[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