[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9961-9965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5119; Notice 01]
RIN No. 2127-AH57


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Hydraulic and Electric 
Brake Systems; Air Brake Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is considering whether to grant a petition to amend 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic and 
Electric Brake Systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to 
require that school buses be equipped with a parking brake warning 
system that activates when the school bus engine is turned off, the 
transmission is in neutral, and the parking brake has not been applied. 
The petition was submitted by Schmitty and Sons School Buses, a school 
bus operator that is concerned about the possibility of school bus roll 
away crashes due to the driver not applying the parking brake. The 
petitioner cited several instances in which this has occurred. This 
request for comments notice seeks to obtain information to help the 
agency determine the magnitude of the problem and the potential 
effectiveness of the proposed warning system.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited 
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Management, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is 
requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be 
provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Jeff Woods, 
Office of Safety Performance Standards (NPS-22), NHTSA, 400 Seventh 
St., SW, Washington, DC, 20590. Mr. Woods' telephone number is (202) 
366-6206; facsimile (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Rulemaking Division, Office 
of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC, 20590. 
Ms. Nakama's telephone number is (202) 366-2992 and her facsimile 
number is (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A petition was submitted to NHTSA on June 23, 1998, by Schmitty and 
Sons School Buses, a school bus operator. The petition cited several 
crashes in Minnesota involving school buses in which the parking brake 
was not set and the bus rolled into another vehicle. In one instance, 
it was reported that an empty school bus rolled into another school bus 
that was unloading students during a practice emergency exit drill, and 
as a result, several students were injured.
    The petitioner believes that a warning system should be 
incorporated on school buses to provide a warning buzzer and/or light 
to indicate to the driver that the parking brake has not been applied 
when the engine has been turned off and the transmission has been 
placed in the ``neutral'' position. The petitioner contacted Blue Bird 
Body Company, a school bus manufacturer, to determine if such a system 
could be made available. A copy of the response letter from the 
manufacturer was enclosed with the petition. Blue Bird indicated that 
the warning system concept appears to have merit. However, the 
manufacturer cited several concerns with the concept. The primary 
concern was that incorporation of the warning system on some (newer) 
vehicles would result in inconsistencies in the fleet, whereby some 
vehicles would prompt the driver to apply the parking brake and other 
vehicles would not. Blue Bird suggested that if a driver became used to 
being prompted to applying the parking brake in a vehicle equipped with 
the warning system, then that driver may forget to apply the parking 
brake when operating a vehicle not equipped with the warning system.
    Other concerns cited by Blue Bird included the proliferation of 
warning devices, which could result in driver dependence and/or 
confusion, issues on integrating this system with other warning devices 
and systems, and the need to deactivate the system after some preset 
time to prevent battery drain.
    Blue Bird stated that if such a warning system were to be 
implemented, then it would recommend unilaterally applying it to all 
medium and heavy vehicles to avoid the situation of some vehicle types 
being equipped with the warning system and others not being equipped 
with the warning system. In Blue Bird's view, implementation of the 
warning system would also need to be accompanied by an extensive 
publicity and driver training program to familiarize drivers with the 
new system.
    Blue Bird stated that because of these concerns, it would not make 
such a warning system available as standard equipment or as optional 
equipment. Blue Bird suggested that the school bus operator petition 
NHTSA to require such a system on all medium and heavy vehicles, so 
that appropriate research, study, and public comment could be addressed 
prior to such a system being introduced. The school bus operator, 
Schmitty & Sons School Buses, subsequently petitioned NHTSA to require 
such a warning system on a nationwide basis.
    NHTSA decided to publish this request for comments prior to making 
a determination on whether to grant or deny the petition. If NHTSA 
determines that the petition should be granted, based on indications 
that there is a significant safety need, then it would begin the 
rulemaking process to propose amendments to the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards (FMVSSs), in this case, FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and 
Electric Brake Systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The 
rulemaking process, if it proceeds, will provide ample opportunity for 
concerned parties to further comment on all aspects of any proposed 
changes to the FMVSSs.

Parking Brake Requirements

    FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, requires each 
vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs. (4536 
kg) or less and each school bus with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs. to 
be equipped with a friction-type parking brake system, with a solely 
mechanical means to retain engagement (S5.2).
    The standard requires the parking brake for a passenger car or a 
school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less to hold the vehicle on a 
30 percent grade (up to the limit of traction on the braked wheels).
    As an option, the standard permits a passenger car or school bus 
with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, equipped with a transmission that 
includes a parking mechanism, to use the parking mechanism in meeting 
the 30 percent grade holding requirement for the vehicle, if the 
parking mechanism must

[[Page 9962]]

be engaged to enable the ignition key to be removed (S5.2.2.1). If this 
option is used, there is a separate requirement for such vehicles to 
meet a 20 percent grade holding requirement with the parking brakes 
engaged and the parking mechanism disengaged (S5.2.2.2). The 
transmission parking mechanism is then subjected to a 2\1/2\-mph 
barrier impact test on level ground, which requires that the parking 
mechanism not become disengaged or fractured. In the context of these 
tests and requirements, the parking mechanism is a supplemental parking 
aid and is not the primary source of grade holding ability.
    The parking brake system on a school bus with a GVWR greater than 
10,000 lbs. must be capable of holding the vehicle stationary for five 
minutes on a 20 percent grade (S5.2.3). This grade holding requirement 
also applies to trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or buses other 
than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.
    There is a supplemental requirement in FMVSS No. 114, Theft 
Protection, that requires passenger cars, trucks, and buses with a GVWR 
of 10,000 lbs. or less, equipped with an automatic transmission with a 
park position, to meet a 10 percent grade holding test (S4.2.1(b)) when 
the key has been removed and the transmission is locked in the park 
position.
    FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, which becomes effective 
for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 
7,716 lbs. (3500 kg) or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 
2002, requires a 20 percent grade holding ability using the parking 
brake with the vehicle at GVWR, and does not address the use of 
transmission parking mechanisms.
    FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, which applies to trucks, buses 
(including school buses), and trailers equipped with air brakes, 
requires a 20 percent grade holding ability with the vehicle both empty 
and at GVWR, or optionally, a static retardation force test may be used 
which incorporates requirements based on GVWR or gross axle weight 
rating (GAWR) depending on vehicle type. This standard also does not 
address the use of transmission parking mechanisms.
    Additional requirements are included in FMVSS Nos. 105 and 135 for 
visual warning indicators (brake light) to indicate that the parking 
brake is engaged, and both standards include requirements for maximum 
force levels in applying the parking brake mechanism for the grade 
holding tests. FMVSS No. 121 includes requirements for a parking brake 
application control that is separate from the service brake control, 
and includes parking brake application and release timing requirements. 
It also specifies parking brake performance requirements with certain 
system failures.

Automatic Transmission Shift Sequence and Parking Functions

    FMVSS No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter 
Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, requires that, if a park 
position is included in the automatic transmission shift lever 
sequence, the park position shall be located at the end of the shift 
lever sequence adjacent to the reverse drive position (S3.1.1). This 
shift pattern is provided universally on light vehicles equipped with 
automatic transmissions, either using a steering column shifter or a 
shifter located on the floor console.
    On some medium vehicles and most, if not all, heavy vehicles 
equipped with automatic transmissions, a park position is not included 
in the automatic transmission shift sequence. A transmission parking 
mechanism in a heavy vehicle would be subjected to a very high loading 
that makes such a mechanism impractical. Hence, to park such a vehicle, 
the driver places the transmission in the neutral position and then 
applies the parking brakes, either using the dash-mounted valve for 
air-braked vehicles or the parking brake lever for hydraulically-braked 
vehicles.
    The lack of a parking position in certain medium and heavy vehicles 
equipped with automatic transmissions should provide a cue to the 
driver that the vehicle is not in park. As the vehicle can only be 
shifted into the neutral position, the shift sequence is substantially 
different than for a vehicle in which the shift lever is moved from 
either a forward or reverse drive position to the park position located 
at the end of the shift sequence. The cue to a driver that the vehicle 
has only been shifted to the neutral position is intended to help the 
driver realize that the parking brake must be engaged to park the 
vehicle. The absence of this awareness could result in roll away 
incidents.
    A Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) technical paper, Allison 
Transmission's New Family of Transmissions: The 1000/2000 Series (ref. 
SAE technical paper 973278, Nov. 1997), includes market research 
indicating that customer preference for heavy duty automatic 
transmissions incorporating a park position/parking pawl mechanism 
resulted in developing standard and optional (depending on transmission 
model and GVWR) parking features into that company's new line of 
automatic transmissions for vehicles with GVWRs up to 26,000 lbs. 
(11,800 kg). NHTSA requests comments on trends to incorporate parking 
mechanisms in heavy duty automatic transmissions, especially in the 
GVWR range of typical school buses.
    NHTSA is also aware that systems are available which automatically 
apply the parking brake when the transmission shift lever is moved to 
the ``park'' position. In this configuration, the automatic 
transmission does not incorporate a parking pawl, but a switch located 
on the transmission activates a mechanism that automatically applies 
the parking brake. NHTSA requests comments on the availability of such 
systems, in particular for school buses, equipped with either air or 
hydraulic braking systems.

Driver Training and Skill

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires certain 
operators of commercial motor vehicles to have a commercial driver's 
license (CDL). The FHWA's definition (49 CFR 383.5) of a commercial 
motor vehicle includes: vehicles with a GVWR or gross combination 
weight rating (GCWR) of 26,001 lbs. (11,794 kg) or more; vehicles 
designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver; and 
vehicles of any size used to transport hazardous materials in a 
quantity sufficient to require placarding. The definition covers 
commercial motor vehicles operated in interstate, intrastate, and 
foreign commerce, and also includes vehicles that are controlled and 
operated by Federal, State, or local government agencies. Therefore, a 
driver who operates a school bus with 16 or more seating positions 
(including the driver) must have a CDL.
    Since April 1, 1992, drivers of commercial motor vehicles have been 
required to obtain a CDL issued by their State of residence in 
accordance with minimum Federal requirements. The State must administer 
knowledge and skill tests of CDL applicants to ensure the driver has 
the ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle. The knowledge 
and skills test provisions in Subpart G of 49 CFR part 383 require that 
each driver demonstrate proficiency in performing a pre-trip 
inspection, using the vehicle's controls and emergency equipment, 
operating the vehicle in traffic, and proper braking procedures. 
Operators of passenger-carrying vehicles must obtain a passenger 
endorsement on their licenses for which the driver must have 
demonstrated knowledge of the proper procedures for loading and 
unloading

[[Page 9963]]

passengers, proper use of emergency exits, and proper responses to 
emergency situations such as fires and unruly passengers. The FHWA's 
CDL requirements are intended to help reduce or prevent truck and bus 
crashes, fatalities, and injuries by requiring drivers to have a single 
CDL and by disqualifying drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles 
in an unsafe manner.
    Subpart G--Required Knowledge and Skills, of the CDL standards, 
includes a reference to vehicle controls in S383.111(c)(1), which 
states that the driver shall be familiar with the purpose and function 
of the controls and instruments commonly found on commercial motor 
vehicles. A similar reference is included in the appendix to subpart G 
in the sample requirements provided for a State to use in its CDL 
licensing program. There are also specific references in Subpart G to 
air brake system operation for drivers qualifying on air-braked 
vehicles. There are no specific references to the use of parking brake 
controls.
    Since the parking brake and transmission controls can vary among 
different types of commercial motor vehicles, including school buses, 
it may not be appropriate to address this issue in specific detail at 
the federal or state regulatory (CDL requirements) level. NHTSA 
believes that this is most appropriately addressed at the fleet level, 
that is, each fleet is responsible to ensure that each driver is 
trained in the proper use of the controls of the vehicles in that 
fleet. NHTSA is soliciting input on this issue in the Questions for 
Comment section below, specifically, if other countermeasures to a 
warning system, such as additional driver training, should be 
considered.

Problem Discussion

    The school bus incidents reported in the petition could be 
attributable to the school bus drivers' regular use of both light 
vehicles and medium/heavy vehicles, and the differences in transmission 
controls between these vehicle groups when they are equipped with 
automatic transmissions. In practice, light vehicles, including 
passenger cars, light trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and 
many small buses, include a ``park'' position in the transmission 
position selections, when these vehicles are equipped with automatic 
transmissions. A park position is not required by any FMVSS, but is 
provided universally as a convenience feature in light vehicles 
equipped with automatic transmissions, so that the parking brakes do 
not always need to be applied. The driving habits of passenger car 
drivers vary, with some drivers always applying the parking brakes in 
addition to selecting the transmission parking position, while others 
may not apply the parking brakes or may do so only when parked on steep 
grades. Furthermore, passenger cars equipped with manual transmissions 
require drivers to use the parking brakes for grade holding ability, 
with some drivers also leaving the transmission in a gear position and 
some with the transmission in neutral.
    While some medium trucks with automatic transmissions include a 
park position in the automatic transmission shift sequence, especially 
those with GVWRs slightly above 10,000 lbs., many medium and heavy 
truck automatic transmissions do not have a parking mechanism/shift 
position. It would be impractical for such a parking mechanism to 
provide substantial grade holding ability, especially in higher GVWR 
applications. As a result, all grade holding ability is provided by the 
parking brakes. The problem referred to by the school bus operator 
appears to be that some drivers are used to having a park position with 
an automatic transmission in a light vehicle, while no such park 
position is provided in the medium and heavy vehicles equipped with 
heavy-duty automatic transmissions. In the instances cited by the 
petitioner, the drivers may have mistakenly believed that the bus was 
held in ``park'', while in fact the parking brake still needed to be 
applied.
    NHTSA also believes that school bus drivers may not be as familiar 
with the operation of their school buses compared to drivers of typical 
commercial vehicles. Many school bus drivers are employed on an hourly 
or part-time basis, as well as on a seasonal basis, compared with many 
truck drivers that drive commercial vehicles on a much more regular 
basis and therefore may be more familiar with the operation, equipment, 
and controls of their vehicles.

Safety Problem Size Assessment

    The petitioner referenced several accidents in Minnesota in which 
roll-away buses struck another vehicle. In a telephone conversation 
with the petitioner, it was learned that two of the cases occurred in 
the petitioner's organization, and one other school bus operator in 
Minnesota had experienced this problem.
    A search of the Office of Defects Investigation complaints database 
was made to determine if problems with parking brakes have been 
reported by vehicle owners or operators. The search included medium and 
heavy trucks and school buses, with coverage from model years 1991 
through 1998. The search revealed complaints on one heavy truck, one 
medium truck, two buses (one of these known to be a school bus), and 
five motorhomes. The reported complaints included one instance of 
parking brakes automatically applying on an axle, one complaint on the 
parking brake control due to an accidental release of the parking 
brakes, five complaints of parking brakes failing or not holding on an 
incline, and two complaints of broken components in the parking brake 
system. There were no complaints related to vehicle roll away due to a 
driver failing to engage the parking brakes.
    The coding schemes for General Estimates Systems (GES) and Fatality 
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) databases of property damage and 
injury- or fatality-producing crashes were determined to not be 
suitable for identifying roll-away crashes due to failure to apply the 
parking brakes. If there are any such cases, the cause may be noted on 
a police accident report, but the data base coding would not indicate 
this. Also, a check of the special crash investigations program for 
school buses did not indicate that any such cases had occurred, 
although it should be noted that only a limited number (less than a ten 
percent sample) of school bus crashes are investigated each year. There 
is one known instance of a crash resulting from the release of a school 
bus parking brake, which resulted in two fatalities. However, this 
crash is related to the location of the parking brake controls and 
protection from inadvertent release.
    There may be instances in which a school bus (or other medium or 
heavy vehicles) rolled away but no crash or injury resulted. The main 
purpose of this request for comments is to determine the magnitude of 
the problem and whether the petitioner's reported incidents are 
isolated occurrences or are indicative of a more widespread problem.

Effectiveness of a Warning System

    NHTSA requests comments on the potential effectiveness of a warning 
system that activates when the engine is turned off, the transmission 
is in neutral, and the parking brakes have not been engaged. At this 
time, NHTSA is considering such a system only for vehicles equipped 
with automatic transmissions without a parking position, but welcomes 
comments on application of such a system for vehicles equipped with 
manual transmissions as well.

[[Page 9964]]

    Assuming that the warning is sufficiently loud and/or visible to 
effectively warn the driver under the specified condition, NHTSA also 
requests comments on situations in which the warning system would not 
activate and thus the vehicle could still roll away. If a driver were 
to park the bus without turning off the engine, such as during a short 
break while keeping the heat on in cold weather, or while having minor 
service performed at a maintenance facility, the warning system would 
not be activated. Likewise, if the driver had to leave the driver's 
seat momentarily (while leaving the engine running) to check on a 
situation on the bus or outside of the bus, the warning system would 
not be activated. Finally, a driver could, for some reason, turn the 
bus off without putting the transmission in neutral, in which case the 
warning would not activate.
    NHTSA also requests comments on potential negative effects of a 
warning system. While the warning system is envisioned only as a device 
to warn the driver in rare occasions in which the parking brake had not 
been applied, it is possible that a driver could come to rely on the 
warning system as a prompt to apply the parking brake. Under such a 
scenario and given any of the situations cited above, the driver would 
not be prompted to apply the parking brake. Other points that were also 
raised by Blue Bird, which should be considered, include drivers 
switching between buses that are equipped with the warning system and 
buses not equipped with the warning system, and the proliferation of 
warning systems (e.g., emergency exit door alarm and starter interlock 
requirements in FMVSS No. 217, low air pressure warnings, etc.) that 
could cause confusion among drivers.

Questions for Comment

    Prior to making a determination on whether to grant or deny the 
petition from Schmitty and Sons School Buses, NHTSA requests additional 
information relative to the parking brake warning system proposed for 
school buses and its potential application to other medium and heavy 
vehicles.
    1. Can data be provided on bus roll away instances to assist NHTSA 
in determining the problem size? Any information on bus roll away 
crashes, resulting injuries or property damage, and whether such 
incidents occurred during student loading/unloading operations or in 
other circumstances, such as in bus parking areas, are requested. The 
focus of these data should be instances in which the parking brake was 
not applied.
    2. In lieu of hard data on roll away incidents that have occurred, 
NHTSA requests comments regarding to what extent the trend from 
equipping school buses with manual transmissions to equipping them with 
automatic transmissions without a park position has on the increased 
likelihood for roll away incidents.
    3. Of all school buses produced by a manufacturer, or purchased by 
a school bus operator, what are the current and projected trends on 
switching from manual to automatic transmissions, specifically in the 
higher weight classes in which automatic transmissions do not have a 
park position?
    4. What are the trends in incorporating parking pawls in heavy duty 
automatic transmissions, especially in the GVWR range of typical school 
buses? What is the availability of automatic parking brake application 
systems for air- and hydraulic-brakes school buses? In the foreseeable 
future, what is the likelihood that all school buses will be equipped 
with either of these systems, or have them available to those 
purchasers that desire such features?
    5. Are differences in driver familiarity with vehicle operation 
considered to be a factor for school buses versus other commercial 
vehicles, considering that many school bus drivers are employed on a 
part-time or seasonal basis?
    6. Would the petitioner's proposed system that activates when the 
engine is turned off, the bus is in neutral, and the parking brake is 
not applied, be considered an effective warning system in light of the 
issues raised in the section Effectiveness of a Warning System above? 
Are there other consequences of the warning system to consider? Would 
it be appropriate to consider a warning system for school buses also 
equipped with manual transmissions?
    7. Would it be appropriate to expand the petitioner's request and 
consider a warning system that activates when a school bus' engine is 
turned off, the parking brake is not applied, and the transmission is 
in any position other that ``park?'' This would address situations 
where the school bus is left in gear and the parking brake is not 
applied. Are there known instances of school buses rolling away in 
these circumstances?
    8. Should other countermeasures (either within or excluding the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, or the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations) be considered, such as additional driver training, 
warning labels, informational campaign, etc.?
    9. For the warning system described (an audible warning when the 
specified conditions are met), will drivers be confused by another 
audible warning on school buses? Would it be helpful to supplement the 
audible warning with a visual warning (e.g., the brake warning lamp on 
the instrument panel could flash)?
    10. Would a system that automatically applies the parking brake on 
school buses (for air- or hydraulic-braked vehicles) whenever the 
ignition is turned to ``lock'' or the key is removed be acceptable to 
drivers, fleets, and school bus manufacturers? Would an override switch 
be necessary for towing, maintenance, or other situations?
    11. Should NHTSA consider expanding the application of the proposed 
(or an alternate) warning system to include vehicles other than school 
buses, for example, all buses, or all medium and heavy vehicles?

Procedures for Filing Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this request 
for comment. It is requested but not required that two copies be 
submitted.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Docket Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied 
by a cover letter setting forth the information specified in the 
agency's confidential information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. NHTSA will continue to 
file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after 
the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


[[Page 9965]]


    Issued on: February 23, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-4947 Filed 2-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P