiveness test to hydraulicallybraked heavy vehicles. The agency

explained that this test replicates one of

the most common loading conditions for

heavy vehicles. The agency tentatively

concluded that it would be in the

interests of safety to establish stopping

distance requirements for hydraulicallybraked heavy vehicles in the fully

loaded condition (at GVWR).

NHTSA notes that, unlike the

requirements in Standard No. 121

which specify 60-mph stops, the second

effectiveness test includes 30-mph stops

as well as 60-mph stops. The agency

proposed applying the 30-mph test to

school buses, since it is similar to their

in-service stop-and-go operation.

Although there is no similar 30-mph

road test for air-braked school buses, the

brake assemblies of these vehicles are

required to be tested on a dynamometer

under section S5.4 of Standard No. 121.

These tests evaluate the capability of a

brake assembly in a stop-and-go duty

cycle. Section S5.4.2, Brake Power,

requires that the brake be capable of

making 10 consecutive decelerations

from 50 mph to 15 mph at an average

deceleration rate of 9 feet per second.

Therefore, the agency further believed

that the 30-mph portion of the second

effectiveness tests should be retained for

school buses only, given their stop-andgo duty cycle.
13302 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

AlliedSignal was the sole commenter

on the issue of the 30-mph stopping

distances. It stated that its testing of a

current system showed that the

proposed requirement of 70 feet for the

30-mph second effectiveness test would

be difficult to meet without major brake

redesign. It therefore recommended that

the requirement be increased to at least

78 feet if the agency decides not to

exclude school buses from this test.

NHTSA has decided to apply the test

requirement to school buses with a

stopping distance of 70 feet, as

proposed. The agency notes that no

vehicle manufacturer objected to the

proposed stopping distance value.

Further, NHTSA’s test data (NHTSA

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Brake Research

Program Report No. 4—Stopping

Capability of Hydraulically-Braked

Vehicles) show that 70 feet is a

reasonable requirement from 30 mph for

the second effectiveness test.

NHTSA acknowledges that some

transit buses have stop-and-go duty

cycles similar to school buses. However,

such vehicles are typically equipped

with air brake systems, and would

therefore be required to have their brake

assemblies dynamometer tested. The 30-

mph second effectiveness test would not

apply to these vehicles because they are

not school buses.

E. Leadtime

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that

the stopping distance requirements

become effective two years after the

final rule’s publication.

AAMA supported the proposed

effective date, provided that the agency

incorporated its recommended

modifications in the final rule. Rockwell

recommended that the stopping

distance requirements and the stability

performance requirements be combined

so that the effective dates for both

rulemakings are concurrent. Several

commenters to the stability and control

NPRM, including AAMA, made the

same suggestion. AAMA noted that

since ABS can have a direct influence

on achievable stopping distance, it is

important to optimize brake system

performance by taking both stopping

distance and stability into account.

On April 12, 1994, NHTSA published

a supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking (59 FR 17326) that proposed

the following implementation schedule

for both the stopping distance and

lateral stability and control

requirements:

Truck tractors ....2 years after final rule (1996)

Trailers...............3 years after final rule (1997)

Air-braked single unit trucks and

buses ............3 years after final rule (1997)

Hydraulic-braked single unit trucks

and buses....4 years after final rule (1998).

The agency reasoned that making the

effective dates for the two rulemakings

concurrent would facilitate a more

orderly implementation process, avoid

the need for manufacturers to redesign

the brakes on individual vehicles twice,

and reduce the development and

compliance costs that manufacturers

would face as a result of these

regulations. NHTSA requested

comments about the implementation

schedule proposed in the supplemental

notice.

As the stability and control final rule

discusses in detail in the section titled

‘‘Implementation Schedule,’’ NHTSA

has decided to adopt an implementation

schedule similar to the one proposed in

the SNPRM. Specifically, hydraulicallybraked heavy vehicles manufactured on

or after March 1, 1999 will have to be

equipped with ABS and comply with

the high coefficient of friction stopping

distance requirements. The agency has

decided that these effective dates, which

were widely supported by vehicle

manufacturers, brake manufacturers,

and safety advocacy groups, will

provide for an efficient implementation

of the heavy vehicle braking

requirements.

F. Costs

As indicated earlier, NHTSA does not

anticipate the need for vehicle

manufacturers to change the design of

the foundation brake system of heavy,

hydraulically braked vehicles in order

to comply with the requirements of this

final rule. The only costs associated

with this rulemaking are those related to

compliance testing costs. As detailed in

the FRE, the agency estimates these

costs to be $1.030 million, or an average

per-vehicle cost of $5.30.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not

reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has

considered the impact of this

rulemaking action under the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

action has been determined to be not

‘‘significant’’ under those policies and

procedures.

A FRE setting forth the agency’s

detailed analysis of the benefits and

costs of this rulemaking (along with the

other rules issued today) has been

prepared and been placed in the docket.

As mentioned above, the agency

estimates that the costs attributable to

these requirements are approximately

$1.03 million for testing costs.

Based on its analysis, the agency

concludes that the requirements will

improve safety by ensuring that all

heavy vehicles are capable of stopping

within a safe distance. The agency

believes that implementing the stopping

distance requirements for heavy

vehicles will not result in significant

costs since the braking performance of

currently produced vehicles is adequate

for these vehicles to comply with the

reinstated requirements.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this notice under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

As mentioned above, most heavy

vehicles will comply with the

requirements without the need for

significant changes. In addition, the

agency is not aware of any manufacturer

of heavy vehicles or hydraulic brake

systems that is considered to be a small

entity. There are no added costs

associated with modifying a vehicle’s

brake system to comply with the

requirements implemented by this final

rule. The industry test cost per vehicle

to assure compliance with the proposal

is very small: $5.30. Accordingly, no

regulatory flexibility analysis has been

prepared.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this proposed rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this rule

under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it will

not have a significant impact on the

human environment. No changes in

existing production or disposal

processes will result, except that there

is a reduction resulting from the

removal of the ALV. Nor should

production and disposal processes have

a significant adverse affect on the

environment.

E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this rule will not

have significant federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13303

F. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the State requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

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

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

agency is amending Standard No. 105,

Hydraulic Brake Systems, in Title 49 of

the Code of Federal Regulations at Part

571 as follows:

PART 571—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 571

continues to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166, delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

§ 571.105 [Amended]

2. Section 571.105 is amended by

adding the definition of ‘‘wheel lockup’’

in S4 and by revising Table II, S5.1.1,

S5.1.1.2, S6, S6.9, and S6.10; and by

adding S6.9.1, S6.9.2, S6.10.1 and

S6.10.2 to read as follows:

* * * * *

Wheel lockup means 100 percent

wheel slip.

* * * * *
13304 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE II.—STOPPING

DISTANCES

Vehicle test speed (miles per

hour)

Stopping distance in feet for tests indicated

I—1st (preburnished) & 4th effectiveness; spike effectiveness check II—2d effectiveness III—3d (lightly loaded vehicles) effectiveness

IV—Inoperative brake

power and power assist

unit; partial failure

(a) (b) (c) (d) (a) (b) & (c) (d) (e) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (a) (b) & (c) (d) & (e)

30 ............................................... 1 57 1,2 65 1,2 69

(1st)

1,2 65 (4th

and

spike) 1 72 1,2 88 1 54 1 57 1,2 78 70 51 57 65 84 70 114 130 170

35 ............................................... 74 83 91 132 70 74 106 96 67 74 83 114 96 155 176 22540 ............................................... 96 108 119 173 91 96 138 124 87 96 108 149 124 202 229 28845 ............................................... 121 137 150 218 115 121 175 158 110 121 137 189 158 257 291 35850 ............................................... 150 169 185 264 142 150 216 195 135 150 169 233 195 317 359 43555 ............................................... 181 204 224 326 172 181 261 236 163 181 204 281 236 383 433 53060 ............................................... 1 216 1 242 1 267 1,2 388 1 204 1 216 1 310 280 1 194 1 216 1 242 1 335 280 1 456 1 517 1 61380 ............................................... 1 405 1 459 1 510 NA 1 383 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA95 ............................................... 1 607 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA100 ............................................. 1 673 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1 Distance for specified tests. 2Applicable to school buses only. NA=Not applicable.NOTE: (a) Passenger cars; (b) vehicles other than passenger cars with GVWR of less than 8,000 lbs; (c) vehicles with GVWR of not less than 8,000 lbs and not more than 10,000 lbs; (d)

vehicles with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs; (e) buses, including school buses, with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13305

* * * * *

S5.1.1 Stopping distance.

(a) The service brakes shall be capable

of stopping each vehicle with a GVWR

of less than 8,000 pounds, and each

school bus with a GVWR between 8,000

pounds and 10,000 pounds in four

effectiveness tests within the distances

and from the speeds specified in

S5.1.1.1, S5.1.1.2, S5.1.1.3, and S5.1.1.4.

(b) The service brakes shall be capable

of stopping each vehicle with a GVWR

of between 8,000 pounds and 10,000

pounds, other than a school bus, in

three effectiveness tests within the

distances and from the speeds specified

in S5.1.1.1, S5.1.1.2, and S5.1.1.4.

(c) The service brakes shall be capable

of stopping each vehicle with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 pounds in two

effectiveness tests within the distances

and from the speeds specified in

S5.1.1.2 and S5.1.1.3.

* * * * *

S5.1.1.2 In the second effectiveness

test, each vehicle with a GVWR of

10,000 pounds or less and each school

bus with a GVWR greater than 10,000

pounds shall be capable of stopping

from 30 mph and 60 mph, and each

vehicle with a GVWR greater than

10,000 pounds (other than a school bus)

shall be capable of stopping from 60

mph, within the corresponding

distances specified in Column II of

Table II. If the speed attainable in 2

miles is not less than 84 mph, a

passenger car or other vehicle with a

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall

also be capable of stopping from 80 mph

within the corresponding distances

specified in Column II of Table II.

* * * * *

S6 Test conditions. The performance

requirements of S5 shall be met under

the following conditions. Where a range

of conditions is specified, the vehicle

shall be capable of meeting the

requirements at all points within the

range. Compliance of vehicles

manufactured in two or more stages

may, at the option of the final-stage

manufacturer, be demonstrated to

comply with this standard by adherence

to the instructions of the incomplete

manufacturer provided with the vehicle

in accordance with § 568.4(a)(7)(ii) and

§ 568.5 of title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations.

* * * * *

S6.9 Road Surface.

S6.9.1 For vehicles with a GVWR of

10,000 pounds or less, road tests are

conducted on a 12-foot-wide, level

roadway, having a skid number of 81.

Burnish stops are conducted on any

surface. The parking brake test surface

is clean, dry, smooth, Portland cement

concrete.

S6.9.2 For vehicles with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 pounds, road tests

are conducted on a 12-foot-wide, level

roadway, having a peak friction

coefficient of 0.9 when measured using

an American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) E 1136 standard

reference test tire, in accordance with

ASTM Method E 1337–90, at a speed of

40 mph, without water delivery.

Burnish stops are conducted on any

surface. The parking brake test surface

is clean, dry, smooth, Portland cement

concrete.

* * * * *

S6.10 Vehicle Position and Wheel

Lockup Restrictions. The vehicle is

aligned in the center of the roadway at

the start of each brake application.

Stops, other than spike stops, are made

without any part of the vehicle leaving

the roadway.

S6.10.1 For vehicles with a GVWR

of 10,000 pounds or less, stops are made

with wheel lockup permitted only as

follows:

(a) At vehicle speeds above 10 mph,

there may be controlled wheel lockup

on an antilock-equipped axle, and

lockup of not more than one wheel per

vehicle, uncontrolled by an antilock

system. (Dual wheels on one side of an

axle are considered a single wheel.)

(b) At vehicle speeds of 10 mph or

less, any wheel may lock up for any

duration.

(c) Unlimited wheel lockup is allowed

during spike stops (but not spike check

stops), partial failure stops, and

inoperative brake power or power assist

unit stops.

S6.10.2 For vehicles with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 pounds, stops are

made with wheel lockup permitted only

as follows:

(a) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph,

any wheel on a nonsteerable axle other

than the two rearmost nonliftable,

nonsteerable axles may lock up for any

duration. The wheels on the two

rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles

may lock up according to (b).

(b) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph,

one wheel on any axle or two wheels on

any tandem may lock up for any

duration.

(c) At vehicle speeds above 20 mph,

any wheel not permitted to lock in (a)

or (b) may lock up repeatedly, with each

lockup occurring for a duration of one

second or less.

(d) At vehicle speeds of 20 mph or

less, any wheel may lock up for any

duration.

(e) Unlimited wheel lockup is allowed

during partial failure stops, and

inoperative brake power or power assist

stops.

Issued on March 1, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5412 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P