[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46235-46245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22077]



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

[[Page 46236]]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[FHWA Docket No. MC-94-9]
RIN 2125-AD37


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Automatic 
Brake Adjusters and Brake Adjustment Indicators

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is adopting a final rule requiring the use of 
automatic brake adjusters (ABAs) on hydraulically-braked commercial 
motor vehicles (CMVs) and air-braked CMVs manufactured on or after 
October 20, 1993, and October 20, 1994, respectively. This rulemaking 
is intended to: Ensure that the operational standards for brakes in the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) are consistent with 
the manufacturing standards in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSSs), Nos. 105 and 121, which now require the 
installation of automatic brake adjusters and adjustment indicators on 
certain CMVs manufactured on or after these dates; and improve the 
safety of operation of CMVs by reducing the incidence of brakes that 
are out of adjustment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Office of Motor 
Carrier Standards, (202) 366-2981, or Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway Administration, 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 3, 1994, the FHWA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register (59 FR 39518) to require the use of 
ABAs on hydraulically-braked CMVs manufactured on or after October 20, 
1993, and air-braked CMVs manufactured on or after October 20, 1994. 
These were the effective dates of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's (NHTSA) amendments to its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 105 and 121. The FHWA also proposed a 
requirement for brake adjustment indicators (BAIs) on air-braked CMVs 
with external adjustment mechanisms manufactured on or after October 
20, 1994.
    Because the FHWA also believed there were opportunities for 
improvements to the operational safety of CMVs manufactured prior to 
the effective dates of the amendments to FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, the 
agency requested information regarding the potential impacts of 
requiring CMVs subject to the FMCSRs to be retrofitted with ABAs, and 
of requiring air-braked CMVs with external adjustment mechanisms to be 
retrofitted with BAIs. The FHWA requested comments on eight questions 
specifically concerning the issue of retrofits:
    1. Should air-braked CMVs manufactured before the effective date of 
NHTSA's rule be required to be retrofitted with ABAs?
    2. Should all air-braked CMVs with external brake adjustment 
mechanisms be required to be retrofitted with brake adjustment 
indicators?
    3. If certain CMVs are to be retrofitted, how much time should be 
allowed for installation of the new equipment?
    4. Are there certain types or configurations of air-braked vehicles 
that cannot be equipped with ABAs because of space limitations around 
the axles and wheels?
    5. Should different periods be specified for retrofitting single-
unit trucks, tractors, converter dollies, and trailers?
    6. The requirements proposed by this NPRM would exclude air-braked 
vehicles that were not subject to FMVSS No. 121 on the date of 
manufacture. (Vehicles not subject to the requirements are listed under 
paragraph S3 of Sec. 571.121, and include certain types of limited- or 
specialized-use vehicles such as wide trailers, vehicles equipped with 
an axle with a gross axle weight rating of 13,154 kilograms (29,000 
pounds) or more, any truck or bus that has a speed attainable in 3.2 
kilometers (2 miles) of not more than 53 km/hr (33 mph), heavy hauler 
trailer sets, and load divider dollies.) Should specific types of CMVs, 
or CMVs used in unique operations, (i.e., CMVs that are not subject to 
the requirements of FMVSS 121, but are subject to the FMCSRs) be exempt 
from a requirement to be retrofitted with ABAs? Should these specific 
types of air-braked CMVs manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, be 
required to be equipped with ABAs prior to being placed in operation in 
interstate commerce? Please provide details.
    7. What are the costs associated with retrofitting an ABA compared 
to replacement of a manual brake adjuster (MBA)? Please include the 
cost of the device, the time required to complete the installation, and 
a representative hourly salary of the mechanic performing the 
installation. Please also include a ``loss of use'' cost figure if a 
CMV were to be taken out of revenue service for retrofitting at some 
time other than a time when a brake adjuster would normally be due for 
replacement. How often do tractors and trailers visit a facility where 
retrofitting could take place?
    8. Should the FHWA consider a retrofitting requirement for 
hydraulically-braked CMVs? Please address the cost questions asked in 
Question 7.
Discussion of Comments

    Twenty-seven commenters responded to the notice: The Heavy Duty 
Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBMC), an association of 10 heavy duty 
brake component manufacturers; 3 manufacturers of brake components 
(Rockwell International, Haldex Corporation, Midland-Grau Heavy Duty 
Systems); a manufacturer of brake adjustment indicators (Tattle-Tale); 
a motor carrier using a brake adjustment indicator of its own design 
(Sebring Container Corporation); a private motor carrier (Wilbur-
Ellis); a manufacturer of trucks and truck-tractors (Volvo GM Heavy 
Truck Corporation); a manufacturer of heavy construction equipment 
(Cedarapids Inc.); 6 national transportation and trade associations 
(Steamship Operators Intermodal Committee (SOIC), American Trucking 
Associations (ATA), National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), 
National Private Truck Council (NPTC), National School Transportation 
Association (NSTA), Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA); 
2 CMV leasing companies (Riteway Leasing Company and XTRA Corporation); 
a drivers' organization (the Owner Operator Independent Drivers 
Association (OOIDA)); a public transportation authority (Metro-Dade 
Transit Authority); an intermodal transportation provider (Union 
Pacific Railroad Company); the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
(CVSA), an association of Federal, State, and Provincial officials 
responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier 
safety regulations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico; the 
European Union, which submitted its comments via the European 
Commission General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Enquiry Point; 
2 State highway safety enforcement agencies (Maine State Police, State 
of 

[[Page 46237]]
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles); 2 highway safety 
organizations (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS)); and 1 private 
individual.

In-Use Requirement

    Almost without exception, commenters who addressed the proposed 
requirement to adopt rules parallel to the NHTSA's recent amendments to 
FMVSSs Nos. 105 and 121 responded favorably. These commenters included 
the Maine State Police, the State of Connecticut Department of Motor 
Vehicles; HDBMC; Wilbur-Ellis; IIHS, NPTC, AHAS, OOIDA, NSTA, and 
Midland-Grau. Haldex and Rockwell International limited their comments 
to air-braked vehicles.
    The ATA noted that manufacturers have provided, and motor carriers 
voluntarily used, automatic brake adjusters for a number of years, and 
that, even in the absence of Federal regulations, the marketplace is 
adopting this technology on its merits. Although it generally favored 
the proposed in-use requirement, the ATA raised several arguments 
concerning ABAs and brake maintenance. It stated that out-of-adjustment 
brakes are a maintenance problem that ``can be compounded if the 
addition of such equipment causes fleets to determine that they will no 
longer need to look at their brakes as frequently and if the automatic 
adjusters are not serviced.'' The ATA also quoted a NHTSA study, which 
noted that carefully-maintained manual brake adjusters (MBAs) can keep 
strokes within tolerances comparable to ABAs. The ATA added that MBAs 
``can be set to a closer adjustment'' than ABAs because ABAs ``must 
provide extra stroke to prevent over-adjustment when brake drums are 
hot.''
    The FHWA generally agrees with this portion of the ATA's comment; 
however, the cited research performed by the NHTSA (``Automatic Brake 
Adjusters for Heavy Vehicle Air Brake Systems,'' February 1991, report 
DOT-HS-807-724 (PB 91-215814)) and the National Transportation Safety 
Board (``Heavy Vehicle Airbrake Performance,'' April 29, 1992, report 
NTSB/SS-92/01 (PB 92-917003)) has demonstrated that not all MBAs are 
well maintained. (Copies of both of these reports have been placed in 
the docket.) The preambles to the FHWA's NPRM and the NHTSA's 
rulemakings on ABAs clearly stated that ``automatic'' brake adjusters 
do not in any way imply that they are ``maintenance-free'' devices. 
Nevertheless, the FHWA continues to believe that ABAs can reduce 
instances of brakes out-of-adjustment, and CMVs being declared out-of-
service, due to this condition.
    The ATA asserted that ABAs ``are not mandatory for safety.'' It 
argued that, should a regulation be imposed prohibiting the replacement 
of an ABA with an MBA, the vehicle should not be placed out of service 
because of the substitution unless the vehicle's brakes are found to be 
out of adjustment.
    The FHWA's intent in issuing this rulemaking is to require an ABA 
installed in accordance with the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 105 or 121 
to be replaced in kind, so the vehicle continues to perform as 
originally manufactured. Motor carriers have considerable experience 
selecting replacement parts; the replacements must be chosen to ensure 
that the systems in which they are installed continue to operate 
safely.
    Regarding the ATA's concern about a CMV equipped with an MBA (where 
an ABA is required by the FMVSSs and the FMCSRs) being placed out of 
service, the FHWA notes that, under the current provisions of the 
CVSA's North American Uniform Out-of-Service Criteria, the presence of 
an MBA would not be a cause for placing a CMV out-of-service unless the 
condition of the brake, or its state of adjustment, were such that it 
would be likely to cause an accident or a breakdown. The FHWA notes 
that the CVSA's comments to this docket did not address changing the 
criteria with respect to the presence or absence of ABAs.
    Finally, while the ATA agreed with the intent of the NPRM, it 
expressed concern that the proposed language would specifically 
reference an FMVSS. The ATA stated that, by requiring vehicle users to 
ensure that replacement parts meet the FMVSS, the FHWA would, in 
effect, require consumers [motor carriers, CMV operators] to ``create 
the technical expertise of manufacturers for themselves.'' The ATA 
asserted that, if the FHWA wants CMV users to purchase parts which meet 
the FMVSS, then the FHWA must work with the NHTSA to assure that new 
parts are labeled with compliance information or a code, similar to the 
requirements for fuel tanks under Sec. 393.67(f) of the FMCSRs.
    An in-use requirement for a CMV part or accessory that references 
an FMVSS does not place any unique burden on the CMV's operator. For 
example, Sec. 393.11 provides an in-use standard for lighting devices 
and reflectors; it states that CMVs must meet the requirements of 49 
CFR 571.108 (FMVSS 108) in effect at the time of manufacture of the 
vehicle. Commercial motor vehicle operators have ample experience in 
obtaining replacement parts for vehicle subsystems. In fact, at least 
one ABA manufacturer (Gunite) provides cross-reference lists to show 
appropriate replacements for original equipment manufacturers' devices.
    In closing, the ATA recommended that the FHWA and the NHTSA work 
together to focus the FMVSSs and the FMCSRs on CMV maintenance 
difficulties. The ATA stated that such items as wear indicators, 
component identification, and access for inspection have been largely 
ignored in the Federal standards, yet they play a major role in 
equipment operation and ease of inspection. The FHWA takes these 
concerns into account to the greatest extent practicable, and will 
continue to do so as the agency works to develop performance-based 
regulations through its Zero-Base Regulatory Review Program.
    The CVSA did not take a position on the proposed in-use 
requirements. It noted that most inspectors are familiar with ABAs, 
although they may need some minimal ``recognition'' training for new or 
different systems. The CVSA was concerned that BAIs provide consistent 
information to motor carrier personnel throughout the BAI's service 
life. The CVSA made the observation that some BAIs use paint on the 
pushrod to indicate adjustment status, and that, when the paint wears, 
it may give a false reading.
    The FHWA has consulted with the NHTSA regarding this matter. Some 
manufacturers use epoxy and baked-on coatings for marking/color-coding 
pushrods, but it is possible that some may use paint. If a BAI is not 
maintained to provide an accurate reading of brake adjustment status, 
the motor carrier will be in violation of the FMCSRs.
    Sebring Container Corporation commented on their favorable 
experience with BAIs. Two commenters noted that many buses are equipped 
with ABAs: the NSTA indicated that its members who responded to a small 
survey all used ABAs, and Metro-Dade Transit Authority buses all have 
ABAs. Union Pacific Railroad Company favored the in-use rule. The 
European Commission expressed a concern that the FMVSS requirement was 
more restrictive than European requirements.
    Volvo and the ATA addressed the wording of the proposed rule. Volvo 
suggested the language be modified to define more clearly the class of 
vehicles subject to the requirement, specifically CMVs with air brake 
systems that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 

[[Page 46238]]
CFR 571.121, paragraph S5.1.8) at the time of manufacture. It pointed 
out that FMVSS No. 121 exempts some vehicles, such as those with gross 
axle weight ratings in excess of 13,154 kg (29,000 lbs.), and that the 
language originally proposed would have required ABAs on all CMVs, 
irrespective of the FMVSS No. 121 requirements. This would necessitate 
retrofitting for which components may not exist.
    The FHWA has revised the language of Sec. 393.53(a) and 
Sec. 393.53(b) to clarify their applicability to CMVs that are subject 
to the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, respectively, at the 
time of their manufacture.
    The ATA also offered alternative language for the proposed rule: 
``Each commercial motor vehicle manufactured with a hydraulic brake 
system on or after October 20, 1993, and equipped with an automatic 
means of brake adjustment to comply with FMVSS 105, shall remain 
equipped with an automatic brake adjustment system.'' Similarly for 
CMVs equipped with air brakes: ``Each commercial motor vehicle 
manufactured with an air brake system on or after October 20, 1994, and 
equipped with an automatic means of brake adjustment to comply with 
FMVSS 121, shall remain equipped with an automatic brake adjustment 
system.''
    The FHWA disagrees with the ATA's suggested rewording because it 
could be interpreted to permit devices that do not comply with the ABA 
requirements of FMVSSs Nos. 105 and 121 at the time when the CMV was 
manufactured to be used as replacement parts. The agency's intent, in 
proposing an in-use rule, was to require that replacement ABAs continue 
to conform to the FMVSSs, much as replacement lighting devices and 
reflectors must continue to conform to the requirements of FMVSS No. 
108.

Retrofitting ABAs on Hydraulically-Braked CMVs

    The following commenters addressed the questions concerning a 
potential retrofitting requirement, but did not address the proposed 
in-use requirement: Riteway Leasing Company, SOIC, Tattle-Tale, NADA, 
PMAA, Cedarapids, Michael J. Meyer, and XTRA Corporation.
    With two exceptions, those who commented on this issue were 
strongly opposed to a retrofitting requirement for these vehicles. Most 
cited potential major engineering changes that would be required for 
axles as well as brakes. For example, HDBMC stated that hydraulic disc 
brakes inherently provide automatic adjustment. It added that 
automatically-adjusted hydraulic drum brakes have internal adjustment 
mechanisms, and retrofitting would, in most cases, require replacement 
of the entire brake assembly. In some cases, the hub and drum, or even 
the entire axle, would have to be replaced. The HDBMC noted that, since 
the 1983 model year, all class 6, 7, and 8 hydraulic brake trucks 
1 manufactured by major U.S. manufacturers have had automatic 
adjustment features. Mandating a retrofit would therefore be 
superfluous except for a very few vehicles, and their retrofitting 
costs would be exorbitant.

    \1\  Class 6: 8,446-11,794 kg (19,501-26,000 lbs); Class 7: 
11,795-14,969 kg (26,001-33,000 lbs); and Class 8: over 14,969 kg 
(33,000 lbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both Rockwell International and Wilbur-Ellis noted that 
hydraulically-braked CMVs provide the driver an indication of brake 
adjustment through the brake pedal travel.
    The ATA's comments reiterated many of the points made by others. It 
noted that adjustment systems for hydraulic drum brakes are internal to 
the brakes, integral to their design, and cannot practically be 
retrofitted.
    The NADA and the NPTC were opposed to a retrofit for hydraulically-
braked CMVs. Haldex stated that retrofit is impractical for hydraulic 
brakes. The NSTA was concerned with potential retrofitting problems, 
including safety and voiding of the FMVSS certification applicable at 
the time of manufacture. It also questioned whether retrofit kits would 
be available for older buses in fleets, some of which are over 20 years 
old, and whether they could be installed and made to operate properly. 
Midland-Grau Heavy Duty Systems noted that the majority of 
hydraulically-braked CMVs already are equipped with ABAs. Union Pacific 
Railroad Company recommended against retrofits for hydraulically-braked 
CMVs because of the high costs involved. It noted that hydraulically-
braked vehicles have had self-adjusting brakes on most units for many 
years, and that relatively few CMVs currently in service are not so 
equipped. The CVSA commented that hydraulic brake systems are not 
disassembled to inspect their component parts during the course of 
inspecting a CMV, and that a decision regarding hydraulic brake systems 
would not affect inspection procedures.
    Commenting in favor of a retrofit requirement for hydraulically-
braked CMVs, the AHAS stated that ABAs are necessary for all CMVs. The 
AHAS was ``convinced that the benefits gained by retrofitting ABAs and 
BAIs to the entire existing commercial fleet would far outweigh any 
costs to industry, especially if a reasonable phase-in program was put 
in place.'' The AHAS did not, however, provide any figures to 
substantiate this statement. The AHAS also stated that it was unsure of 
the benefits of BAIs for hydraulic or air-over-hydraulic systems, and 
that it did not know how BAIs could be retrofitted.
    The Maine State Police (Maine) also stated that retrofits should be 
required, without differentiating between air-braked and hydraulically-
braked CMVs. It recommended effective dates of October 20, 1996, for 
tractors and trucks, and October 20, 1997, for trailers, semitrailers, 
and converter dollies. Maine also recommended that limited- or 
specialized-use vehicles also be subject to a retrofitting requirement, 
but it provided no additional information or technical material to 
support this viewpoint.
    The FHWA acknowledges the concerns expressed by the commenters over 
retrofitting hydraulically-braked CMVs. The engineering work required 
to accomplish this retrofit would be complex and costly. The 
engineering complexity of designing and installing a retrofitted system 
would potentially go beyond the maintenance capabilities of all but the 
most sophisticated organizations. Because the design of hydraulic 
brakes is generally not amenable to this type of modification, an 
engineering retrofit, if done improperly, could actually degrade the 
performance of the brake system, or render it inoperative. Therefore, 
in view of the possible adverse safety impacts, the FHWA has decided 
not to require retrofitting for hydraulically-braked CMVs.

Questions Concerning Retrofitting of ABAs and BAIs on Air-Braked CMVs

    The remaining questions posed by the NPRM covered retrofitting ABAs 
and BAIs on air-braked CMVs. While few commenters expressed strong 
opinions for or against retrofitting, nearly all voiced concerns. 
Commenters cited the current limited production capacity of ABA 
manufacturers, potential engineering modifications required for brake 
system component mountings because of the limited space around brake 
chambers on some vehicles, and potential difficulty in locating the 
vehicles and taking them out of revenue service to retrofit ABAs. 
Specific comments on each of the numbered questions asked in the NPRM 
follow, along with the FHWA's response:
    1. Should air-braked CMVs manufactured before the effective date of 
NHTSA's rule be required to be retrofitted with ABAs? 

[[Page 46239]]


In Favor

    The AHAS stated it would strongly support such an initiative as an 
appropriate complement to the FMVSSs. The AHAS strongly believes that 
the FHWA should not consider mandating ABAs without also requiring (1) 
the use of BAIs, and (2) submissions of certifications by interstate 
carriers of their preventive maintenance programs which ensure optimal 
maintenance and operation of ABAs.
    Maine believed that retrofits should be required.
    Metro-Dade stated it would support an ABA retrofit proposal, noting 
that its urban bus fleet is equipped with ABAs.
    Sebring stated that it will install ABAs as replacements for manual 
brake adjusters, as needed.

Opposed

    Wilbur-Ellis opposed retrofitting because the cost would not 
justify the safety benefit, and ABAs must still be maintained and brake 
clearances checked. It recommended aggressive roadside enforcement.
    The ATA opposed mandatory retrofit for existing equipment, 
reasoning that motor carriers lack technical expertise to assure 
replacement parts comply with the FMVSSs; this is the responsibility of 
the manufacturer. It stated that hydraulic brakes and some air brakes 
cannot be retrofitted, and that motor carriers are ``unable to redesign 
equipment which was built not having to comply * * *.'' The ATA stated 
that most tractors manufactured since the late 1980s have ABAs, but 
that ABAs have not been standard equipment on most trailers. It 
contended that the current rule requiring brakes to be kept in 
adjustment is ``actually more comprehensive'' than a retrofit 
requirement, because the mere presence of ABAs does not guarantee that 
brakes will be kept in adjustment. The ATA added that retrofits should 
not be required because many installations lack the space to make the 
substitution; there may be design limitations within the initial 
system; and current systems operate safely but may not do so after 
retrofitting. It stated that consumer reworking of vehicles could 
create legal liability issues: an example would be a retrofit that 
could require removing brackets from heat-treated axles, potentially 
leading to a structural failure. Finally, the ATA asserted that the 
record demand for ABAs for new CMVs subject to FMVSS No. 121 has 
rationed aftermarket supply.
    The NADA believed the requirements would be unduly burdensome to 
the motor carrier industry.
    The NPTC stated ``There is still some concern surrounding the 
effectiveness of ABAs * * *. (T)he technology still has room for 
improvement * * *.'' While it opposed retrofitting, the NPTC proposed 
that vehicles that had already been retrofitted be required to maintain 
their ABAs.
    The OOIDA stated that it was adamantly opposed to a retrofit 
requirement. ``Time and cost are not justified by the marginal safety 
benefit that would result.'' It believed that retrofitting would be 
cost-prohibitive ``for a vast portion of the trucking industry, 
especially owner-operators,'' and that the FHWA should defer to the 
opinion and expertise of the NHTSA.
    Haldex was concerned that retrofitted ABAs might not be able to 
keep air chambers operating within allowable limits due to wear and 
lack of maintenance of other brake components. It stated that 
``Improvement in overall operational safety of these retrofitted 
vehicles may be less than expected unless other brake maintenance is 
performed at the time of the retrofit.'' Haldex also stated that, 
although the company would benefit from a requirement to retrofit all 
CMVs, it could not enthusiastically support such a proposal because of 
the potential high costs to the trucking industry and because it 
believed that past maintenance histories would lead to uncertain future 
benefits from the devices.
    The NSTA was concerned that retrofitting could affect safety and 
potentially void the FMVSS certification applicable at time of 
manufacture. It questioned whether retrofit kits would be available for 
older buses (up to 20 years old), and whether the ABAs could be 
installed and made to operate properly.
    The PMAA cited safety and economic concerns, particularly for small 
businesses. The PMAA believed that current regulations requiring brake 
inspection and adjustment were sufficient.
    Union Pacific cited an extremely high cost burden, and added that 
the time during which vehicles would be out of revenue service would 
jeopardize the transportation system's ability to move the Nation's 
freight on a timely basis.
    Mr. Michael J. Meyer, a mechanic with 14 years of experience and 14 
additional years as an owner-operator, believed a retrofitting 
requirement would lead drivers to ignore brakes, as well as to miss 
other potential equipment problems, because they would take shortcuts 
in performing under-vehicle inspections.
    XTRA Corporation cited cost, possible customer non-awareness of the 
applicability of a retrofitting requirement to leased trailers, and the 
difficulty of customers in ``obtaining adequate compliance with the 
technical aspects of retrofitting.'' It added that a substantial number 
of its trailers are not used in long-distance hauls, but are drayed to 
and from intermodal ramps. It also noted that many of its trailers are 
leased for storage and for use as offices, and should not be required 
to be retrofitted.

Other Commenters' Concerns

    The HDBMC believed that the FHWA should consider air-braked CMV ABA 
retrofits ``when physically possible and economically feasible.'' While 
the HDBMC declared that consideration of retrofitting ``is laudable,'' 
it cautioned that many concerns would need to be addressed; for 
example, not all automatic slack adjusters interchange with manual 
slack adjusters.
    Volvo echoed the HDBMC's view, stating that retrofits will, in some 
cases, require more than a one-for-one replacement. Volvo noted that 
design changes go ``forward'' to new products, and that not all are 
backward-compatible for use as service replacements with older 
equipment.
    Midland-Grau stated that a complete analysis of all combinations of 
ABAs and foundation brake set-ups must be made. It urged an evaluation 
of the risk of incomplete or incorrect installation against potential 
safety benefits, and advised the FHWA to review past experiences with 
retrofit requirements, such as that for steering axle brakes. Midland-
Grau also recommended that the FHWA include requirements to use devices 
that meet the appropriate SAE Recommended Practices, and to perform 
technical evaluations to prevent safety degradation for incomplete or 
incorrect retrofits.
    The State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles supported a 
retrofit proposal, provided confirmation of compatibility could be made 
in advance.
    Rockwell believed that ABAs ``do not function in exactly the same 
manner and that adjustment rate and clearance can affect brake 
certification,'' although it stated that it did not have data to 
validate its concern. Rockwell asserted it would be prudent to 
recommend that replacement ABAs and BAIs be of the same type with which 
the brake was originally equipped. Rockwell contended that ``new, 
small, unproven suppliers'' may introduce devices designed to conform 
to ``somewhat ambiguous NHTSA requirements,'' and 

[[Page 46240]]
that their lack of knowledge and experience may result in the 
introduction of ineffective and non-conforming devices. If retrofitting 
were to be mandated, Rockwell asks the FHWA to consider (1) production 
capabilities and parts availability, (2) expense and inconvenience to 
CMV owners, and (3) such technical and performance issues as fit, 
possible mechanical incompatibility, and mixing of different types of 
ABAs on a single vehicle.
    The CVSA questioned whether there would be a sufficient supply of 
ABAs over a short retrofit period. It suggested that ``[o]ne 
alternative to consider is the discontinuance of the manufacture of 
non-ABAs and when replacing systems, replace them with ABAs.''

Agency's Response to These Comments

    It is certainly not the FHWA's intent to force CMV operators to 
attempt to redesign brake systems or axles in order to accommodate 
ABAs. If a motor carrier is considering retrofitting ABAs, it should 
consult with appropriate technical experts (such as the original-
equipment manufacturers of the vehicle and the brake system) to ensure 
that the CMV and its brakes will continue to operate safely.
    As for the AHAS' recommendation for certification of preventive-
maintenance programs, it should be noted that Sec. 396.3(a)(1) of the 
FMCSRs requires that: ``Parts and accessories shall be in safe 
operating condition at all times'' (emphasis added). Preventive 
maintenance is a central element of a CMV maintenance program, and FHWA 
compliance reviews include an assessment of motor carrier maintenance 
records. Furthermore, CMVs are subject to roadside inspection programs, 
using uniform CVSA inspection procedures, and to the periodic 
inspection requirement of Sec. 396.17. In addition, Sec. 396.25 
requires brake inspectors to be capable of performing brake service or 
inspection tasks through brake-related training, experience, or a 
combination thereof totaling at least one year. The FHWA believes that 
an additional program to ``certify'' motor carriers' preventive 
maintenance programs would achieve little.
    The agency disagrees with CVSA's comment that the manufacture of 
MBAs should be halted. The FHWA does not have the regulatory authority 
to place such a requirement on manufacturers. Also, as other commenters 
have pointed out, some CMVs were never designed to accept ABAs, even as 
an option. Replacing MBAs with ABAs could require engineering 
modifications to the affected CMVs.
    In view of the potential adverse safety impact of a retrofit rule, 
should it be performed incorrectly, and the significant costs of such a 
rule, the FHWA will not require retrofitting ABAs on air-braked CMVs.
    2. Should all air-braked CMVs with external brake adjustment 
mechanisms be required to be retrofitted with brake adjustment 
indicators?
In Favor

    The HDBMC stated it would support BAI retrofit when it is 
physically possible and economically feasible. It asked that the FHWA 
consider specifying SAE standards designating BAI markings and 
identification. It also suggested that replacement brake chambers with 
SAE-marked BAIs be mandated.
    Connecticut would strongly support BAI retrofit for air brakes to 
ease pretrip inspections and reduce the time necessary for maintenance 
and roadside inspections.
    Riteway recommended that all tractors, trailers, trucks, and buses 
be equipped with ``air brake stroke indicators.'' It noted that the 
company has used indicators ``for some time'' and has not had a BAI-
equipped unit cited for out of adjustment brakes.
    Lindy's Enterprise Inc., manufacturer of Tattle-Tale, a visual 
brake stroke indicator, enclosed product literature and a partial list 
of customers. ``Our products have been on many over-the-road tractors, 
trailers, and trucks with great success. We not only feel that our 
product could save annual inspection costs but help achieve safety 
results as well.''
    Sebring developed a BAI for its own fleet. It believes that its 
brake maintenance and adjustment programs have improved.
    Wilbur-Ellis recommended BAI retrofit for s-cam brakes.
    The NPTC stated it would support a BAI retrofit requirement, but 
that the method used to indicate brake out-of-adjustment status should 
not be specified.
    Metro-Dade supported a BAI retrofit requirement.
    The CVSA stated that retrofit of BAIs would be desirable as it 
would aid in recognizing brake adjustment problems.

Opposed

    Maine opposed BAI retrofitting because benefits would be very 
limited.
    Rockwell believed that the benefit of BAIs is marginal compared to 
ABAs. It cited factors such as the expense of the devices, control of 
the placement accuracy of retrofit marks/indicators, safety issues from 
owners improperly disassembling or assembling a brake chamber, and the 
production capability of established suppliers.
    The ATA believed that internal system BAIs using air chamber 
assemblies incorporating marked pushrods are the most satisfactory 
arrangement. It feared that required retrofitting might involve 
replacing brake chambers to achieve a proper match of size and brake 
stroke. It was also concerned that aftermarket BAIs may be easily 
knocked out of position by road debris, dirt, snow, and physical 
contact with other vehicle parts.
    The NADA opposed BAI retrofitting for the same reasons it opposed 
ABA retrofitting.
    The AHAS believed that ABAs will not correct chronic problems with 
out-of-adjustment air brakes unless used with easily-seen adjustment 
indicators and ``vigorous educational campaigns by Federal and State 
authorities.'' It stated that the FHWA should not consider mandating 
ABAs without also requiring the use of BAIs. The AHAS expressed 
particular concern on retrofitting CMVs with ``boot-covered'' air brake 
pushrods, because it believed that BAIs were probably not feasible for 
that design. The AHAS added that ``this proprietary approach to air 
brake chamber design can permanently forswear the considerable 
additional benefits of supplementing ABAs with BAIs on air brakes,'' 
and recommended that the FHWA coordinate with the NHTSA.
    The OOIDA opposed any requirement for retrofitting of brake 
components. It believed that, given the ``typical useful life'' of 
Class 7 or 8 motor vehicles, and allowing for ``any reasonable'' amount 
of time fully to implement a retrofit rule, a manufacturing standard 
would achieve virtually the same result.
    Haldex cited fleet turnover in its opposition to BAI retrofit. It 
believed that a mandate for stroke indicators could be made without one 
for ABAs, but that an ABA retrofit without including BAIs could create 
a false sense of security due to maintenance concerns on older 
vehicles.
    Midland-Grau cautioned that a complete brake system analysis would 
be required, as for an ABA retrofit.
    Union Pacific and XTRA Corporation would oppose retrofit of BAIs 
for the same reasons that they would oppose ABA retrofit.

Agency's Response to These Comments

    As several of the brake manufacturers pointed out, the original 
design of the brake system must be considered in 

[[Page 46241]]
determining whether or not a retrofitted item would function properly. 
The accuracy, precision, and, most notably, the durability of most 
retrofitted BAIs is questionable. While marked pushrods on replacement 
air chamber assemblies might prove the most durable, it is not 
reasonable to expect a motor carrier to replace an air chamber in 
proper operating condition for that sole purpose.
    The FHWA has consulted with the NHTSA on the matter of BAIs on 
boot-covered pushrods. Very few CMVs use boot-covered pushrods. Those 
CMVs that are so equipped are generally used for operations where the 
brake chambers could be contaminated with dust and debris. They are 
exempt from the FMVSS BAI requirement because they do not have an 
exposed pushrod. This is not a loophole for manufacturers, but a 
recognition that certain operating environments require enclosed 
pushrods.
    3. If certain CMVs are to be retrofitted, how much time should be 
allowed for installation of the new equipment?

Comments

    Commenters suggested phase-in periods ranging from one to seven 
years. Metro Dade suggested that only one year would be necessary to 
retrofit a transit fleet. The NPTC suggested a minimum two-year 
retrofit period for hydraulically-braked CMVs and a minimum of a five-
year retrofit for air-braked CMVs. The OOIDA and Union Pacific 
recommended at least three years, while the ATA and the AHAS 
recommended four years. The SOIC and Haldex recommended at least five 
years. XTRA Corporation stated that the responsibility to retrofit 
would fall upon their customers because it has relinquished control to 
the lessee. It noted that most leases run five to six years, so its 
commercial situation dictated against requiring retrofitting in a 
shorter period than seven years.
    Midland-Grau commented that retrofit time required would be a 
function of the specific products selected, and any vehicle 
modifications needed, such as brake chamber pushrod length changes to 
fit a new ABA and clevis, interference rework, and brake chamber 
modifications to fit stroke indicator components.
    Other factors cited by commenters that would affect a phase-in 
period included the ability of manufacturers to meet the demands for 
new CMVs as well as retrofitted ones, time lags in distribution 
channels, scheduling of vehicles for retrofit, and costs to CMV 
operators. In particular, Haldex and the ATA contended that ABA 
manufacturers currently have inadequate capacity to simultaneously 
supply ``record levels'' of new CMVs and a large retrofit demand.
    The AHAS recommended two alternative phased-in schedules. In the 
first, 10 percent of the entire existing commercial fleet would be 
retrofitted beginning one year following the promulgation of the final 
rule, followed by 25 percent in the second year, 60 percent in the 
third year, with 100 percent compliance by the end of the fourth year. 
The AHAS also suggested, as an alternative choice for motor carriers, a 
two-year implementation delay after a final rule was issued, followed 
by a requirement for 100 percent compliance in the third year.

Agency Response to These Comments

    Since the agency has decided not to require retrofitting of any 
kind, a discussion of these comments is unnecessary.
    4. Are there certain types or configurations of air-braked vehicles 
that cannot be equipped with ABAs because of space limitations around 
the axles and wheels?

Comments

    Rockwell, Haldex, the PMAA, and the ATA stated that space 
limitations can prevent installation of ABAs, and have in fact done so. 
Rockwell added that an improperly installed ABA may impair brake 
performance by limiting brake chamber stroke, and that use of long 
stroke chambers may influence performance as well.
    Haldex noted that, in the last five years, most U.S.-built CMVs 
offered ABAs at least as an option, but, because of design differences, 
not all manufacturers' ABAs fit each application. Haldex stated that 
some vehicles built over 15 years ago, as well as some Japanese 
vehicles, use a ``camshaft spline'' with uncommon dimensions which is 
not currently available from any ABA manufacturer. (Haldex did not 
provide specifics on the design.) Haldex stated that it has had 
difficulties retrofitting other Japanese vehicles which were not 
originally designed to offer ABAs as an option.
    The ATA commented that slack adjusters, which it believes comprise 
at least 95 percent of the adjustment mechanisms used for air brakes, 
must fit into cramped quarters between brake, axle, suspension, and 
frame components. ``This problem is particularly difficult on tractors 
but also occurs with trailers, especially those of a specialty 
nature.'' The OOIDA repeated this concern, adding that ``[t]he 
modifications that would be necessary to accommodate ABAs on such 
vehicles vary from relatively small machining operations to outright 
wheel replacement.''
    The PMAA also expressed concerns about space and necessary 
clearances for retrofitted ABAs to work effectively. The PMAA believes 
that ``[w]hile a newly-designed vehicles could easily accommodate the 
variety of components on the market, older vehicles would not be able 
to follow suit. This is primarily due to the fact that the brake and 
structural system of the existing vehicle or trailer is already fixed 
in place during the manufacturing process. Adding adjusters to these 
vehicles and trailers would require extensive alterations requiring 
cutting welded bracket anchors from the brake system and engineering a 
completely redesigned brake system.'' The PMAA believed that such 
redesign is beyond the technical capabilities of operators like 
petroleum marketers and truck/trailer service facilities. It believed 
that a leading cause of ABA failure is improper installation, and that, 
even when performed by factory-trained personnel, many units still 
fail. ``It is reasonable to surmise that the more technically-difficult 
retrofit by untrained personnel would yield a higher rate of brake 
failure * * *.''
    The NADA and the NPTC also believed that some CMVs cannot be 
equipped with ABAs. XTRA Corporation stated that it owned approximately 
1,000 older remanufactured trailers which cannot be converted.
    Several commenters did not view a potential retrofitting 
requirement as a problem. Sebring believed that all its tractors and 
trailers could be easily equipped. Union Pacific stated that it was not 
aware of any type of trucks, tractors, or trailers that cannot be 
equipped due to space limitations. The HDBMC, Midland-Grau, Metro Dade, 
and the CVSA recommended that the FHWA defer to the judgement of CMV 
manufacturers.
    While it opposed the notion of a retrofitting requirement, the ATA 
suggested that the requirement only apply to those CMVs which, when 
new, had ABAs offered as a substitute option for MBAs. The ATA stated 
that it recognized that there may be problems identifying those 
vehicles.

Agency's Response to These Comments

    The FHWA agrees with the commenters' concerns regarding the 
difficulty of making engineering modifications (relocation of welded 
brackets, replacement of atypical components, reconfiguration of 
components in tight quarters) to permit 

[[Page 46242]]
some CMVs originally equipped with MBAs to retrofit ABAs. With the 
exception of Haldex, none of the commenters provided information on 
specific classes of CMVs that could be readily identified as presenting 
unique retrofit challenges.
    As discussed in the agency's response to the comments to Question 
1, it has never been the FHWA's intent to promulgate a rule which would 
force CMV operators to attempt to redesign brake systems or axles in 
order to accommodate an ABA. The FHWA will not prohibit retrofitting of 
ABAs. Nevertheless, motor carriers considering retrofitting ABAs when 
MBAs are replaced should consult the appropriate technical experts to 
ensure that the brake system of the affected CMV will continue to 
operate safely.
    5. Should different periods be specified for retrofitting single-
unit trucks, tractors, converter dollies, and trailers?

Comments

    Maine recommended that trucks and tractors be retrofitted by 
October 20, 1996, and that trailers, semitrailers, and converter 
dollies be retrofitted by October 20, 1997.
    Rockwell suggested that the FHWA might set priorities for vehicle 
types based on model years and benefit-risk analysis.
    The HDBMC and Haldex advised that any retrofitting requirement be 
phased-in by vehicle type and year of manufacture. Haldex believed that 
trailers should have priority over tractors because they have longer 
useful lives, but receive less maintenance during their lives. Haldex 
cautioned that combination vehicles are susceptible to jackknife 
accidents if the tractor brakes are in better working order than 
trailer brakes. Haldex also noted that new vehicles accumulate more 
miles, and older vehicles would be retired from service before a 
retrofit were to be required.
    While the NADA indicated that its survey respondents were 
universally opposed to retrofits, it requested that the time-frame for 
a potential requirement consider limitations in labor, parts, and shop 
facilities.
    The AHAS believed that its recommended phase-in period discussed 
earlier should apply simultaneously to tractors, trailers, and single-
unit tankers that carry hazardous materials. It suggested that 
additional lead time be provided for other CMVs and non-air-braked 
CMVs.
    While opposing retrofitting, the OOIDA maintained that different 
periods should not be specified because they would lead to confusion, 
needless enforcement activity, and penalties for mistakes of fact.
    Sebring said that different periods may be needed but did not 
elaborate on that statement.
    Midland-Grau believed that different periods should be specified 
according to potential installation problems, but it did not elaborate.
    Metro-Dade stated that this issue was not applicable to transit 
agencies.
    Union Pacific opposed the notion of different retrofit periods for 
different types of CMVs because it would require excessive management 
to enforce.
    The CVSA asked that the FHWA consider a phase-in period and the 
need for mechanic training.
    XTRA Corporation urged that no retrofitting requirements be imposed 
on intermodal containers, trailers, or chassis, or on remanufactured 
trailers, or on mobile storage trailers.

Agency's Response to This Comment

    As stated earlier in this notice, retrofitting requirements will 
not be imposed.
    6. Should specific types of CMVs, or CMVs used in unique 
operations, (i.e., CMVs that are not subject to the requirements of 
FMVSS 121, but are subject to the FMCSRs) be exempt from a requirement 
to be retrofitted with ABAs? Should these specific types of air-braked 
CMVs manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, be required to be 
equipped with ABAs prior to being placed in operation in interstate 
commerce?

Comments

    Maine and Sebring believed that limited or specialized use vehicles 
not subject to the FMVSS No. 121 requirements should be subject to a 
requirement for retrofit of ABAs. Neither provided elaboration. The 
CVSA recommended that CMVs currently equipped with slack adjusters be 
required to have ABAs unless there is a specific retrofitting problem 
for that type of vehicle. Those situations should be handled as 
exceptions.
    The HDBMC, Rockwell, Haldex, Midland-Grau, and the ATA recommended 
against including CMVs not subject to the FMVSSs. Rockwell believed it 
``might be awkward'' to require ABAs on vehicles ``not subject to other 
federal braking requirements.'' Haldex argued that there was 
insufficient justification for ABAs on limited- and specialized-use 
vehicles, noting that there is little industry experience with ABAs on 
these vehicles, and that retrofitting might be impractical because of 
installation difficulties.
    The ATA stated that specialized vehicles which are exempt from 
FMVSS No. 121 requirements have been given this status by the NHTSA 
``based on the facts that doing so will not compromise public safety 
and that these vehicles cannot be constructed in a manner consistent 
with more `normal' equipment.'' The ATA added that these vehicles could 
not have been readily built with ABAs, that retrofit should not be 
considered, and that these vehicles must still meet the FMCSR's 
requirements for inspection and safe operation.
    The NADA stated that its members support ``maximum possible 
grandfathering'' of non-FMVSS 121 CMVs as part of their universal 
opposition to a retrofit mandate.
    The NPTC stated that a member had suggested that trucks and 
trailers over 8,165 kg (18,000 lbs) GVW, which have been equipped with 
ABAs, be required to maintain the ABAs or improve them, but that any 
retrofitting requirement exempt trucks under 8,165 kg (18,000 lb) GVW 
because the benefits of ABAs on those vehicles are not clear. The NPTC 
did not elaborate on that comment.
    The AHAS believed that no vehicle or load-carrying dolly should be 
exempted if it can sustain highway speeds. However, it allowed that 
low-speed vehicles that usually operate for short distances and under 
special permit can be considered as long as the FHWA ``will avoid the 
creation of a loophole for exploitation.''
    The OOIDA opposed retrofitting of any air-braked vehicles, and 
stated that the FHWA ``should defer to NHTSA'' on this issue.
    Union Pacific stated that certain vehicles should be excluded.
    Cedarapids opposed retrofitting construction equipment, citing an 
economic impact without an increase in highway safety. It was concerned 
that ABAs could exacerbate brake problems because dirt and dust would 
cause high failure rates of ABAs while providing a false sense of 
security to construction equipment operators. However, ``[f]or normal 
highway vehicles, we agree and applaud your efforts to increase highway 
safety.''
    XTRA Corporation urged that no retrofitting requirements be imposed 
on intermodal containers, trailers, or chassis, or on remanufactured 
trailers, or on mobile storage trailers.

Agency's Response to This Comment

    As noted above, this final rule does not require retrofitting of 
any kind. 

[[Page 46243]]
Some of the comments nonetheless deserve a brief response.
    The FHWA agrees with the ATA's and Cedarapids' comments. The NHTSA 
is responsible for determining compliance with, or exemptions from, 
FMVSS No. 121. The definition of off-road construction equipment is to 
be narrowly construed and limited to equipment which, by its design, 
appearance, and function, is obviously not intended for use on a public 
road. The FHWA has provided regulatory guidance (58 FR 60734, November 
17, 1993) concerning the applicability of the FMCSRs to ``off road'' 
motorized construction equipment, i.e., motor scrapers, backhoes, 
compactors, excavators, tractors, trenchers, and bulldozers (Question 6 
to Sec. 390.5, Definitions), as follows:

    Such equipment is routinely found at construction sites and is 
operated by personnel requiring specialized skills. Occasionally, 
such equipment is moved to or from construction sites by ``driving'' 
the ``vehicles'' short distances on public highways. Their 
appearance on the highway is only incidental to their primary 
function, they are not designed to operate in traffic, and their 
mechanical manipulation often requires a different set of knowledge 
and skills. The types of construction equipment discussed above do 
not come within the definition of a ``CMV'' and hence the operators 
and equipment are not subject to the FMCSRs.

    As for the NPTC's comment concerning an exemption for CMVs under 
8,165 kg (18,000 lbs) GVWR, the general applicability of the FMCSRs to 
CMVs over 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) GVWR is required by statute (49 U.S.C. 
31132(1)).
    The FHWA cannot ``defer to NHTSA'' on operational standards for 
CMVs, as OOIDA suggested, because that agency's regulatory authority is 
limited to manufacturing standards. However, the FHWA and the NHTSA 
work closely together on regulations of common interest to both 
agencies.
    7. What are the costs associated with retrofitting an ABA compared 
to replacement of an MBA? Include: the cost of the device, installation 
time, mechanic's hourly salary, and a ``loss of use'' cost figure if a 
CMV were to be taken out of revenue service for retrofitting at some 
time other than a time when a brake adjuster would normally be due for 
replacement. How often do tractors and trailers visit a facility where 
retrofitting could take place?
Comments

    The HDBMC stated that detailed answers to this question would be 
furnished in individual responses from HDBMC member companies.
    The SOIC estimated a range of labor and materials costs for each 
intermodal chassis from $185 to $275, averaging around $220. It 
estimated a cost of $48 million for its members to retrofit, and 
questioned the ``indeterminate reductions in traffic accidents'' that 
would result. The SOIC stated that it anticipated no technical problems 
related to a retrofitting requirement, but that administrative 
difficulties of locating, capturing, and transporting chassis to repair 
facilities may be significant and difficult to quantify. It suggested a 
program of conversion ``in association with annual inspections required 
by the FMCSRs.''
    Sebring estimated that in 1990 a local repair shop needed one hour 
per wheel to install four automatic slack adjusters (ASAs). Labor 
charges were $25 per hour, and the ASAs cost approximately $55 each. 
The first retrofit of a BAI of Sebring's own design took 30 minutes, 
and others took 10 minutes/wheel.
    Rockwell estimated the cost of parts and labor to replace MBAs at 
$50 per wheel; to retrofit an ABA, $100 per wheel.
    Wilbur-Ellis estimated costs at around $80 for an ASA, installation 
time of 0.75 to one hour each, and a labor rate of $45 to $50 per hour. 
Downtime was estimated at one day per truck, and perhaps more. The 
total retrofitting cost for three-axle delivery truck would be 
approximately $700. Most of Wilbur-Ellis' locations are in rural areas 
where air brake repair facilities are not readily available.
    The ATA believed that ``re-engineering'' systems to accommodate 
ABAs on CMVs not originally designed for them would be a major cost 
element of retrofitting. The ATA stated that, ``in many instances, the 
vehicle would have to be either scrapped or sold somewhere else in the 
world where it could be used, since the retrofit could not be 
economically justified.'' The ATA estimated the following costs for 
retrofit of vehicles originally designed to accommodate ASAs: One hour 
per brake, assuming no severe corrosion or other interfering factor; 
labor, $25 per hour (different in various parts of the country); $65 
for an ABA, $12.50 for an MBA. If brake chambers needed to be replaced 
to accomplish a BAI retrofit, they would cost an additional $55 each. 
The ATA believed that costs for parts and labor alone would make 
retrofit cost-prohibitive; it did not include costs of vehicle down-
time in these figures. The ATA estimated that 3.8 million trailers 
would require 12 million ABAs to be retrofitted ``within the given 
period'' at a cost of $108 million.
    The NADA estimated costs at from $75/brake to $250/tandem and 
believed there would be considerable CMV-to-CMV variation.
    The NPTC estimated costs at $200 to $750 for straight trucks and 
single axle trailers, and $900 to $1000 for tandem-axle tractors.
    While the AHAS was ``convinced that the benefits gained by 
retrofitting ABAs and BAIs to the entire existing commercial fleet 
would far outweigh any costs to industry, especially if a reasonable 
phase-in program was put in place,'' it did not provide any figures to 
substantiate this statement.
    The OOIDA stated that costs can vary considerably, depending on 
application, configuration of foundation brake mounting, make and type 
of ABA, and where the work is performed. It provided the following 
information, based on discussions with several midwest truck 
dealerships: ABAs, $35 to $75; hourly shop rates from $47 to $49.50; 
time to simply remove brake adjusters and install ABAs, from 20 to 90 
minutes. The OOIDA added that retrofit may require replacement of other 
system components to conform to ABA design and various mounting 
configurations. The OOIDA asserted that owner-operators are already 
operating on thin profit margins, and that any that any loss of use of 
a CMV would be an unjustifiable burden.
    Haldex stated that ABAs retail for approximately 4 to 5 times the 
cost of an MBA; aftermarket prices range from $50 to $75. It estimated 
installation time at around 15 minutes per wheel; however, the 
potential need to change air chamber pushrod length could double that 
time. ``On the average, a vehicle would be out of [revenue] service for 
no less than 90 minutes for an ABA retrofit.'' Haldex also stated that 
data available to the company indicated that major fleets generate an 
average of approximately $100 to $150 per hour in revenue, so each 
vehicle undergoing retrofit would also cost the motor carrier $150 to 
$225 in revenue foregone.
    Metro-Dade stated that the ``Cost to retrofit would be 
insignificant if done in conjunction with a brake rebuild.''
    The PMAA believed that costs might include re-engineering of brake 
and structural systems to provide additional space needed for 
installation. It believed that, in many cases, retrofitting may not be 
economically feasible because of the complexity of the redesign. In 
other cases, redesign would not be technically possible. It stated ``In 
cases such as these, the cost of compliance would equal the cost of the 
vehicle and 

[[Page 46244]]
trailer.'' The PMAA estimated the following costs for CMVs that could 
be retrofitted: $65 for ABAs; labor, $40 per hour; 6 hours for 
installation if there is no extensive corrosion; total: $670. For a 
complex brake system redesign, it estimated costs up to $2300 per 
vehicle. The PMAA estimated costs for its industry segment at 
$14,740,000.
    Midland-Grau stated that it was difficult to estimate a typical 
cost, and that an evaluation was needed.
    Union Pacific provided the following cost estimates. Tandem 
tractors: material, $400; labor, 2 hours at $60 per hour; total $520. 
Tandem trailers: material, $300; 3 hours labor at $60 per hour; total 
$480.
    XTRA Corporation estimated direct costs of approximately $300/unit 
for its entire fleet of trailers and chassis, including materials and 
an average of 2.5 hours of labor. It noted that additional costs that 
needed to be considered included loss of revenue, recordkeeping, and 
customers' costs resulting from temporary removal of their trailers 
from service. Logistical considerations would be XTRA Corporation's 
time to locate the CMV and to plan and schedule its retrofit, and their 
customers' cooperation in accomplishing it.

Agency's Response to This Comment

    The ABAs were estimated to cost between $35 and $75; most 
commenters estimated a range of $50 to $75. They might take from 20 
minutes to 1.5 hours to install; 45 minutes to one hour was the most 
common range noted. Mechanics' hourly salaries were figured at $25 to 
$60, with $40 to $45 most commonly noted.
    At the low end of the range, a $50 ABA that takes a mechanic 
earning $40 per hour 0.75 hour to install would cost the motor carrier 
$80. At the high end, a $75 ABA that takes a $45 per hour mechanic one 
hour to install would cost the motor carrier $120. For purposes of 
estimating, the FHWA will use a rounded average of $100 per ABA 
installed, excluding the motor carrier's revenue loss for the time the 
CMV is not in service.
    Estimates of the numbers of registered CMVs from the FHWA's 1993 
edition of Highway Statistics are as follows: Commercial and private 
trucks (excluding truck tractors, and light and farm trucks), 2.4 
million; truck tractors, 1.3 million; private and commercial trailers 
and semitrailers, 3.9 million; and private and commercial buses, 
115,000. However, many of these 7.6 million CMVs are not in interstate 
commerce. The FHWA estimated in 1993 that there were 3.6 million CMVs 
operating in interstate commerce. The agency believes that the ATA's 
estimate of 3.8 million CMVs potentially subject to a retrofitting 
requirement may be somewhat high because single-unit trucks and buses 
with hydraulic brake systems would not have been included in such a 
proposal. The ATA estimated slightly more than three retrofitted ABAs 
per vehicle (12 million ABAs/3.8 million CMVs=3.15 ABAs/CMV). This also 
might be a low estimate: Most semitrailers would need 4 ABAs, and one-
axle semitrailers would need two ABAs, but tractors would need up to 6. 
However, using the ATA's estimate of 12 million ABAs, the cost for 
parts and labor would be $1.2 billion, rather than the $108 million 
figure stated in its docket comment. If we were to exclude tractors and 
air-braked single-unit CMVs, some 2.7 million trailer retrofits (two-
thirds of the U.S. trailer and semitrailer fleet), requiring four ABAs 
each, would cost an estimated $1.08 billion for parts and labor.
    Some commenters noted, and the FHWA agrees, that the logistical 
costs of locating a CMV for retrofitting and removing it from revenue 
service could exceed the costs of labor and materials. On the other 
hand, the cost of retrofitting ABAs probably would not exceed the value 
of the CMV unless the vehicle was at or past the end of its useful 
life. In general, however, the data and cost estimates show that 
retrofitting ABAs would involve significant expense to the motor 
carrier industry.
    While ABAs have real advantages over MBAs, the FHWA has determined 
that the costs associated with a retrofitting requirement do not 
clearly exceed the benefits that could be anticipated. This is 
especially true given that the estimated $1 billion retrofit cost would 
only apply to trailers, and semitrailers, not to truck-tractors or air-
braked single-unit trucks. Even with several years of lead time, the 
annual cost to the motor carrier industry would be several hundred 
million dollars. None of the commenters that favored a retrofit 
requirement provided an analysis or estimate of its expected impact on 
CMV accidents. The FHWA, therefore, will not require retrofitting.

Discussion of Final Rule

    Proper brake adjustment is critical to safe CMV operation. The 
NHTSA has estimated that nearly 4,000 CMV accidents per year are caused 
by out-of-adjustment brakes. The NTSB's review of 97 serious heavy 
truck accidents investigated from 1969 to 1981 cited out-of-adjustment 
brakes as a causal or contributing factor in 28 percent of those 
accidents. Out-of-adjustment brakes are also the primary equipment-
related cause for CMVs to be placed out of service during roadside 
inspections; for Fiscal Year 1992, 36.2 percent of vehicles placed out-
of-service were cited for this deficiency.
    Aside from the clear safety benefits of maintaining proper brake 
adjustment, ABAs can have a positive benefit on motor carrier 
productivity by preventing CMVs from being placed out of service, 
reducing roadside service calls and the resulting delays to 
transportation operations.
    Virtually all commenters to the NPRM who responded to the in-use 
requirement were in favor of it. The ATA noted that manufacturers have 
provided, and motor carriers voluntarily have been using, ABAs for a 
number of years. Even in the absence of Federal regulations, the 
marketplace was adopting the technology on its merits.
    Finally, the FHWA strives to maintain consistency between the 
manufacturing standards for commercial motor vehicles contained in the 
NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), and the 
operations and maintenance regulations contained in the FMCSRs.
    The FHWA has concluded that both motor carriers and the traveling 
public may derive substantial operational and safety benefits from the 
use of automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators.
    The final rule, therefore, amends the FMCSRs by adding a new 
Sec. 393.53, Automatic Brake Adjusters and Brake Adjustment Indicators, 
to Subpart C, Brakes.
    The provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) require that 
automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators installed on 
newly manufactured CMVs to comply with the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 
105 and 121 be maintained by the motor carriers operating those CMVs.
    These provisions will apply to all CMVs operated in the United 
States, irrespective of the country where the CMV is based. Canadian 
and Mexican vehicles manufactured on or after the effective dates of 
the NHTSA rules will be required to conform to this regulation.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
significant within the meaning of Department of 

[[Page 46245]]
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This rule makes the 
operational standards for brakes in the FMCSRs consistent with the 
manufacturing standards in the FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. It requires 
automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators installed on 
newly manufactured CMVs in accordance with those manufacturing 
standards to be maintained by the motor carriers operating those 
vehicles. The FHWA believes that promulgation of this final rule is 
necessary to assure that the safety benefits of the NHTSA rule are 
fully realized. Based on the NHTSA's research, the FHWA believes that 
operation and maintenance costs of the automatic brake adjusters and 
adjustment indicators required under the new FMVSSs will be lower than 
costs of the devices previously required. It is anticipated that the 
economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small 
entities. This rule modifies the operational standards for brakes in 
the FMCSRs to make them consistent with the manufacturing standards in 
the FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121, which now require the installation of 
automatic brake adjusters and adjustment indicators on certain newly-
manufactured CMVs. Under this final rule, motor carriers are only 
required to maintain these devices. The final rule does not impose a 
retrofitting requirement for vehicles manufactured prior to the 
effective date of the NHTSA's rules. This is consistent with other 
requirements linking the FMCSRs to the FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. The FHWA 
believes that operation and maintenance costs of the vehicles equipped 
with automatic brake adjusters and adjustment indicators will be lower 
than costs of the manual devices previously required. Therefore, the 
FHWA hereby certifies that this action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
    To be eligible for Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funds, a 
State's regulations for interstate transportation must be the same as 
the FMCSRs and Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations. Regulations for 
intrastate transportation may be at variance only so long as they fall 
within the parameters of the Tolerance Guidelines in 49 CFR part 350, 
Appendix C.
    The FHWA intends to provide training and informational materials to 
the States to aid them in this process. The FHWA works with the 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance on training and enforcement issues, 
and will continue to do so.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain a collection of information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of 
the environment.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor 
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities apply to this program.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN in the heading of this 
document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified 
Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Freight transportation, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Motor 
carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 393, as follows:

PART 393--[AMENDED]

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

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


    2. In subpart C, Sec. 393.53 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 393.53  Automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators.

    (a) Automatic brake adjusters (hydraulic brake systems). Each 
commercial motor vehicle manufactured on or after October 20, 1993, and 
equipped with a hydraulic brake system, shall meet the automatic brake 
adjustment system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 105 (49 CFR 571.105, S5.1) applicable to the vehicle at the time it 
was manufactured.
    (b) Automatic brake adjusters (air brake systems). Each commercial 
motor vehicle manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, and equipped 
with an air brake system shall meet the automatic brake adjustment 
system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 
(49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.8) applicable to the vehicle at the time it was 
manufactured.
    (c) Brake adjustment indicator (air brake systems). On each 
commercial motor vehicle manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, and 
equipped with an air brake system which contains an external automatic 
adjustment mechanism and an exposed pushrod, the condition of service 
brake under-adjustment shall be displayed by a brake adjustment 
indicator conforming to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.8) applicable to the 
vehicle at the time it was manufactured.


    Issued on August 30, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-22077 Filed 9-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P